Biokerosene: Status and Prospects 3662530635, 9783662530634

Citation preview

Biokerosene

Martin Kaltschmitt Ulf Neuling •

Editors

Biokerosene Status and Prospects

Editors Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kaltschmitt Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics Hamburg Germany

Ulf Neuling, M.Sc. Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics Hamburg Germany

The presentation of some equations and structural elements was not correct in the electronic version, this is now corrected. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank the readers for bringing it to notice. ISBN 978-3-662-53063-4    ISBN 978-3-662-53065-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936653 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany The registered company address is: Heidelberger Platz 3, 14197 Berlin, Germany

Preface

On a global scale the overall population as well as the average standards of living will increase rapidly in the years to come. In parallel or even more than proportional travelling activities and thus the mobility of the people increases; i.e. the wealthier the people in general the more they travel also supra-regional. Such a most likely development tends to result in a significantly growing energy demand and due to the fact that mainly fossil fuel energy is used so far also to strongly increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The latter most likely has the consequence that the global climate might shift with accelerating speed. And the results of such a global climate shift could have and most likely has numerous unwanted and harmful impacts on human beings and nature. Thus the global community of states agreed to put a cap on GHG emissions released due to the use of fossil fuel energy. Thus all different sectors within our highly integrated society are called to develop GHG reduction options and strategies. This is also true for the aviation sector characterized by a predicted global annual grow of roughly 5 to 6 % also in the years to come. But due to the special requirements within this sector with very high safety standards and very demanding requests of the transportation medium aircraft related to the fuel characteristics the technically possible GHG reduction measures are limited. For example, the average technical lifetime of a modern airplane with a commercial use is around 20 to 30 years. And these planes will most likely be fueled by liquid fuels, such as Jet A-1, also in the years to come due to the high energy density of these energy carrier and the good adaptation of this fuel to the harsh conditions some 10,000 m above ground. Thus one GHG reduction measure commonly discussed for the aviation sector is the provision and use of alternative, so-called “drop-in” fuels. Such fuels show the same fuel characteristics as Jet A-1 fuels from fossil fuel energy (i.e. kerosene) and thus have to meet the same fuel standards – but they are characterized by much lower GHG emissions. This is possible if they are produced e.g. from sustainable provided biomass. Also, such a switch from fossil based kerosene to biokerosene would allow to largely close the global carbon cycle; i.e. during growth biomass absorbs the CO2 from the atmosphere and during combustion within the turbine of the airplane the CO2 is released again into the environment. Therefore, v

viPreface

biokerosene could indeed contribute substantially towards a much more climatic sound air traffic. In theory such a switch towards aviation fuels much more compatible to global climate compared to crude oil based kerosene seems to be simple. But in reality such a transition is quite demanding due to numerous challenges, difficulties, problems, and barriers. This includes aspects related to the overall aviation sector characterized by a clearly international structure with deeply settled structures and procedures as well as a globally existing infrastructure based on fossil fuel energy. Additionally, biomass is a limited resource demanded also within the food and fodder sector, as a raw material e.g. for building purposes and by the chemical industry as well as an energy carrier also e.g. heat and/or electricity provision. Based on the available biomass advanced conversion routes and thus innovative technical processes are needed to provide the desired “drop-in” fuel allowing for a continuous market development. The latter is important because the overarching goal from the airlines point of view is that there are no major changes for the customers. And last but not least market related aspects like an adjustment of the existing standards, emission trading schemes and questions related to the overall development of the aviation sector need to be tackled. Finally, the airplane producer, the fuel provider and the airlines together with the airports need to gain experiences with such new and carbon neutral fuels. All these and even more aspects have to be taken into consideration when transforming the civil aviation sector towards more climate protection. For this reason, these aspects are tackled within the following explanations to provide a broad overview on the various aspects resulting from such a necessary switch. The editors wish to thank the various authors and co-authors for their valuable contribution as well as their high motivation and their strong engagement. Without their ongoing support this publication would not have been possible. Additionally, we would like to thank the publisher for the positive and straightforward collaboration. Hamburg, in May 2017

Martin Kaltschmitt and Ulf Neuling

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt Part I  Background 2 Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johannes Reichmuth and Peter Berster 2.1 Introduction – Global Development in Air Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Regional Distribution of the Air Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Airport Development and Bottlenecks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Airlines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Aircraft Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Outlook of Air Traffic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kay Plötner 3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Environmental Goals for Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Technical Developments in Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Potential of Fossil Kerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karsten Wilbrand 4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Kerosene as Aircraft Fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Demand Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Kerosene Properties and Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Chemical Structure and General Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 16 22 25 27 29 30 33 34 34 36 39 39 43 43 44 45 45 47 47 vii

viiiContents

4.5.2 Fuel Specification for Civil Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Fuel Specification for Military Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Production from Crude Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Production from Alternative Fossil Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Kerosene from Natural Gas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Kersosene from Coal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 49 49 52 52 54 55 56

5 Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marian Paschke and Carina Lutter 5.1 Introduction – Establishing a Regulatory Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Conception of Aviation Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Tasks and Responsibilities of Public and Private Institutions. . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 National Actors Exemplarily for Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Overview on Contents of Aviation Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Fuel as a Subject Matter of Aviation Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Tax Reductions for Kerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1.1 International Taxation Regulations for Fuel . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1.2 Taxation of Fuel in the EU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1.3 Taxation of Fuels in Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Aviation Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2.1 EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2.2 Promotion of Using Renewable Energy Sources. . . . . . . 5.5.3 Special Aspects Compared to Other Transport Options . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Expected Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59 60 64 65 67 68 69 69 70 70 70 71 72 75 77 78 84 86 87 90 91

Part II  Feedstock 6 Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy: The Question of Sustainable Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Arne Roth, Florian Riegel and Valentin Batteiger 6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.2 Limiting Factors of Biomass Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.3 Land-Based Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6.4 Wastes and Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 6.5 Algae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Contentsix

6.6 Going Beyond Biomass: Renewable Energy Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 6.7 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7 World Markets for Cereal Crops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verena Wolf, Jakob Dehoust and Martin Banse 7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Wheat Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Corn Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Barley Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Long-Term Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Crop Production and Biofuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Mielke 8.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Palm Oil Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Soy Oil Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Rapeseed Oil Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Sunflower Oil Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Overall Oil and Fat Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lignocellulosic Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Rödl 9.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Resources and Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 Selected Tree Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1.1 Coniferous Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1.2 Broad-Leaved Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 Production Schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.1 Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.2 Plantations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 Production and Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Herbaceous Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Miscanthus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2 Common Reed (Phragmites australis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3 Giant Reed (Arundo donax). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.4 Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.5 Elephant Grass (Pennisetum purpureum – Napier Grass). . . . .

123 124 125 131 136 140 141 142 144 147 148 148 152 163 168 173 184 188 189 189 191 191 192 194 196 196 198 201 201 203 204 207 208 209 209 210 210

xContents

9.4.6 Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 By-Products and Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 Herbaceous Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211 211 211 213 215 216

10 Waste as Resource. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christina Dornack, Axel Zentner and Antje Zehm 10.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Classification of Biomass Originating from Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Forestry Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Agricultural Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.3 Biomass from Landscape Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.4 Biomass in Municipal Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.5 Biomass from Industry and Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Potential of Organic Waste in Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 Forestry Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 Agricultural Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.3 Biomass from Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Utilization of Waste Derived Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221

11 Jatropha curcas L. – An Alternative Oil Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gregor Heinrich 11.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Breeding Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1 Example: Jatropha Oil to Biokerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.2 Example: Jatropha Oil to Pure Plant Oil and Biodiesel. . . . . . . 11.3.3 CO2-Sequestration, GHG Emissions and Sustainability Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Cultivation and Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.1 J. Curcas L. – Potential Cropping Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.2 Cultivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3 Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Camelina – An Alternative Oil Crop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Margaret Campbell 12.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 The Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Cultivation and Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221 222 223 223 224 224 228 228 229 229 230 230 233 233 237 238 241 243 244 247 248 250 250 251 252 252 253 259 259 260 262

Contentsxi

12.3.1 Growing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.2 Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4.1 Oil Content and Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4.2 Biofuels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thilo Zelt 13.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Alternative Oil Plants for Biokerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.1 Acrocomia Aculeata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.2 Allanblackia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.3 Orbignya Speciosa (“Babassu”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.4 Moringa Oleifera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.5 Azadirachta indica (Neem) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.6 Pongamia Pinnata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.7 Swida Wilsoniana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Comparative Analysis of Selected Oil Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Environmental, Social, and Economic Evaluation – Case Study Acrocomia Aculeata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.1 Environmental Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.2 Social Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.3 Economic Sustainability and Potential Business Models . . . . . 13.4.4 Potentials of Cultivating Acrocomia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.5 Transferability of the Case Study to Other Oil Plants. . . . . . . . 13.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Algae as a Potential Source of Biokerosene and Diesel – Opportunities and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominik Behrendt, Christina Schreiber, Christian Pfaff, Andreas Müller, Johan Grobbelaar and Ladislav Nedbal 14.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Algae as an Energy Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 Growing Algae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 Harvesting Algae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 Extraction and Converting Algal Lipids into Biokerosene or Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

262 263 264 264 268 271 272 277 277 279 279 280 281 282 284 285 286 287 293 294 294 295 296 297 298 298 303 304 304 311 313 314 315 319

xiiContents

15 Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benedikt Buchspies and Martin Kaltschmitt 15.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 The Biokerosene Provision Chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Sustainability Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1 Environmental Dimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1.1  Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1.2  Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1.4  Biodiversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1.5  Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2 Socio-Economic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2.1  Minimum Fuel Selling Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2.2  Competition for food, feed, fibre and fuel. . . . . . . . . 15.3.2.3  Land Acquisition and Direct Investment. . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2.4  Other Impacts on the Socio-Economic System. . . . . 15.4 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Direct and Indirect Land Use Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katharina Plassmann 16.1 Introduction: What Is “Land Use Change”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 Global Relevance of Land Use Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.1 Global LUC and Its Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.2 Carbon Emissions and Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.3 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 “Direct” and “Indirect” Land Use Change in Life Cycle Assessments and Product Carbon Footprints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.1 Life Cycle Assessments and Product Carbon Footprints. . . . . . 16.3.2 Direct LUC (dLUC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.3 Indirect LUC (iLUC) and Carbon Leakage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Land Use Change and Bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.1 Bioenergy and dLUC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.2 Bioenergy and iLUC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.3 Example of a Policy Mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Efforts to Reduce LUC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5.1 Policy Mechanisms and Public Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5.2 Private Voluntary Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5.3 Opportunities for Reducing LUC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andreas Feige and Lydia Pforte 17.1 Introduction - Framework for Sustainability Certification . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 Existing Sustainability Certification Schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 Detailed Criteria on Environmental, Economic and Social Issues. . . .

325 326 328 330 331 332 337 343 344 348 349 351 356 358 359 361 375 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 384 387 387 389 390 390 392 393 394 395 395 403 404 405 412

Contentsxiii

17.3.1 Environmental Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.2 Social Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3.3 Economic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 The Sustainability Scheme International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

413 415 417 419 430 430

Part III  Conversion Routes 18 Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt 18.1  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2   Resources for Biokerosene Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3   Biokerosene Production Pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4  HEFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5  DSHC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6  AtJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7  Bio-GtL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8  BtL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9  HDCJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10   Overall Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.11   Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Biokerosene from Vegetable Oils – Technologies and Processes. . . . . . . . Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt 19.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 Oil Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 BIC-Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 Co-Refining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Biokerosene Production from Bio-Chemical and Thermo-Chemical Biomass Conversion and Subsequent Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis . . . . . . Reinhard Rauch, Hermann Hofbauer, Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt 20.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 Gasification/Syngas Production from Solid Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.1 Ressource Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.2 Gasifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.2.1  Heat Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.2.2  Reactor Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.2.3  Type of Gasification Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

435 435 438 444 448 452 455 457 460 462 464 467 469 475 475 477 480 486 488 494 495 497 498 499 499 500 500 501 503

xivContents

20.2.3 Product Gas Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.3.1  Influencing Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.3.2  Requirements on the Gasification Reactor. . . . . . . . . 20.2.4 Syngas Cleaning and Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.4.1  Removal of Particles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.4.2  Tar/Hydrocarbon Removal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.4.3  Removal of Inorganic Impurities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.4.4  Gas Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 Bio-Methane Reforming/Syngas Production from Wet Organic Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.1 Resource Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.2 Biogas Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.2.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.2.2 Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3 Methane Reforming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3.1  Steam Methane Reforming (SMR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3.2  Partial Oxidation (POX). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3.3  Autothermal Reforming (ATR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.3.4 Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3.4 Syngas Cleaning and Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 Possible Fuel Synthesis Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.1 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.1.1  Fischer-Tropsch Mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.1.2  Reactor Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.1.3  Product Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.1.4  Product Upgrading and Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4.2 Other Synthesis Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

503 504 505 506 508 509 510 513

21 Alcohol-to-Jet (AtJ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Pechstein, Ulf Neuling, Jan Gebauer and Martin Kaltschmitt 21.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Provision of Alcohols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.1 Methanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.1.1 Syngas-Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.1.2  Methanol Synthesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.2 Ethanol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.3 Butanol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.4 Mixed Alcohol Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Conversion of Alcohols to Jet Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3.1 Dehydration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3.2 Oligomerization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3.3 Hydrogenation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3.4 Fractionation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

543

518 519 519 520 521 523 523 524 524 525 525 526 526 527 529 532 535 537 538 539

544 545 546 548 551 551 554 555 558 559 560 562 563

Contentsxv

21.4 Large Scale Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4.1 Methanol-Based Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4.2 Ethanol-Based Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4.3 Butanol-Based Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4.4 Mixture-Based Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

563 563 566 567 568 569 571

22 Fuels from Pyrolysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa Thormann and Patricia Pizarro de Oro 22.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1.1 Biomass Feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1.2 Principles of Pyrolysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Fast Pyrolysis Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.1 Reactor Designs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.2 Bio-Oil Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2.3 Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3.1 Physical Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3.2 Chemical Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3.3 Co-Processing, Refining and Blending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 Industrial Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

575

23 Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patrick Biller and Arne Roth 23.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 Hydrothermal Liquefaction: Process, Feedstock and Products. . . . . . . 23.3 Jet Fuel Production via Hydrothermal Liquefaction: Potentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 Techno-Economic and Environmental Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 State of Development and Technical Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

575 576 577 578 579 583 586 587 588 590 594 596 598 598 607 608 610 616 621 626 631 632

Part IV  Fuel Standards, Quality Control and Kerosene Markets 24 Aviation Biofuel Standards and Airworthiness Approval. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Rumizen 24.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 Historical Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 Jet Fuel Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 Airworthiness Authority Oversight of Aviation Fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

639 640 640 643 644

xviContents

24.5 ASTM International Alternative Aviation Fuel Approval Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 24.5.1 Initial Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 24.5.2 International Alternative Aviation Fuel Approval Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 24.5.3 Alternative Aviation Fuel Approval in Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 24.5.3.1 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene���������������������������������������������������� 654 24.5.3.2  Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids. . . . . . . . . . . 657 24.5.3.3  Synthesized Isoparaffins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 24.6 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 24.6.1 The Future of Alternative Jet Fuel Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 24.6.2 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 25 Blending of Synthetic Kerosene and Conventional Kerosene. . . . . . . . . . Jan Pechstein and Alexander Zschocke 25.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 Composition of Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2.1 Conventional Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2.2 Synthetic Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 Parameters Relevant for Blending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.1 Aromatic Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.2 Density at 15 °C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.3 Distillation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.4 Viscosity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.5 Lubricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3.6 Freezing Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 European Emissions Trading Scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Pechstein 26.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 From Kyoto to EU-ETS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 Layout of the EU-ETS for Installations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 Aviation in the EU-ETS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4.1 Monitoring of Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4.2 Provision of a Verified Emission Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4.3 Acquisition and Allocation of Allowances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4.4 Surrender of Allowances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 Provisions for Flights Using Biokerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5.1 Accounting Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5.2 Sustainability Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 Derogation from EU-ETS and Developments on ICAO-Level. . . . . . . 26.7 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

665 666 667 667 670 671 673 676 678 680 681 682 683 684 687 687 688 689 691 692 693 693 694 695 696 697 698 698 699

Contentsxvii

27 Sustainable Aviation Biofuels: Scenarios for Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . Ausilio Bauen and Lucy Nattrass 27.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 Sustainable Biofuels for Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.1 Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.2 Fuel Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3 Development Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3.1 HEFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3.3  Direct Sugars to Hydrocarbons (DSHC). . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3.4 Alcohol-to-Jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2.3.5  Hydrotreated Depolymerized Cellulosic Jet. . . . . . . . 27.3 Sustainable Fuel Supply Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3.1 Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3.2 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3.3 Deployment Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 Enabling Sustainable Aviation Fuels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4.1 Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4.2 Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

703 703 704 704 705 706 706 707 708 708 709 709 709 710 712 713 714 715 718 721

Part V  Experiences 28 Lufthansa Experiences Using Biokerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander Zschocke 28.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 Research Conducted During the Biokerosene Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2.1 Fuel Behavior in Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2.2 Flight Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 Research on Aircraft Parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3.1 Boroscopic Analyses of the Engines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3.2 Inspection of the Aircraft Fuel Tanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Fuel Bearing Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 Research on Fueling Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Market Commercialization of Alternative Aviation Fuels. . . . . . . . . . . . . Joachim Buse 29.1 Introduction – The Market for Kerosene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 Price Formation in the Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 Price Formation in the Process Chain for Jet A-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 Price Formation in the Process Chain for Alternative Aviation Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5 Blending Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

725 725 727 727 729 731 731 732 732 737 739 739 741 741 743 744 745 747

xviiiContents

29.6 Logistics Requirements for Bio-SPK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6.1 Storage at the Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6.2 Insurance Cover for Liability Damages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6.3 Reliability Requirements for Suppliers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 Contract Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 Competition with Other Regulatory Schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

751 751 752 753 754 757 758

Contributors

Prof. Dr. Martin Banse  Thünen-Institut für Marktanalyse, Braunschweig, Germany Dr. Valentin Batteiger  Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen (bei München), Germany Dr. Ausilio Bauen  E4tech Consulting and Imperial College, London, United Kingdom Dr. Dominik Behrendt  Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Jülich, Germany Dr. Peter Berster  German Aerospace Center, Institute of Air Transport and Airport Research, Köln, Germany Dr. Patrick Biller  Aarhus University, Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies and Department of Chemistry, Aarhus, Denmark Benedikt Buchspies  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Dr. Joachim Buse  Adeptus Green Management GmbH, Buchholz in der Nordheide (near Hamburg), Germany and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt, Germany Margaret Campbell  University of Western Australia, Center for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, Crawley, Australia Jakob Dehoust  ADM Germany GmbH, Hamburg, Germany Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christina Dornack  Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Waste Management and Circular Economy, Dresden, Germany Andreas Feige  ISCC System GmbH, Köln, Germany Jan Gebauer  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany xix

xxContributors

Prof. Dr. Johan Grobbelaar  University of the Free State, Department of Plant Sciences, Bloemfontein, South Africa Gregor Heinrich  JatroSolutions GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. techn. Hermann Hofbauer  Technische Universität Wien, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Wien, Austria Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kaltschmitt  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Carina Lutter  University of Hamburg, Faculty of Law, Hamburg, Germany Thomas Mielke  ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg, Germany Dr. Andreas Müller  Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Jülich, Germany Lucy Nattrass  E4tech Consulting, London, United Kingdom Ladislav Nedbal  Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Jülich, Germany Ulf Neuling  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Marian Paschke  University of Hamburg, Faculty of Law, Hamburg, Germany Jan Pechstein  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Dr. Christian Pfaff  Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Jülich, Germany Lydia Pforte  Meo Carbon Solutions GmbH, Köln, Germany Dr. Patricia Pizarro de Oro  IMDEA Energy Institute, Thermochemical Processes Unit and Rey Juan Carlos University, Chemical and Environmental Engineering Group, Madrid, Spain Dr. Katharina Plassmann  Yara International ASA, Research Centre for Crop Nutrition, Dülmen, Germany Dr. Kay Plötner  Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen (bei München), Germany Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reinhard Rauch  Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Engler Bunte Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany Prof. Dr. Johannes Reichmuth  German Aerospace Center, Institute of Air Transport and Airport Research, Köln, Germany Florian Riegel  Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen (bei München), Germany

Contributorsxxi

Dr. Anne Rödl  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Dr. Arne Roth  Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen (bei München), Germany Mark Rumizen  CAAFI Certification & Qualification Lead, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlington, MA, USA Dr. Christina Schreiber  Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Jülich, Germany Lisa Thormann  Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany Dr.-Ing. Karsten Wilbrand  Shell Global Solutions, Hamburg, Germany Verena Wolf  Thünen-Institut für Marktanalyse, Braunschweig, Germany Dr. Antje Zehm  VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Dresden, Germany Thilo Zelt  Roland Berger GmbH and INOCAS GmbH, Berlin, Germany Dr. Axel Zentner  BIRES – Energie & Umwelt, Dresden, Germany Dr. Alexander Zschocke  Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt, Germany

Chapter 1

Introduction Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt

Abstract  Biokerosene is seen as an important option to make civil aviation more environmentally sound and climatic friendly. Thus a lot of research and development as well as demonstration activities have been carried out in recent years. Against this background the overall goal of the following explanations is to provide an overview how the current status of biokerosene is tackled and how these activities are presented within this book; i.e. the structure and the logic behind the following papers is discussed. This makes it easier to find special information and/or to get hold of the desired interrelationships. Due to this increasing prosperity personal, mobility of more and more people increases rapidly; this is true for a demand for regional as well as for supra-regional and intercontinental transportation. Beside that, our global economy becomes more and more intertwined and the increasing demand for more and more highly-sophisticated goods and services due to more wealthy people is satisfied growingly on a global scale. A strong increase in global transport of products as well as duties is the consequence; this development becomes more and visible on a worldwide scale in recent years and most likely even more in the near future. So far these increasingly demanded transportation duties of people and goods are fueled primarily by fossil fuel energy and here mainly by crude oil used to produce different types of liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Compared to this, the use of gaseous energy carrier (e.g. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen) as well as electricity is almost negligible. And due to the globally existing fleets of mobility devices for

U. Neuling (*) · M. Kaltschmitt Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] M. Kaltschmitt e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_1

1

2

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

land, sea and air transport (e.g. cars, trucks, ships, trains, airplanes) characterized by a technical life time exceeding often clearly 20 years in some cases this situation will not change significantly within the next decade. There are lots of serious challenges and drawbacks associated with this remarkable development. • On the one hand side the increased use of fossil fuel energy within the transportation sector causes a respective rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions harmful to global climate; thus it becomes more likely that global climate will change more rapidly and more significantly because the politically agreed and scientifically verified GHG reduction goals will not be met till 2020 and beyond. The same is true in a figurative sense also for other environmental effects caused due to the large scale use of these fossil fuels. • On the other hand side the globally available and easily accessible resources of fossil fuel energy (like crude oil or natural gas) are limited. And it is questionable if mankind is allowed to even fully exploit the already known fossil fuel resources of oil, gas and coal due to considerable environmental and climatic constraints affecting the further development of human society. Additionally a significant share of the known and cost-efficient useable fossil fuel resources – especially for crude oil and natural gas – are located in regions which are politically less stable and which are lacking considerably to an open minded and democratic controlled society. Some of these less stable and partly autocratic oil and gas producing countries are even pursuing power politics with their fossil fuel resources in a massive way. Beside this, a significant part of the world market for crude oil and natural gas is controlled by a very small number of worldwide acting companies influencing the global energy prices considerably; the latter determine significantly also the security of energy supply. This situation does not necessarily promise a stable and reliable energy provision in the years to come. Against this background, governments of several OECD countries implemented policy measures to contribute at least partly to a switch within their transportation system towards alternative fuels. These alternatives are for the time being primarily provided from organic matter; i.e. alternative fuels are so far only biofuels. The political intention behind these governmental actions has been to make a significant contribution to all of the challenges mentioned above. Additionally, these policy driven adjustments of the valid frame conditions towards an increased use of alternative respectively biofuels within the corresponding transportation system are often embedded within a more widely designed political strategy to develop a more sustainable transportation system in particular respectively a more sustainable energy system in general for the future. Nevertheless, the initial motivations as well as the most important drivers behind policy measures in some of the most important OECD countries vary significantly between different countries. In some OECD member states the intention to contribute to an increasing interdependence from fossil fuel imports is the main driving force behind the implemented policy measures. In other OECD countries aspects

1 Introduction3

related to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are more important from a societal point of view. Besides this, sometimes even aspects like a considerable surplus production in agriculture combined with strong agricultural lobby organizations, the availability of huge unused fertile land and/or high unemployment rates especially in rural areas might add up to the drivers outlined above and enforce governmental actions. But independently from the actual driving forces in the various OECD countries the results of the implemented policy measures have been similar: an increased use of alternative fuels which means basically in all cases the subsidized market implementation of biofuels respectively selected blends of fossil and biofuels. Within this political pursuit for an increased use of biofuels within the overall transportation sector civil aviation always plays a very special role due to some very specific frame conditions compared to transportation on land and water. So far aviation depends basically fully on one type of fuel called Jet A-1 (i.e. the most important kerosene blend); other aviation fuel blends are basically negligible on a global scale for the time being. These kerosene fuels are so far exclusively produced from crude oil for the existing markets. This jet fuel is basically globally available at each commercial airport with the same quality. Additionally it is sold everywhere on this world without any fuel taxes due to international regulations implemented after World War II; this makes it difficult to control the use of this fuel with the typically implemented governmental measures (i.e. fuel tax). Also airlines compete with each other globally. This means that if one country implements a mandatory admixing of (expensive) biofuels to the (cheap) fossil fuel based kerosene without any financial compensation this would have a competitive disadvantage for the airlines fueling in the respective country. Thus for the time being such measures have not been implemented on a large scale also due to a missing consensus in such aspects between the most important governments. This adds up to the difficulty to make a move towards fuel based governmental control measures. While for land and sea transportation various alternatives for fuels and/or transportation technologies/options are possible and partly already market mature from a technical point of view (i.e., biofuels or varying blends of fossil fuels and biofuels, electro mobility based on electricity from e.g. renewable sources of energy, hydrogen together with fuel cell vehicles, a switch to rail roads and/or water ways) this is not the case for aviation (in a large scale) yet. Here research and development (R&D) activities have just recently started to develop ideas, concepts and technologies for possible alternatives contributing to increased greenhouse gas savings in the future. These R&D activities focus so far mainly on the efficient provision of non-fossil fuels fulfilling the Jet A-1 specification without any reservations (so called “dropin” fuels). Alternatively with a much lower intensity and with a very long term perspective towards market maturity some R&D-activities are ongoing aiming in the provision of a fuel similar to Jet A-1 (near “drop-in” fuel) based on biogenic feedstock or even other source materials/energy carrier (e.g. renewable electricity, carbon dioxide from industrial processes). This option might have some advantages related to the resource availability as well as the technical, economic and environmental efficiency of the subsequent conversion. The reason for the fact that basically

4

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

all ongoing R&D efforts aiming so far to provide a fuel with Jet A-1 quality is that airplanes in commercial use are typically operated today within an average technical lifetime of approximately 20 years and longer. Thus commercial airplanes currently sold on the market will be in operation for at least two decades and will, during this time period, need Jet A-1 as fuel according to their design. Additionally, fuels used within airplanes need • • • • •

to show a high energy density, to have a good combustion quality, to allow for a widespread global availability, to fulfill numerous safety requirements, and to be transported, stored and pumped easily.

Kerosene resp. Jet A-1 fulfills all these demanding requirements without any doubts; i.e. the fuel characteristics of kerosene are well adapted to the harsh conditions during a long distance flight roughly 10,000 m above ground. And so far there is no alternative visible on the horizon which might replace kerosene respectively the kerosene specifications in the years to come. The same is also true for aircraft turbines available on the global market. Unlimited these turbines are designed for the use of kerosene (mainly Jet A-1). And also here it could not be seen that an alternative promising a significantly better technical, economic and environmental performance emerges in the years to come fulfilling the given high standards. Thus it is most likely that Jet A-1 as a fuel will stay in place also in the years to come. Beside the fuel greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometer can be reduced also by other measures; this is true for example for the following measures: • • • • •

more efficient airplane turbines, more energy efficient design of airplanes, development of lightweight airplanes, time and route specific optimization, economic compensation measures.

Due to the ongoing competition-induced cost pressure given within the last decades as well as the successful technical developments carried out in Europe and the US the greenhouse gas saving potentials of the airplane turbine as well as the airplane design are already exploited to a certain extent. The development of still unexploited efficiency potentials is already also due to other reasons on the way and will be implemented into the market in the years to come anyway. The same is true for reducing the weight of the planes; for example, the airlines have already implemented e.g. economic measures to reduce the weight. But even here the possibilities are limited because the comfort demanded by the passengers is steadily increasing and thus average weight per passenger is only slowly declining. Additionally there might be some optimization options related to the efficiency of the ground traffic, the operation of the airports, the flying routes as well as the given regulations. Also the exploitation of these options is on the way; but due the involvement of numerous players including the respective regulatory bodies this will take some time. Finally

1 Introduction5

compensation measures might be implemented easily; this includes for example options like planting of trees and investing in greenhouse gas saving measures in other industrial sectors. When the greenhouse gas reduction potentials are assessed it becomes obvious that the reduction potentials arising from the fuel are much more important compared to the other options outlined above; as a rule of thumb the GHG emissions arising from the infrastructure (airplane, airports, etc.) are typically one order of magnitude smaller compared to the GHG emissions resulting from the fuel. Thus, within the context discussed briefly above aspects related to the given greenhouse gas efficient alternatives for Jet A-1 need to be assessed and discussed in more detail (Fig. 1.1). This is true for a deeper understanding of the background as well

‡ 3DVWDQG)XWXUH'HYHORSPHQWVRIWKH*OREDO$LU7UDIILF %DFNJURXQG

‡ .H\GULYHUVDQGWHFKQLFDOGHYHORSPHQWVLQDYLDWLRQ ‡ 3RWHQWLDORI)RVVLO.HURVHQH ‡ 5HJXODWRU\)UDPHZRUNIRU*OREDO$YLDWLRQ ‡ *OREDO%LRPDVV3RWHQWLDO ‡ :RUOG0DUNHWVIRU6WDUFK9HJHWDEOH2LOVDQG$QLPDO)DWV ‡ /LJQRFHOOXORVLF%LRPDVV:DVWHDVD)HHGVWRFN

)HHGVWRFN

‡ &DPHOLQD-DWURSKD³1HZ´2LO3ODQWV$OJDH ‡ 6XVWDLQDELOLW\,VVXHV'LUHFWDQG,QGLUHFW/DQG8VH&KDQJH ‡ &HUWLILFDWLRQ6FKHPHV ‡ &RQYHUVLRQ5RXWHVIURP%LRPDVVWR%LRNHURVHQH ‡ %LRNHURVHQHIURP9HJHWDEOH2LOV ‡ %LRNHURVHQHSURGXFWLRQYLD6\QWKHVLVJDV

&RQYHUVLRQ 5RXWHV

‡ $OFRKROWR-HW ‡ )XHOVIURP3\URO\VLV ‡ +\GURWKHUPDO3URFHVVHV ‡ $YLDWLRQ%LRIXHO6WDQGDUGVDQG$LUZRUWKLQHVV$SSURYDO

0DUNHW ,QWURGXFWLRQ

‡ -HW)XHO%OHQGLQJ ‡ (XURSHDQ(PLVVLRQ7UDGLQJ6FKHPH ‡ 6XVWDLQDEOH$YLDWLRQ)XHOV6FHQDULRVDQG'HSOR\PHQW

‡ ([SHULHQFHVIURP$LUFDUULHUV ([SHULHQFHV

‡ 0DUNHW&RPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQRI$OWHUQDWLYH$YLDWLRQ)XHOV

Fig. 1.1  Overall structure of the book

6

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

as the driving forces defining the possibilities and the restrictions of the use of alternatives to Jet A-1 (block “Background”; see Fig. 1.1); and these alternatives are for the time being basically biofuels. Then of course the feedstock availability needs to be assessed in depth; this includes the analysis of the existing markets e.g. for agricultural commodities as well as the presentation of already on a large scale grown cash crops and so called new crops (e.g. algae, jatropha) (block “Feedstock”; see Fig. 1.1). Then this organic material provided from agriculture, forestry and/or other sources need to be processed in a technical efficient, environmental sound and economic viable way to an aviation fuel fulfilling the given fuel specifications (block “Conversion Routes”; see Fig. 1.1); i.e. they have to be compatible with conventional Jet A-1. Is such a fuel available an introduction into the given global fuel markets is necessary taking the given constraints and rules as well as the already defined frame conditions into consideration (block “Market Introduction”; see Fig. 1.1). But in the end an introduction of such alternative fuels within the global fuel markets will only be successful if the existing experiences are promising and the air carrier trust in such alternatives (block “Experiences”; see Fig. 1.1). These various areas are discussed more deeply below. • Background (Part I). To understand the possibilities and constraints of biofuels for civil aviation, the commercial aviation sector itself has to be understood first of all. This includes different aspects and various topics to be tackled. Therefore the Past and Future Developments of Global Air Traffic are discussed. This opens up the frame for the energy demand as well as the expected global developments within this part of the overall transportation sector. This shows also the huge amount of energy needed for fueling this global air traffic. Against the background of this global air traffic movement biofuels need to be discussed. Within this context it has to be taken in mind that these biomass-based options can only contribute to a limited extend due to the restricted availability of fertile land also used for the production of food (and fodder) as well as biomass as a raw material. Therefore for the achievement of certain greenhouse gas reduction goals biofuels can only be a part of the overall solution. Therefore the Status and Prospects of Airplanes related to a more GHG efficient operation as well as the Potential of Fossil Kerosene to contribute to GHG savings must be seen and understood. Only within the context of the order of magnitude of global air traffic and the foreseeable future development related to the contribution to a more environmental sound air transportation system the possible role of alternative or biofuels can be understood and assessed in depth. Thus one has necessarily to keep the overall picture in mind. But this picture would not be complete without taking the Regulatory Framework for Aviation into consideration. The frame conditions set by the government respectively by international agreements and especially the expected changes due to e.g. climate protection do have a huge impact on the overall aviation sector and in particular on the introduction of new and alternative fuels. • Feedstock (Part II). When speaking of biofuels the most important aspect is the availability of the organic feedstock; i.e. the most main and hardly to be answered question: Which amounts of biomass are where at one's disposal

1 Introduction7

showing which fuel characteristic and are available at which costs? Basically, the technical, environmental and economic criteria of each conversion pathway of biomass to kerosene is defined by the choice and the availability of the biomass used as a feedstock. Therefore firstly the Global Biomass Potential needs to be addressed to show the order of magnitude of the amounts of sustainable biomass possibly to be used for the production of liquid fuels without affecting e.g. food security and other important guardrails like water availability, social constraints and environmental respectively ecological criteria. Nevertheless, globally huge amounts of organic matter with special content (e.g. starch, sugar, vegetable oil) and/or specific characteristics (e.g. lignocellulosic biomass) are already traded on the global markets for agricultural and forestry commodities. To get an insight in these currently existing global markets and the different use options for these various agricultural and forestry primary products, the Markets for Starch as well as the Markets for Vegetable Oils as the primarily traded agricultural commodities containing specific valuable substances need to be understood. Additionally the markets for Lignocellulosic Biomass – so far basically only wood is traded on a global scale – to be used primarily as a raw material (for e.g. pulp and paper, construction wood, wooden furniture) and to a limited extend as an energy carrier (e.g. wood pellets) have to be tackled because lignocellulose is the biogenic resource most widely available on our planet. These existing markets are served by large scale and globally spread production to satisfy the respective customers distributed unevenly on this globe. To avoid disturbance of these existing markets alternative and/or new feedstock are under discussion especially to be used as a feedstock for a large scale provision of biofuels. Foremost this is true for the various material streams of Waste as a Feedstock because organic waste needs to be disposed anyway at the expense of the responsible party; i.e. this feedstock might be available at negative costs without disturbing any other markets. But the characteristic of such organic waste streams are very divers and thus the technical expense to convert it into a fuel is typically very high. Therefore alternative options to provide vegetable oil easily to be converted to a fuel and to be traded outside the existing stock markets for vegetable oil like Camelina, Jatropha or even “New” Oil Plants as well as the often strongly promoted Algae are discussed more and more intensively in recent years. But also these alternative options for the provision of an organic feedstock are dependent on the different possible production areas, on the various available soil types and the diverse climatic circumstances. Thus the overarching aspects determining the pros and cons of the provision of such organic material are Sustainability Issues to taken into consideration during the production; without realizing a primary production taking the needs of future generations seriously into consideration it is most unlikely that the large scale production of such agricultural commodities will be accepted by a more and more critical society claiming for more and more strict sustainability regulations. And the globally very controversial discussed aspects of a Direct and Indirect Land Use Change add up to this. To provide a fair comparison and to give the basis for as fair and widely acceptable assessment of sustainability issues related to various types of biomass feedstock

8

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

and the subsequent produced biofuels on the aforementioned background a Sustainability Certification has been developed and introduced within the market in recent years to allow for more transparency and thus for an increased acceptance of such options. In this context different certification schemes as well as different regulatory frameworks have to be kept in mind. Thus the assessment of the feedstock goes far beyond the biomass. • Conversion Routes (Part III). Theoretically biomass or organic matter can be converted on manifold ways based on bio-chemical and/or thermo-chemical routes to a liquid energy carrier. Thus it is necessary to provide an overview of the Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene to present the whole bandwidth and the huge variety of possibilities to produce biokerosene in a well-structured way. Based on this overview the most promising conversion routes have to described and presented in detail. At first the production of Biokerosene from Vegetable Oils is discussed in depth. This conversion route represents the most advanced and the only widely commercially used technology to produce biokerosene; most of the test and regular flights performed so far have been realized with kerosene produced from vegetable oil. But due the fact that this conversion pathway needs vegetable oil typically competing with the food and fodder market as well as markets for the use as a raw material there is a strong motivation to develop alternatives. One promising option is Biokerosene production from bio-chemical and thermo-chemical biomass conversion and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Synthesis; thus the possibilities and restrictions based on such provision routes is described in depth. For these options the overall technological approach is well known from the production of liquid fuels from coal or natural gas; nevertheless, the utilization of such processes for the production of biokerosene from organic feedstock is still in the beginning. And the experiences gathered so far have been only partly successful; some companies claiming to have an innovative and cost-efficient technological solution moved into bankruptcy. Therefore in parallel also other pathways based on wellknown conversion processes already used on a large scale globally are further developed. This is true for the so-called Alcohol-to-Jet process where an alcohol molecule is chemically modified to fulfill the kerosene specifications; therefore the current state of research and development is presented in detail. Additionally Fuels from Pyrolysis are under development. The focus of these pathways is on the upgrading of pyrolysis oil to be produced with existing technologies into aviation fuels fulfilling the corresponding specifications. These upgrading processes are optimized based on catalysts characterized by specific properties; the pros and cons of such approaches are outlined in detail below. Especially for biomass waste streams characterized by a high water content (e.g. organic household waste fraction, sewage sludge) the Hydrothermal Liquefaction is discussed more and more as a promising alternative pathway for the production of biofuels mainly from feedstock where no other high value use can be realized for the time being. But this option is still within an early R&D-phase. For all these conversion routes the possible biomass feedstock, technology parameters and recent developments are discussed.

1 Introduction9

• Market Introduction (Part IV). After the biomass feedstock is converted into a biofuel fulfilling the given kerosene standards it could be used within a commercial aircraft in theory. But not only due to safety reasons various measures have to be taken and different preconditions have to be fulfilled before an airline is allowed to actually use such a biofuel within a commercially operated flight. First of all and foremost the Aviation Biofuel Standards and Airworthiness Approval need to be fulfilled. They are a key point for the commercial utilization of biokerosene to be fulfilled securely by all fuels. Thus the deep knowledge about these regulations and standards is an indispensable precondition for each market introduction; thus such aspects are presented in depth. While at the same time the overall goal of the biokerosene producer is to provide a biofuel to be used exclusively in commercial airplanes, for the time being only blends of so called “drop-in” fuels are allowed to be used in commercial aviation due to the given regulations. This is why the Blending of Synthetic Kerosene and Conventional Kerosene is another important issue while speaking of the introduction of biofuels to the actual markets and their implementation within the exiting kerosene provision system. Independently from the context discussed above the main driver pushing the deployment of blended, approved and ready-for-use biokerosene within commercial aircraft is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the civil aviation sector. To claim and proof that this overarching goal has been or will be met the produced biokerosene has to undergo some sort of certification to approve the actual environmental benefits. The results of this certification process is then included in some sort of emission trading system, e.g. the European Emission Trading Scheme. This includes the recent developments, actual accounting systems and future developments for the global aviation sector. Even due the fact that such GHG emissions trading schemes are controversial discussed and still not mandatory implemented on a global scale a deep understanding of the ideas behind such reflections is important to understand the ongoing global debate. • Experiences (Part V). Since the importance of biokerosene for the commercial aviation sector as well as the “motivation” of the air carrier by several governments to make a larger contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation is steadily increasing, many different field trials as well as regular flights have been realized by different airlines. Therefore within the Experiences from Aircarriers an overview of the recent developments as well as the practice of selected air carrier is presented in detail. Finally an outlook on the Market Commercialization of Alternative Aviation Fuels is given to see where the flight is going and where the most important control parameters to be adjusted can be seen. Altogether the following explanations aim at providing a full and comprehensive overview of the manifold aspects and numerous frame conditions which have to be seen and taken into consideration when speaking of biokerosene. This includes the background of the aviation sector, all different types of biomass including the corresponding sustainability issues, the different possible conversion routes, factors

10

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

which have to be kept in mind for the market introduction as well as recent experiences on the field of sustainable aviation by the use of biokerosene. Ulf Neuling, M.Sc.  is working at the Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics at Hamburg University of Technology as research associate since 2014. During his research he is working on the assessment of different production pathways for biofuels, in particular biokerosene. He is a mechanical engineer with a focus on energy systems and holds a Master’s degree. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kaltschmitt  graduated in Petroleum Engineering and takes his Doctor of Engineering in the field of renewable energies. Afterwards he headed a research group in the field of biomass/renewable energy at Stuttgart University where he did his habilitation. After a research stay at King’s College in London and at the University of California, Berkeley he became the managing director of the Leipziger Institute for Energy. In 2006 he has been promoted to a full professor at Hamburg University of Technology where he is heading the Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics. Between 2008 and 2010 he was in parallel also the scientific managing director of the German Biomass Research Centre. He published more than 20 books and more than 275 articles in scientific magazines in the field of renewable energy with a special focus on biomass and biofuels.

Part I

Background

Chapter 2

Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic Johannes Reichmuth and Peter Berster

Abstract  This paper gives an overview of the development and structure of the global and regional air traffic markets. The number and geographical distribution of flights together with the aircraft types needed to satisfy the demand for passenger and cargo transport are analyzed. Air traffic market developments are described from a traffic-oriented perspective. Environmental and economic aspects are not subject of this discussion. Thus this paper addresses the following six topics: global development of the air transport system, regional distribution of the air traffic, airport development and bottlenecks, airlines, aircraft types, and outlook of air traffic development.

2.1

Introduction – Global Development in Air Transport

Since 1950, a steady increase of passengers and goods transported by air has been observed. This development has only been reduced in times of various crises like the first oil price crisis in 1973, the second oil price crisis in 1979, the Gulf war in 1991, the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the financial and economic crisis in 2008/2009 (Fig. 2.1). However, these crises have had no permanent effects on the global long term growth of the civil air traffic. For example, between 1978 and 2008 air transport demand has quadrupled. There are several reasons for this strong increase. One reason is the greater demand for exchange of persons and goods between and within different world

J. Reichmuth (*) · P. Berster German Aerospace Center, Institute of Air Transport and Airport Research, Köln, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P. Berster e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_2

13

14

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Fig. 2.1  Development of global air transport [1]

regions. This has been primarily driven by an increasing international division of labor of supply chains; i.e. more people with more time and money for air travel purposes need to be transported. This is especially true for developing countries. Additionally, an increasing demand within the more saturated markets has been generated by decreasing ticket prices as a result of increased competition between airlines. This has been realized due to the liberalization of air transport markets in combination with the use of more fuel and operational efficient aircraft types. The Low Cost Carrier (LCC) airline business model enables the development of new, dense point to point networks within many world regions. This development took place especially in Europe but more recently also in Asia, Africa or Australia, in addition to the traditional hub and spoke networks operated by Full Service Network Carrier (FSNC). Many of the latter have been former national flag carriers. About 3.4 billion passengers have been transported in 2015.

2.2

Regional Distribution of the Air Traffic

In January 2016 2.8 million aircraft departures have been scheduled globally (Fig. 2.2). Most of the destinations are located within different continents or within large countries. Asia is the biggest air transport market with 788,000 departures, followed by North America with 753,000 and Europe with 513,000. The main part of the air transport occurs clearly in the Northern hemisphere. Only the air traffic in South America with 253,000 departures reaches traffic values in the same order of magnitude compared to the leading three regions. All other regions and their connections show numbers below 100,000 departures. The exchange between North and South America with 75,000 departures is more than two times stronger than

Fig. 2.2  Regional development of global air transport [2]

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic15

16

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Fig. 2.3  Regional development of the global air transport supply (number of take-offs) [2]

single relations between other regions. In the past the air transport flow between Europe and North America was stronger than the flow from Europe to Asia. In the last years the flow between Europe and Asia experienced a strong growth. With 33,000 departures this traffic has now overtaken the relation between Europe and North America. This illustrates the increasing importance of the Asian economies for countries of the Western world. Furthermore, this contributes to the strong growth of the Europe – Middle East and Middle East – Asia relations. Additionally Fig. 2.3 shows the developments of different markets in terms of growth rates from November 2014 to January 2016. Coming from a strong increase of growth rates after the financial crisis 2008/2009 the growth between 2011 and 2013 turned into negative numbers. Since 2013 positive growth rates could be reached again. In January 2016 the volume of traffic reached a value which has been about 4 % higher than the year before. Nevertheless, the growth rates vary significantly between different regions. The markets in Asia and Middle East show strong growth rates between 6 and 8 %. But also in Europe the growth rates are positive since 2014 and have now reached the global average of about 4 %. The North American market did not grow in the past; however, since the end of 2015 also there are some signs of growth. The other smaller markets show heterogeneous tendencies.

2.3

Airport Development and Bottlenecks

Airports provide the necessary ground infrastructure for take-offs and landings. Globally there exist more than 10,000 aerodromes and airports. However, scheduled and charter flights are operated at about 3,800 airports. This includes airports which have at least one scheduled flight per year. Thus, Fig. 2.4 shows the very uneven distribution of the global flight volumes on airports. In 2014, the largest 1,000 airports handled more than 90 % of the global flight movements and the top 100 airports operated nearly 45 % of the global traffic.

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic17

Fig. 2.4  Cumulative distribution of global aircraft movements in 2014 [2]

Fig. 2.5  Top 25 airports worldwide in January 2016 [2]

Figure 2.5 shows that in January 2016 the three largest airports worldwide are located in the US. This is Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson with about 35,000 movements, Chicago O’Hare with about 34,000 movements and Dallas/Fort Worth with around 26,000 movements. Altogether six out of the ten largest airports are located in the US. The airport of Beijing has not been in the top 20 in 2006, but rose amazingly

18

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

fast to rank number four in January 2016. This development underlines the rise of the Asian region in air traffic. More examples of this high growth development are airports like Shanghai-Pudong or Tokyo-Haneda. They show yearly growth rates well above 5 %. However, there are other large airports in Asia which currently show a much lower growth or even a decline. On the other hand, there are still five European airports among the global top 25 airports, namely the airports of Istanbul, London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Air cargo is typically handled at airports with a high degree of connectivity; i.e. mostly hub airports with high passenger transport capacities because of the availability of belly freight capacities in passenger aircrafts. Dedicated air cargo aircraft are especially operated by air freight integrators like UPS or DHL. They operate their bases at airports that enable them to optimize their delivery times by extended operating times at the airport. This is one main reason why smaller airports like Louisville International, Halle-Leipzig or Cologne-Bonn are among the top 30 cargo airports (Fig. 2.6). Even more distinct than in the passenger market, the air cargo market shows a very high degree of concentration on just a few airports. The top 30 airports handle more than 55 % of the total air cargo volume of about 96.7 million t loaded and unloaded in 2014. Figures 2.7 and 2.8 display the largest airports in Europe and in Germany. The largest airports in terms of flight movements are clearly hub airports. The three top hub airports London Heathrow, Frankfurt and Paris Charles de Gaulle with about 16,000 to 19,000 movements in January 2016 have been slightly overtaken by Istanbul Ataturk airport due to the continued strong growth. The hub airport Amsterdam

Fig. 2.6  Top 30 cargo airports worldwide in 2014 [3]

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic19

Fig. 2.7  Top 25 airports in Europe in January 2016 [2]

Fig. 2.8  Top 25 airports in Germany in January 2016 [2]

is placed fifth, followed by the airports of Madrid, Munich, Rome, Moscow, Barcelona, Copenhagen and London Gatwick. Many airports of the top 25 ranking are located in a capital city. The hub airports Frankfurt and Munich are the largest airports in Germany. However, in the first month of 2016 their flight movements are stagnating. Nevertheless, passenger numbers are increasing because airlines are moving towards larger aircraft with more seats.

20

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Other than the two hubs, most German airports have only very little transfer passenger volume and focus more on point-to-point traffic. Non-hub airports with some degree of transfer passengers are Düsseldorf, Berlin-Tegel, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Cologne and Berlin-Schönefeld. 2016 shows a strong growth for Berlin-Schönefeld as well as for Cologne and Stuttgart. This is due to Ryanair increasing their number of flights at these airports. However, the trend of Low Cost Carriers moving to larger airports may threaten regional airports in the future because of a loss of traffic volume. The temporal flight distribution over a sample day or week at airports is now discussed in more detail. Looking at one of the peak days of Frankfurt airport (Fig. 2.9) clearly reveals the night flight restrictions. Aircraft movements remain at a rather constant level of around 90 and drop only slightly at noon and in the afternoon, so that Frankfurt airport is highly utilized during daytimes. London Stansted Airport is another example of a highly frequented airport, but the distribution over a sample day is rather different from airports like Frankfurt. Traffic peaks reaching the capacity limit develop at three times during a day (i.e. in the morning, during noon and in the evening). The capacity limit of London Stansted corresponds to around 40 movements per hour and there are capacity reserves during off-peak times. This is rather typical for airports that are the home base of a Low Cost Carrier operating on a point-to-point network or for regional airports with a focus on business travelers. In these cases, off-peak times are less attractive for airlines because of their business concept. If airports operate close to their capacity limit nearly the whole daytime, and in particular during attractive peak times, opportunities for establishing a new hub or new destinations in a point-to-point network decrease considerably. Different capacity utilization levels of airports can be illustrated by means of so-called ranking curves, i.e. the hourly traffic volume of a year is ordered in descending order. For example, the comparison between London Heathrow and Hanover airport in Fig. 2.10 clearly illustrates the high capacity utilization of London Heathrow. In the case of Hanover, the ranking curve runs much steeper indicating more capacity reserves in less frequented hours. Therefore, the ratio of mean hour to the 5 % peak hour can be used as a quantitative indicator for capacity utilization of an airport. These capacity utility indices were

Fig. 2.9  Peak day/peak week: London-Stansted (STN) and Frankfurt International (FRA) 2014 [2]

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic21

Fig. 2.10  Ranking curves: London Heathrow and Hanover Airport 2014 [2]

calculated for each of the top 1000 airports and are depicted in Fig. 2.11 in relation to the share of aircraft movements of each airport within the global flight volume in 2014. The non-uniform cumulative distribution of airport shares in the global air transport market is clearly visible, resulting in a Gini coefficient of 0.49. Airports with a higher share of aircraft movements typically show higher capacity utilization indices. This could be an indicator for delayed expansion of airport capacity. However, this is not accounted for in the majority of long-term forecasts published by for example International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or aircraft manufactures like Airbus

22

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Fig. 2.11  Capacity utilization index 2014 [2]

and Boeing. Airport expansion programs are difficult to realize especially in densely populated areas of well developed countries (e.g. London Heathrow). However, this is where most of the demand for air transport is generated. On the other hand, the majority of airports handles less than 100,000 air transport movements per year and is not expected to suffer from capacity problems in the near future; instead they may struggle with profitability because of a lack of demand.

2.4 Airlines Airlines provide air transport services for people and goods on a more or less regular basis. The airline market is very dynamic in terms of new entries, exits and mergers. Delta Airlines became the worldwide leading airline in terms of flights after a merger with Northwest in 2008. The merger with Continental in 2010 made United Airlines the largest airline worldwide. In January 2016 American Airlines is the worldwide leading airline after merging with US Airways (Fig. 2.12). Each of these three leading airlines is a member of one of the three global airline alliances; American of Oneworld, Delta Airlines of Skyteam und United Airlines is part of the Star Alliance. Furthermore true Low Cost airlines like Southwest Airlines, Ryanair, easyJet and Azul rank high globally in terms of volumes of flights offered. Especially Asian airlines but also Turkish Airways and some Low Cost Carriers such as Ryanair grow dynamically. Already five Asian airlines are at present among the largest 25 airlines. With an increase of 70 % over the last 10 years the Indian market is among the fast-growing markets. The global market has grown only by 18 % over the same

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic23

Fig. 2.12  Top 25 airlines worldwide in January 2016 [2]

time period. Between 2006 and 2015 the number of flights decreased in the US and Germany by 16 % and 6 %, respectively. On the other hand, traffic at Russian and Turkish airports increased considerably (+77 % and +225 %, respectively), which helped the development of their national carriers. Turkish Airlines became Star Alliance member and Aeroflot is now part of Skyteam. The geographically advantageous location of Istanbul between Europe and Asia may help to develop a large intercontinental hub, like e.g. the Dubai hub, the home base of Emirates. After a dynamic development and with India as an important market for the future, Air India resulted in becoming a member of the Star Alliance in July 2014. In 2015 about 34 million departures in scheduled and charter traffic were operated worldwide. Typically, there are four different types of airlines: • Full Service Network Carriers (FSNC) like Lufthansa or Air France serving 63 % of the total air transport market, • charter airlines like Condor and regional airlines like e.g. Cimber Air serve only a very small market of around 15 %, • Low Cost Carriers (LCC) like Ryanair have already a market share of 21.4 %. The main part of the Full Service Network Carriers (FSNC) is made up mainly by the large airline alliances (Fig. 2.13). The Star Alliance, founded in 1997, currently has 28 member airlines. They cover about 33 % of the Full Service Network Carriers (FSNC) market. Oneworld, founded in 1998 and currently comprising of 15 member airlines, serve 24 % of the FSNC market in 2015. Skyteam was founded in 2000 and currently consists of 20 member airlines. They serve about 29 % of the market. The decreasing number of independent FSNC’s account by now for

24

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

'/ &= 45

&;

$$

$) --

%$ -/

8/

2QHZRUOG

0+

$< 6

%$/$

,%

$=

6N\WHDP

.4

$5 0)

8; 52 &,

68 08

91

8;

&0 2=

/2

/;

6. /+ $

1=

2.

.(

2

7*

*$

./ 4)

5-

$0

8$

69

06

1+

6WDU $OOLDQFH

$&

7. &$

6$

%5

$9

=+

61 64

-3

(7 28

$,

26

73

Fig. 2.13  Market share of airline alliances/Full Service Network Carrier (FSNC) 2015 [2]

only 15 % of the market. Well-known examples of large, but still independent Full Service Network airlines are Emirates and Virgin Atlantic. Low Cost Carriers (LCC) and Full Service Network Carriers (FSNC) are in a heavy competition on short- to medium-haul flights. Because of a homogeneous fleet and only absolutely essential services included in the ticket prices (no frills concepts) allows them to sell these flights at very low prices. This concept was originally developed by Southwest Airline in the US some 30 years ago and swapped over to Europe in the course of the liberalization of the European air transport market in the 1990s and is now established successfully in most regions of the world. In 2016, about 20 airlines offer LCC services in Germany, more than 40 in Europe and more than 100 worldwide. Figure 2.14 shows the development of the Low Cost Carrier network in Germany from 1998 to 2014. Three different phases can be identified. After a start-up phase with only a few routes from 2002 onwards each year about 100 new routes were added to the network. During the financial crisis in 2008 this development slowed

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic25

Fig. 2.14  Development of LCC-routes in Germany between 1998 and 2015 [2]

down. However, in contrast to the general market trend Low Cost Carrier traffic still grew until 2011. Moreover, the number of airlines in the Low Cost segment has increased over time. Since 2013/2014 the Low Cost Carrier (LCC) market has gained again momentum in Germany. The number of LCC flights is increasing and these carrier are moving more and more to larger and hub airports. Furthermore, Full Service Network Carriers (FSNC) are moving part of their short- and medium-haul flights to their own LCC subsidiary. Even intercontinental LCC traffic seems to be within reach on a larger scale. Here, aircraft like the A330 and the new B787 play an important role. FSNC’s and LCC’s have partly started to converge in their business models, so that hybrid concepts are emerging: FSNC’s have started to use elements of the Low Cost concept, whereas Low Cost airlines have started to offer optional extra services for their customers. Thus, the difference between Low Cost and FSNC concepts has become smaller over time.

2.5

Aircraft Types

Depending on route markets airlines use different aircraft types. Generally, different aircraft are subdivided according to their size. From this viewpoint, larger aircraft are typically used for scheduled and charter traffic, whereas smaller aircraft are

26

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Fig. 2.15  Number of aircrafts in scheduled and charter traffic and business aviation [4]

more common in non-scheduled business aviation, which may be chartered, leased or of own property. As it can be seen in Fig. 2.15 there are currently around 35,000 aircraft in operation (scheduled and charter, as per January 2016). Furthermore, 16,000 new aircrafts are already ordered and there have been letters of intent (LoI) and options signed for another 9,000 aircrafts. There are about 91,000 aircrafts in operation for business aviation purposes. About 55,000 are rotorcraft, 20,000 are jet aircrafts and 16,000 propeller driven airplanes. About 23,000 aircraft have more than 50 seats. The majority of aircraft (34 %) are short- and medium-haul (e.g. B737 and A320). There are currently 4,983 B737 and 3,695 A320 in use and they belong to the seat class 125 to 189 seats in Fig. 2.16. They are typically employed e.g. by Low Cost Carriers. The second largest seat class in Fig. 2.16 (18 %) has 50 to 125 seats. Typical aircraft for this class is

Fig. 2.16  Aircraft types in scheduled and charter traffic in service and planned [4]

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic27

e.g. Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) (569 aircraft in operation) or Embraer 145 (504 aircraft in operation). The 190 to 249 seat and 250 to 349 seat classes comprise 1,700 and 2,200 aircraft in operation, respectively. Typical aircraft are A321, B767 and A330, B777, B787, A340, respectively. The wide body aircraft with a seat capacity of more than 349 seats represent only about 2 % of the worldwide fleet. The B777 makes up for half of these aircrafts, the other half is made up by aircraft like B747 and A380.

2.6

Outlook of Air Traffic Development

Forecasting the long-term development of air traffic becomes more and more problematic because of the growing probability of unforeseen external or internal developments that in-duce breaks of current trends (Fig. 2.17). To cope with the variability of the different influencing factors, forecast are often published as a most likely outcome within a range of low and high results, growing with the time horizon and reflecting an increasing model uncertainty (Fig. 2.18, solid lines of ICAO forecast). By trying to take a look at the long term future of about 30 years and beyond, it becomes more and more probable that trends from the past, which empirically verified forecast models are based on, are no longer valid. In these cases forecasters may try to describe different future developments in terms of principally possible system configurations, which show different – sometimes ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH

5HVRXUFHV (QHUJ\ $YDLODELOLW\

3ROLWLFV

ŝƌůŝŶĞ

3RSXODWLRQ ͬ DĂŶƵͲ ĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ 6RFLRHFRQRPLF 6WUXFWXUH &KDQJHLQ9DOXHV

(FRQRPLF

E^W *OREDOLVDWLRQ 5HJLRQDOLVDWLRQ

ŝƌƉŽƌƚ

0RELOLW\ %HKDYLRXU

7HFKQRORJ\

6SDWLDO 6WUXFWXUH

Fig. 2.17  External factors and internal actors influencing the development of air transport system (ANSP - Air Navigation Service Provider)

28

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

Fig. 2.18  Examples of scenarios and forecasts for the global air transport performance (measured in passenger-km’s (PKM) transported per year) [7, 8]

extreme – changes in the external factors, in the internal system organization or technology in use. Those descriptions are so-called scenarios which represent story lines free of inconsistencies regarding those future developments. Scenarios can be described in qualitative terms, however, should preferably be based on system models giving quantitative performance data outputs (Fig. 2.18 CONSAVE scenarios dashed lines). The scenario analysis allows investigating the elements of a future scenario, in particular those which are missing in the present system, in order to create a preferred scenario. This gives some guidelines on how to either support or avoid the development towards a given scenario. In contrast to forecast models, the scenario technique tries to analyze paths from a future point of view back to the present time. In general, global air transport has growth potential for the future. This is directly visible when inspecting the propensity to fly that is the number of air trips per capita in different world regions (Fig. 2.19). The propensity to fly is generally growing with increasing GDP. Asia, South America and Africa have the lowest GDP per capita. Air trips per capita are well below values seen in developed countries. However, from a global point of view, those regions have the largest and fastest growing population. As long as positive GDP developments in these regions persists a dynamic increase in air traffic has to be assumed also in the future. Actual forecasts of aircraft movements by ICAO and aircraft manufactures (Fig. 2.20) estimate an average annual growth of about 3 %/a for the next 20 years. These forecasts do not include negative effects of crises or capacity limitations at airports with high capacity utilization, which might not be in a position of enlarging capacity according to growing demand.

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic29

Fig. 2.19  Relationship between air trips per capita and GDP per capita from 2002 to 2014 [2, 5, 6]

Fig. 2.20  Forecast of the global air traffic [1]

2.7

Final Considerations

The analysis of past developments and trends of the air transport system indicates further potential for growth also in the long term, although first saturation effects can be seen in the US and European markets. Main drivers of future growth are regions with growing population that will reach welfare levels comparable with

30

J. Reichmuth and P. Berster

today’s leading industry nations. This population will expect an air traffic network that allows fast transport of persons and goods over long distances with high connectivity between and within all world regions. The growth of the air transport demand will be generated mainly within the increasing numbers of megacities. Already today many airport infrastructures located within those areas are working on their capacity limits e.g. London Heathrow. Assuming that with increasing welfare of population infrastructure expansion projects will be under pressure by airport residents articulating their complaints against aircraft noise, we have to foresee a risk that delay in airport infrastructure expansion may lead to a damping of the air transport growth. In addition to conventional air vehicles Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) may increasingly populate the airspace in the future both with very small vehicles, e.g. operating as sensors, and with heavier vehicles, e.g. operating as freighters flying more and more autonomously. Also activities are undertaken to define supersonic aircraft that may find a way back to the civil air transport market. In parallel, the dramatic increase in the power of global information exchange via internet towards instantaneous and natural information exchange between individuals, organizations and technical systems may take away some of the necessity to travel by air. On the other hand, however, organizing of travel becomes much easier and may lead to additional induced demand for personal meetings in reality and not only in a virtual world. A factor limiting growth may be the concern on climate impact of air transport. If the industry fails to overcome this problem politics may install regulations that restrict climate impact to an acceptable level by applying regulations such as emission trading schemes. Major research and development activities like “Clean Sky” were initiated in Europe searching for technical solutions to increase the environmental performance of air transport and airplanes in particular, resulting in less noisy and more fuel efficient aircraft (http://www.cleansky.eu/). Many research activities are under way to search for alternatives in aircraft propulsion like e.g. combination of electric propulsion with gas turbines. Even pure electrical propulsion systems are considered. Here the low energy density of batteries presently available prevents the application in larger air vehicles. The replacement of the whole aircraft fleet by new clean aircraft lasts a time span in the order of at least 30 years. In this context the intensive search for climate neutral fuels to replace conventional kerosene may allow air transport to grow in a sustainable way in the future. These biokerosene and/or synthetic jet fuels could be used in the conventional aircraft propulsion systems which may allow a smoother transition until more revolutionary propulsion systems reach the air transport market.

References [1] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2014) The world of civil aviation. ICAO, Montreal

2  Past and Future Developments of the Global Air Traffic31 [2] Official Airline Guide (OAG) (1998–2016) Market analysis, Reed Travel Group. OAG, Dunstable [3] Airport Council International (ACI) (2014) ACI Annual World Airport Traffic Report (AWATR). ACI, Montreal [4] Ascend (2016). Ascend fleet data. Ascend, London. [5] The World Bank (2014) World Development Indicators. The World Bank, Washington [6] Sabre Airport Data Intelligence (2002–2013) Data based on Market Information Intelligence Tapes (MIDT). Sabre Airline Solutions, Southlake [7] Hepting M, Grimme W, Kokus P (2015) Welche Glaskugel ist die Richtige? Methoden und Ergebnisse von Zukunftsstudien zur globalen Luftverkehrsentwicklung im Vergleich. In: Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2015. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt – Lilienthal-Oberth e.V. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2015, 22.–24. Sept. 2015, Rostock. ISBN 978-3-932182-18-1. ISSN 1868-8764 [8] Berghof R, Schmitt A, Eyers C, Grübler A, Hancox R, Haag K, Middel J, Hepting M (2005) CONSAVE 2050. Final Report. Projektbericht. G4MA-CT-2002-04013 (EU), 213 S.

Prof. Dr. Johannes Reichmuth  is director of DLR Institute of Air Transport and Airport Research and Chair of Air Transport and Airport Research at the Institute of Transport Science of the RWTH Aachen University. At DLR he worked on real-time air traffic management simulations but also on fast time simulations for capacity assessments of airport systems. His research focuses on assessment of air transport system development options and on the airport system as a representative of a m ­ ulti-modal traffic node. Dr. Peter Berster  has been member of the German Aerospace Center scientific staff since 1992. He has developed particular expertise in the analysis of air transport supply and demand and of modal usage of business travellers under consideration of regional air transport services, constraints at international airports, and of low-cost carrier developments.

Chapter 3

Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation Kay Plötner

Abstract  The aviation industry has grown strongly over the past decades at a global rate of around 5 %/a. Within the context of this rapid growth, environmental awareness of societies and general actions to mitigate global climate change have led various institutions and stakeholders to formulate and proclaim goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions of the future global air transport fleet which are a fleetwide efficiency improvement of 1.5 %/a from the present until 2020, a cap of CO2 emissions from 2020 onwards by market-based measures and a halving of the global fleet’s overall CO2 emission quantities by 2050 relative to 2005 levels. However, despite these substantial efforts to develop new or upgraded aircraft programmes in order to increase fuel efficiency, it is obvious that the target of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards will not be met without market-based measures. In the long term, more radical technologies will be promoted like unconventional aircraft concepts and new engine core concepts. Also alternative energy carriers like electricity, hydrogen, or liquid natural gas are technologies with potential to reduce the environmental footprint, but typically it takes 20 years or more from conceptualisation of a new technology to operational maturity. Today, available technology improvements are outpaced by the strong growth in aviation, while future novel and more radical technologies with large CO2 emission reduction potentials are still at very low technology readiness levels and hence far from industrial implementation. Even in the case of a rapid technology maturation, a fleet-wide penetration would require radical production ramp-ups and an aggressive industrialisation strategy for such novel technologies. To bridge the gap between the fleet-wide introduction of ultra-low emission aircraft technologies and the necessary substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions already today, renewable “drop-in” fuels, offering substantially smaller CO2 footprints compared to conventional jet fuel, are considered a promising way forward. K. Plötner (*) Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen, (bei München), Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_3

33

34

K. Plötner

3.1 Introduction Over the last 100 years, aviation transformed from an elite mode of transport for niche markets to a mass transportation system serving long-haul as well as medium and short-haul markets worldwide. The aviation industry has grown strongly over the past decades at a global rate of around 5 %/a [1] and more (Fig. 3.1), measured in transport capacity (revenue passenger kilometres, RPK). This impressive growth has been achieved despite various crises such as oil crises, wars, terrorist attacks, or contagious diseases like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). Forecasts for market developments issued by all main aviation stakeholders [2–12] predict a further growth in transport capacity by annually 4 to 5 % until 2030  at global average, roughly translating into doubling of transport capacity by 2030 compared to today. Particularly high growth rates, partly surpassing 6 %/a, are expected for emerging countries, for example in the Asia-Pacific region, driven by the transition to middle- or even high-income countries with a growing middle class and the associated changes in travel behaviour [13].

3.2

Environmental Goals for Aviation

Within the context of this rapid growth, environmental awareness of societies and general actions to mitigate global climate change have led various institutions and stakeholders to formulate and proclaim aspirational, albeit non-binding quantitative

Fig. 3.1  Historical development of transport capacity in revenue passenger kilometres, RPK of commercial aviation from 1950 to 2012 [1]

3  Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation35

goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions of the future global air transport fleet. Among these institutions are the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [14], the International Air Transport Association (IATA) [15], the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) [16] and the European Union (EU) [17]. The most prominent and frequently cited targets addressing the emission quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) at global aircraft fleet level have been published by IATA and ATAG and comprise three major items: 1. fleet-wide efficiency improvement of 1.5 %/a from the present until 2020, 2. cap of CO2 emissions from 2020 onwards (“carbon-neutral growth”), 3. halving of the global fleet’s overall CO2 emission quantities by 2050 relative to 2005 levels. At aircraft level, the EU envisages a reduction of CO2 emissions by 75 % compared to typical aircraft in service in the reference year 2000 in its long-term research agenda [17]. The EU targets are considered as being on an equal footing with those announced by ICAO [14], IATA [15], and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [18], levelling the long-term research goals for aircraft technologies. Technology goals for CO2 emissions, as originally defined in Vision 2020 [19] and AGAPE 2020 [20], were categorised into airframe, propulsion and other areas like air traffic management (ATM) and airline operations. Up to the year 2035, a 60 % reduction in fuel burn and CO2 emissions per RPK is aimed, and a 75 % reduction in CO2 emissions is set as a target for the year 2050, relative to technology standards of the reference year 2000 (Tab. 3.1). Tab. 3.1  European medium- to long-term efficiency goals for aviation [21] Goals and key contributions

2000 (­Reference)

CO2 objective vs 2000 (“HLG”)

2020 (Vision)

2020 (AGAPE)

2020 (SRIA)

2035 (SRIA)

-50%**

CO2vs 2000 (kg/pass km)*

2050 (SRIA) -75%**

-50%

-38%

-43%

-60%

-75% 0,32

Airframe energy need (Efficiency)

1

0,75

0,85

0,8

0,7

Propulsion & power energy need (Efficiency)

1

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,7

ATM and Infrastructure

1

0,88

0,95

0,93

0,88

0,88

Non Infrastructurerelated Airlines Ops

1

0,96

0,96

0,96

0,93

0,88

* comparsion with same transport capability aircraft and on a same mission in term on range and payload ** ACARE 2020 and ACARE 2050 High Level Goals for a airframe, engine, systems and ATM/ Operations

36

3.3

K. Plötner

Technical Developments in Aviation

Besides these long-term research goals to reduce the environmental footprint at aircraft level, aircraft manufacturers are continuously updating their current product portfolio by completely new aircraft programmes and/or performance improvement packages for existing product lines. Over the last 10 to 15 years, a strong focus, and hence competition, was set on new long-haul aircraft programmes like Airbus A380, Boeing 747-8, Boeing 787, and Airbus A350, which entered the markets in 2005, 2011 and 2014, respectively. A block fuel reduction of the Boeing 787 compared to its predecessor – the Boeing 767 – of around 20 % was achieved [22]. For the Airbus A350, a 25 % block fuel reduction compared to the current Boeing 777 family is claimed [23]. Besides new aircraft programmes, both Airbus and Boeing will also improve their existing A330 and 777 programmes by more efficient wing designs and incorporating latest available engine technologies, resulting in the Airbus A330neo (new engine option) and Boeing 777-8/9 families, achieving block fuel reductions between 13 and 20 % (Fig. 3.2). For the short-haul markets, the availability of the Geared Turbofan engine technology, offering promising fuel burn reductions of around 15 % [24], led to several launches of new programmes like Bombardier C-Series or existing aircraft programmes like Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families being updated by the latest engine technology. However, despite these substantial efforts to develop new or upgraded aircraft programmes in order to increase fuel efficiency, it is obvious that the target of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards will not be met (Fig. 3.3). Today, more than 14,000 single-aisle aircraft are operating, and a growth to over 30,000 aircraft within the next 20 years is forecasted [25]. Even at current highest production rates of around 120 aircraft per month for Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 single-aisle aircraft families, the rate of market penetration of new and more efficient aircraft is not sufficient with respect to the ambitious emission reduction targets. In the long term, more radical technologies will be promoted like novel aircraft concepts [26] together with future engine configurations and architectures offering significant additional fuel burn reduction potentials. Future aircraft configurations target a higher aerodynamic efficiency like strut-braced wing or hybrid-wing-body or a stronger interaction between engine and airframe like the propulsive fuselage concept or blended-wing-body with distributed, semi-embedded engines. For further increase of engine efficiency, industry and research is working on new engine core concepts, including novel engine cycles. Also alternative energy carriers like electricity [27, 28], hydrogen [29], or liquid natural gas [30] are technologies with potential to reduce the environmental footprint, but typically it takes 20 years or more from conceptualisation of a new technology to operational maturity [31]. Especially for hybrid- to fully electric aircraft (Fig. 3.4) concepts with an inflight CO2 emission reduction potential of up to 100 %, the aviation industry envisages an entry into service in the year 2030 [32] for hybrid-electric regional aircraft. By contrast, larger aircraft using a substantial share of electric energy for propulsion represent long-term options and will probably not enter the market before 2050.

Fig. 3.2  Next-generation aircraft types and associated gains in fuel efficiency [33] (grey values: no official programme launch until mid-year 2016, values estimated)

3  Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation37

38

K. Plötner

Fig. 3.3 Global fleet-size and fuel-burn development scenarios for the lowest fuel efficiency improvement rates (BAD scenario), mean rates (BASIC scenario), and highest rates (BEST scenario) up to the year 2025, including the zero-improvement path, and the SRIA (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda) and ATAG targets [33]

Fig. 3.4  Conceptual design study of a full electric aircraft [27]

3  Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation39

3.4

Final Considerations

Today, available technology improvements are outpaced by the strong growth in aviation, while future novel and more radical technologies with large CO2 emission reduction potentials are still at very low technology readiness levels and hence far from industrial implementation. Even in the case of a rapid technology maturation, a fleet-wide penetration would require radical production ramp-ups and an aggressive industrialisation strategy for such novel technologies. To bridge the gap between the fleet-wide introduction of ultra-low emission aircraft technologies and the necessary substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions already today, renewable “drop-in” fuels, offering substantially smaller CO2 footprints compared to conventional jet fuel, are considered a promising way forward. Consequently, renewable aviation fuels represent a rapidly growing and diversifying field of research and development, bringing together stakeholders from academia, fuel production and fuel supply as well as the aviation industry.

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

ICAO data. Facts and figures. http://www.icao.int/sustainability/Pages/Facts-Figures_WorldEconomyData.aspx. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 Airbus (2012) Global market forecast 2012–2031: navigating the future. Airport Council International (ACI) (2009) Global traffic forecast 2008–2027 Boeing (2012) Current market outlook 2012–2031. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 DKMA (2013) Traffic forecast advisory services – 20 year outlook Embraer (2012) Market outlook 2012–2031. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2010) Aviation outlook – environmental report 2010. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/IO-ICAO-001.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2007) Outlook for air transport to the year 2025. http://www.icao.int/sustainability/Documents/C313_Outlook_En.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 Marketing group of Japan aircraft (2011) Worldwide market forecast for commercial air transport 2011–2030 Rolls Royce (2009) Market outlook 2009 – forecast 2009–2028 Teyssier N (ICAO) (2012) ACI airport statistics and forecasting workshop – aviation statistics & data: a vital tool for the decision making process. Presentation. Teyssier N (ICAO) (2012) 37th FAA aviation forecast conference – global air transport outlook. Presentation. HSBC Global Research (2012) The world in 2050 – from the top 30 to the top 100. https://www.hsbc.com.mx/1/PA_esf-ca-app-content/content/home/empresas/archivos/ world_2050.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 ICAO Environmental Report (2013) Aviation and climate change. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal IATA (2009) A global approach to reducing aviation emissions. First stop: carbon-neutral growth from 2020. International Air Transport Association, Montreal. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ environment/Documents/global-approach-reducing-emissions.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016

40

K. Plötner

[16] ATAG (2011) The right flightpath to reduce aviation emissions. Air Transport Action Group, Durban. http://www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/121.html. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [17] European Union, Flightpath 2050 – Europe’s vision for aviation. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/doc/flightpath2050.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [18] NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (2010) N+2 advanced vehicle concepts NASA Research Announcement (NRA). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa. gov/20140005559.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug [19] Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe (ACARE) (2001) European aeronautics: a vision for 2020 [20] Muller R (ASD AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe) (2010) “ACARE Goals (AGAPE) Progress Evaluation”, Project Final Report Publishable Summary, Support Action Funding Scheme, Proposal No. 205768, European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation, June [21] Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE) (2012) Realising Europe’s Vision for Aviation: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, Volume 1, September Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE) (2012) Realising Europe’s Vision for Aviation: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [22] Aviation Week, Operators Reporting Positive 787 Fuel-Burn Results.http://aviationweek. com/awin/operators-reporting-positive-787-fuel-burn-results. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [23] Airbus A350 XWB Family Website. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [24] MTU Aero Engines, Product Leaflet PW1000G. http://www.mtu.de/fileadmin/EN/7_News_ Media/2_Media/Brochures/Engines/PW1000G.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [25] Boeing, Boeing Current Market Outlook 2015–2034. http://www.boeing.com/resources/ boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-market/assets/downloads/Boeing_Current_Market_ Outlook_2015.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [26] IATA Technology Roadmap (2013) 4th edn, June. https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/Documents/technology-roadmap-2013.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [27] Hornung M, Isikveren AT, Cole M, Sizmann A (2013) Ce-Liner – case study for eMobility in air transportation. In: Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, August, Los Angeles [28] Ploetner KO, Miltner L, Jochem P, Batteiger V, Hornung M (2016) Environmental life-cycle assessment of universally-electric powered transport aircraft. Braunschweig [29] Airbus Deutschland GmbH, Cryoplane-Flugzeug mit Wasserstoffantrieb, Hamburg (2001) http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2016 [30] Withers MR, Malina R, Gilmore CK, Gibbs JM, Trigg C, Wolfe PJ, Trivedi P, Barrett SRH (2014) Economic and environmental assessment of liquefied natural gas as a supplemental aircraft fuel. Prog Aerosp Sci 66:17–36. ISSN 0376-0421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paerosci.2013.12.002 [31] Kaiser S, Seitz A, Donnerhack S, Lundbladh A (2016) Composite cycle engine concept with hectopressure ratio. J Propul Power 1–9. doi:10.2514/1.B35976 [32] Airbus Group, Press release, Airbus Group and Siemens Sign Long-Term Cooperation Agreement in the Field of Hybrid Electric Propulsion Systems , April 2016 Munich [33] Randt NP, Jessberger C, Ploetner KO (2015) Estimating the fuel saving potential of commercial aircraft in future fleet-development scenarios. In: AIAA Aviation 2015 Conference, Dallas

3  Key Drivers and Technical Developments in Aviation41

Dr. Kay Plötner  is Head of Economics and Transportation Team at Bauhaus Luftfahrt, an interdisciplinary think tank in Munich, Germany, dealing with the future of mobility in general and the development of air transport in particular. His current research focus on future drivers of aviation and in particular future aircraft requirements and aircraft operations. Dr. Kay Plötner graduated in Aeronautical Engineering and received his doctoral degree from the Technische Universität München.

Chapter 4

Potential of Fossil Kerosene Karsten Wilbrand

Abstract  Aviation continuous to be a fast growing mobility sector; from 2003 to 2013 there was an increase of passenger kilometers by 73 %. This development is fueled by kerosene which is the synonym for a range of aircraft fuels for military and civil applications. Against this background this article provides an overview on how kerosene from fossil fuel energy (i.e. crude oil) developed from a fuel for lamps and heaters to a modern, versatile and safe fuel for aviation. This includes an overview of the chemical structure and properties of kerosene and how it is produced. Additionally key specifications for aircraft use are provided. Kerosene can also be produced from alternative fossil sources, as from natural gas or coal. These alternative options are described in more detail. The paper closes with a sustainability outlook for fossil kerosene.

4.1 Introduction Kerosene is used as a synonym for jet aircraft fuels. Additionally in developing countries it is also widely used as a fuel for heating or lighting in industry and households; e.g. kerosene powers lamps and cooking stoves in rural areas of Asia and Africa where electric power is not available or too costly for widespread use. In some parts of Asia, where the price of kerosene is subsidized, it is also used to fuel outboard motors on small fishing boats [1]. Within this paper the focus is put on the use of kerosene as the common aviation fuel, i.e. a specific kerosene grade called Jet A-1. This is an amazing aircraft fuel that, unlike Diesel, does not freeze at temperatures down to −47 °C and that is much

K. Wilbrand (*) Shell Global Solutions, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_4

43

44

K. Wilbrand

less volatile and flammable than gasoline and hence much safer in use. These are some of the reasons why this fuel has become the most dominant fuel within the global civil aviation industry and thus is basically available globally.

4.2 History Historically, kerosene was extracted from fossil fuels such as coal, oil shale and wood. But today this fuel is predominantly extracted from crude oil. Its name is a contraction of the Greek “keros” (wax) and “elaion” (oil). The process of distilling crude oil/petroleum into kerosene, as well as other hydrocarbon compounds, has first been documented about in the nineth century by the Persian scholar Rhazes. In his Kitab al-Asrar (Book of Secrets), the physician and chemist Razi described two methods for the production of kerosene, termed naft abyad (“white naphtha”), using an apparatus called an alembic. One method used clay as an absorbent, whereas the other method used ammonium chloride (sal ammoniac). The distillation process was repeated until the final product was perfectly clear and safe to light; i.e. the volatile hydrocarbon fractions had been mostly removed from the original hydrocarbon mixture. Kerosene was also produced during the same period from oil shale and bitumen by heating the rock to extract the oil, which was then distilled [2]. Although “coal oil” was well known by industrial chemists at least as early as the 1700’s as a byproduct of making coal gas and coal tar. But it burned with a smoky flame that prevented its use for indoor illumination. Within the cities, much indoor illumination was provided by piped-in coal gas. But outside the cities, and for spot lighting within the cities, the lucrative market for fueling indoor lamps was supplied by whale oil, specifically that from sperm whales, which burned brighter and cleaner [3]. With the production of kerosene from crude oil, which started in the 1850’s, a much cleaner and safer fuel replaced coal and whale oil. Prior to the invention of electricity, kerosene became a widely used way of heating and lighting up the world. The first company being distributing it to both industry and homes was called ‘Kerosene Gaslight Company’ back in 1851. For a time, it became the fuel of choice for portable lighting, indoor lighting, headlamps, and signaling devices for trains and ships as well as for driving lamps for early automobiles, street lamps and lighthouses. Farmers working outside were able to extend their hours, increasing their yield. Kerosene stoves and heaters became ubiquitous in rural kitchens. When a kerosene lamp was accidentally tipped over onto a soiled tablecloth in France, the oil's cleaning properties were discovered and the dry cleaning industry was born [4].Kerosene was the most important refinery product until gasoline grew in popularity and availability in the 1920’s due to the global rise of the automobile.

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene45

Today, kerosene is mainly used as a fuel for jet engines in several different grades. However in developing countries, such as Nigeria, an estimated 90 % of homes still depend on kerosene for cooking, indoor lighting and heating.

4.3

Kerosene as Aircraft Fuel

Illuminating kerosene, produced for wick lamps, was used to fuel the first turbine engines. Since the engines were thought to be relatively insensitive to fuel properties, kerosene was chosen mainly because of availability; the war effort required every drop of gasoline. After World War II, the US Air Force started using “widecut” fuel, which, essentially, is a hydrocarbon mixture spanning the gasoline and kerosene boiling ranges. Again, the choice was driven by considerations of availability: It was assumed that a wide-cut fuel would be available in larger volumes than either gasoline or kerosene alone, especially in times of war. However, compared to a kerosene-type fuel, wide-cut jet fuel was found to have operational disadvantages due to its higher volatility: • greater losses due to evaporation at high altitudes, • greater risk of fire during handling on the ground, • crashes of planes fueled with wide-cut fuel were less survivable. So the Air Force started to change back to kerosene-type fuels in the 1970’s and has essentially completed the process of converting from wide-cut (JP-4) to kerosene-type (JP-8) system-wide. The US Navy has used a high flashpoint kerosene-type fuel (JP-5) on aircraft carriers because of safety considerations since the early 1950’s. When the commercial jet industry was developing in the 1950’s, kerosene-type fuel was chosen as having the best combinations of properties. Wide-cut jet fuel (Jet B) is still used in some parts of Canada and Alaska because it is suited to cold climates. But kerosene-type fuels – Jet A and Jet A-1 – predominate in the rest of the world [5].

4.4

Demand Development

The aviation sector only contributes to approx. 10 % of the global fuel demand for transportation. This energy demand within the mobility sector is dominated by road transport with ca. 70 %. But aviation represents a continuously growing sector with an extraordinary growth rate. Alone within the time frame from 2003 to 2013 passenger kilometers from civil aviation have been increased by 73 % (Fig. 4.1). And this development has only been influenced by the financial crisis in 2008/2009 for a very short time period.

46

K. Wilbrand

Fig. 4.1  World annual traffic (RPK-Revenue Passenger Kilometers [6])

Fig. 4.2  Kerosene consumption forecasts (Airbus/EADS 2015 [6])

The growth rate of air transport is estimated to be 4.2 %/a in OECD countries and at least 6.0 %/a in the emerging regions of the world. This very prosperous development is driven by the over-proportional growing middle class especially within important emerging nations like China, India and Brazil, a strong GDP growth especially in non-OECD countries and the growing number of mega-cities [6]. The kerosene demand has been growing from 1990 to 2010 at an average rate of ca. 2.2 %/a (Fig. 4.2). The forecast towards 2030 shows that kerosene growth rate is expected to remain at a similar or even slightly higher trajectory, despite aircrafts ever getting more efficient. This outlook is justified by the expected strong growth rates of civil air transportation outlined above on one side and the

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene47

partly already exploited energy efficiency potentials of modern air planes on the other side.

4.5

Kerosene Properties and Specifications

This chapter provides an overview on the general chemical properties of kerosene as well as a detailed overview on specifications for civil and military related kerosene applications. Furthermore the relevance of additives in kerosene for aviation is discussed.

4.5.1 Chemical Structure and General Properties Chemically kerosene is a mix of alkanes (saturated hydrocarbons) with a molecular chain length of 10 to 18 carbons and of aromatics (Fig. 4.3). Jet fuels have a typical boiling range of 150 to 270 °C. This range is somewhere between the boiling ranges of the gasoline and diesel used in road vehicles. Kerosene typically accounts for around 10 to 15 % of total refinery production. In concrete terms this might sum up to roughly 3,000 t/d for a typical refinery within a medium to large scale. However, actual yields are largely dictated by the quality and composition of the respective feedstock (i.e. type of crude oil) used within a specific refinery, and the demand for other fuels in that market [7].

Fig. 4.3  Chain length and boiling temperature of typical hydrocarbon products (Crude oil characteristics and refinery products [9]

48

K. Wilbrand

4.5.2 Fuel Specification for Civil Aviation Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop driven aircraft. This fuel may not be mixed up with avgas (aviation gasoline, for small piston engine powered aircraft). The dominant aviation turbine fuels (jet fuels) are described in more detail below [8]. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation: Jet A-1 and Jet A. Both turbine fuels are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene). Jet A-1.  Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel suitable for most turbine driven aircraft. It is widely available outside the US. It is produced according to a stringent internationally agreed standard. Jet A-1 has a flash point above 38 °C (100 F) and a freeze point maximum of −47 °C. Additionally, Jet A-1 meets the requirements of the British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1) (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosene Type), as well as the NATO Code F-35. The most relevant Jet A-1 product properties are shown in more detail in Table 4.1. The Jet A-1 specification contains many more parameters, several of which are specific to jet fuel (e.g. thermal oxidative stability). Regarding fuel additives, only those specifically approved by the aircraft and engine manufacturers are permitted (see chapter on Additives). For full details refer to the specifications below: • • • •

Aviation Fuel Quality Requirements for Jointly Operated Systems (AFQRJOS). Joint Fuelling System Check List. ASTM D 1655 (Grade Jet A-1). DEF STAN 91-91.

Jet A.  Jet A is a similar kerosene type of fuel. But it is normally only available in the US. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (−40 °C). It is supplied according to the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

Table 4.1  Properties for Jet A-1 fuels

Property Density at 15°C

Unit

Max Value

[kg/m³]

775–840

Flash point

[°C]

max. 38

Freezing point

[°C]

− 47

[°C]

300

Aromatics content

Distillation end point

[vol.-%]

25.0

Sulphur content

[mass-%]

0.30

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene49

Jet B.  Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1. But it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability). This fuel type is rarely used except in very cold climates. Thus there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. For example, in Canada it is supplied according to the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23.

4.5.3 Fuel Specification for Military Aviation Jet fuel is also used widely by the air force. Thus there are additionally several specifications especially dedicated for military purpose. This is discussed below. JP-4.  JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the US Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-4 (as of January 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454), where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor; the NATO Code is F-40. JP-5.  JP-5 is a high flash point kerosene meeting the requirements of the US Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-5 (as of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452); the NATO Code is F-44. JP-8.  JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the US Military Specification MIL-DTL-83133E. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453); the NATO Code is F-34.

4.6

Production from Crude Oil

Crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and hetero-compounds. It contains dissolved gases as well as non-volatiles and the carbon length of molecules ranges from C1 (methane) to C90+. While the composition is surprisingly uniform, from an elementary standpoint the molecular structures are wide-ranging from linear to branched to cyclic, from saturated to unsaturated. In refineries the different molecules are separated and processed into groups of products with more similar properties. At refineries (Fig. 4.4), a complex combination of processes takes place, converting the raw crude oil materials into high value products. The most fundamental

50

K. Wilbrand

Fig. 4.4  General refinery scheme for kerosene production

refining process is distillation which separates the raw materials into various streams defined by their boiling points. In terms of the “classical” crude oil refinery, the first distillation which fractionates the crude oil in different cuts according to their boiling point is often referred to as atmospheric distillation. The different cuts are then processed further into the final product fractions via different distillation and upgrading processes. The gaseous components can be used as liquid petroleum gas (LPG) after gas treating. The middle distillates can undergo an additional gasoline reformulation before all cuts undergo desulphurization (in most cases hydrofining processes) and can then be used as liquid fuels, e.g. naphtha, gasoline, kerosene, diesel or heating oil. The atmospheric residues are usually further fractionated via vacuum distillation. The retrieved vacuum gas oil undergoes further processing via fluid catalytic cracking, which again yields different product fractions, e.g. middle distillates or heavier products. The vacuum residues are then fractionated into different product groups like fuel oils, marine bunkers oil or base oil products for lubes. The heaviest residual fractions are making bitumen product. Aviation turbine fuels have been manufactured predominantly from straightrun (non-cracked) kerosene obtained by an atmospheric distillation of crude oil. Straight-run kerosene from some sweet crude oils meet all requirements defined within the various specifications without further processing. Primary distillation gives 8 to 10 % yield from crude oil. In recent years, however, hydrocracking processes have been introduced to increase the yield of high value kerosene e.g. from heavier (lower value) vacuum distillates (Fig. 4.4).

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene51

The majority of the globally available crude oils show certain trace constituents which have to be removed before the product meets aviation fuel specifications. Hence the distillate streams are then further processed to remove any unwanted components, such as acids, sulphur and metals, before they are selectively blended to yield the desired products. Such a treatment is typically done by contacting the components to be removed with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst (hydro-treating or hydro-fining) or by a wet chemical process; one example for such a process is a Merox treating used to remove mercaptan (organosulfur compound). Finally additives are injected into many jet fuel products to improve fuel performance and stability in order to meet the requirements of the different specifications. Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications. A few additives in common use are as follows: 1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930’s. 2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels. 3. Static dissipater additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipater additives do not reduce the need for “bonding” to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fueling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes. 4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels. 5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel. 6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation. 7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties. 8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100 to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

52

4.7

K. Wilbrand

Production from Alternative Fossil Sources

So far kerosene is mostly produced from crude oil. But there are alternative fossil options to produce kerosene, i.e. from natural gas and from coal.

4.7.1 Kerosene from Natural Gas Natural gas is an abundant and relatively clean source of fossil energy. Current estimated availability of the global conventional and unconventional gas resources is estimated to be sufficient for the next 230 years at today’s rate of consumption.1 There are several processes that are able to produce liquid hydrocarbons from natural gas. One of the most relevant ones is the so-called Fischer-Tropsch-Syntheses. This process was developed first in 1923 by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Kohlenforschung in Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany. Until now the process has been optimized and improved to produce high quality hydrocarbons, including kerosene. The process is also known as Gas to Liquid (GtL) process. The process to generate kerosene from natural gas is shown in Fig. 4.5 and the process is described in more detail based on the Shell process. It needs to be mentioned that also other companies produce GtL kerosene (e.g. Sasol). The main process steps can be summarized by the process steps outlined below. (a) Gasification. The Shell Gasification Process (SGP) was first developed in the 1950’s, primarily with the objective of gasifying heavy residues. During the process, methane is partially oxidized to produce synthesis gas (or syngas), a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The oxygen for the gasification process is produced within an Air Separation Unit (ASU). The chemical reaction producing syngas can be written according to Eq. (4.1).

CH 4 + ½ O2 → CO + 2H 2 (4.1)

The pro+12cess is operated at 1,300 to 1,500 °C and pressures of up to 70 bar. The H2/CO ratio of the SGP gas requires little adjustment to yield the Shell GtL product slate, giving high overall process efficiency. (b) Synthesis. At the heart of the GtL process is the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, in which hydrocarbon molecules are “grown” with the aid of a catalyst. The syngas passes through a Heavy Paraffin Synthesis (HPS) reactor, in which it is contacted with a proprietary Fischer-Tropsch catalyst at an elevated temperature and pressure level. The product of the Heavy Paraffin Synthesis

1

Shell calculations based on IEA Energy Outlook 2013.

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene53

Fig. 4.5  Gas-to-liquids process (Shell)

process is a waxy mixture containing significant quantities of long-chain normal alkanes (linear paraffins, C1 to C100+), which are solid at room temperature, and at present, unsuitable to be used as a transportation fuel. The general ­Fischer-Tropsch reaction can be characterized according to Eq. (4.2).

(2n + 1) H 2 + nCO → Cn H( 2 n +2 ) + nH 2 O

(4.2)

The Fischer-Tropsch reaction can be carried out under a variety of conditions depending on the feedstock and the desired product slate. For example, Shell uses a low temperature Fischer-Tropsch process at Pearl and Bintulu, which is performed at 210 to 260 °C and employs a cobalt catalyst. The conditions and catalyst used in this process maximizes the yield of highly paraffinic middle distillates, which are suitable to be used as a liquid transportation fuel. The Fischer-Tropsch process produces water as the only by-product. (c) Hydrocracking/conversion to products. The Heavy Paraffin Conversion (HPC) reactor is used to fine-tune the properties of the GtL products. The bulk of the Heavy Paraffin Synthesis product is fed to HPC reactor, in which it is contacted with hydrogen in the presence of another catalyst. Here the waxy part of the Heavy Paraffin Synthesis product is selectively hydrocracked to the desired middle distillate products, including kerosene. Simultaneously the product is hydroisomerized to increase branching. Due to this measure the cold flow properties of the respective fuel are improved. Any unsaturated molecules formed in the cracking processes are hydrogenated to paraffins.

54

K. Wilbrand

The Heavy Paraffin Conversion product is subsequently separated in a conventional fractional distillation column where it is separated into a number of end-product fractions, including the GtL kerosene fraction, which is approved to be blended at up to 50 % into Jet A-1. Synthetic jet fuels show a reduction in pollutants such as SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and hydrocarbon emissions [10]. Qatar Airways became the first airline to operate a commercial flight on a 50:50 blend of synthetic Gas to Liquid jet fuel and conventional jet fuel. The natural gas derived synthetic kerosene for the 6 h flight from London to Doha came from Shell’s GtL plant in Bintulu, Malaysia [11]. The world’s first passenger aircraft flight to use only synthetic jet fuel was from Lanseria International Airport to Cape Town International Airport on September 22, 2010. The fuel was developed by Sasol [12].

4.7.2 Kersosene from Coal As from natural gas, synthetic kerosene can also be derived from coal. The process is similar as for GtL. The first step in converting coal to liquid fuels is gasification. Gasification is a process that converts materials containing carbon into carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). Many materials are gasified for this purpose, including petroleum, petroleum coke, biomass and of course, coal. Coal is fed into a vessel called gasifier (e.g. Lurgi moving bed reactor or Winkler fluidized bed reactor). Within the gasifier, controlled amounts of heat, pressure and oxygen are added to break up the molecular structure of the coal. The gasifier only allows a portion of the coal to burn, resulting in the partial oxidation of the coal. This reaction primarily produces carbon monoxide. To adjust the hydrogen content within the product gas for the subsequent Fischer-Tropsch synthesis typically a water gas shift reaction is performed within a separate reactor where water vapor is reduced to hydrogen under oxidizing carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. The result is a hydrogen rich synthesis gas with a carbon to hydrogen ratio adequate for the synthesis of long chain hydrocarbons [13]. This synthesis gas, or syngas, is then fed into a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reactor. The high temperature Fischer-Tropsch (HTFT) process is used extensively in Coal-to-Liquids (CtL) processes. This chemical conversion is carried out at temperatures between 310 and 340 °C under presence over an iron catalyst. The high temperature Fischer-Tropsch process yields light products rich in olefins and aromatics, which are more suited to gasoline and chemical feedstock production. The resulting Coal to Liquid (CtL) products have similar physical and chemical properties compared to the products provided by a GtL process. But its CO2 balance is significantly worse than that of GtL. However, some countries with a high local availability of coal and a high demand of liquid fuels make use or consider use of this process, e.g. in China [14] or the US.

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene55

4.8

Final Considerations

In 2012, the aviation sector produced 689 million t of CO2 or around 2 % of the total global energy related emissions (Fig. 4.5) [15]. As mentioned above the demand for air travel is increasing with an annual rate of 4 to 5 %; i.e. some sources expect that air traffic will double over the next two decades. At the same time there is a strong push to reduce CO2 emissions from all energy sectors, including aviation. Better aircraft designs as well as improved engines will deliver some CO2 reduction, but the IATA/ICAO goals are too ambitious to be achieved only based on such measures. There is a CO2 gap to meet IATA targets that require: additional next-gen technologies, economic measures and low carbon fuels (Fig. 4.6). At the 37th International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly in October 2010, governments resolved to achieve collective global aspirational goals for the international aviation sector: to improve fuel efficiency by 2 %/a and keeping net CO2 emissions from 2020 at the same levels. These aspirational goals were reaffirmed by the 38th ICAO Assembly in 2013. Governments also agreed to work further to explore the feasibility of a long-term global goal for international aviation [16]. The aviation industry, represented through the cross-sector Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), set itself ambitious short-, medium- and long-term goals as early as 2008. These goals, agreed by airports, airlines, air navigation service providers and the manufacturers of aircraft and engines, include (Fig 4.7): a. Improving fleet fuel efficiency by 1.5 %/a until 2020. b. Stabilizing net emissions from 2020 through carbon-neutral growth, subject to concerted industry and government initiatives. c. Reducing net aviation carbon emissions by 50 % by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. These goals were reaffirmed ahead of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20), and are the common goals of ATAG’s members and industry partners. The industry can report that it is already meeting the first goal and that good progress is being made on the other two goals, in collaboration with ICAO [17].

Fig. 4.6  Energy related CO2 emissions [15]

56

K. Wilbrand

Fig. 4.7  Development of CO2 emissions depending on technologies and legislation [15]

As underlined by the recent COP21 in Paris, there is a broad agreement, that global CO2 emissions must be capped drastically in the years to come. This will have a significant impact as well on the aviation sector and hence as well on the use of kerosene. There are currently only a few options to achieve at least virtually zero CO2 emissions from aviation: • Renewable electric flights as recently demonstrated by the around the world flight of the “Solarimpulse”. • Use of renewable hydrogen as fuel for aircraft engines. • Biofuels. • Synthetic liquid fuels, also known as PtL: power-to-liquids. All those options have their huge challenges, i.e. cost and system weight. Current fossil kerosene with its excellent properties and relatively low cost will make it very difficult for any alternative to be successful from an economic point of view, at least over the next few decades. Both, legislation and technology developments may be key drivers to speed up alternatives to fossil kerosene in the aviation sector.

References [1] [2]

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/ad967e/ad967e00.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2016. Bilkadi Z (1995) The oil weapons. Aramco World 46(1):20–27 http://archive.aramcoworld. com/issue/199501/the.oil.weapons.htm. Accessed 29 March 2016.

4  Potential of Fossil Kerosene57 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Pees ST, Whale oil versus the others. Petroleum History Institute. Accessed 17 November 2014 http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Whale/whale.html Cline B (2007) The History of Kerosene, History Magazine 2007. Chevron, Aviation Fuels Technical Review 2017. http://www.airbus.com/company/market/global-market-forecast-2016-2035/ How Jet Fuel is Produced. BP. Accessed 26 march 2016 http://www.bp.com/en/global/ bp-air/aviation-fuel/jet-kerosene/how-jet-fuel-is-produced.html Shell Aviation Biofuels Handbook. Shell. http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html. Accessed 29 March 2016 U. Venkata Ramana, DGM (Technical) Refinery HQ, IOCL, New Delhi; Industry – Academia Workshop On “Refining & Petrochemicals”, 25–28 Aug 2010) Fuel Property, Emission Test, and Operability Results from a Fleet of Class 6 Vehicles Operating on Gas-To-Liquid Fuel and Catalyzed Diesel Particle Filters Yosemite Waters-Vehicle Evaluation Report – National Renewable Energy Lab. Qatar Airways Becomes First to Operate Commercial Flight on GTL Jet Fuel Blend. Green Car Congress. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/10/qatar-gtl-20091012.html. Accessed 29 March 2016 Sasol takes to the skies with the world’s first fully synthetic jet fuel. Sasol. http://www. sasol.com/it/media-centre/media-releases/sasol-takes-skies-world-s-first-fully-syntheticjet-fuel. Accessed 29 march 2016 http://www.caer.uky.edu/catalysis/coal-to-liquids.shtml China Shenhua coal-to-liquids project profitable. Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/article/ shenhua-oil-coal-idUKL3E7K732020110908. Accessed 29 March 2016 https://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Documents/atag-paper-on-cng2020-july2013.pdf http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/Resolutions/a38_res_prov_en.pdf http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/TRANSPORTAviation-Action-plan.pdf

Dr.-Ing. Karsten Wilbrand  works with Shell since 2003 and assumed various technical and managerial roles. Since 2013 he is in a global role looking after the future development of alternative fuels and drivetrain technologies. He holds a master degree in mechanical engineering from Technical University RWTH Aachen and did his PhD at Hamburg University of Technology.

Chapter 5

Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation Marian Paschke and Carina Lutter

Abstract  Alternative fuels politics and policies take place in a legal framework of global aviation which can be described as a continuous conflict between government regulation and the principle of free market under the influence of several entities and organizations acting on international, supranational and national level. Naming their goals, tasks and responsibilities the article focusses on the legal regime for fuel used for civil aviation, especially concerning its taxation, the emission control and alternative fuels. That regime amplifies the freedom of fuel used for aviation from any duty or tax as determined in the international Chicago Convention, the regulation on taxation of aviation fuels as provided in the Council Directive 2003/96/EC on EU level and the EU ETS which applies to civil aviation. The article reflects the legal framework of alternative fuels and offers an outlook on expected changes with regard to aircraft emissions, considering international developments and those in the EU.

5.1

Introduction – Establishing a Regulatory Framework

The legal framework of the economic sector finds itself in a constant conflict between governmental regulations on the one hand and market freedom on the other. Looked at from a historical perspective, a growing market liberalization can

M. Paschke (*) · C. Lutter University of Hamburg, Faculty of Law, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] C. Lutter e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_5

59

60

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

be noted.1 Trade restrictions are reduced, e.g. by opening of markets to other countries, the privatization of state owned companies, the reduction of customs and state monopolies and so forth. Many states have implemented the freedom of the aviation industry by not interfering with air fares, the division of routes or with the question of who can found or run an aviation company. The aviation policy is designed to thereby create conditions in which the mechanism of supply and demand would result in better solutions than government regulations could ever generate. In doing so, the overall economic efficiency and effectiveness of a sector is aimed to be improved and supported. However, a total deregulation of all areas is – in respect of aviation – neither feasible nor reasonable; particularly in the areas of safety and security as well as environmental conservation and climate protection, a regulation is indeed necessary. Such a regulation applies to aspects that cannot be regulated by a free market but still need to be controlled effectively. Due to the complexity regarding the technical, economic and political dimensions of aviation, a total lack of government regulations seems inconceivable. In addition to that, internationally standardized regulations are indispensable when it comes to the safe and effective transnational air traffic.

5.2

The Conception of Aviation Law

First approaches to liberalize aviation date back to 1944 when the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was founded by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The founding conference was initiated by the United States of America to prevent its member states from sealing themselves off from transnational air traffic after World War II.2 It was and still is the ICAO’s ultimate ambition to support the development of civil aviation in every sense as well as to ensure its safe and organized growth. It is aimed to meet the demand for safe, regular, efficient and economic air traffic and to make sure every contracting state can operate internationally active aviation companies. At first, this regulation mostly applied to so-called “flag-state-carriers”, referring to carriers owned by and linked to a specific state. Often, these carriers included their respective state names as part of their company name and brand. Today, this can still be recognized by names such as “Deutsche Lufthansa”, “British Airways”, “Air France”, “Air Malta” or “Air China”. Market access was strongly regulated by the respective governments and landing permissions were only issued in exchange with each other. Regulations regarding overflights or stopovers were handled similarly, which allowed the governments to protect their own national airlines from market competitors.3 At that time, market entry of private carriers was unthinkable.

Using the example of the European aviation industry. See Refs. [1, p. 132, 2, p. 203]. See Ref. [3, p. 308]. 3 See Ref. [4, p. 28]. 1 2

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation61

The “Freedoms of the air”4 can serve as a good indicator to identify the degree of liberalization in aviation. It differentiates between nine levels of liberalization. • The 1st level of freedom refers to overflights, allowing carriers to fly over country A to land in country B. • The 2nd level of freedom is called technical stopover, meaning the right to stopover for non-commercial reasons (e.g. for refueling). • The 3rd level of freedom enables the carrier with the right to transport passengers or cargo from its country of origin to another country. • The opposite way, the direct transportation of passengers or cargo from a foreign country back to the country of origin, represents the 4th level of freedom. • The 5th level of freedom adds the right to transport passengers or cargo between foreign countries, for example when the carrier transports passengers to country A and from there on transports passengers to country B or the other way around. • Freedom level 6 likewise allows the transportation between foreign countries, however also includes stopovers in the country of origin. • The 7th level of freedom applies to passages between foreign countries without any landing or take-off in the country of origin. • The successive cabotage is part of the 8th level of freedom, meaning the right to transport passengers or cargo within a foreign country if the flight has started or will end in the country of origin. • Finally, the 9th level of freedom includes the independent cabotage, allowing the carrier to transport passengers or cargo within foreign countries without any connection to a second one. The American liberalization in the late 1970s finally induced the significant impulse for a global liberalization of civil aviation.5 At that time, the American aviation industry was strongly regulated by the government. New carriers needed several licenses to be granted market access, existing carriers were obliged to present certain permissions when applying for new routes and the pricing was strongly regulated as well as subject to special regulations.6 The Airline Deregulation Act of 24 October 1978 led to a gradual change in aviation. Basically, it facilitated market access for emerging carriers, reduced the requirements for further routes and eliminated fixed fares.7 This act was followed by liberalization programs in several OECD countries (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). In the early 1980s the liberalization of the European civil aviation gradually started.8 The Council Directive 89/463/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending Directive 83/416/EEC concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services For a detailed description see Refs. [3, p. 310–314, 5, p. 14–16]. See Ref. [6, p. 20]. 6 See Ref. [7, p. 78]. 7 See Ref. [7, p. 78]. 8 See Ref. [5, p. 17]. 4 5

62

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States marked the beginning of that development.9 It established standardized admission procedures for the international scheduled air services between smaller airports and the contracting EU Member States. It was followed by three liberalization packages, based on the Commission’s so-called “open-sky-policy”.10 • The first liberalization package of 1987 mainly consisted of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 of 14 December 1987 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector,11 the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector,12 the Council Directive 87/601/EEC of 14 December 1987 on fares for scheduled air services between Member States13 and the Council Decision 87/602/EEC of 14 December 1987 on the sharing of passenger capacity between air carriers on scheduled air services between EU Member States and on access for air carriers to scheduled air-service routes between EU Member States.14 By implementing these regulations, the European competition laws could also be applied to the European civil aviation industry. Cartelization or any other arrangements contrary to these regulations should hence be avoided effectively. The Council Directive 87/601/EEC promoted the competition regarding pricing procedures by eliminating the process of the heretofore obligatory admission of fares by the respective EU Member State. From then on, admission was automatically considered given if the fares ranged within a certain defined price range.15 The Council Decision 87/602/EEC related to the access to specific routes and could therefore enhance the opening of the market. • The second liberalization package followed in 1990. The Council Regulation (EEC) No 2343/90 of 24 July 1990 on access for air carriers to scheduled intra-community air service routes and on the sharing of passenger capacity between air carriers on scheduled air services between EU Member States16 affected the market access and replaced most of the existing regulations in that area. Since then, inter-regional and international air traffic base on the same regulations. Furthermore, the 3rd and 4th level of freedom could be established completely on nearly every European route. Moreover, certain facilitations concerning the 5th level of freedom could be introduced by increasing the number

Official Journal L 226, 03/08/1989 p. 0014–0015. See Refs. [6, p. 21, 8, p. 33]. 11 Official Journal L 374, 31/12/1987 p. 009–11. 12 Official Journal L 374, 31/12/1987 p. 0001–0008. 13 Official Journal L 374, 31/12/1987 p. 0012–0018. 14 Official Journal L 374, 31/12/1987 p. 0019–0026. 15 See Ref. [6, p. 22]. 16 Official Journal L 217, 11/08/1990 p. 0008–0014. 9

10

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation63

of passengers that could be transported in accordance with that freedom.17 The Council Regulation (EEC) No 2342/90 of 24 July 1990 on fares for scheduled air services18 standardized the carrier’s right to refer to the contents of that regulation and organized the defined price range in a more flexible manner. Also, the validity of the Commission’s block exemption regulations was extended to 31 December 1992 by the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2344/90 of 24 July 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 on the application of Article 85(3) of the treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector.19 • The third liberalization package of 1992 consisted of five regulations and concerned the implementation of the European Single Market. The Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers20 established consistent and standardized conditions for the issuing of operating licenses. It applies to carriers based in the European Community and also includes regulations regarding the transport of cargo. The Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes21 binds the EU Member States to grant European carriers all 9 levels of freedom of the air. Due to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services22 the contracting parties could agree independently on pricing procedures for scheduled air services as well as chartered flights. In addition to that, the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2410/92 of 23 July 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector23 extended the application of the antitrust norms to the domestic aviation and the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2411/92 of 23 July 1992 amending regulation (EEC) No 3976/87 on the application of Article 85(3) of the treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector24 adjusted regulations concerning the block exemption regulations. These three packages of liberalization were then followed by a legislative package in 2004 regulating the aviation management. It aimed to create a unified European air space. The package is formed of the Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (Framework Regulation)25 as well as three technical

See Refs. [6, p. 23, 9, p. 12]. Official Journal L 217, 11/08/1990 p. 0001–0007. 19 Official Journal L 217, 11/08/1990 p. 0015–0016. 20 Official Journal L 240, 24/08/1992 p. 001–007. 21 Official Journal L 240, 24/08/1992 p. 0008–0014. 22 Official Journal L 240, 24/08/1992 p. 0015–0017. 23 Official Journal L 240, 24/08/1992 p. 0018–0018. 24 Official Journal L 240, 24/08/1992 p. 0019–0020. 25 Official Journal L 96, 31/3/2004 p. 001–009. 17 18

64

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

regulations and mainly focusses on the improvement of the safety and security of aviation and the reorganization of the airspace with special regard to its adaptation to industry demands. Aside from the American and the European measures to liberalize civil aviation, there are several bilateral agreements on that topic. The Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the United Kingdom relating to air services between their respective territories signed at Bermuda on 11 February 1946 was one of the first and can be considered as a standard agreement of that kind.26 Another agreement to be mentioned is the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany of 7 July 1955. The United States of America, in particular, have completed several other bilateral agreements, which helped to promote the global liberalization of civil aviation. In the early/mid-1970s, the first oil price crisis and worldwide recession led to a compartmentalization of the markets. The Bermuda Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America was – urged by the United Kingdom – replaced by the more restrictive Agreement Concerning Air Services between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America signed at Bermuda on 23 July 1977 (Bermuda II Agreement). In contrast to that, Germany stuck to the opening of the markets and followed its course with the Washington Protocol of 1 November 1978. Since 1992, a major wave of liberalization could be noted. The United States of America concluded “open sky agreements” with several EC and EEA-states, which resulted in the almost complete liberalization of the aviation from state restrictions.

5.3

Tasks and Responsibilities of Public and Private Institutions

When looking at the responsibilities in global aviation, public and private institutions have to be differentiated. • Public organizations fulfill legislative as well as executive tasks that require state authority. It is for that reason that public organizations involved in aviation are mainly national operators. On an international level, however, certain coordination processes take place to vote on binding national regulations to achieve certain unified standards. This is a basic requirement for a safe and effective global air transport. • Private organizations, on the other hand, are mainly composed of stakeholders who – depending on their organizational focus – can have any background somehow connected to the aviation industry. On an international level, the

26

See Ref. [10, p. 40].

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation65

International Air Transport Association (IATA) is one example. On the European level the Association of European Airlines (AEA) or the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) can be named and on a national level, the Bundesverband der Deutschen Luftverkehrswirtschaft (BDL) (Federal Association of German Air Traffic) is one organization to be mentioned. Below selected organizations are discussed in more detail.

5.3.1 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based in Montreal, Canada, is the leading organization on the international level.27 It was founded by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) on 7 December 1944 according to international law. On 13 May 1947 the ICAO received its status as a United Nations Specialized Agency.28 United Nations Specialized Agencies are legally, organizationally and financially independent organizations that are linked to the United Nations by international law in terms of Article 63 of the UN-Charta. The cooperation with the United Nations as well as between the different United Nations Specialized Agencies is coordinated by the Economic and Social Council. Currently, the ICAO can register 191 member states.29 The Federal Republic of Germany joined the ICAO on 8 June 1956.30 The overall goals of the ICAO are based on the principles agreed on by its member states in the Chicago Convention to ensure an organized and safe development of the international civil aviation and to create conditions in which international carriers can be operated economically by equal and standardized means.31 Moreover, the ICAO aims to develop general principles on and technical knowledge for global aviation as well as to promote its further planning and development.32 By these measures, a safe and organized global growth of global civil aviation shall be granted. The ICAO also supports the building and operation of aircrafts for peaceful purposes and promotes the development of air routes, airports and other aviation facilities. The ICAO intends to fulfill the civil need for a safe, regular, effective and economic aviation and moreover, to prevent the economic waste of resources. In addition to that, it is the ICAO’s task to ensure the complete abidance

See Ref. [8, p. 28]. See Refs. [10, p. 7, 5, p. 43]. 29 Last updated on 7 January 2015. For a detailed list of member states: http://www.icao.int/ about-icao/Pages/member-states.aspx. 30 BGBl 1956 II p. 411. 31 See Ref. [3, p. 308]. 32 See Ref. [5, p. 29]. 27 28

66

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

of its member’s rights and to make sure every member gets an adequate possibility to operate international aviation companies. The avoidance of unequal treatments, the safety of the air traffic as well as the development of the international civil aviation are further goals that shall be supported by all means. These goals are mainly accomplished by the 18 original annexes of the ICAO Convention that contain the following regulations: • Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, which means licensing of flight crews, air traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance personnel, including Chapter 6 containing medical standards; • Annex 2 – Rules of the Air; • Annex 3 – Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation (Vol I – Core SARPs, Vol II – Appendices and Attachments); • Annex 4 – Aeronautical Charts; • Annex 5 – Units of Measurement to be used in Air and Ground Operations; • Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft (Part I – International Commercial Air Transport  – Aeroplanes, Part II – International General Aviation – Aeroplanes, Part III – International Operations – Helicopters); • Annex 7 – Aircraft Nationality and Registration Marks; • Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft; • Annex 9 – Facilitation; • Annex 10 – Aeronautical Telecommunications (Vol I – Radio Navigation Aids, Vol II – Communication Procedures including those with PANS status, Vol III – Communication Systems (Part I – Digital Data Communication Systems, Part II – Voice Communication Systems), Vol IV – Surveillance Radar and Collision Avoidance Systems, Vol V – Aeronautical Radio Frequency Spectrum Utilization); • Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services – Air Traffic Control Service, Flight Information Service and Alerting Service; • Annex 12 – Search and Rescue; • Annex 13 – Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation; • Annex 14 – Aerodromes (Vol I – Aerodrome Design and Operations, Vol II – Heliports); • Annex 15 – Aeronautical Information Services; • Annex 16 – Environmental Protection (Vol I – Aircraft Noise, Vol II – Aircraft Engine Emissions); • Annex 17 – Security: Safeguarding International Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference; • Annex 18 – The Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. On 25 February 2013, the ICAO Council also introduced a new Annex 19 that summarizes all requirements in the area of safety management, which heretofore have been regulated by several single documents. It is applicable since 14 November 2013.

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation67

However, the ICAO, as an international organization, is not given sovereign authority.33 Hence, it cannot issue binding legal regulations for its members.34 That is why the annexes only present “standards” and “recommended practices” for member states that can serve as an orientation for creating their own binding national legal regulations.35 But most members have implemented these annexes in their national law to a great extent, so that there are mainly standardized regulations regarding the contents of the annexes. The member states are only obligated to notification if their national regulations deviate from the ICAO standards. The ICAO does not only create standards and recommendations. It also takes patronage for other international aviation agreements and fulfills tasks regarding the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) of 11 December 1997. It was hoped to profit from the ICAO’s expertise and influence to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation in the international climate policy. The ICAO serves as a platform and panel for its member states to work together in finding effective solutions.

5.3.2 European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is an independent, regional sub-organization of the ICAO.36 It was founded in 1955 by a conference of the EU Member States and currently consists of 44 members.37 The general control of the European aviation development was defined as the ECAC’s predominant goal at the founding conference.38 In particular, the ECAC is responsible for the promotion of cooperation, the most effective use of resources and chances and the organized development of the aviation industry as well as for the discussion on possible problems in these areas.39 To do so, the ECAC enacts its own programs and independently organizes conferences and meetings. It closely cooperates with the ICAO and is also allowed to work with its executive authority, namely the administrative office. However, the ECAC’s decisions are also not binding for its members. The ECAC rather operates as a consultancy by working

See Ref. [11, p. 60]. See Ref. [5, p. 44]. 35 See Refs. [5, p. 44, 9, p. 12, 11, p. 59]. 36 See Ref. [12, p. 13]. 37 Last updated on 7 January 2015. For a detailed list of member states: https://www.ecacceac.org/member-states. 38 See Ref. [5, p. 55]. 39 See Refs. [12, p. 13, 13, p. 118]. 33 34

68

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

on resolutions and recommendations,40 which themselves require the members’ approval.41 The ECAC’s main responsibilities are part of the following areas: foreign relations, integration, flight- and airspace-security, passenger’s health, accident investigation, facilitation and environmental conservation. Moreover, the ECAC acts as a consulting party when introducing new members to EU standards.42

5.3.3 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) can be regarded as the safety agency for European civil aviation. It is based on the legal framework of the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency,43 which was replaced by the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC44 in 2008. By founding the EASA it was aimed to achieve high and unified standards in the European civil aviation safety as well as in environmental conservation.45 Further goals were the facilitation of the free movement of goods, people and services, the cost-effective handling of regulation and admission procedures and the avoidance of multiple efforts in cases of different operating parties on the national and European level. The EASA also helps its members to fulfill the requirements agreed on in the Chicago Convention, officially promotes the interests of the civil aviation industry and tries to create standard conditions for the internal aviation market. It is responsible for the issuing of airworthiness certificates and the confirmation of the environmental compatibility of ventilation products, different aviation components and equipment. In addition to that, the EASA issues several air traffic certificates and pilot licenses and controls the safety of aircrafts coming from third countries.46 The EASA activities are based on binding regulations, so-called hard-law regulations and not binding regulations, so-called soft law documents. The EASA

40 41

See Ref. [10, p. 36]. See Ref. [12, p. 14].

See Refs. [13, p. 119, 5, p. 55]. Official Journal L 240, 07/09/2002 P. 0001–0021. 44 Official Journal L 79, 19/03/2008 P. 0001–00049. 45 See Ref. [12, p. 29]. 46 See Refs. [14, p. 82, 15, p. 50]. 42 43

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation69

Basic Regulation as well as other regulations issued by the EU are part of the hardlaw regulations. Soft-laws are legal acts enacted by the EU Commission that are required for the implementation of the Basic Regulation.

5.3.4 European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) The original version of the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation EUROCONTROL was founded by the EUROCONTROL-Agreement which became effective on 1 March 1963 for initially 20 years.47 This agreement aimed for cooperation in the area of aviation safety, particularly in the upper airspace. To do so, EU Member States granted EUROCONTROL with sovereignty regarding the air traffic control. On 1 January 1986 – after the expiration of the originally issued 20 years period – an amendment protocol became effective and retransferred the air traffic control of the upper airspace back to the EU Member States. Still, EU Member States can assign EUROCONTROL with this task. Basically, EUROCONTROL’s responsibilities are limited to the coordination of national programs, the development of aviation safety systems, the cooperation regarding the training of air traffic control staff and the collective charging of air traffic control fees.48

5.3.5 National Actors Exemplarily for Germany In the Federal Republic of Germany, tasks and responsibilities in the aviation sector are assigned to aviation authorities and private institutions that have been given certain authorities. The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) (Federal Office of Civil Aeronautics), for example, is a federal agency subordinate to the Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI) (Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure). Its responsibilities mainly include the control and supervision of the traffic safety of aircrafts and the licensing of the aviation personnel. Other federal institutions to be named are the Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung (BFU) (German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation) and the Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung (BAF) (Federal Air Traffic Controlling Office). The DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (German Air Traffic Control Service GmbH) is one of the private institutions provided with certain authorities. In 1993, it replaced the Bundesanstalt für Flugsicherung (Federal Institute of Air Traffic Control) and is now responsible for the air traffic control in Germany.

47 48

See Ref. [13, p. 191]. See Ref. [6, p. 28].

70

5.4

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

Overview on Contents of Aviation Law

When analyzing the contents of aviation law, civil and military aviation have to be differentiated. Civil aviation includes all professional and commercial aviation, meaning regular, public and commercial aviation in terms of chartered flights and other occasional flights as well as private aviation (air sports) and flights of special character, such as police aviation activities or flights for the purpose of air rescue. In contrast to that, military aviation only includes military purposes, for example when performing offensive, defensive or supportive warfare operations or in case of recon, control or the transport of people and cargo. The military aviation has an exceptional position within aviation law. In principle, the general civil aviation regulations also apply to military aviation but it is possible to deviate from these principles, given certain circumstances. Moreover, military aviation law has its own administrative authorities. A further distinction has to be made in terms of public and private legal norms of aviation law.49 Private legal norms primarily contain regulations concerning liabilities in contracts of carriage of persons or goods. Moreover, they regulate liabilities in cases of damage to third parties, e.g. in cases of collision or crashes of aircrafts.50 Further contents of private legal norms are the following: insurance law, property rights, rights to use airports or rights of the residents of airports etc. Due to the need for complex regulations as to safety and security of aviation, the public aviation law is much more complex and varied than the private aviation law. It offers regulations concerning the admission and operation of aircrafts, operating licenses for carriers and aviation staff, the permission of airports as well as the coordination of air traffic control and safety measures.51 Besides, it also defines air traffic rules and regulations regarding environmental protection, e.g. on aircraft noises or emissions.

5.5

Fuel as a Subject Matter of Aviation Law

Another main aspect that falls into the scope of aviation law is the fuel needed for the operation of aircrafts. This aspect bases on various legal regulations, especially concerning the question of taxes and environmental conservation.

5.5.1 Tax Reductions for Kerosene There are different reasons for the taxation of fuel. On the one hand, it serves as a source of income for the state. On the other hand, it incentivizes the industry to save See Ref. [5, p. 2]. See Ref. [5, p. 2]. 51 See Ref. [5, p. 2]. 49 50

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation71

energy and to prefer clean energy solutions. That is why energy taxes represent an effective and frequently applied state instrument of achieving goals in the areas of environmental and climate protection as well as sustainability. 5.5.1.1 International Taxation Regulations for Fuel The only effective way to combat global warming and climate change requires an international, cross-border and globally organized cooperation as well as standard regulations. To implement such regulations beyond national authorities, sovereign states can conclude international treaties. The Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), signed on 7 December 1944 in Chicago, is a basic multilateral treaty of that kind. In that treaty, member states agreed on fundamental regulations on their rights and obligations in international civil aviation. The Convention also led to the foundation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The treaty explicitly only refers to private commercial and non-commercial aviation and is hence not applicable to state aircrafts. The Chicago Convention aims to ensure an organized and safe development of international civil aviation and to create conditions in which international carriers can be operated economically by equal and standardized means. For that reason, it regulates that its members are not to raise any fees, taxes or other dues for the right to land, stop or take off in another member states’ territory. That applies for passengers as well as for goods on the one hand side as well as aircrafts themselves on the other.52 This tax exemption bases on the idea to encourage global aviation, economic growth and reconstruction after World War II.53 In 2000, the ICAO issued a political guideline that states its position regarding the taxation of fuel in international aviation.54 In that guideline, the Council acknowledges the hitherto existing policy of the member states to exempt each other from taxation. The reason for that is the long existing practice of tax exemption and the correspondent policy in the maritime sector in many member states.55 The Council also doubts that the existing practice could be changed efficiently. Hence, it confirms the existing tax exemption to be the only possibility to guarantee the equal handling of international aviation by different jurisdictions. The Council even calls on its members to expand the exemptions. It hereby refers to fuel and other supplies applied in international transportation in cases of successive stopovers at two or more international airports located within one customs territory.56 Generally, the

See Ref. [16, p. 22]. See Ref. [17, p. 252]. 54 ICAO’s policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, third edition 2000, Doc 8632. 55 Ref. [17, p. 268, 269]. 56 ICAO’s policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, third edition 2000, Doc 8632. 52 53

72

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

ICAO is of the opinion that any aircraft fuel should be exempt from dues and taxes – irrespective of their designations given by the respective member state.57 In addition to the Chicago Convention, there are several bilateral and multilateral agreements on an international level, so-called “Service Agreements” (ASAs).58 Currently, there are 120 agreements of that kind, in which the contracting states oblige to the mutual tax exemption of fuel in transit and fuel supplied in the territory of the contracting state.59 5.5.1.2 Taxation of Fuel in the EU The European Union (EU) also indicates certain fundamental standards regarding the taxation of all kinds of fuel. By signing the founding contracts of the European Community, the EU Member States agreed on its regulatory competence in different areas. For example, the EU can permit the harmonization of so-called indirect taxes if contrary regulations hinder the effective functioning of the European Single Market. To do so, the EU can issue certain regulations that are directly applicable to its Member States as well as regulations that have to be implemented and translated to their respective national state law to be applicable. The Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity60 defines important and binding legal specifications for the taxation of fuel in the EU Member States. It became effective on 1 January 2004 and can be regarded as the central framework for the taxation of all energy products on EU-level. The Council Directive 2003/96/EC – Core Contents and Background.  The Council Directive 2003/96/EC mainly focuses on the expansion of the European system of minimum taxation that goes beyond the taxation of petroleum products. It particularly includes carbon, gas and electricity and furthermore updates the minimum tax rates for petroleum products, which have not been updated since 1992. The Directive moreover answers the question of what can be regarded as energy product as well as defines a minimum tax rate to be applied by the EU Member States. However, EU Member States can decide on the specific implementation of that minimum tax rate. They can, for example, introduce one tax including the complete rate or divide it up into several parallel taxes.

ICAO’s policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, third edition 2000, Doc 8632. 58 See Refs. [16, p. 22, 17 p. 268]. 59 See Ref. [17, p. 268, 269]. 60 Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 0051–0070. 57

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation73

Another content to be named as part of the Council Directive 2003/96/EC are the tax exemptions and reductions of certain materials. This particularly applies to energy products that are used as aviation fuel with the exception of fuel used in private non-commercial aviation, referring to aircrafts not used for commercial purposes. The transportation of passengers or goods as well as the offering of services against payment are typical examples of commercial aviation. Moreover, flights for official purposes can be named as a further example. The same applies to energy products used for shipping in marine waters of the Community. EU Member States can, however, limit these tax exemptions to international or intra-Community transportation. Moreover, these regulations are not legally binding, as Member States are still allowed to raise national taxes for kerosene.61 Other tax exemptions, e.g. for renewable energies and biofuels, are also possible. The EU-Directives are mostly regarded necessary since they ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the European Single Market, which would not be granted without standard regulations regarding the taxation of energy products and electricity.62 Whereas the heretofore existing regulations of the Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils63 and the Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils64 have been limited to petroleum products, the Council Directive 2003/96/EC also includes collective minimum tax rates for most of the other energy products including electricity, gas and carbon. One reason for that is the need to consider issues of environmental conservation when defining and executing the Community’s policies. The EU ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol of 11 December 1997. By ratifying the latter, industrialized states committed themselves to reduce its emissions of the six most important greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2) and others) by at least 5 %, compared to 1990, in the period from 2008 to 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was then prolonged to 2020 at the 18th Climate Conference in Doha in 2012 (COP 18). Within this context, the so-called “Annex B-states” committed to reduce their emissions by a total of 18 % compared to 1990-levels until 2020. The EU even agreed on a reduction of 20 % of its emissions. The taxation of energy products represents one of the EU’s instruments to achieve that goal. Competition is another aspect to be covered by European regulations as energy prices are “key elements” of the EU energy, transport and environmental policy and can be influenced by certain taxation practices.65 It is for that reason that the

See Refs. [18, p. 174, 17, p. 269]. See Ref. [19, p. 201]. 63 Official Journal L 316, 31/10/1992 P. 0012–0015. 64 Official Journal L 316, 31/10/1992 P. 0019–0020. 65 Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 1. 61 62

74

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

minimum tax rates defined by the EU should base on the competitive position of the respective energy product/electricity. The calculation of the specific tax rate should therefore be subject to the energy value of the respective product. Fuel, however, is to be excluded from that calculation practice. Moreover, the minimum tax rate shall base on the intended use of the energy product or electricity. Energy products for industrial or commercial purposes as well as heating fuels are to be imposed with a lower tax rate than petroleum products, such as kerosene. The taxation agreements on diesel fuels, which are particularly used by Community-wide haulers, however, can be handled differently. The introduction of a road charges system is one measure that can be taken to counteract competitive distortions. Currently, there are several issues of competitive distortions that are caused by different taxations of diesel fuels in the road haulage industry. A minimum tax rate could not entirely solve that problem but at least reduce its effects. To completely eliminate any competitive distortions, an adjustment or rather a harmonization of diesel taxes would be essential. When introducing such a road charges system, for example, EU Member States should, if necessary, differentiate between commercially and privately used diesels or between energy products and electricity used for business purposes and such for private purposes. At the same time differences in the taxation of privately used gasoil and petrol can be reduced. To not breach the above mentioned international obligations and to sustain the competitive position of European companies, the existing tax exemptions applied in the aviation and shipping industry (excluding private aviation and shipping) shall however not be influenced by this EU Council Directive. Nonetheless, EU Member States are enabled to reduce these existing exemptions. What is more, EU Member States can introduce further tax exemptions if these neither negatively influence the European Single Market nor result in any more competitive distortions. That particularly applies to the promotion of alternative energy sources and renewable energies. According to the EU, tax exemptions for biofuels can contribute to a smooth and effective functioning of the European Single Market. That is why EU Member States should facilitate financial incentives for producing and distributing these fuels, especially if the EU law is not sufficiently harmonized concerning this aspect or if the EU can otherwise not compete on the international market. Further reasons for tax exemptions for biofuels could arise from social or environmental considerations. Besides, energy-intensive businesses can also be treated differently if they voluntarily agree on certain regulations on environmental conservation and energy efficiency. The practice of reducing taxes for conservational reasons is already widely applied in other industries (e.g. to encourage customers to buy environmentally friendly products). Regarding the practical implementation of the Council Directive, the EU Member States wished for different kinds of taxes on energy products and electricity.66 Their obligations defined in the Directive can hence be considered fulfilled if the dues raised do not fall below the minimum tax rates defined by the EU. Value-added

66 Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 1.

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation75

taxes, however, are not included in that definition. So, EU Member States can decide quite independently on how to concretely implement the contents of the Council Directive and can make use of regressive taxes on one and the same product, given this practice is compatible with the defined minimum tax rates as well and the EU competition law. The History of the Taxation of Fuels.  In 2011, the Commission submitted a Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity.67 This proposal aimed to modernize the existing regulations on the taxation of energy products and intended to also restructure them as a measure for further reduction of imbalances and competitive distortions. The idea based on the heretofore extreme different minimum tax rates due to varying energy contents which led to a beneficial taxation of some products compared to others. This also means that some businesses could be better off due to the kind of their energy sources. By proposing an amending EU-Directive, the EU hoped to facilitate their general goals regarding their environmental and energy policy as well as to prioritize the role of taxation concerning its influence on fighting climate change.68 The main amendment of the EU Commission’s proposal included the introduction of a taxation system which raises energy taxes depending on the CO2 emissions as well as the energy value of the respective product. It was aimed to base the total tax rate on these two factors. To avoid double taxation, the proposal suggested to differentiating between sectors that fall into the scope of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and the sectors that do not fall into that scope. Even though the EU Parliament voted on that proposal on 19 April 2012,69 the Commission withdrew it after unsuccessful negotiations in 2015.70 The Council’s negotiations resulted in a compromise text that invalidated the Commission’s proposal completely and was, moreover, not accepted by the Council itself.71 Hence, the proposed amendments have not been enacted. They do, however, illustrate the rather recent and current topics that are discussed in the debate on the taxation of energy products. 5.5.1.3 Taxation of Fuels in Germany In Germany, the central regulations on the taxation of fuels are part of the German Energy Tax Act – Energiesteuergesetz (EnergieStG).72 It implements the Council

COM (2011) 169. See Ref. [19, p. 201]. 69 MEMO/12/262. 70 COM/2011/0169 2011/0092/CNS, p. 7. 71 COM/2011/0169 2011/0092/CNS, p. 7. 72 BGBl. I p. 1534; 2008 I p. 660, 838, 1007. 67 68

76

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity73 that was enacted on 31 October 2003. This EC Energy Tax Directive aims to harmonize the taxation of energy products and electricity in the EU beyond the heretofore existing level. The lacking standardizations on a minimum tax rate for electricity and energy products, other than petroleum products, is considered derogatory to the effective functioning of the European Single Market. That is why, for the first time, a Community-wide regulation includes not only petroleum products but also electricity, natural gas and carbon. Additionally it defines a minimum tax rate for these products. The German Energy Tax Act also seeks to take account of the Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport,74 meanwhile replaced by the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.75 Also, the Energy Tax Act replaces the German Mineral Oil Tax Law as an adjustment of the latter to the specifications of the directive was rejected and considered impractical due to the substantial changes as well as for systematic reasons. Essentially, the Energy Tax Act is based on the existing catalogue of taxable items and adds energy products defined by the EU Council Directive. Besides, the taxation process is adjusted to the specifications of the EC Directive. Emphasis is to be laid on paragraph 27 of the Energy Tax Act that defines certain tax exemptions for the aviation and shipping industry. This is applicable to the shipping industry, except for private, non-commercial shipping, as well as to the production and maintenance of vessels. In aviation, the tax exemption applies to the use of aviation fuels, except for private, non-commercial aviation, as well as to the conception, construction and maintenance of aircrafts. The tax exemption for conception, production and maintenance is a new element that could heretofore only be enacted by a Decree of the Federal Ministry of Finance.76 Fuels used for the conception and production of aircrafts are included in that tax exemption paragraph because it is not apparent if they will be used for tax-favored purposes or not. A more strict differentiation similar to the previous regulations of the Mineral Oil Tax Law does thus not exist. However, an implementing provision does differentiate by excluding the private and non-commercial aviation.77 This ensures the tax exemption for the commercial transport of persons and goods (given that the businesses operating in that field have been granted an official permit as a carrier) as well as the commercial offering of services.

Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 0051–0070. Official Journal L 123, 17/05/2003 P. 0042–0046. 75 Official Journal L 140, 5/6/2009, P. 0016–0062. 76 BT-Drucksache 16/1172, p. 39. 77 Verordnung zur Durchführung des Energiesteuergesetzes (Energiesteuer-Durchführungsverordnung - EnergieStV) of 31 July 2006, BGBl. I p. 1753. 73 74

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation77

Moreover, it is intended to establish tax exemptions for biofuels and heating biofuels to adapt the costs for the respective biofuel to the price for the corresponding fossil fuel. This, however, is only applicable up to the amount of the adaptation. A promotion in terms of overcompensation is not intended. To implement certain tax reliefs for energy products that contain biofuels, a certain application has to be proved that verifies both the amount of biofuel and the taxes already paid. The biogenic components of energy products are generally exempt from energy taxes. Biofuels that are completely composed of biogenic components are thus not subject to any taxation with the exception of taxes for fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and vegetable oil. The idea is to harmonize the taxation of biofuels with the generally applicable taxation of bio diesel. Another regulation to be noted is the Luftverkehrssteuergesetz (Air Transport Tax Law)78 of 9 December 2010 that intended to include aviation in the mobility taxation and to thereby incentivize environmentally friendly behavior.79 Whereas other industries had already introduced such a system by implementing different taxes depending on the respective energy value and kind, commercial aviation has not been incentivized yet to develop an energy saving use of fuels. This tax exemption is basically a result of the above mentioned EC Directives and the international agreements. So, air transport taxes have been enacted as a short and medium term alternative for a practicable international taxation of kerosene in commercial aviation.80 This tax, however, is only applicable to passenger flights. Air cargo is not to be included in that regulation as it does not compete strongly on the international level and is also very price sensitive. Therefore, there is no harmonized European regulation on the taxation of air cargo. Hence, the tax exemption of such flights is regarded substantial to avoid competitive disadvantages of German air cargo businesses.81

5.5.2 Aviation Emissions The operation of aircrafts requires the combustion of kerosene, which results in the release of high amounts of carbon dioxides (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxides (CO), hydrocarbons (CmHn), water vapor, sulfur oxides (SOx) and particle matter. One consequence of these emissions is global warming that is fought against on a national and international level. As a consequence, many states ratified the Kyoto Protocol and agreed on a reduction of 5 % of their emissions compared to 1990. At the COP 18 a few states even agreed to reduce their emissions by 18 %

BGBl. 2010 I p. 1885. BT-Drucksache 17/3030, p. 36. 80 Mobilitäts- und Kraftstoffstrategie der Bundesregierung (MKS). 81 BT-Drucksache 17/3030, p. 36. 78 79

78

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

(compared to 1990) until 2020. During the current negotiations regarding the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015, the members even agreed to limit global warming to “much less” than 2°C compared to the preindustrial era. They intend to keep global warming at a maximum of 1.5°C. These international objectives are implemented on a supranational and national level. 5.5.2.1 EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Emphasis should be laid on the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) which has been extended to the aviation industry in 2012 by the Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowance trading within the Community.82 Up until then, the EU ETS had been limited to stationary systems. Now, it includes – in accordance with Article 2 I Directive 2008/101/EC and Annex I – all flights that take off or land at airports of EU Member States. The term “flight” means one flight sector which commences at a parking place of the aircraft and terminates at a parking place of the aircraft.83 In conformity with Article 2 I of this Directive and Annex I, only flights for military purposes in military aircrafts, flights for police purposes or done by customs officials, flights for search and rescue and flights for sightseeing or other non-commercial purposes are to be excluded from that regulation. The Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/180 of 9 February 2015 on amending Regulation (EC) No  748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering EU Member State for each aircraft operator,84 regulates a list of carriers that fall into the scope of the EU ETS and also indicates the respective responsible EU Member State. History and Background of the EU ETS.  First, the Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowance trading within the Community85 introduced a system for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading which aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective and economically effective way.86 In doing so, the EU fulfills its obligations resulting from the Framework Convention of the United Nations on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that has been accepted

Official Journal L 8, 13/1/2009, P. 0003–0021. Commission 2009/450/EC of 08.06.2009, C2009 4293, Official Journal L 149, 12/06/2009, P. 69. 84 Official Journal L 34, 10/02/2015 P. 0001–0190. 85 Official Journal L 275, 25/10/2003 P. 0032–0046. 86 See Ref. [19, p. 198]. 82 83

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation79

by the Council through the Council Decision 94/69/EC87 on behalf of the Community.88 This framework aims to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level that prevents a dangerous anthropogenic influence on the climate. The Directive 2008/101/EC also seeks to take account of the conference of the European Council in Brussels on 8 and 9 March 2007 during which the Council explicitly emphasized its goal to keep its so-called 2°C-target, referring to the intention to keep global warming to a maximum of 2°C compared to the preindustrial age. One reason for that is the fourth evaluation report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasizes the negative impacts of the climate change on ecosystems, food production, sustainable development, the achievement of the millennium development goals as well as human health and security. According to the report, the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere must be stabilized at around 450 ppm CO2 equivalent to meet the 2°C-target. Referred to the report this is only possible if the global greenhouse gas emissions reach their maximum amount within the next 10 to 15 years and are subsequently substantially reduced globally until 2050. The emissions have to be reduced to a minimum of 50 % below 1990-levels. The European Council therefore independently and definitely committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % compared to 1990-levels.89 To fulfill this commitment, also emissions resulting from aviation have to be reduced. According to Article 174 II EUV the Community policy on the environment shall also be based on the precautionary principle. The aviation industry has an impact on the global climate by releasing carbon dioxides, nitrogen oxides, water vapor, sulfate particles as well as soot particles. The IPCC estimates that the total climate impact of aviation was potentially some 2 to 4 times greater than the effect of its CO2 emissions alone. Recent EU research also indicates that the total climate impact of aviation could be around twice as high as the impact of CO2 alone.90 Although there are many uncertain factors, particularly concerning the so-called cirrus cloud effects, the EU Community environment policy is to be based on the precautionary principle. That is why all impacts of aviation should be addressed to the extent possible and further research should be pursued. Already at that time, the EU Council declared that the EU is committed to a global and comprehensive agreement for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012 and expressed the goal of a 30 % reduction in the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions below 1990-levels by 2020 as its contribution to a global and comprehensive

Official Journal L 033, 07/02/1994 P. 0011–0012. See Refs. [20, p. 14, 21, p. 24]. 89 See Ref. [22, p. 24]. 90 Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, Official Journal L 8, 13/1/2009, Rn. 19. 87 88

80

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

agreement for the period beyond 2012. It furthermore wished for other developed countries to commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and for economically more advanced developing countries to contribute adequately according to their capabilities. The EU wanted to keep the lead in the negotiations of such an agreement and wanted to ensure that a future agreement included measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. In this respect, the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS can be regarded as a measure with exemplary function and can serve as a model for the worldwide use of the trading of emission rights.91 The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which was approved by the Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfillment of commitments thereunder,92 binds developed industrial countries to pursue the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation, that are not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, within the scope of the ICAO. While the EU is not a contracting party to the Chicago Convention, all its Member States have ratified that Convention and are members of the ICAO. They support the ICAO on the development of measures to address the climate change impacts of aviation. At the sixth meeting of the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection in 2004, it was conjointly agreed that an aviation-specific emissions trading scheme organized by the ICAO does not seem sufficiently attractive and should thus not be implemented on an international level.93 The member states should, however, get the possibility to include emissions from international aviation into their emissions trading schemes. The emissions trading should be developed openly. The ICAO’s decision urged the contracting states to only implement other contracting states’ aircraft operators in the national or supranational emissions trading scheme in case of mutual agreement between those states. The EU Member States and 15 other European states placed a reservation on this resolution, recalling that the Chicago Convention recognizes the right of each contracting party to apply – for non-discriminatory reasons – its own regulations to the aircrafts of all states. It is for that reason that they reserve the right to involve all aircraft operators of all states providing services to, from or within their territory in a non-discriminative manner. Besides, there is the Sixth Community Environment Action Program established by Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council94 according to which the Community has to identify and undertake specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation if no such actions were agreed within the ICAO by 2002. In its conclusions of October 2002, December 2003 and October 2004, the Council has also called on the Commission to propose measures

See Ref. [23, p. 95]. Official Journal L 130, 15/05/2002 P. 0001–0003. 93 See Ref. [23, p. 95]. 94 Official Journal L 242, 10/09/2002 P. 0001–0015. 91 92

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation81

to reduce the impact of international aviation in climate change. If the aviation’s impact on climate change continues to grow at the current rate, it would run contrary to reductions made by other sectors to fight climate change. In its Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 27 September 2005 with the title “Reducing the Climate Change Impact of Aviation”95 the Commission proposed a strategy to reduce the aviation’s impact on climate change. This proposal intends to include aviation in the Community scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. Furthermore, a working group of various stakeholders should discuss ways to implement such an inclusion. In its conclusions of 2 December 2005, the Council recognized that, from an economic and environmental perspective, such an inclusion seemed to present the best solution and called on the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of 2006. In its Resolution of 4 July 2006 on reducing the climate change impact of aviation96 the European Parliament recognized that emission trading has, as one component of a comprehensive package of measures, a potential high influence when it comes to reducing the climate impact of aviation. Moreover, technological and operational measures are to be taken, e.g. the improvement of fuel efficiencies or regarding the aviation management, for example by programs such as the “European Common Aviation Area” (ECAA) or “SESAR”. Contents of the EU ETS.  What the Directive 2008/101/EC primarily aims for is the reduction of the aviation’s impact on climate change by including its emissions in the EU ETS. Aircraft operators have the most direct control over the way in which different aircrafts are operated and should thus be responsible for fulfilling the obligations imposed by this Directive. This also includes the preparation of a monitoring plan as well as the constant monitoring of and report on the greenhouse gas emissions. Aircraft operators can be identified by the use of the ICAO-designator or any other recognized designator used for identifying flights. If the flight stays unidentifiable, the owner of the aircraft should be obligated. To prevent competitive distortions and improve the environmental efficiency, the emissions of all aircrafts that take off or land at airports in the territory of the European Union should be included, starting from 2012. However, certain flights should be exempt from the scheme to avoid disproportionate administrative burdens. That is why commercial aviation operators which operate for three consecutive fourmonth periods with fewer than 243 flights per period should be excluded. In doing so, also airlines from developing countries can be supported. A fixation of the amount of emission allowances and the regulation on their distribution between the aviation operators also help to avoid competitive distortions.

95 96

COM (2005) 459. Official Journal C 303 E, 13/12/2006, P. 119.

82

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

Some allowances are allocated free of charge, others are sold by auction. Moreover, a special reserve of allowances is also set aside to ensure market access for new aircraft operators or for rapid or unsteady growth. If aircraft operators cease operations, allowances that have already been allocated free of charge, can be allocated again. In order to ensure fair conditions, the distribution of allowances issued free of charge must be completely harmonized. This is due to the fact that, to reduce administrative burdens, every aircraft operator is administered by one EU Member State – for all flights to, from or within the EU. That calls for every EU Member State to apply the same regulations. Revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances shall be used to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the EU and third countries, to facilitate research and development in this field and to cover administration costs.97 Besides, revenues can be used to support low-emission transportation and global fund of funds. To improve the Directive’s cost efficiency, aircraft operators shall be given the possibility to use certified emission reductions (CER) and emission reduction units (ERU) from project activities to fulfill their obligation to return allowances. The project activities are the Joined Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol.98 The EU Member States defined an average of 15 % for the usage of certified emission reductions (CER) and emission reduction units (ERU) for the first commitment period after the Kyoto Protocol. In the event that an aircraft operator fails to comply with the requirements of this Directive and other reinforcement measures by the administering EU Member State have failed to ensure compliance, the EU Member States need to cooperate. The respective EU Member State can request the European Commission to decide an operating ban on the operator concerned at Community level. Functioning of the EU ETS.  The EU ETS is a market-based instrument to reduce the emission of environmentally harmful gases like e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2). It works according to the “Cap and Trade Principle”.99 A certain limit (Cap) artificially transforms CO2 into a scarce resource. By trading it (Trade) on the market, supply and demand result in a price for carbon dioxide. First, an upper limit of CO2 emissions needs to be defined.100 The operators are then assigned with a certain number of emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Europe-wide allocation regulations. Each allowance certificate is equivalent to one ton of CO2. By limiting the available allowances, the operators are given specific reduction goals. The allowances are tradeable and thus serve as

See Ref. [23, p. 94]. See Refs. [21, p. 25, 24, p. 122]. 99 See Ref. [20, p. 14]. 100 See Ref. [20, p. 15]. 97 98

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation83

a credit. When converted into a tradeable credit, the ton of CO2 is assigned with a concrete value which is then defined by the market. Each year, operators have to return a certain number of allowances depending on their actually produced emissions. If an operator achieves to reduce its emissions to a level below its actual available allowances, it is entitled to sell the remaining allowances on the market.101 Conversely, if it actually produces more than defined by its allowances, it has to buy extra allowances to fulfill its obligations.102 This procedure motivates operators to produce the least possible emissions.103 If an operator does not fulfill its obligation to return allowances, penalties are incurred and the operator needs to render the defined obligation in the following year. However, operators are also entitled to buy extra allowances if, for example, their mitigation measures turn out to be more costly than originally thought. This ensures that reduction measures are implemented where most cost-effective and economically reasonable. So, the EU ETS and the “Cap and Trade Principle” result in both an environmentally effective and an economically efficient climate protection.104 Additionally not only operators that fall into the scope of the EU ETS can trade emissions allowances, but every legal entity. The History of the Inclusion of Aviation in the Emissions Trading.  In the following, the EU Directive was changed, inter alia, by the Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2013 derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.105 This decision is based on the ICAO’s achievements of establishing a global system to reduce emissions using market-based instruments. The EU expected further progress of the 38th session of the ICAO Assembly of 24 September to 4 October 2013 and wanted to facilitate this progress. Obligations relating to flights to and from airports in countries outside the EU that are not members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), dependencies and territories of states in the European Economic Area (EEA) or countries that signed a Treaty of Accession with the EU should be suspended.106 Operators that have not fulfilled their obligations resulting from the Directive 2003/87/EC for 2012 do not face any penalties. The exemptions made by this EU Directive do only apply for aviation emissions produced in 2012. A further change was introduced by the Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading

See Ref. [20, p. 14]. See Ref. [20, p. 14]. 103 See Refs. [24, p. 123, 25, p.187]. 104 See Ref. [23, p. 94]. 105 Official Journal L 113, 25/4/2013, P. 0001–0004. 106 See Refs. [23, p. 97, 20, p. 14]. 101 102

84

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions.107 It amends the Directives 2003/87/EC and 2008/101/EC for the period from 2013 to 2016. According to that Regulation, only flights within the EU, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are to be considered part of the EU ETS until the ICAO has decided on a global market-based measure. This ICAO-measure is to be agreed on by 2016 and to be implemented by 2020. The EU aims to achieve a future international agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.108 As the aviation industry has a strong international character, a global approach on addressing emissions from international aviation offers the best way to ensure sustainability in the long run. Until a global agreement is made, the EU limits aviation impacts on climate change resulting from flights to or from EU airports by autonomous action. However, it is to ensure that these measures of various stakeholders are not contrary to each other. That is why developments in international fora and the different opinions that they represent have to be taken into account. Particularly, this applies to the decision to continue the ICAO policies and practices related to environmental conservation adopted on 4 October 2013 at the 38th Session of Assembly of the ICAO. The EU intends to obtain the dynamics resulting from that session and achieve further progress at the 39th Session of Assembly in 2016. For this reason, the requirements set out in the Directive 2003/87/EC on the monitoring of, reporting on and the return of allowances shall be considered satisfied for the period until 31 December 2016, in respect of flights to or from airports outside of the EEA. Still, the requirements are applicable to flights to or from airports within the EEA. Also, they are applicable to flights between airports of EEA Member States and airports of states that only acceded to the EU in 2013 to ensure legal certainty in respect of this derogation. The derogations defined in this regulation also take into account the results of bilateral or multilateral contacts to third countries that the Commission will, on behalf of the Union, pursue and will furthermore promote the use of market-based mechanisms to reduce the emissions of aviation. A further temporary exemption was defined in Annex I of the Directive 2003/87/EC to avoid disproportioned administrative burdens for the smallest operators. Non-commercial aviation operators emitting less than 1000 tons of CO2 annually are therefore exempt from the scope of the EU Directive from 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2020. 5.5.2.2 Promotion of Using Renewable Energy Sources Besides, the implementation of an emissions trading scheme, the increased use of renewable energy sources presents one option to reduce emissions. To do so, the

107 108

Official Journal L 129, 30/4/2014, P. 0001–0004. See Ref. [23, p. 96–98].

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation85

EU issued the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.109 This EU Directive creates a heretofore not existing legal community framework for the use of renewable energy in the three areas of electricity, heating and cooling as well as transport. The hitherto existing Directive 2001/77/EC110 on electricity and the Directive 2003/30/EC111 on biofuels are defeated. The EU Directive binds EU Member States to derive a certain amount of energy from renewable energy sources. The national overall targets are to be compatible with the target of at least a 20 % share of energy from renewable sources in the Community’s gross final consumption of energy until 2020.112 In order to achieve these targets, EU Member States shall promote energy efficiency and energy saving. Furthermore, they shall introduce effective measures to ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources equals or exceeds the targets set out in the EU Directive. EU Member States can freely decide on measures to be taken but they are recommended certain measures, e.g. support schemes, cooperation with other EU Member States or third countries or measures of a fiscal nature, for example by tax exemptions for biofuels. In respect of transport, each EU Member State shall ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources in all forms of transport is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in the transport sector by 2020.113 Generally, the sustainability criteria defined by the EU shall be met. Moreover, the EU Directive aims for the enacting of national action plans for renewable energies. These plans shall give information about the overall targets of the EU Member States about their shares of renewable energy sources consumed in the transport, electricity as well as the heating and cooling sector by 2020. By issuing this EU Directive, the EU aims to control the energy consumption in Europe, the increased use of energy from renewable sources, energy savings and increased energy efficiency. In doing so, it intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and the Framework Convention of the United Nations on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Those factors are also important to ensure the security of energy supply and to promote the technological development and innovation. The EU considers the use of energy from renewable sources to be one of the most effective instruments to reduce the European Community’s and the transport sector’s dependency on mineral oil. Moreover, it is aimed to decentralize the energy production to secure local energy supply, to shorten transport routes and reduce transmission losses. Moreover, the EU Directive shall take account of the point of view of the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission on the topic Official Journal L 140, 05/06/2009 P. 0016–0062. Official Journal L 283, 27/10/2001 P. 0033–0040. 111 Official Journal L 123, 17/05/2003 P. 0042–0046. 112 See Ref. [26, p. 126]. 113 See Ref. [26, p. 129]. 109 110

86

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

of biofuels. In the European Commission’s Communication of 10 January 2007 entitled “Inquiry pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 into the European gas and electricity sectors”114 it was stated that a 20 % target for the overall share of energy from renewable sources and a 10 % target for energy from renewable sources in the transport sector would be appropriate and achievable goals. The energy efficiency shall be improved by 20 % by 2020. This was defined in the “Action plan for energy efficiency: Realizing the potential”, agreed on by the European Council Decision in March 2007, the European Parliament Decision on 31 January 2008 and in the European Commission Communication of 19 October 2006. In the following, these targets were confirmed by these institutions on various occasions. The intended overall increase of the use of energy from renewable sources is to be adapted to the various starting positions and possibilities of the respective EU Member State as well as to the existing share of energy from renewable sources and the energy mix. The efforts already made to increase the use of energy from renewable sources are taken into account. Regarding the 10 % target for the share of energy from renewable sources in the transport sector, the same share is applied to all EU Member States. The reason for that is that fuels can be traded easily and can also be purchased in other ways than producing them. Therefore, a combination of both domestic production and import is considered absolutely desirable.

5.5.3 Special Aspects Compared to Other Transport Options In addition to aviation, other transport sectors also have a significant impact on the emissions and climate change (e.g. rail traffic, road traffic or the shipping industry). Correspondingly, these sectors are also subject to government regulations. Similar to aviation, the shipping industry is also subject to tax exemptions based on a long history of tax exemptions in the maritime sector.115 On EU-level, the decisive regulation is the Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity,116 which regulates tax exemptions for energy products used as shipping fuels, with the exception of fuels used for private, non-commercial shipping, and for the production and maintenance of vessels. On a national level in Germany, paragraph 27 of the German Energy Tax Act is applicable, as the transposition law of the Council Directive 2003/96/EC, and regulates these tax exemptions. The system

COM (2006) 851. ICAO’s policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, third ed. 2000, Doc 8632. 116 Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 0051–0070. 114 115

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation87

of tax exemptions is basically comparable to the regulations applied in aviation. However, in contrast to the aviation industry, the shipping sector is not included in the EU ETS. Regarding the shipping sector, the Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport117 only binds EU Member States to control and report about emissions in maritime transport. Yet, there are efforts to also reduce the emissions caused by shipping. This complies with the regulations set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Moreover, an increase of the efficiency in maritime transport shall also help to reduce emissions. Rail traffic, on the contrary, is not subject to any tax exemptions. The Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity118 does not include any tax exemptions or benefits for this sector and the German energy taxes also fully apply to that field. Besides, the emissions resulting from railway power plants and the remaining electricity are subject to the European emissions trading. This is resulting in higher prices for electricity which then incentivize to reduce the energy consumption. So, the rail traffic is indirectly part of the EU ETS. Like rail traffic, road traffic is also included in the Council Directive 2003/96/EC as well as the Germany Energy Tax Act. Additionally, many EU Member States (e.g. Germany) apply HGV tolls on the use of public roads which constitute further burdens. The air transport taxes applied in aviation are a similar instrument. However, they only apply to passenger flights and not to cargo.

5.5.4 Expected Changes International Developments.  The results of the 21st United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which is at the same time the 11th Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol will be formative for the further development of the regulatory framework of global aviation. At the conference on 12 December 2015 195 states concordantly agreed on the Paris Agreement which will become effective in 2020.119 Even though the ICAO is responsible for the issuing of environmental protection regulations in global aviation, the UN Convention on Climate Change sets certain general and cross-sectoral targets. The Kyoto Protocol has already shown the far-reaching impacts of such targets and furthermore demonstrated that every sector needs to contribute its best efforts to achieve them. The

Official Journal L 123, 19/05/2015, P. 0055–0076. Official Journal L 283, 31/10/2003 P. 0051–0070. 119 Press release of the UNFCCC http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/. 117 118

88

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

ICAO is called upon to take measures consistent with the results of the Convention as soon as possible.120 In the Paris Agreement, the states have set the goal to limit global warming to “far below” 2 °C compared to the pre-industrial era and to try to keep it at a maximum of 1.5 °C. Moreover, it is intended to achieve a balance between the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and the bonding of CO2. The latter results from so-called sinks (e.g. forests or underground carbon reservoirs). In addition to the targets set in the Paris Agreement, there are various national targets, which, however, are most probably not sufficient to limit global warming to less than 2 °C. Due to that fact, it was agreed that the states have to control and intensify their own goals starting in 2023. The agreement also regulates a common system for reporting obligations and transparency rules. Every state shall submit a balance sheet report on its CO2 emissions. The different conditions and possibilities of the various states shall be taken into account. Poor countries, for example, do not have to fulfill the same requirements as rich ones. The Paris Agreement also defines the definite support of developing countries and insular states (e.g. by implementing early warning systems and insurances for the climate risk). Particularly insular states are endangered by the rising sea level, other dangers are draughts or storms. The support of developing countries by industrial countries is mostly carried out financially. An accompanying decision declares the industrial states’ promise to annually provide 100 billion US$ for poor countries in a period from 2020 to 2025. Emerging countries are also urged to contribute financially. It is to be expected that many states will ratify the Paris Agreement. To fulfill the resulting obligations, they will expand and intensify existing supra-national and national programs for the reduction of emissions. This will also have an impact on the aviation industry which also needs to make a contribution to these efforts. At the Paris Climate Conference, the EU has already campaigned for the stronger inclusion of emissions resulting from aviation and shipping and for an international cooperation in these sectors.121 The 38th session of the ICAO Assembly also indicates certain future developments in global aviation.122 The reduction of the CO2 emissions from aviation was still declared to be the primary objective. To do so, the fuel efficiency shall be improved by 2 %/a and the overall emissions shall be kept at 2020-levels. Therefore, the ICAO Assembly plans technological and operational measures (e.g. CO2 certification standards and improved global navigation efficiency). Further efforts shall be made in the areas of the development and deployment of sustainable alternative

120 EU position for the UN climate change conference in Paris: Council conclusions, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/press/press-releases/2015/09/18-counclusions-un-climate-change-conference-paris-2015/; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, The Paris Protocol – A blueprint for tackling global climate change beyond 2020, COM (2015) 081. 121 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2015120301_en.htm. 122 Report of the Executive Committee on Agenda item 17.

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation89

fuels for aviation. Another focus of the ICAO is the agreement on a framework for market-based measures (MBMs).123 Currently, the member states are working on the design and implementation of such global measures. A decision is expected at the 39th session of the ICAO Assembly in September 2016.124 Besides, the ICAO supports the use of alternative fuels in the aviation industry.125 There are various programs of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which promote alternative fuels, particularly the Aviation Sustainability Center (ASCENT), a Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment, the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program with the goal to reduce aircraft fuel burn, emissions and noise through technology and advance alternative jet fuels and the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), a public-private coalition for commercial aviation to engage the emerging alternative fuels industry. Regarding the taxation of fuels, there are no changes to be expected. The ICAO is still of the opinion that any fuel should be exempt from dues and taxes, regardless of their designations given by the respective state.126 European Developments.  In Europe, the EU’s decisions as well as regulations on the national level will impact the development of aviation. In the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions “A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030”127 the European Commission proposed to set a target of a 40 % reduction of its internal emissions of greenhouse gases compared to 1990-levels.128 The “Flight Path 2050” of the European Commission even targets a 75 % reduction of the CO2 emissions and a 90 % reduction of the NOx emissions from aviation until 2050 compared to 2000. However, it does not define concrete targets concerning the use of renewable energies or the emissions from the road traffic sector for the period beyond 2020. Yet, the EU does emphasize that there will be a future need for measures in the road traffic sector.

123 http://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalWorkshops/Documents/2015-Dubai/6-2_Tracking-Aviation-Emissions_Fuel-Efficiency-Improvements-MBMs-IATA.pdf. 124 Report of the Executive Committee on Agenda item 17; see Ref. [27, p. 187]. 125 Overview of FAA Alternative Jet Fuel Efforts, http://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalWorkshops/Documents/2015-Dubai/7-3_Overview-FAA-Alternative-Jet-Fuel-Efforts-AaronWilkins.pdf; Statement by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), to the Forty-third Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA43 – Paris, France, 1 to 4 December 2015), http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/STATEMENTS/SBSTA43%20ICAO%20statement_Final. revised.pdf. 126 ICAO’s policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, third edition 2000, Doc 8632. 127 COM (2014) 015. 128 See Ref. [28, p. 147].

90

M. Paschke and C. Lutter

It hereby refers to regeneratively produced alternative fuels and a combination of selective political measures. Internationally, the EU shall actively campaign for the introduction of a global, market-based mechanism for the aviation sector until 2016, which is ready to become effective by 2020. The EU only considers the reduction of emissions from the transport sector possible if the complete transport system is gradually changed and includes every transport carrier. Transport has to be controlled more effectively by intelligent transport systems and need to use innovative motor and navigation technologies as well as alternative fuels. EU Member States shall discuss options to design the taxation of fuels and vehicles in a way which is compatible with the European Commission’s proposal on the taxation of energy products and which also supports the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases in the transport sector. Corresponding measures can also apply to the aviation industry. The introduction of federal taxes for kerosene is already discussed by various environmental institutions and transport associations129 and is also subject to discussions in the relevant literature.130 Such taxes should – according to the associations – be introduced on either a national or the European level to include the environmental factor and to ensure a competitive balance between the different transport carriers. These ideas have already existed for quite a while, without ever being implemented. So, it remains to be seen if the European Commission’s proposal will change anything regarding that aspect. In Germany, the mobility and fuel strategy of 12 June 2013 indicated a possible future development. It sets the national target to reduce the energy consumption by about 10 % until 2020 and by about 40 % until 2050 compared to 2005-levels. To meet these goals, the use of alternative fuels and innovative motor systems as well as the overall efficiency shall be increased and the transport processes shall be optimized. Regarding the aviation industry, bio-kerosene is considered the only possible alternative. Moreover, it is claimed to support the development and research on that field. The strategy moreover states that Germany will continue to take part in the EU ETS and will also facilitate further market-based measures on the international level.

5.6

Final Considerations

The regulatory framework of global aviation consists out of a complex system of rules on different levels. The basic legal conditions find themselves in a constant conflict between government regulations and the principle of free markets leading

For an example compare to: https://www.vcd.org/themen/flugverkehr/luftverkehrsteuer/, https://www.atmosfair.de/portal/documents/10184/31806/BUND-kerosinsteuer-inland_neu. pdf/ca625249-778f-48d9-b17b-8f28d5486083. 130 See Ref. [18, p. 169]. 129

5  Regulatory Framework of Global Aviation91

to a continuous development. To manage the various challenges of international aviation including the interests of sustainable development and environmental protection the states involved are endeavoring to establish international cooperation for the formation of binding international rules. The process takes place under the roof of the ICAO, the predominant international aviation organization which has been established as a recognized organization for the development of a global legal regime concerning all relevant matters of aviation. The Chicago Convention is to be regarded as the leading agreement concerning the taxation of aviation fuel on the international level. According to the Convention fuel used for the demands of aviation should be free from any dues and taxes regardless of their designations given by the respective state. The recognition of this principle in the future is a matter of current international discussions and negotiations. The Council Directive 2003/96/EC is the most important regulation on EU level. It provides tax exemptions applying to energy products that are used as aviation fuel – whereas a different EU regime has been established for fuel used in civil non-commercial aviation, referring to aircrafts not used for commercial purposes. The EU Member States are allowed to limit tax exemptions to international or intra-community transportation. In Germany steps in the direction of introducing federal taxes for kerosene are a matter of political debates and proposals. The EU ETS is designed to become an important instrument concerning the regulation of aviation emissions. It generally applies to all flights that take off or land at EU Member States airports. During the period from 2013 to 2016 the Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 allows expansive exceptions. According to that Regulation, only flights within the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are considered to be applicable to the EU ETS until the ICAO has taken a decision on a global regime. Further steps and a decision of the ICAO are expected at the 39th session of the ICAO Assembly in September 2016. The support of the use of alternative fuels in the aviation industry is a seminal topic. The ICAO as well as the EU and several national states provide programs to promote the development in this sector.

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Eekhoff J (2010) Competition policy in Europe. Springer Abeyratne R (2015) Competition and investment in air transport: legal and economic issues. Springer Pearson MW, Riley DS (2015) Foundations of aviation law. Routledge Barrett S (2011) Deregulation and the airline business in Europe: selected readings. Routledge Hobe S, von Ruckteschell N, Heffernan D (2013) Cologne compendium on air law in Europe. Carl Heymanns Verlag Neiva R (2015) Institutional reform of air navigation service providers: a historical and economic perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Ehmer H, Berster P, Basedow J, Jung C (2000) Liberalisierung im Luftverkehr Deutschlands – Analyse und wettbewerbspolitische Empfehlungen – Forschungsbericht 2000-17, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt

92 [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

M. Paschke and C. Lutter Colangelo M (2015) Introduction to European Union transport law. Roma TrE-Press Wittmer A, Bieger T, Müller R (2011) Aviation systems: management of the integrated aviation value chain. Springer PhDiederiks-Verschoor IH Ph (2012) An introduction to air law. Kluwer Law International Rhoades DL (2014) Evolution of international Aviation: phoenix rising. Taylor & Francis Ltd Francesco Rossi Dal Pozzo (2014) EU legal framework for safeguarding air passenger rights. Springer Bernhardt R (2014) Regional cooperation organizations and problems. North Holland Schmitt D, Gollnick V (2015) Air transport system. Springer Finger M, Holvad T (2013) Regulating transport in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Hollo E, Kulovesi K, Mehling M (2012) Climate change and the law. Springer Peeters M, Deketelaere K (2006) EU climate change policy: the challenge of new regulatory initiatives. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Castellucci L, Markandya A (2012) Environmental taxes and fiscal reform. Palgrave Macmillan Talus K (2013) EU energy law and policy: a critical account. Oxford University Press Bigerna S, Bollino CA, Micheli S (2015) The sustainability of renewable energy in Europe Deane F (2015) Emissions trading and WTO law: a global analysis. Taylor & Francis Ltd Ea Energy Analyses A/S (2015) Future EU energy and climate regulation: implications for nordic energy development and nordic stakeholders. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Nordic Council of Ministers Copenhagen Engelbrekt AB, Mårtensson M, Oxelheim L, Persson T (2015) The EU’s role in fighting global imbalances. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Delbeke J, Vis P (2014) EU climate policy explained European Commission. European Commission, Brussels Woerdman E, Roggenkamp M, Holwerda M (2015) Essential EU climate law. Edward Elgar Publishing Oberthür S, Pallemaerts M (2010) The new climate policies of the European Union: internal legislation and climate diplomacy. Institute of European Studies OECD (2015) OECD environmental performance reviews. OECD, The Netherlands Mäntysaari P (2015) EU electricity trade law: the legal tools of electricity producers in the internal electricity market. Springer

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Marian Paschke  is professor at University Hamburg and holds the chair of civil law, commercial law, maritime law and business law at the Faculty of Law. The author is director of the Institute of the Law of the Sea and of Shipping Law. Carina Lutter  is employed as a scientific assistant at the Law Faculty of the University of Hamburg working on a PhD-thesis about Transport Law.

Part II

Feedstock

Chapter 6

Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy: The Question of Sustainable Availability Arne Roth, Florian Riegel and Valentin Batteiger

Abstract  Robust and detailed knowledge of the sustainable availability of biomass is crucial for the development of strategies, targets and roadmaps related to future use of bioenergy and biofuels. In this paper, an overview of existing studies on global biomass potentials is given. Specifically, land-based energy crops, wastes and residues as well as microalgae are addressed as biomass sources. It is shown that large potentials exist, but associated with considerable uncertainties. Furthermore, the scope of the discussion is extended from an exclusive focus on biomass feedstock to a more general view on renewable energy and on options of renewable fuel production beyond utilization of biomass. However, it is also shown that issues of sustainability and particularly economic aspects are not sufficiently addressed in the assessments that have been reported to date. Substantial research efforts are required to fill the remaining knowledge gap with respect to the sustainable and economic potentials of renewable energy and fuels.

6.1 Introduction The increasing interest of the aviation sector in sustainable alternative fuels has to be viewed in the context of the overarching global aspiration for the transition from a fossil to a renewable energy basis. Several key drivers behind this transition can be identified. A. Roth (*) · F. Riegel · V. Batteiger Bauhaus Luftfahrt e. V., Taufkirchen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] F. Riegel e-mail: [email protected] V. Batteiger e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_6

95

96

A. Roth et al.

Demand Side.  The world population is projected to continue its growth, reaching about 9.5 billion by 2050 [1]. At the same time, the standard of living in developing and emerging countries is also increasing. Both aspects combined translate into a rising demand for food, for feedstock to produce consumer goods, for mobility as well as for energy in general and for fuels in particular. This trend of growing demand is also reflected in the development of aviation with its past, present and probably future rise in air traffic and, unfortunately, also in fuel consumption. The availability of fossil feedstock is inherently limited. While coal is still available in vast quantities, easily exploitable sources of crude oil are getting scarce and production has to move towards unconventional sources, such as shale formations, deep-sea deposits and oil sands. Therefore, renewable energy and energy carriers are attractive with respect to supply security. Climate Protection. Protection of the climate represents a challenge of central importance for mankind in the twenty-first century. At the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) held in Paris, the parties agreed on the long-term target of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels […]”. In order to achieve this goal, a “global peaking of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” should be reached “as soon as possible”, with “rapid reductions thereafter” towards an essentially carbon-neutral global society and economy in the second half of the twenty-first century [2]. This can only be achieved through substantial contributions by all sectors that generate greenhouse gas emissions, including international aviation, in particular in light of aviation’s past, current and projected rates of growth. A paradigm shift from a fossil to a renewable energy base will be crucial in this context. For the transport sector, there are two principal options to achieve this transition: electrification (under the prerequisite that electric energy is renewably generated) and use of renewable fuels. Aviation in particular is an example of a transport sector that will remain dependent on liquid fuels at least for the medium-term future. Considering the rising fuel demand combined with the target of drastically reducing its emissions, it is clear that aviation will need huge quantities of renewable fuels to meet its own goals for reducing GHG emissions and to contribute its share to the achievement of the COP21 targets. Biomass as Part of a Global Renewable Solution.  An important pillar of a global renewable economy is the sustainable utilization of biomass. The net primary production, i.e. the overall global photosynthetic production of biomass, surpasses 100·109 EJ/a [3] or, in energy terms, about 4,500 EJ1/a [4]. Slightly more than half of

1 In the relevant literature biomass potentials are given as the primary energy chemically stored in biomass, typically in exajoule (1 EJ = 1018 J).

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

97

this quantity is produced as land-based biomass, while the rest is related to maritime organisms (mainly phytoplankton) [3]. However, net primary production does by no means correspond to the biomass quantity that could be sustainably used by humans as an energy feedstock: A large share of the primarily formed biomass serves heterotrophic (i.e. biomass consuming) organisms, including man, as a food source. Utilization of biomass for energy purposes is furthermore limited as a consequence of, e.g., ecological and/or environmental considerations. Hence, a detailed and robust knowledge of the potential sustainable availability is a prerequisite for the development of strategies (and associated roadmaps and targets) for energetic utilization of biomass. Any targeted consumption must be matched by sustainable availability; if this is not ensured, a policy aiming for sustainability and climate protection could turn into a policy that is actually doing more harm than good [5]. Thus, the key question to be answered before putting targets, quotas etc. in place, is how much can be sustainably produced and used? Several studies have been dedicated to this particular question over the past years. The paper at hand gives a review of some of these studies, analyzing the state of the art, identifying knowledge gaps and elaborating relevant research questions for the future research activities. Therefore the paper is structured as follows: First, some general thoughts regarding limiting factors of biomass availability are presented. The subsequent sections are dedicated to the potentials of land-based energy crops, wastes and residues as well as microalgae as aquatic biomass. Finally, an outlook is given on potentials for producing renewable fuels without utilizing biomass as feedstock.The paper closes with concluding remarks on the state of the art, identified knowledge gaps and questions that should be addressed in future research efforts.

6.2

Limiting Factors of Biomass Availability

The fact that the availability of biomass on Earth is limited is intuitive. There has been (and still is) a controversial discussion about the use and the extent of the use of biomass as feedstock for fuel production, sometimes pointedly referred to as “food vs. fuel” debate. Therefore, the question of how much biomass is potentially available and to which extent this potential can be utilized in a sustainable way is highly relevant. But which factors do actually limit biomass availability? Awareness of the key limiting factors is essential for any assessment of biomass potentials. So what do plants need to grow and which of these needs are limiting biomass availability? Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  CO2 serves as carbonaceous feedstock for plants, i.e. as carbon source for synthesizing biomass. Plants extract CO2 from the surrounding air or, in case of algae, from the surrounding water. Even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is low (about 400 ppm), it represents an essentially unlimited

98

A. Roth et al.

feedstock. However, in case of cultivation of microalgae (see below), the low concentration is actually limiting the biomass productivity, so CO2 has to be supplied in a more concentrated form. Water.  Water represents the second essential feedstock for plant growth, as it serves as hydrogen source in photosynthesis. Water (fresh water) also represents a limited and valuable resource that is needed by animal life and mankind. Water scarcity in many regions of the world poses a serious threat to local societies and economies and even entails the risk of international conflicts. At international level, UN-Water2 represents the United Nations inter-agency coordination mechanism for all freshwater related issues. Agriculture consumes large quantities of water, and consequently intensified cultivation of energy crops poses additional risk of water scarcity [6, 7]. Therefore, the availability of fresh water represents a limiting factor for biomass cultivation, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Nutrients.  Plants need a broad range of elements (nutrients) for their growth. Here, the discussion focuses on nitrogen and phosphorous. Nitrogen represents the main constituent of the atmosphere (75 % on a mass basis) and is, in principle, abundantly available. However, molecular nitrogen is chemically inert and needs to be converted into a more active species. In fertilizer industries, this is done via the so-called Haber-Bosch process. Therefore, nitrogen availability is not a limiting factor for biomass potentials. Phosphorous for fertilizers is currently mined from phosphate rock, a non-renewable and hence limited resource and a limiting factor for biomass production [8]. However, used phosphate can in principle be recovered from waste streams, such as manures and sludges [8], and consequently phosphorous availability is not expected to be fundamentally limiting. However, phosphate supply is an issue to be carefully watched in future. Solar Energy.  The solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is vast (exceeding 5·106 EJ/a) and offers great potential for renewable energy generation, as will be discussed below. However, even though abundant in total, solar energy reaches the surface in a “diluted” form, i.e. the solar irradiance is quite low. This means that solar energy needs to be collected over a large area in order to produce substantial quantities of chemical energy carriers. This is particularly true for converting solar energy via photosynthesis (see next paragraph). Photosynthesis.  Photosynthesis describes the biochemical process of the synthesis of organic compounds (i.e. primary chemical energy carriers) driven by photons. Hence, photosynthesis represents the biochemical conversion of solar energy into chemically stored energy. However, a central and inherent “problem” (from a human 2

http://www.unwater.org

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

99

perspective) of photosynthesis lies in its low energy efficiency. The theoretical limit of the photosynthetic efficiency ranges from 4.6 % for so-called C3 plants to 6 % for C4 plants [9]. However, under natural conditions, only photosynthetic efficiencies of about 1 % are achieved. This low energy efficiency translates into low area-specific yields and consequently into an inefficient use of land. In combination with the “diluted” nature of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, this means that cultivating biomass for energy purposes, e.g. for the production of biofuels, is very area-demanding. It can be concluded that a key limiting factor for biomass production is its high area demand or, conversely, the limited availability of land. Furthermore, biomass production is also limited by the availability of water, at least in certain areas with water scarcity. The above-mentioned “food vs. fuel” debate is essentially not about competition for biomass, but rather about competition for land. This means that an assessment of biomass potentials should be based on the sustainable availability of suitable land and consider the local biomass productivity, e.g. in terms of soil quality and rainfall.

6.3

Land-Based Biomass

Before reviewing the landscape of studies devoted to biomass potentials, it is necessary to clarify the various definitions of the term “potential” used in the scientific literature. The following definitions are used throughout this paper [10]. • Geographical potential – also referred to as the biomass potential. This potential reflects the physical/geographical limit of the primary energy that is stored in a unit of biomass. Limitations in terms of land availability as well as of biomass productivities are taken into account. • Technical potential – also referred to as the biofuel potential. This potential represents the production potential of a specific product, such as a specific fuel. It is therefore derived from the geographical potential, taking into account the technology-specific conversion efficiency. • Economic potential – quantifies the share of the technical potential that can be used under given socio-economic conditions at a given point in time. • Sustainable potential – takes into account issues of sustainability, e.g. by excluding specific types of biomass or crops or landclasses or by considering other types of sustainability principles. It has to be noted that in some studies certain sustainability principles have also been considered in the assessment of technical potentials. Several frequently cited key studies on the assessment of the potential of land-based biomass have been conducted in the past 10 to15 years. A summary of the biomass potentials from land-based energy crops estimated in these studies is presented in Table 6.1. Please note that the potentials listed in Table 6.1 refer to dedicated

100

A. Roth et al.

Table 6.1  Summarized results of key studies on global biomass potentials from landbased energy crops; potentials are projected for the year 2050, unless noted otherwise

Study

a

Biomass potential (2050)

Searle et al.

[12]

17–209 EJ/a

Erb et al.

[13]

28–125 EJ/a

van Vuuren et al.

[14]

65–150 EJ/a

WBGU

[10]

34–120 EJ/a

Doornbosch et al.

[15]

83 EJ/a

Smeets et al.

[16]

215–1,272 EJ/a

Hoogwijk et al.

[17]

311–657 EJ/a

Hoogwijk et al.

[18]

8–1,098 EJ/a

Wolf et al.

[19]

0–920 EJ/a

IRENA

[20]

33–39 EJ/aa

projected for 2030.

energy crops. The potentials from wastes and residues are discussed in the following section. Before entering a detailed discussion on individual studies, it has to be clearly stated that it is not possible to determine the actual and correct global biomass potential, because biomass potentials are generally functions of a broad set of underlying assumptions and boundary conditions. These assumptions and boundary conditions vary strongly, particularly because all key studies consider future potentials, mainly projected for 2050 and consequently rely on scenarios. Key factors affecting the resulting biomass potentials relate to the future demand for food and fodder, in turn depending on the projected growth of the world population and of the nutrition habits, on future agricultural practices and crop yields and also on the development of land availability and quality, especially in the context of global climate change. Therefore, it is not surprising that the reported biomass potentials span a wide range from 0 to more than 1,200 EJ/a, as can be seen in Table 6.1. For comparison, the current (2010) global primary energy consumption amounts to about 500 EJ/a [11]. In the following, a selection of frequently cited studies is presented and briefly discussed, with a particular focus on the impact of the respective choice of assumptions and exclusion criteria on the estimated potentials. The central objective of all studies on biomass potentials is the quantification of the potential availability of biomass for purposes other than the production of food and fodder, especially for energetic use. This means that only biomass in excess of the demand for food and fodder production is taken into account. But how much food and fodder will be needed in future to ensure a globally sufficient supply? The estimation of the projected future demand for food and fodder production represents the factor with the highest impact on the uncertainties of the respective study [10]. In the study by van Vuuren et al. [14], land considered available for biomass production is restricted to abandoned agricultural land and natural grassland systems,

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

101

such as savannah, scrubland, tundra and grasslands. Hence, it is ensured that the land needed for food production, forests, nature reserves and urban areas are excluded from the assessment. Considering woody biomass as energy crop, a biomass potential (geographical potential) of 148 EJ/a is estimated. However, this potential is substantially reduced if limitations in terms of water scarcity and soil degradation are taken into account. In particular, water scarcity is an issue of increasing relevance, and intensified energy crop cultivation in water-scarce areas poses a serious social and environmental risk if irrigation has to be applied to enable economically viable cultivation. Exclusion of water-scarce and degraded areas results in a biomass potential of 65 EJ/a, i.e. of less than 50 % of the full potential. A biomass potential of similar order of magnitude was found in the study by Erb et al. [13]. Among other important factors, the enormous effect of the future development of the world population’s diet is emphasized in that study. Considering energy crop cultivation on surplus crop land and grazing land, coupled with an affluent “high meat” diet and an intensive agriculture with very high yields, a biomass potential of 28 EJ/a was estimated. Under the same assumption, but with a moderate “less meat” diet, a strongly increased biomass potential of 125 EJ/a was concluded. With respect to the estimated substantial potentials from crop cultivation on grazing land, Erb et al.[13] point out that a large-scale land use change from grazing land to crop cultivation would “most probably be associated with vast social and ecological effects, such as a further pressure on populations practicing low-input agriculture”. In this respect, it appears questionable if large-scale cultivation of energy crops on grazing land could be achieved in a sustainable way. A very comprehensive report on future bioenergy and sustainable land use was published by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) in 2009 [21]. As part of this project, a detailed modeling study on the global future geographical potential was conducted [10]. This work includes, i.a., modeling of biomass productivities and energy crop yields as well as scenarios for area demands for food production and environmental restrictions. Special importance is attached to the consideration of sustainability aspects, e.g. the impact of land-use change. Land is excluded from further assessment, if the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through production (and subsequent use) of energy crops on a specific area does not have the potential to compensate the emissions induced by subjecting it to agricultural use. The geographical potential yielded from the assessment range from 34 to 120 EJ/a, where the low end of the range corresponds to high area demands for food production and a high level of protection of biodiversity. Artificial irrigation was not considered in this scenario. If, in contrast, the future area demand for food production as well as the protection of biodiversity are assumed to be low, the resulting geographical potential amounts to 100 and 120 EJ/a (with and without artificial irrigation, respectively). With respect to regional contributions, the highest potential was found for the Caribbean & Latin America with 22 to 24 % of the overall biomass potential. Sub-Saharan Africa offer the second highest potential (12 to 15 %), followed by Europe and North America with 5 to 15 % each.

102

A. Roth et al.

These values are in line with the geographical potential of 83 EJ/a estimated by Doornbosch et al. for energy crop cultivation on surplus land, assuming a relatively high average biomass yield of 10 t/ha dry mass [15]. A more optimistic assessment of the future geographical potential of energy crop cultivation on surplus agricultural land was conducted by Smeets et al. [16]. In various scenarios, potentials from 215 to 1,272 are EJ/a were found. The assessment focuses on productive agricultural land, while degraded land as well as protection areas, forests, barren land, scrubland and savannahs were excluded. Nevertheless, the potentials estimated by Smeets et al. are located at the high end of biomass potentials reported to date (Table 6.1). This is a consequence of optimistic assumptions regarding the efficiency of future agriculture and achievable yields. It is assumed that an agricultural management similar to the high external input system established in the industrialized regions is applied throughout the world. This would strongly increase the productivity in currently less developed regions with predominantly extensive pastoral production systems, where grazing land could be converted to high-yield crop cultivation. In their scenarios, global average crop yields are projected to increase by a factor of 2.9 to 3.6 until 2050. However, these assumptions might be overly optimistic, as discussed by Searle and Malins [12] (see below). Interestingly, Smeets et al. analyzed the geographical potential also in regional resolution. Highest potentials for bioenergy production from surplus agricultural land were found for sub-Saharan Africa (31 to 317 EJ/a) and the Caribbean & Latin America (47 to 221 EJ/a). North America and Oceania also offer considerable potentials, with 20 to 174 EJ/a for North America and 38 to 102 EJ/a for Oceania. These findings are qualitatively in line with the results of the WBGU study [10], but with overall much higher potentials. A comprehensive assessment of the potential of biomass for energy supply was conducted by Hoogwijk et al. (2003) on the basis of a range of existing studies [18]. Six categories of biomass resources are identified, namely energy crops on surplus agricultural land, energy crops on degraded land, agricultural residues, forest residues, animal manure and organic wastes. With potentials between 0 and 988 EJ/a, cultivation of energy crops on surplus agricultural land was found to provide the by far largest share of the overall future (2050) potential. However, the wide span of value again shows the challenge of associated uncertainties: no potential at all is estimated under the assumption that agricultural land is entirely required for food production as a consequence of a grown world population and a demanding average diet. In contrast, values at the high end of the range are only conceivable, if land is used for energy crop cultivation that is currently in use for food production. This would require large improvements in area-specific yields in an intensive agricultural system relying on high external inputs, including pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation. Simultaneously, radical changes in the average diet, i.e. moving towards lower demand for animal products, would be necessary. Considering the current situation and past developments, such a scenario appears highly unlikely. The geographical potential from cultivation of energy crops on degraded lands estimated by Hoogwijk et al. [18] is substantially lower, ranging from 8 to 110 EJ/a.

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

103

At large, the geographical potential considering both, energy crop cultivation on surplus agricultural and on degraded land, amounts to 8 to 1,098 EJ/a, as shown in Table 6.1. Two years later, Hoogwijk et al. published a new original assessment [17] of the global geographical potential based on the cultivation of woody biomass in short-rotation coppice plantations and a set of four socio-economic scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scenarios are basically constructed along two dimensions, i.e. globalization vs. regionally orientation and material/economic vs. environmental/social focus. The considered land categories are: • abandoned agricultural land, • low-productive (marginal) land, • “rest” land, e.g. savannah and scrubland, but not including grassland, forests, urban areas, bioreserves and tundra. The following geographical potentials (projected for 2050) were found: • cultivation on abandoned agricultural land: 129 to 409 EJ/a, • cultivation on low-productive land: 5 to 9 EJ/a, • cultivation on “rest” land: 35 to 243 EJ/a. The aggregated potentials in the four scenarios range from 311 to 657 EJ/a. As could be expected, the highest potentials were found for scenarios with economic/material (instead of environmental/and social) orientation and a globalized economy. Therefore, the study by Hoogwijk et al. is located at the higher end of the range spanned by most studies published to date (Table 6.1). While cultivation in abandoned agricultural land yields the largest contribution in their assessment, the consideration of “rest” land also shows significant potentials. However, utilization of land that was formerly not under agricultural use implies a severe land-use change with a broad range of associated social and environmental risks. This issue was thoroughly discussed by Hoogwijk et al., and an exclusion factor for utilization of “rest” land was applied in their study, reserving a certain share of “rest” land for other purposes, such as animal grazing, recreation or needs of indigenous population [17]. Nevertheless, serious risks remain. In contrast to abandoned agricultural and “rest” land, low-productive (marginal) land offers only negligible potential for energy crops cultivation, according to Hoogwijk et al. [17]. In this context it has to be noted that there is no universal definition of the land categories marginal and degraded land. Even though frequently referenced in public and scientific discussions, these terms are not used in a coherent way, and, consequently, the reported potentials for energy crops grown on such land differ substantially. For example, while Hoogwijk et al. find only very small potentials for low-productive land in their assessment, other studies conclude substantial potentials, for example up to 110 EJ/a [18], for cultivation on degraded land.

104

A. Roth et al.

There is an open debate ongoing about the definition of degraded (and marginal) land [22] and about the actual potential of such lands for the cultivation of energy crops. While it is certainly possible, in principle, to grow crops on degraded land, it is questionable if this can be done in an economically viable way [23]. Wolf et al. [19] focus in their study on future (2050) geographical potential of energy crops cultivated on agricultural land [19]. Particular attention is given to the impact of the agricultural system (high vs. low external input system) and the future average diet. Both ends of the span of the estimated potential are attributed to extreme combinations of future diets and agricultural practices: While for high external input production coupled with a predominantly vegetarian diet a biomass potential as high as 920 EJ/a was found, the potential reduces to zero for low external input production coupled with an affluent diet. Under the more realistic assumption that food requirement (average dietary habit) corresponds to the actual agricultural production system, i.e. high input coupled with high food requirement and low input with low food requirement, potentials range from 162 to 648 EJ/a. A more recent assessment of global supply and demand scenarios for bioenergy in 2030 by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) resulted in a comparably low potential of 33 to 39 EJ/a for energy crop production on surplus land suitable and accessible for agriculture [20]. This potential was estimated by subtracting the land area currently (2010) used for food crop production (1.3·109 ha) from the overall land potentially available for crop production (2.7·109 ha). As described in detail above in the present section, the reported studies vary widely in terms of assumptions, scenarios and results. It was also discussed that, at least in some cases, these assumptions and scenarios might tend to be overly optimistic, therefore overestimating production potentials of energy crops. These issues are addressed in an interesting work by Searle and Malins [26], in which existing estimates of biomass potentials are reassessed by revisiting the underlying assumptions to draw a (from the perspective of the authors of that study) more realistic picture of biomass potentials, especially in terms of sustainability [12]. Most importantly, assumptions regarding the yields of food and energy crops and the carbon cost of changing land use to energy crops cultivation are corrected, but also the land availability is reassessed considering regional political stability. The reassessment results universally in a reduction of biomass potentials, however, to different extents. Most severely reduced are the potentials estimated by Smeets et al. [16] and Hoogwijk et al. [17], both by more than 80 %. But even the more moderate estimations by WBGU [10] and Erb et al. [13] are reduced by more than 40 % and 30 %, respectively. In summary, after the reassessment, Searle and Malins conclude biomass potentials (including energy crops as well as wastes and residues) from 17 to 209 EJ/a, with a median of 106 EJ/a. The production potential of energy crops is highly dependent on the availability of suitable and accessible land, reflected in the fact that uncertainties in land availability directly translate into uncertainties in the estimated potentials, as described above. Therefore the assessment of the sustainably available land suitable and accessible for energy crop cultivation is crucial to reduce the uncertainties. Such

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

105

an assessment should be carried out by using georeferenced data in high spacial resolution to ensure accurate quantification of locally available land. The selection of suitable and sustainably available and accessible land should follow strict sustainability principles, while, at the same time, sufficient land needs to be allocated to the production of food and fodder. Moreover, potential crop yields should be estimated as a function of local climatic and edaphic conditions, instead of applying average yields. This approach was pursued in a recently completed German research project [24], resulting in a current global geographical potential of 200 to 250 EJ/a [25].

6.4

Wastes and Residues

As the controversial discussion about utilizing biomass from dedicated energy crops for energy purposes, particularly for producing fuels, continues and concerns regarding the actual social and environmental balance of biofuels are raised, wastes and residues are put forward as truly sustainable low-cost feedstock. Utilizing wastes and residues offers the advantages that no additional land is required for feedstock production. Furthermore, energetic use of biogenic wastes and residues reduces the emission of highly climate-damaging methane that would be set free, e.g., upon disposal in landfills (municipal solid waste) or on fields (manures). And it represents, in principle, an option to valorize material that would otherwise have to be disposed of in potentially costly procedures. However, the question of sustainable availability is also relevant in case of wastes and residues. For example, certain waste streams are already used by other sectors, e.g. for heat and power generation. Other materials, such as paper waste, are or could be re-cycled, and energy use might therefore not be the most efficient option. Agricultural and forestry residues fulfill important purposes, such as maintenance of soil quality, protection of biodiversity and re-cycling of nutrients, and consequently cannot be completely exploited for energy purposes. In contrast to biomass potentials of dedicated energy crops, only few studies have been conducted on the potential availability of wastes and residues as feedstock for energetic use. Generally, the associated uncertainties are high, as it is widely unclear to which extent the potentials can be sustainably used. In addition, the potentials differ substantially at local level, because of differing production and utilization of waste and residue streams. For example, in Germany the potentials of paper and forestry wastes are already used almost completely [21]. Another challenge associated with wastes and residues is connected to the supply of sufficient quantities in an economically viable way. Wastes and residues can be solid or wet, are often produced in dispersed locations and represent heterogeneous materials. As is the case for most types of biomass, wastes and residues offer only low energy densities; particularly wet materials, such as manure and sludges, contain large quantities of water that have to be transported and processed (or removed). For these reasons, the question to which extent the potential of wastes and residues can

106

A. Roth et al.

be utilized in an economically reasonable way, i.e. the question of the economic potential (see definition of potentials above). As already indicated above, there are various types and sources of wastes and residues that can be categorized as follows: • • • •

forestry residues (unused parts of felled trees), agriculture (straw, hulls, kernels, manure, etc.), biogenic municipal and industrial solid waste (paper, cardboard, food waste, etc.), sludges.

In the present section, a brief review of selected studies devoted to the assessment of long-term future (i.e. for the year 2050) potentials of wastes and residues is given (overview of results listed in Table 6.2). In the WBGU study from 2009, a review of various sources and publications led to the conclusion that a global potential for wastes and residues of about 80 EJ/a appears realistic [10]. However, this value was corrected to 50 EJ/a to meet the requirement of leaving a substantial share of residues in the field. The authors of the WBGU study emphasize that this potential represents only a very rough estimation, as large uncertainties exist regarding the environmentally sustainable use of residues (see above). It is also stated that only 25 % of the potential (i.e. about 10 to 15 EJ/a) might be usable in an economically reasonable way. Doornbosch et al. estimated a future global potential for the use of wastes and residues of 135 EJ/a [15], thus representing the most optimistic of the studies discussed here (Table 6.2). Forestry residues contribute the largest share to this potential (91 EJ/a), followed by crop residues (34 EJ/a) and animal and organic wastes (10 EJ/a). For crop residues it is assumed that typically 25 to 33 % of the technically available quantity of residues, e.g. straw and corn stover, can be actually harvested and used in a sustainable way. In case of forestry residues the situation was found to be more uncertain, as new uses of forest products, e.g. production fiber, fertilizer and even fodder, are constantly being developed. Therefore, the utilization pressure on forests is constantly increasing, causing serious concerns associated with an intensified energetic use (beyond classical use as fuel wood) of woody biomass Table 6.2  Results of selected studies on global potentials of wastes and residues for energy purposes; potentials are projected for the year 2050 Study

Global potential for waste and residues

WBGU

[10]

50 EJ/a

Doornbosch et al.

[15]

135 EJ/a

Hoogwijk et al.

[18]

62–108 EJ/a

Searle and Malins

[26]

≈3 EJ/a (Europe)a

Potential originally given as 63 million t/a; here converted to energy-based potential assuming an average lower heating value of 17 GJ/t (dry mass).

a

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

107

from forests [27]. The potential for utilizing animal and organic wastes was found to be limited. The main problem was attributed to the cost of collecting the feedstock in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of conversion units of relevant and economically reasonable scale. Hoogwijk et al. conducted a review analyses of several reported studies and concluded an overall potential for wastes and residues of 62 to 108 EJ/a [18]. This potential results from the following individual contributions: • • • •

agricultural solid wastes: 10 to 32 EJ/a, manure: 9 to 25 EJ/a, frorestry residues: 10 to 16 EJ/a, organic waste (municipal and industrial): 1 to 3 EJ/a.

A detailed assessment of the potential of wastes and residues was conducted by Searle and Malins [26–28]. However, the scope of the study is restricted to the European Union and to the current potential at national level, even though certain projections to 2020 and 2030 are presented. The analysis addressed the sustainable potential availability: Only quantities that can be harvested without negative environmental effects were taken into account. This is of particular importance in case of agricultural and forestry residues, where retention rates were considered, defining the ratio of residual material that should remain on the field or in the forest to maintain soil fertility and biodiversity. For agricultural residues, retention rates were modeled and applied individually for all EU member states (the average retention rate amounts to 3.7 t/ha). Retention rates for forestry residues were also modeled individually for all member states, with a minimum retention rate of 50 % and a resulting average of 68 %. Additionally, waste and residual material already in use for other purposes or in other industries were excluded from the assessment, thus minimizing the risk of inducing additional competition for feedstock. The analysis yielded a current total sustainable potential for the use of wastes and residues in the European Union of 157 million t/a (dry mass). Roughly assuming an average energy content (lower heating value, LHH) of 17 GJ/t, this potential amounts to about 3 (2.7) EJ/a. At a closer look, this potential is based on the following contributions: A total potential availability of 85 million t/a (1.4 EJ/a) was estimated for agricultural residues in the EU. The highest potentials at national level were found for France and Germany with each contributing 21 million t/a (0.4 EJ/a) as a consequence of the large agricultural sector in both countries. The sustainable potential of forestry residues is considerably lower and amounts to 9 million t/a (0.2 EJ/a), with the largest contribution of 4 million t/a (0.07 EJ/a) found for Finland. The sustainable potential for biogenic wastes of 63 million t/a (1.1 EJ/a) is in the same order of magnitude as the potential of agricultural residues. The countries with the highest potentials of biogenic wastes are UK with 10 million t/a as well as France and Italy with each 9 million t/a (all corresponding to about 0.2 EJ/a).

108

A. Roth et al.

Excursus: Used Cooking Oil - A Special Oleaginous Waste.  Used cooking oil (UCO) is a waste material of particular interest for aviation as feedstock for sustainable jet fuel production. The main reason for this interest is the fact that UCO represents essentially the only currently available option to produce sustainable jet fuel from waste streams. This limitation is due to the current situation that hydroprocessing of fats and oils is the only conversion technology capable of yielding renewable “drop-in” replacements for conventional jet fuel3 that has been industrially implemented to date. In the past few years several airlines have used jet fuel blends partly based on used cooking oil, as announced, e.g. in refs [29– 32]. However, the question, if used cooking oil (or more generally waste vegetable oil) represents a feedstock with significant potential for future jet fuel supply, has rarely been addressed. The global availability of waste vegetable oil has not been assessed at global scale. But at European level it can be assumed that about 1 million t/a of UCO can be collected [28–33]. Furthermore, for the countries USA, China, Indonesia and Argentina a combined potential of 4.5 million t/a for UCO was estimated [33]. Considering that other large countries, such as India and Brazil, can also be expected to offer significant potentials for UCO, a global potential of at least 7 to 8 million t/a can be assumed. At a conversion efficiency of 60 % [34], this corresponds to a maximum production of 4 to 5 million t/a of HEFA jet fuel from UCO. However, this number has to be compared to an annual global jet fuel consumption of roughly 250  million t/a [35]. Moreover, it has to be acknowledged that UCO represents a valuable waste stream that is already widely used, for example for the production of biodiesel. Therefore it is clear that fuels from UCO can only play a minor role a future renewably fueled aviation.

6.5 Algae In the previous section, the focus was on the geographical potential of land-based energy crops. However, the fact that almost half of the world’s net primary production (100·109 t of globally fixated carbon per year [3] or about 4,500 EJ/a [4]) is achieved by marine phytoplankton [3] clearly shows that aquatic biomass also holds a great potential as feedstock for fuel production. In this context, it is not surprising that the topic of “liquid fuels from microalgae” has recently become the subject of intense discussion and research efforts. This interest can be attributed to different aspects rendering the cultivation of microalgae particularly promising: Microalgae offer high biomass productivities, potentially far superior to productivities typically observed for land-based energy crops [36]. Furthermore, microalgae are capable of

3

Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA)

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

109

accumulating high lipid contents in the cells and are not dependent on agricultural land for cultivation. The latter property, in principle, enables avoidance of competition for fertile land for producing food products. In the light of these promising aspects, the present section is dedicated to the analysis of the potential of aquatic biomass in the form of microalgae as raw material for energy purposes. Microalgae are aquatic organisms that can be cultivated in water-filled containers. Depending on the species, either fresh or salt water can be used as a culture medium. Moreover, the use of nutrient-rich waste water as a culture medium is possible for certain species, offering a sustainable, albeit technically demanding, form of production. Generally, cultivation of microalgae can be conducted in open and closed systems: Open systems are typically shallow pools. A particularly prominent representative of an open system is the so-called raceway pond. In such a set-up, the culture medium is moved around a central weir by a paddle wheel, thus resembling a race circuit, if viewed from above. By contrast, closed systems form a hermetically sealed but optically transparent cultivation environment. Typical representatives of closed systems range from simple plastic bags to complex plate and tube architectures. Compared to open configurations, growth conditions can be better controlled in closed systems, enabling higher yields and offering a reduced risk of contamination. However, drawbacks of closed systems lie in their often complex design and energy-intensive operation. Analogous to land-based energy crops, a set of relevant selection criteria has to be considered in order to evaluate the suitability of cultivation sites. The criteria most frequently applied in the reviewed studies are: • climatic aspects (local temperature and solar radiation), • the availability of carbon dioxide (i.e. the distance to CO2 point sources, such as power plants or ethanol and biogas plants), • the availability of nutrients (e.g. in the form of mineral fertilizer or nutrient-rich waste water), • the availability of water (the distance to sources of fresh, brackish or salt water), and • the terrain (maximum slope, typically restricted to no more than 1 to 5 %). In addition, wooded land, conservation areas, and other ecologically valuable land as well as agricultural land have been excluded from further consideration in most reviewed studies for sustainability reasons. With regard to the selection criteria, it is important to note that the cultivation of microalgae represents a technical process, as opposed to the agricultural and forestry production of land-based biomass. As a consequence, originally unfavorable external conditions can, in principle, be compensated by technical means. This applies, for example, for the active control of the temperature of the growth medium or the long-distance transport of carbon dioxide and water, e.g. via pipeline, in the absence

110

A. Roth et al.

of respective sources in the vicinity of cultivation plants. The feasibility of production of microalgae is thus limited to a lesser extent by external circumstances, if compared to land-based energy crops. The limitations of microalgae cultivation are rather defined by economic aspects: While technically feasible, the required input and effort might be economically (and often also environmentally) prohibitive. In the context of studies on the production potential of microalgae, the criteria applied therein for the selection of suitable sites, therefore, should not be understood as physically or biologically motivated. They rather reflect the respective authors’ estimation with respect to technically, economically and ecologically reasonable limits. In most studies, the estimated potentials are reported in terms of the potentially producible quantity of algae oil. This algae oil can be extracted and subsequently converted into liquid fuels by means of industrially established procedures, namely transesterification and hydroprocessing. In order to ensure comparability with the potentials of land-based energy crops, the authors of the paper at hand have recalculated the reported technical potentials of algae oil into biomass potentials (geographical potentials) of algal biomass on the basis of the respectively assumed algae oil fractions and energy contents of dry algal biomass. The geographical focus of most studies on the potential of microalgae lies on the United States. The most relevant example is the published study by Wigmosta et al. [37]. In that study, the water consumption in open algae production systems is investigated. Such open systems are mostly constructed as oval shallow ponds, offering a large uncovered surface from which substantial quantities of water can evaporate. It is assumed in that study that these evaporation losses are compensated for by the supply of fresh water, resulting in a considerable fresh water consumption (see below), especially under sunny and warm climatic conditions. In addition to the critical aspect of water consumption, the potential of microalgae production in the United States is analyzed. A GIS-based approach is pursued for that purpose in which several types of surface areas are excluded from further consideration. Such excluded areas are inland water bodies, settlement areas, land with a slope exceeding 1 %, agricultural land (but not pasture land), wetlands and conservation areas. An area of 4.9  km² is assumed for a single algae cultivation facility, of which 0.9  km² are reserved for infrastructure and buildings. Potential biomass yields are estimated using a detailed productivity model. Meteorological data, e.g. local solar radiation, are applied for estimating important input parameters, such as the temperature of the culture medium and evaporation rates. Following this approach, a total land area of 4.3·105 km² is identified as potentially available for cultivation of microalgae in the US. This area corresponds to about 5.5 % of the total land area of the United States and consists mainly of bush and shrub land. For this area, Wigmosta et al. calculate a potential of 2.2·1011 L/a of algae oil – or 22 EJ/a of algal biomass.4 This potential production volume compares with a fresh water requirement of 3.12·1014 L/a, approximately 2.75 times the fresh

4 On the basis of an algae oil fraction of 20 %, a density of algae oil of 0.93 kg/L, and an energy content of dry algal biomass of 21.7 MJ/kg [37].

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

111

water consumption for irrigation in the United States. Accordingly, about 1,400 L of fresh water are required for the production of 1 L of algae oil. Restriction to locations with advantageous growth conditions results in a strongly reduced fresh water consumption of 350 L per liter of algae oil produced. However, such a restriction compares with a drop in the potential down to 7.95·1010 L/a of algae oil – or 8 EJ/a of algal biomass.3 The recently published doctoral thesis by Skarka (2015) [38] represents, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the only potential analysis on microalgae with a focus on the European Union (EU-27). This study is based on a simple growth model that is applied to estimate the specific biomass productivity under given local conditions. Months providing local climatic conditions (in terms of monthly average temperatures and temperature extremes) unsuitable for algae cultivation are not taken into account in the assessment. Land is only considered, if not currently used for agricultural purposes. Moreover, settlement areas, wooded land, and conservation areas are excluded from the analysis. The maximum tolerable slope is 8 %, which is substantially more compared to the other studies discussed here, where tolerable slopes are generally limited to 1 or 2 %. An average distance of 240 km is assumed for the transport of the required carbon dioxide via pipeline. According to the study by Skarka, about 6.61·109 L of algae oil – or about 1 EJ of algal biomass5 – could be produced in Europe (EU-27) per year. The study reports the highest potential for Spain (4.52·109 L/a of algae oil, 0.6 EJ/a of algal biomass4) [38]. The overall production potential of microalgae in the EU-27 states of about 1 EJ/a,4 as calculated by Skarka, is rather small in comparison with the current primary energy demand of the EU-27 states of about 75 EJ/a [39]. The study by Ames [40] represents, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the only reproducible research work on the global potential of microalgae. In that study, a geographically motivated approach is pursued to estimate the potential of microalgae, using spatially explicit data sets and a cell-by-cell analysis of available surfaces and local productivities. The assessment by Ames is essentially based on multiplication of the area-specific local annual energy yield by the land area potentially available for cultivating microalgae. This calculation is performed with a spatial resolution of 5 arcmin (corresponds to a cell size of 9.28 km² along the equator). Examples of key input variables in the calculation of the area-specific annual energy yield are the temperature of the culture medium (approximated in the model by the geographically closest sea surface temperature) and the local solar radiation energy. In order to identify areas not available for the cultivation of microalgae and thus to calculate the land availability, Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) data sets are used: Settlement areas, agricultural land, wooded land, and conservation areas as well as areas with a slope exceeding 2 % are excluded from further consideration. In addition, grid cells located more than 200 km away from an industrial point source of CO2 are not considered for economic reasons. Analogous, grid cells located more

5 On the basis of an algae oil fraction of 15 %, a density of algae oil of 0.93 kg/L, and an energy content of dry algal biomass of 20 MJ/kg [38].

112

A. Roth et al.

than 161 km away from a sufficient source of saltwater are excluded from further consideration as well. The area-specific potential energy yield for each grid cell is then multiplied by the respective land availability to calculate the maximum annual energy yield on the assumption of a 100 % sufficient CO2 supply. Finally, the actual CO2 availability is determined for each grid cell, reflecting the case of CO2 supply limitation of the bioenergy potential. For this purpose, the geographical localization and the CO2 generation capacity of all coal- and gas-fired power plants worldwide are evaluated and compared with the CO2 quantity required for the cultivation of microalgae. The required CO2 volume is estimated from the specific requirement of 1.93 to 2.43 kg CO2 per kilogram of biomass produced. In grid cells where the required CO2 volume could not be met by its availability, the bioenergy production from microalgae is CO2 supply limited, expressed by a coefficient of CO2 availability of less than 1. The conversion of the biomass potential into technical potentials is conducted assuming an algae oil fraction of 15, 25, and 60 % (for the scenario with low, baseline, and high algae oil productivity). The most favorable conditions for cultivating microalgae are identified along the Gulf of Mexico, in Central Africa, India, Micronesia, and Northern Australia. In these regions, the area-specific potential energy yields amount to 35.5·103 L/(ha a) of algae oil – or 4.33·1012 J/(ha a) of algal biomass6 – for the baseline scenario. However, critical aspects like the CO2 supply are found to have a significant impact on the area-specific potential energy yields, amounting to 18.82·103 and 98.1·103 L/(ha a) of algae oil – or 3.83·1012 and 4.99·1012 J/(ha a) of algal biomass7 – for the scenario with low and high algae oil productivity, respectively. Accordingly, substantial variations are also observed for the overall global potential of microalgae, ranging from 3.47·1011 L/a of algae oil – or 70 EJ/a of algal biomass6 – for the limited productivity scenario up to 85.34·1011 L/a of algae oil – or 434 EJ/a of algal biomass6 – for the scenario with high algae oil productivity. The baseline scenario results in a global potential of 15.84·1011 L/a of algae oil – or 193 EJ/a of algal biomass.5 Overall, Asia and Northern America are identified as the two regions with the highest potential of microalgae cultivation. Generally, regions offering large areas of “marginal land”, tropical or semi-arid climate, and sufficient proximity to sustainably utilizable water resources and CO2 point sources are particularly attractive. An overview of the potentials reported in the studies reviewed and discussed above is presented in Table 6.3 (the figures listed in Table 6.3 always refer to algal biomass). Irrespective of the undoubted uncertainties and variations, the discussed figures clearly demonstrate that microalgae have a substantial production potential. In this context, it has to be emphasized again that the biomass potentials of microalgae do

On the basis of an algae oil fraction of 25 %, a density of algae oil of 0.93 kg/L, and an energy content of dry algal biomass of 32.8 MJ/kg [40]. 6

On the basis of an algae oil fraction of 15 and 60 %, a density of algae oil of 0.93 kg/L, and an energy content of dry algal biomass of 32.8 MJ/kg [40].

7

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

113

Table 6.3  Summarized results of selected studies on biomass potentials of microalgae Study Wigmosta et al.

[37]

Geographical focus

Biomass potential

Notes

United States

22 EJ/a 8 EJ/a

High water consumption Moderate water consumption

Skarka

[38]

EU-27

≈1 EJ/a

n/a

Ames

[40]

Global

70 EJ/a 434 EJ/a 193 EJ/a

CO2 and water limitation Baseline

not depend on the availability of arable land. With respect to the potential resource base, microalgae therefore represent a promising option for the production of renewable liquid fuels, while at the same time avoiding competition with food production. However, it should be mentioned that the economic and ecological sustainability of liquid fuels production from microalgae has yet to be demonstrated at an industrial, economically relevant scale. Another important aspect, which, however, is not considered in the studies published so far, is the nature of CO2 sources: Almost all potential studies assume a CO2 supply from using point sources (if they consider the CO2 supply at all), which are mainly fossil-fueled (gas or coal-fired power plants). Consequently, liquid fuels production depends on fossil carbon sources in those cases. Although such an approach may appear attractive for demonstration purposes or short-term applications, a truly sustainable liquid fuel production is only possible, if the CO2 supply is based on renewable sources, as has been shown for other production pathways towards renewable fuels that depend on the supply of concentrated CO2 [41, 42].

6.6

Going Beyond Biomass: Renewable Energy Potentials

As discussed in the previous section of this paper, there is considerable potential for the use of biomass, either from land-based energy crops, algae, or wastes and residues. However, there is competing (and increasing) demand for biomass, most importantly, of course, for the production of food and fodder. And the potential for future sustainable biomass production is limited, even though this limit is not exactly known to date and there is an ongoing controversial debate about future contribution of biomass to a renewable energy supply. An inherent problem of using biomass is the low efficiency of photosynthesis, as described above. In combination with a “diluted” energy flow in the form of solar radiation, this limitation translates into an inefficient use of land and other valuable resources, most prominently water [6, 7]. Hence, there are good reasons to consider technologies for producing renewable

114

A. Roth et al.

Fig. 6.1  Basic principle of the PtL process (Source: PtL Background Paper, German Environment Agency, 2016 [44]; diagram produced by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH)

energy carriers without using biogenic feedstock, i.e. bypassing the inefficient photosynthetic energy conversion [43]. Promising approaches in this direction are the so-called Power-to-Liquids (PtL) pathways (Fig. 6.1) [44, 45] and the solar-thermochemical (Sun-to-Liquids, StL) conversion technology (Fig. 6.2) [46–49]. In both processes the final products of combusting carbonaceous fuels, i.e. carbon dioxide and water, are “re-energized” through the input of renewable electric energy and solar heat, respectively. Both processes, PtL and particularly StL, are still far from commercial implementation. However, they provide the potential of much higher efficiencies for the conversion of solar to chemically stored energy [44, 49, 51] compared to photosynthetic conversion and a highly advantageous environmental performance [42–44]. As a particular advantage, non-biogenic pathways for producing renewable fuels

+2

&2 6XQOLJKW 6\QJDV

:RUN

&[+\

+HDW 2

+2&2 &2+2 FDSWVWRUDJH

&RQFHQ WUDWLRQ

7KHUPR FKHPLVWU\

*DV VWRUDJH

)LVFKHU 7URSVFK

&RP EXVWLRQ

Fig. 6.2  Schematic illustration of solar-thermochemical fuel production (Sun-to-Liquid, StL) (Source: SOLAR-JET project [50])

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

115

do not depend on the availability of arable land. Therefore, it appears advisable to extend the scope of the discussion from “biofuels” to “renewable fuels”. Accordingly, a brief overview of the potentials of renewable energy is given here. Large-scale non-biogenic renewable energy options are solar energy, wind power and hydro power. Geothermal energy and various forms of ocean energy may also be utilized where economically viable. The current fuel demand of civil aviation is about 250 million t/a [35, 30], translating into a demand of about 6,000 of electric energy per year for a 100 % substitution by PtL-derived jet fuel, thereby assuming a 50 % energy efficiency of the PtL conversion. These numbers can be compared to the potential availability of renewable energy sources. The potential availability of solar energy is enormous. Rigorous GIS8-based evaluations of suitable land areas for concentrated solar power (CSP) generation revealed a technical potential of 3,000,000 TWhel/a [52], which compares to a current global electricity consumption of 23,000 TWhel/a [53]. This means that less than 1 % of the most favorable area for solar energy generation would be sufficient to meet the entire global electricity demand. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the global aviation fuel demand could easily be met with solar fuels, either via a solar-driven PtL or StL production or other solar fuel technologies with similar conversion efficiency. The global generation potential of wind energy was estimated to be in the range of 160,000 to 600,000 TWhel/a [54]. It is again reasonable to assume that PtL fuels from wind power could meet the global aviation fuel demand. The technical potential for hydropower is estimated about 15,000 TWhel/a, corresponding to 35 % of the theoretical potential derived from precipitation run-off [55]. Hydropower is a reliable and low-cost technology for renewable electricity generation, but the environmental and social impact of large hydro-electric plants is controversial. The production potentials mentioned above are widely complementary to bioenergy production. Favorable production areas for solar fuels are arid and thus usually unsuitable for agriculture. Solar fuel production is therefore not expected to compete for agricultural land. The wind energy potential is limited by the extractability from the atmosphere rather than by area restrictions. Wind turbines can also be co-located with agricultural production as their physical footprint is small compared to their area requirement which is set by rotor diameters. It is therefore likely that PtL and StL-­derived fuels are not limited by their physical footprint, but by other aspects related to their economic and environmental feasibility. PtL and StL fuel production requires large upfront investments. This results in high capital expenditure and significant raw material demand for capacity roll-out. Another challenge is the provision of sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) which functions as carbonaceous feedstock in the production of non-biogenic hydrocarbon fuels. In contrast to cultivation of land-based crops, these production technologies (as well as cultivation of microalgae, see above) require the

8

Geographic Information System.

116

A. Roth et al.

input of concentrated CO2. While it is often suggested that the required CO2 could be supplied by power plants in the form of exhaust gas, it has been clearly shown that, from a life cycle perspective, a truly renewable production is only possible if the required CO2 is supplied from renewable sources [41, 42]. Even though various renewable point sources of carbon dioxide can be used, such as ethanol production or biogas plants, only direct extraction from air (direct air capture, DAC) would allow for a supply quantity that could match the huge production potential of PtL and StL-derived fuels. However, CO2 extraction from air has not yet reached industrial maturity, and it still has to be demonstrated that large-scale provision of CO2 through DAC can be achieved in a reasonable way.

6.7

Final Considerations

Land-Based Energy Crops.  The estimated future biomass potentials from cultivation of energy crops cover a broad range, from zero to over 1,200 EJ/a, depending on the assumptions and scenarios applied. However, at a closer look, potentials at the high end of this range are based on unrealistic assumptions, in particular extremely high yields as a consequence of a strongly intensified agriculture applied worldwide. The studies that are more conservative with respect to future land demand for food production and, consequently, to land availability as well as in terms of achievable biomass yields find potentials within a much narrower corridor, ranging from about 30 to 125 EJ/a. In this context it has to be emphasized that a highly intensive agriculture poses a serious risk of environmental damage, e.g. in the form of eutrophication, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. In this sense, a worldwide transition to high-input agriculture to increase biomass production for energetic use could thwart the original purpose of bioenergy use, i.e. environmental protection through substitution of fossil energy carriers. Wastes and Residues.  The potential of using wastes and residues for energy purposes is also associated with considerable uncertainties, especially in case of agricultural and forestry residues. These uncertainties mainly relate to knowledge gaps with respect to the extent to which such residues can be sustainably removed from fields or forests. Issues of concern are possible negative impacts on biodiversity and degradation of soils through removal of nutrients and carbon. For example, the carbon content of cropland soils is currently decreasing by an estimated 2.6 %/a in many countries [11], indicating that the sustainable limit of harvesting residual material is already exceeded in those cases. Therefore, wastes and residues should not be generally considered as sustainably available feedstock, as these materials can serve other important purposes. Research effort should therefore be dedicated to a more detailed understanding of the sustainable potential of wastes and residues [21].

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

117

Algae.  The number of relevant studies on the biomass potential of microalgae cultivation in ponds or closed photobioreactors is very limited and knowledge gaps remain. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is substantial potential for biomass production from microalgae without the need for arable land. In this respect, potentials of microalgae can be considered complementary to the potential from cultivating land-based energy crops. As an important conclusion drawn from the discussion of the few existing studies, the results are found to be very sensitive to restrictions in relation to the supply of resources, such as carbon dioxide, nutrients, and water. If these local restrictions apply, the potentials decline significantly. In this context, the restrictions are usually less technically, but rather economically and ecologically motivated: Unfavorable local conditions can be technically compensated in most cases, but in this way, the relationship between costs (monetary and environmental) and yields often fall out of balance. Therefore, a reliable and realistic quantification of the potential of microalgae is hardly possible without a detailed economic and ecological assessment of realistic interactions and the definition of reasonable boundary conditions. Moreover, the accuracy of the assessment of suitable and available land for microalgae cultivation needs to be improved, in combination with refined models of biomass productivities as a function of local conditions and the technical cultivation system. Renewable Options Beyond Biomass.  The potential of renewable energy, either in the form of heat or electricity, is vast and by several orders of magnitude exceeding the primary energy demand of mankind. If harnessed through suitable technical processes, there is sufficient potential to meet the entire global demand for fuels across all sectors, without posing the risk of competition for arable land. However, the technologies for non-photosynthetic conversion of renewable energy into hydrocarbon fuels are not yet industrially mature. Further research is needed to exploit this large potential. This also includes research on technologies for direct extraction of carbon dioxide from air. Biomass Potentials in Relation to Demand. The current global consumption of primary energy amounts to roughly 500 EJ/a [11]. If compared to the biomass potentials of land-based energy crops, wastes and residues as well as microalgae, it can be concluded that a large part of this amount could, in principle, be supplied from biogenic sources, even though the overall biomass potential cannot be accurately quantified, given the uncertainties in the reported results. It is also clear that if the scope is widened to include renewable energy options that do not depend on biomass (also for fuel production), the entire primary energy demand of mankind could be met in a sustainable way. This is an encouraging conclusion with respect to the need to essentially decarbonize all sectors within the next decades as a result of the COP21 Paris Agreement [2]. This, of course, also includes the aviation sector. Civil aviation currently consumes about 250 million t/a of jet fuel [35], corresponding to roughly 11 EJ/a. Despite of significant gains in fuel efficiency, fuel consumption of aviation can be

118

A. Roth et al.

expected to considerably increase in future as a consequence of a strong air traffic growth. In the unlikely case that the entire biomass potential would be used for jet fuel production and assuming a conversion efficiency of 20 %,9 the geographical potential of 30 to 125 EJ/a of biomass from land-based energy crops would correspond to a technical potential of 6 to 25 EJ/a. This means that, in theory, the entire current fuel demand of aviation could be met by biogenic jet fuel, especially as the potentials of wastes, residues, algae and non-biogenic options like PtL and StL have not been considered in this back-of-the-envelope estimation. However, it is important to keep in mind that geographical and technical potentials are not equal to real-world availability. First of all, there is competing demand for biomass feedstock from various sectors. For example, about 53 EJ/a of bioenergy are already used worldwide, mainly for heat generation and with the rest for electricity and biofuels for road transportation [4]. Secondly, the current uptake of renewable fuels by aviation is verging on zero. This is not a consequence of feedstock scarcity, but rather of the unfavorably high price of renewable jet fuel. Therefore, the availability of renewable fuels for aviation is not only depending on geographical or technical potentials, but is also a function of economic circumstances, such as competition and price developments. Research Needs.  There is need for comprehensive and high-resolution assessments of renewable energy potentials at global, regional and national scale, including biomass as well as other sources of renewable energy. Potentially complementary contributions of different sources have to be evaluated in a consistent framework of assumptions, scenarios and accurate data. The application of strict sustainability principles in the analyses should be mandatory. Furthermore, essentially all studies that have been published to date are limited to geographical or technical potentials. However, it is also important to assess the economic potentials, i.e. the potentials that could be exploited in an economically viable way. A reliable knowledge base of the sustainable and economically viable availability of renewable energy from biogenic and non-biogenic sources is crucial for the development of strategies, targets and roadmaps related to a future energy supply. In this respect, more research is required to extend and improve the current knowledge base. Acknowledgement.  The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (research project no. 50.0352/2012-L3)

Based on an input of 1 EJ in the form of lignocellulosic material, e.g. wood, and assuming a conversion via gasification and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, about 0.2 EJ in the form of renewable jet fuel could be obtained. Other valuable fuel products, such as diesel and gasoline, are also formed and add to the process efficiency [34].

9

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

119

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

The world population situation in 2014 – A concise report, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2014 Adoption of the Paris agreement – proposal by the president, United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, Paris, 2015 Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P(1998) Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281:237–240 Kopetz H (2013) Build a biomass energy market. Nature 494:29–31 Ambel CC (2016) Aviation biofuels: avoiding past sustainability mistakes. Transport & Environment, European Federation for Transport and Environment AISB, Brussels, 2016 Lampert DJ, Cai H, Elgowainy A (2016) Wells to wheels: water consumption for transportation fuels in the United States. Energy Environ Sci 9:787–802 Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10219–10223 Cordell D, Drangert J-O, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Change 19(2):292–305 Zhu X-G, Long SP, and Ort DR (2008) What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Curr Opin Biotechnol 19(2):153–159 Modellierung des globalen Potenzials von Energiepflanzen. In: Welt im Wandel: Zukunftsfähige Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (German Advisory Council on Global Change), Berlin (2009), pp 101–138 Anton C, Steinicke H (eds) (2012) Bioenergy – chances and limits. German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Halle (Saale) Searle SY, Malins CJ (2012) A policy-oriented reassassment of bioenergy potential estimates. In: 20th European biomass conference and exhibition Erb K-H, Haberl H, Krausmann F, Lauk C, Plutzar C, Steinberger JK, Müller C, Bondeau A, Waha K, Pollack G (2009) Eating the planet: feeding and fuelling the world sustainably, fairly and humanely – a scoping study. Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna, p 116 van Vuuren DP, van Vliet J, Stehfest E (2009) Future bio-energy potential under various natural constraints. Energy Policy 37(11):4220–4230 Doornbosch R, Steenblik R (2007) Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 2007 Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):56–106 Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Eickhout B, Devries B, Turkenburg W (2005) Potential of biomass energy out to 2100 for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 29(4):225–257 Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D, Turkenburg W (2003) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):119–133 Wolf J, Bindraban PS, Luijten JC, Vleeshouwers LM (2003) Exploratory study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global production of bioenergy. Agric Syst 76(3):841–861 Nakada S, Saygi D, Gielen D (2014) Global bioenergy: supply and demand projections. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, September 2014 WBGU (2009) Welt im Wandel: Zukunftsfähige Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU), Berlin, 2009 Gopalakrishnan MCN, Snyder SW (2011) A novel framework to classify marginal land for sustainable biomass feedstock production. J Environ Qual 40(5):1593–1600

120

A. Roth et al.

[23] Liu TT, McConkey BG, Ma ZY, Liu ZG, Li X, Cheng LL (2011) Strengths, weaknessness, opportunities and threats analysis of bioenergy production on marginal land. Energy Procedia 5:2378–2386 [24] Research project no. 50.0352/2012-L3. Assessment of potential international raw material capacities for use as fuel in aviation, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (2015) [25] Riegel F, Roth A, Averdunk K (2015) Availability of feedstock materials for biogenic fuels (poster presentation on the ILA Berlin Air Show 2015) [26] Searle SY, Malins CJ (2016) Waste and residue availability for advanced biofuel production in EU member states. Biomass Bioenergy 89:2–10 [27] Lamers P, Thiffault E, Pare D, Junginger M (2013) Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy from boreal and temperate forests. Biomass Bioenergy 55:212–226 [28] Malins C, Searle S, Baral A, Turley D, Hopwood L (2014) Wasted -Europe’s untapped Resource. The International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT), 2014 [29] Hainan Airlines partners with Sinopec and Boeing on first biofuel-powered Chinese domestic commercial flight. GreenAir online 2015 [Online]. http://www.greenaironline.com/ news.php?viewStory=2063. Accessed 08 Nov 2016 [30] Boeing and COMAC open new demo facility to produce sustainable jet fuel from Chinese used cooking oil. Green Chemistry 2014 [Online]. http://www.greenaironline.com/news. php?viewStory=1994. Accessed 08 Nov 2016 [31] UK first as Thomson Airways’ three-year biofuel commercial flight programme finally takes off. GreenAir online 2011 [Online]. http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1347. Accessed 08 Nov 2016 [32] KLM and SkyNRG start new series of long-haul sustainable jet fuel flights to the Caribbean as part of ITAKA project. GreenAir online 2014 [Online]. http://www.greenaironline.com/ news.php?viewStory=1861. Accessed 08 Nov 2016 [33] Toop G, Alberici S, Spoettle M, van Steen H (2013) Trends in the UCO market, ECOFYS, London, 2013 [34] Zschocke A (2014) Abschlussbericht Projekt BurnFAIR, Deutsche Lufthansa, 2014 [35] Economic performance of the airline industry -2016 mid-year report-, International Air Transport Association (IATA), Montreal, 2016 [36] Richmond A (ed) (2004) Handbook of microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied phycology. Ames and Carlton: Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford [37] Wigmosta MS, Coleman AM, Skaggs RJ, Huesemann MH, Lane LJ (2011) National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand. Water Resour Res 47:W00H04 [38] Skarka J (2015) Potenziale zur Erzeugung von Biomasse aus Mikroalgen in Europa unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Flächen- und CO2 –Verfügbarkeit. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe [39] Total Primary Energy Production 2014. U.S. energy information administration. [Online]. http://www.eia.gov/. Accessed 11 Nov 2016 [40] Ames JL (2014) Microalgae-derived HEFA jet fuel: environmental and economic impacts of scaled/integrated growth facilities and global production potential. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge [41] van der Giesen C, Kleijn R, Kramer GJ (May 2014) Energy and climate impacts of producing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 Environ Sci Technol 48(12):7111–7121 [42] Falter C, Batteiger V, Sizmann A (2016) Climate impact and economic feasibility of solar thermochemical jet fuel production. Environ Sci Technol 50(1):470–477 [43] Roth A, Batteiger V, Riegel F, Falter C, Endres C (2015) Alternative fuels for aviation: technical potential of biofuels and beyond. In: AVT-230 specialists’ meeting on advanced aircraft propulsion systems, pp 1–18 [44] Schmidt P, Weindorf W, Roth A, Batteiger V, Riegel F (2016) Power-to-liquids: potentials and perspectives for the – future supply of renewable – aviation fuel, German Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, 2016

6  Potentials of Biomass and Renewable Energy

121

[45] König DH, Baucks N, Dietrich RU, Wörner A (2015) Simulation and evaluation of a process concept for the generation of synthetic fuel from CO2 and H2. Energy 91:833–841 [46] Chueh WC, Falter C, Abbott M, Scipio D, Furler P, Haile S M, Steinfeld A (2010) High-flux solar-driven thermochemical dissociation of CO2 and H2O using nonstoichiometric ceria. Science 330:1797–1801 [47] Furler P, Scheffe JR, Steinfeld A (2012) Syngas production by simultaneous splitting of H2O and CO2 via ceria redox reactions in a high-temperature solar reactor. Energy Environ Sci 5(3):6098 [48] Marxer DA, Furler P, Scheffe JR, Geerlings H, Falter C, Batteiger V, Sizmann A, Steinfeld A (2015) Demonstration of the entire production chain to renewable kerosene via solar-thermochemical splitting of H2O and CO2. Energy Fuels 29(5):3241–3250 [49] Stechel EB, Miller JE (2013) Re-energizing CO2 to fuels with the sun: issues of efficiency, scale, and economics. J CO2 Util, 1, 28-36 [50] SOLAR-JET: Zero-carbon jet fuel from sunlight [Online]. http://www.solar-jet.aero/. Accessed 11 Nov 2016 [51] König DH, Freiberg M, Dietrich R-U, Wörner A (2015) Techno-economic study of the storage of fluctuating renewable energy in liquid hydrocarbons. Fuel 159:289–297 [52] Trieb F, Schillings C, Sullivan MO, Pregger T, Hoyer-Klick C (2009) Global potential of concentrating solar power. SolarPaces Conference Berlin [53] Key World Energy Statistics 2014. OECD/IEA, 2014 [54] Miller LM, Gans F, Kleidon A (2011) Estimating maximum global land surface wind power extractability and associated climatic consequences. Earth Syst Dyn 2:1–12 [55] Technological Roadmap Hydropower. OECD/IEA, 2012

Dr. Arne Roth  joined Bauhaus Luftfahrt in 2010 where he is currently leading the research focus area “Alternative Fuels”. Important specific topics are fuel chemistry, the assessment of biomass potentials and the holistic evaluation and prioritization of renewable jet fuel alternatives produced from biomass and other regenerative feedstock and energy sources. He also serves as active member of the Working Group “Environment & Energy” of the “Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE)”, where he acts as focal point for topics related to alternative fuels. Before turning towards alternative fuels, he was concerned with chemical hydrogen storage in solid state materials. He studied Chemistry at the Bielefeld University and holds a doctoral degree in Bioinorganic Chemistry from the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. Florian Riege  works as a research assistant at Bauhaus Luftfahrt. His current research focus is in the field of availability and sustainability analysis of bio-derived alternative fuels for aviation. Before heading towards alternative fuels, Riegel was involved in climate change research at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He studied Physical Geography, Botany, and Remote Sensing at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, where he received his Diploma degree with honors in 2006.

122

A. Roth et al.

Dr. Valentin Batteiger   is a researcher at Bauhaus Luftfahrt. His current research interests are dedicated to a renewable energy perspective for aviation and span from hybrid-electric propulsion of aircraft to alternative jet fuels produced from abundant renewable feedstock. Dr. Batteiger has been involved in the first solar-thermochemical synthesis of kerosene within the EU project FP7 SOLAR-JET and is a member of the system analyses and coordination team within the EU project H2020 SUN-to-LIQUID.

Chapter 7

World Markets for Cereal Crops Global Trends for Production, Consumption, Trade and Prices Verena Wolf, Jakob Dehoust and Martin Banse

Abstract  Cereals, especially corn and wheat, are feedstocks to produce biofuels (e.g., ethanol). However, they are mainly used as food and feed. This chapter describes the global developments of cereal markets, especially wheat, corn and barley with a special focus on major countries. Wheat is mainly used as food. While China and India are large producers, they do not play a role in wheat export markets which are dominated by the European Union (EU), Russia, Canada, the United States (US) and Ukraine. The corn market grew strongly in the last 15 years. The United States is the largest corn producer, consumer and exporter. The barley market, dominated by the European Union, is stagnating. However, exports have increased in the last years. Biofuel policies have increased the demand for corn, especially in the United States, as well as for wheat, especially in the European Union. However due to changing polices this trend is unlikely to continue in the future. Additionally, global trends and possible future developments are discussed.

V. Wolf (*) · M. Banse Thünen-Institut für Marktanalyse, Braunschweig, Germany e-mail: [email protected] M. Banse e-mail: [email protected] J. Dehoust ADM Germany GmbH, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_7

123

124

V. Wolf et al.

7.1 Introduction Cereals belong to the group of starch-based feedstocks which can be used for biofuel production (e.g., ethanol). However their main use was, is and will be for food and feed. In the past 15 years, total global cereal production increased by 33 % to 2,454 million t1 in the marketing year 2015/20162 including corn, wheat, rice (milled), barley, sorghum, millet, oats, mixed grains and rye (sorted in descending order according to production levels in 2015/2016). The main part of this growth comes from an increase in average yields by 29 % between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016, while area only expanded by 6 % in the same period. Annual changes in yields depend to a large extent on the weather conditions during the growing season. As the weather varies greatly between the years so do the yields and hence production. Consumption of cereals followed a general upward trend without much fluctuation, 30 % from 2000/2001 to 2015/2016. Global trade in cereals increased between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016 by around 70 %. Currently, 16 % of total cereal production is traded on global markets. The use of cereals as feedstock for ethanol production has strongly increased in the last 15 years. Nevertheless, the use of cereals for ethanol production is only 6 % of total global consumption in 2015/2016. Currently, corn and wheat are the main cereals used to produce ethanol. In the European Union, rye and barley are also used to a small extent. Different developments and divergent shifts in production and consumption causes price changes. Figure 7.1 shows the monthly development of world market  0DUNHW3ULFHLQ>86W@

  

86KDUGUHGZLQWHUZKHDW*XOI 86JUDGH\HOORZFRUQ*XOI )UDQFHIHHGEDUOH\5RXHQ

      

Fig. 7.1  Monthly market prices of wheat, corn and barley [1]

If not stated otherwise, data is used from [2]. The marketing year is country and crop dependent, e.g., for wheat and barley in Europe it is typically from July to June. For all definitions of the marketing years see [3]. 1 2

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops125

prices of wheat, corn and barley, approximated as export prices on the most important stock exchanges for the respective cereal. In 2007/2008 (July to June), prices peaked for all major crops. This development was due to a couple of reasons, like e.g., strong increase in demand, lower rates of increase in supply and low level of stocks. Markets all over the world responded to this price increase and output increased. After the price peak of 2007/2008, prices showed a higher volatility compared to previous years. Especially in the marketing years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, cereal production set world records caused by favorable worldwide weather conditions which in turn led to a decline in prices. Production of most crops declined in 2015/2016 compared to the exceptionally high output levels in the two previous periods. Nevertheless, this fall in output was only minor and could not halt the decline in crop prices. The main factors lowering prices for crops and other agricultural products in 2015/2016 were continued strong supply combined with weak economic growth and abundant stocks, especially for wheat and corn. The global supply situation should continue to be very comfortable in 2016/2017 according to the global supply and demand estimates of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which are updated on a monthly basis [4]. For the marketing year 2016/2017, global cereal production is expected to be around 2,550 million t with increased production for all major crops except barley compared to 2015/2016. However, there will be regional variations due to different weather conditions, which might shift trade flows to some extent. Consumption is estimated to rise slightly less than production resulting in a slight increase of cereal stocks by 20 million t. Wheat, corn and barley are the main cereals used for biofuel production and had a share of 30, 39 and 6 % in total cereal production in 2015/2016, respectively. Rice, with a share of 19 % in total cereal production in 2015/2016, does not play a role in biofuel production yet. Thus in the following sections, the individual developments of the wheat, corn and barley markets are discussed. Section 7.5 presents existing long-term outlooks for cereal markets. Section 7.6 focuses specifically on biofuels and the use of crops as feedstock. A concluding section provides an outlook on future developments for global cereal markets.

7.2

Wheat Market

The Plant. Wheat is a grain cash crop out of the grass family Gramineae. It is generally divided into winter (sown in autumn) and summer wheat (sown in early spring). The plant usually can grow up to a height of 0.5 to 1.0 m. The head (Fig.  7.2) contains the grains which are counted among the nutlets (Karyopse). Typical grain yields are in the range of 1 to 10 t/(ha a) on a dry matter basis. Wheat shows high requirements in terms of temperature and water needs. In addition, soils rich in nutrients should be favored for the intensive cultivation to achieve high yields.

126

V. Wolf et al.

Fig. 7.2  Drawing of wheat heads (www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

Production.  World wheat production increased from 580 million t in 2000/2001 to 735 million t in 2015/2016.3 The development of global wheat production and the main producing countries are depicted in Fig. 7.3. While China and India produce mainly for their own consumption, the European Union, Russia, the United States, Canada and Ukraine export large quantities. From 2000/2001 to 2015/2016, Russia and Ukraine increased their production substantially by 26.5 million t (77 %) and 17 million t (167 %), respectively. In contrast, the United States production even decreased by nearly 5 million t (8 %) in the same period. The production increase is mainly due to increases in the yield while the area harvested only slightly increased between 2000 and 2015 (Fig. 7.4). Of the main producing countries, only India and Russia have increased their wheat area between the beginning of the 2000’s and 2015. Yields vary greatly between regions and are influenced by two main factors. First, the natural growing conditions of a region are constrains for achieving high yields, i.e., soil quality, water availability and climate conditions. Second, yields depend on the applied production systems that vary in the use of different seeds, fertilizer, crop protection, machinery and water management. The European Union – with favorable growing conditions and intensive production systems – achieves globally the highest average yields, with 6 t/ha in 2015 while e.g., Russia only achieved yields of 2.4 t/ha because of less favorable growing conditions and less intensive production systems. The variation in yields between the years is mainly caused by the weather conditions, while the general upward trend of the yield over time is due to changes in the production system and technical improvements.

This and the following graphs display also figures for the marketing year 2016/2017, which are, however, estimates and subject to change considerably as the harvest was still ongoing and the marketing year was not over at the time this chapter was written.

3

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops127 

*OREDOSURGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@

 5HVWRIWKH:RUOG



8NUDLQH



&DQDGD 8QLWHG6WDWHV



5XVVLD



,QGLD &KLQD



(XURSHDQ8QLRQ

 









5HVWRIWKH:RUOG





8NUDLQH































*OREDODYHUDJH\LHOGLQ>WKDD @

*OREDODUHDKDUYHVWHGLQ>PLOOLRQKD@

Fig. 7.3  Global production of wheat and main producers [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

&DQDGD 8QLWHG6WDWHV 5XVVLD ,QGLD &KLQD (XURSHDQ8QLRQ @

*OREDOFRQVXPSWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@

Trade. Trade in wheat increased constantly from 100 million t to 170 between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016. In 2015/2016, 23 % of total wheat production was traded. Besides the already mentioned large producers exporting wheat, Australia, Argentina and Kazakhstan play an important role in wheat export markets. The

5HVWRIWKH ZRUOG 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 5XVVLD ,QGLD &KLQD (XURSHDQ 8QLRQ 6WRFNVWR 8VHUDWLR



Fig. 7.5  Global wheat consumption and main consuming countries as well as global stocks-to-use ratio [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops129

most remarkable development can be observed in Russia and Ukraine which starting from almost no exports in 2000/2001, increased their import over time and are large exporters in 2015/2016 with export shares of 15 and 10 % of global exports, respectively. Wheat production for exports is concentrated in a few countries. The eight major wheat exporters (Fig. 7.6) had an export share of 89 % of total exports in 2015/2016. In contrast, the eight major wheat importers had an import share of 35 % of total imports in 2015/2016 (Fig. 7.7). Traditional wheat importing regions are South America (except Argentina), Africa and Asia (except Russia and Kazakhstan). The major wheat importers in Africa (Egypt and Algeria) and Asia (Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand) have increased their imports over time, while the European Union, Brazil and Japan kept their imports approximately at the same level. Figure 7.8 shows major wheat trade flows from exporting countries to importing regions in 2015/2016. Importing countries buy from countries with the best offer in terms of price and quality. However, some countries pay price premiums for wheat from a specific origin because of its reputation to produce good wheat qualities. Generally, wheat is traded in US-$ and hence the exchange rate of the national currency to the US-$ plays a major role in the competitiveness of an exporting country. Additional factors are transport costs and wheat quality. Outlook. According to the USDA, the worldwide supply and demand situation in the wheat sector could become even more comfortable in the ongoing  

*OREDOH[SRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQW@

  

5HVWRIWKH:RUOG .D]DNKVWDQ $UJHQWLQD $XVWUDOLD 8NUDLQH

  

8QLWHG6WDWHV &DQDGD 5XVVLD (XURSHDQ8QLRQ

 

Fig. 7.6  Global wheat exports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

130

V. Wolf et al.

 

*OREDOLPSRUWLQ>PLOOLRQW@

  

5HVWRIWKH:RUOG 7KDLODQG 3KLOLSSLQHV -DSDQ %UD]LO

  

(XURSHDQ8QLRQ $OJHULD ,QGRQHVLD (J\SW

 

Fig. 7.7  Global wheat imports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

Fig. 7.8  Major wheat trade flows with exporters (underlined) and importers in 2015/2016 (values in million t) [5]

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops131

marketing year 2016/2017 compared to 2015/2016. Production is expected to rise to 745 million t and demand to 737 million t. This results in a rise of stocks to 253 million t, corresponding to a stocks-to-use-ratio of nearly 34 %. High production levels, reaching or even exceeding 2015/2016 levels, are expected for all major producers and exporters of wheat except for the European Union, especially France and Germany, where yields are low due to high rainfall during the last growth stages. Total exports might stay at the current level. However, the EU, Ukraine and Argentina might export less, while Russia, the US and Australia might increase their exports. It seems likely that Russia will rise to the position of the world’s largest wheat exporter in 2016/2017. On the import side, only minor changes are expected. Morocco might increase imports due to a bad harvest while Iran might reduce imports due to a good harvest.

7.3

Corn Market

The Plant.  Like wheat, corn is an annual cash crop, which is counted to the grass family Gramineae. The stem can grow up to a height of 4 m, and contains lanceolate leaves from 30 to 150 cm (Fig. 7.9). The kernels, which are located in the cobs, show high starch contents. Corn is characterized by a high nutrition demand, which leads to typical kernel yields of approx. 7 t/(ha a).

Fig. 7.9  Drawing of corn (left side: flowering plant, right side: fruit/cob; www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

132

V. Wolf et al.

*OREDOSURGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@



 5HVWRIWKHZRUOG 

(XURSHDQ8QLRQ %UD]LO



&KLQD 8QLWHG6WDWHV





Fig. 7.10  Global production of corn and main producers [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

Production.  Global corn production increased from 590 million t in 2000/2001 to 960 million t in 2015/2016 (i.e., by 62 %; Fig. 7.10). The United States and China are by far the main producers of corn, with 345 million t and 225 million t in 2015/2016, respectively. In contrast to wheat, the production increase in corn is due to increases in yield and area (Fig. 7.11). Globally, area harvested increased by 29 % between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016 and reached 177 million ha in 2015/2016. During the same time, yield increased by 25 % on average. The United States achieved the highest average yields with over 10 t/ha in 2015/2016, while the other important producers, i.e., China, Brazil and the European Union, achieved yields between 4 and 6.5 t/ha in the same marketing year. Consumption. The major producers of corn are also its major consumers (Fig. 7.12). Corn is mainly used as feedstock for food, feed and ethanol production. The primary use is region dependent. In Mexico, Central America and Africa, corn is an important staple food while it is used primarily as animal feed in other regions. The United States is a special case. Corn is mainly used to produce ethanol used as fuel with the by-product Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) used as feed. In the marketing years 2013/2014 to 2015/2016, around 44 % or above





































*OREDODYHUDJH\LHOGLQ>WKDD @

*OREDODUHDKDUYHVWHGLQ>PLOOLRQKD@

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops133

5HVWRIWKHZRUOG (XURSHDQ8QLRQ %UD]LO &KLQD 8QLWHG6WDWHV @

*OREDOFRQVXPSWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@

Fig. 7.11  Global corn area harvested and major producing countries as well as global average yields [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

Fig. 7.12  Global corn consumption and main consuming countries as well as global stocks-to-use ratio [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

134

V. Wolf et al.

125 million t of corn were used for fuel ethanol, 44 % for feed and 12 % for food and other industrial use [6]. The stocks-to-use ratio for corn is generally lower than the stocks-to-use-ratio for wheat. Corn prices react to changes in stocks in a similar fashion as wheat. However, the reaction occurs later because corn is generally harvested 1 to 3 months after wheat. In 2008, corn prices increased less than wheat because the harvest was good. However, prices still increased at first because the corn harvest for that year was underestimated and only corrected upward after the main harvest was completed. Trade. Global trade in corn increased constantly from 75 million t to nearly 130 million t between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016. Corn trade has grown similarly to corn production resulting in an approximately constant share of 13 % of total production. Of the large producers, the United States and Brazil are corn exporters while the European Union and China import corn to satisfy their demands. The United States dominated the export market of corn. However, exports have not increased significantly over time staying at the level of around 50 million t. While Argentina and Brazil have been traditional players in the export market, Ukraine and Russia entered the export market recently (Fig. 7.13). The most remarkable growth can be observed in Ukraine, which exported over 16 million t corn in 2015/2016 compared to less than 1 million t before 2002/2003.  

*OREDOH[SRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQW@

   

5HVWRIWKH:RUOG 5XVVLD %UD]LO 8NUDLQH $UJHQWLQD 8QLWHG6WDWHV

  

Fig. 7.13  Global corn exports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops135  

*OREDOLPSRUWLQ>PLOOLRQW@



5HVWRIWKH:RUOG ,UDQ

 

9LHWQDP (J\SW 6RXWK.RUHD

 

(XURSHDQ8QLRQ 0H[LFR

 

Fig. 7.14  Global corn imports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

The major corn importer is Japan which imports nearly all the corn it consumes (15 million t in 2015/2016). Additional large importing countries are Mexico, the European Union, South Korea, Egypt, Vietnam and Iran, which have increased imports over time. Outlook. An increase in global corn production to 1,026 million t is estimated by the USDA in 2016/2017 compared to 2015/2016, which was a marketing year with less production than the previous two marketing years. Demand is estimated to further increase to 1,007 million t and the stocks-to-use ratio to stay at current levels of 22 %. The increase in production is mainly due to the development in the United States. An increase in area sown and estimated records yields leads to the assumption of an increase in production by 11 % or 38 million t. The situation for 2016/2017 in South America is very uncertain as the harvest of the marketing year 2015/2016 has just ended. The harvest in the European Union is expected to be slightly better than in 2015/2016, which was a disappointing marketing year. In recent years, China subsidized corn production heavily by setting a guaranteed purchase price, which was recently well above imported feed grain prices, leading to large increases in production and most significantly stocks. It seems that China is going to change its policy resulting in a lower guaranteed corn price and a reduction in stocks. Hence, lower production and imports are expected in 2016/2017.

136

7.4

V. Wolf et al.

Barley Market

The Plant. Barley is another annual crop of the grass family Gramineae. Like wheat it can be cultivated as winter or summer barley. The plant can grow up to heights between 0.7 and 1.2 m. The grain is contained in the head (Fig. 7.15) and can achieve yields in the range of 4.5 to 7 t/(ha a). Production. Global barley production has stayed on a nearly constant level between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016 averaging 140 million t/a with a maximum of 156 million t in 2008/2009 and a minimum of 123 million t in 2010/2011 (Fig.  7.16). The European Union is the main producer with a share of 41 % in total production in 2015/2016, followed by Russia, Ukraine, Australia and Canada. While Australia increased its production over the time period, Canada reduced it. Barley is less profitable than growing wheat or corn due to lower yields. However, it requires a shorter vegetation periods and less warm temperatures than corn and hence is mostly grown in regions where corn is not grown due to the climate conditions. The global area harvested of barley decreased between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016 by 5 %. The largest decrease, nearly 50 %, occurred in Canada, while the only large producer which expanded its barley area is Australia (19 %). As for wheat and corn, yields for barley increased between 2000/2001 and 2015/2016. However, the increase was only 18 % on global average. The European Union achieved the highest average yields with a record in 2015/2016 of 5 t/ha. In contrast, Russia and Australia achieved yield of just above 2 t/ha.

Fig. 7.15  Drawing of barley heads (www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops137 

*OREDOSURGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@

  

5HVWRIWKHZRUOG &DQDGD



$XVWUDOLD 8NUDLQH



5XVVLD (XURSHDQ8QLRQ

  

































5HVWRIWKH:RUOG



*OREDODYHUDJH\LHOGLQ>WKDD @

*OREDODUHDKDUYHVWHGLQ>PLOOLRQKD@

Fig. 7.16  Global production of barley and main producers [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

&DQDGD $XVWUDOLD 8NUDLQH 5XVVLD (XURSHDQ8QLRQ @



&DQDGD &KLQD 6DXGL$UDELD 5XVVLD (XURSHDQ8QLRQ 6WRFNVWRXVHUDWLR



                                                                 

*OREDOFRQVXPSWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQW@

Trade. Global trade in barley increased especially since 2012/2013 and reached 30  million t in 2015/2016, which is a share of 20 % in global barley production. Traditional players of barley export markets are the European Union, Australia and Ukraine, while Russia and Argentina could increase their exports recently (Fig. 7.19). The major barley importer is Saudi Arabia which imports all its barley consumed (11 million t in 2015/2016) followed by China which imported 6 million t, i.e., around 75 % of its consumption (Fig. 7.20). Additional relevant importing countries are Iran, Japan, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Jordan.

Fig. 7.18  Global barley consumption and main consuming countries as well as global stocks-touse ratio [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops139 35

Global exports in [million t]

30

25

20

15

10

Rest of the World Argentina Russia Ukraine Australia European Union

5

0

Fig. 7.19  Global barley exports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)





*OREDOLPSRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQW@

5HVWRIWKHZRUOG 

-RUGDQ 0RURFFR



$OJHULD /LE\D



-DSDQ ,UDQ



&KLQD 6DXGL$UDELD





Fig. 7.20  Global barley imports and of major exporting countries [2] (*preliminary, **estimated)

140

V. Wolf et al.

Outlook.  Global barley production is estimated by the USDA to be less than the previous year totaling 145 million t. Additionally, slight increases in consumption are expected totaling 146 million t and consequently the barley market is tightening with a stocks-to-use ratio of only 15.9 % compared to 17.2 % in 2015/2016. The production in the European Union is expected to decrease and to be of low quality due to the same unfavorable weather conditions having affected wheat production. This is offset somewhat by good harvests in Russia, Ukraine and Canada, while the Australian harvest is still uncertain but currently also expected to be above average. Hence, exports from the European Union are expected to be quite low and cannot be completely compensated by the other regions. The decrease in exports will affect mainly the trade with China, as Saudi Arabia is expected to have the same demand for feed barley as in previous years.

7.5

Long-Term Developments

Besides the short term estimates published by USDA, several institutions provide also long term projections of possible developments for the agricultural sector and hence also for the cereal markets. These projections cover markets at global, regional or country level. The OECD-FAO agricultural outlook is a 10-year projection of global agricultural markets published annually [7]. In its recent issue global cereal production is projected to increase by 12 % between average 2013/2015 and 2025 accompanied by an increase in consumption of 14 % for the same period. Hence, global stocks are projected to grow at a slower rate and after a further decline in prices in the short run; prices will stabilize or only slightly decrease in real terms till 2025. For the cereal sector the report focuses on wheat, rice, corn and other coarse grains. The major recognized uncertainties are weather conditions resulting in high variability of yields, political unrest and instability, the development of exchange rates towards the US-$, as well as policy change, especially of China, regarding the corn market and Argentina regarding trade policies. The USDA also provides international longterm projections at a 10-year horizon publicly accessible on the USDA website [8]. For the European Union agricultural markets, the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agri) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) prepare a 10 year projection on an annual base [9]. Within the period 2015 to 2025, cereal production is expected to grow to 318 million t in 2025 which is an increase of 4 % compared to 2015. This slight increase is due to reductions in crop area and only slow yield growth as yields are assumed to be close to their agro-economic maximum already. As population growth is assumed to grow only slightly in the projection period, the additional cereal production is either used as feed or exported. Corn stocks are projected to recover from their current low level and wheat and barley stocks to remain significantly above the 2012 level over the outlook period, albeit below historic levels. Prices are expected to fall further in the short-run but slightly increase in the long-run. As also clearly outlined, this price development

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops141

should only be seen as an average of potential price paths which is subject to vary considerably depending on different weather and macroeconomic conditions. An example for a country level projection is the Thünen Baseline for Germany, one of the largest agricultural producers in the European Union [10]. It is published every 2 years by the Thünen Institute. According to this projection cereal production increases to 52 million t in 2025 due to technological progress as well as a shift from summer barley to wheat and despite a decrease in cereal area. Consumption of cereals increases only slightly because of the stagnating population numbers, limited income growth as well as already high income levels. However, due to the assumed world market prices and exchange rate of the € to the US-$, wheat and barley are competitive on the world market.

7.6

Crop Production and Biofuel

Globally a wide range of policy instruments is used to encourage and support biofuel production based on first-generation biofuel crops such as corn, sugar cane and beet, wheat and oilseeds [11, 12]. This policy support led to a strong increase in the use of cereals for biofuels and currently around 6 % of global cereal production is used for biofuels. The policy interventions exist because biofuel production is rarely economically viable at low crude oil prices; i.e., biofuels must be supported by governmental measures to become competitive. This is done by applying policy instruments such as subsidies and tax exemptions. Other forms of support include policy measures that influence the biofuel supply chain directly or indirectly via subsidies for technological innovation, production factor subsidies, government purchases and investments in infrastructure for biofuel storage, transportation and use. Furthermore, tariff barriers for biofuel are often implemented to protect domestic producers. These policy measures stimulate biofuel production but do not ensure that a country will meet the production level required to, for example, meet certain GHG emission reduction targets. Therefore, many countries set targets, known as biofuel blending mandates, for the share of renewable fuels (biofuel) in fuel consumption. Mandatory and voluntary targets for liquid biofuels are currently imposed in all major world economies, with the exception of Russia. In the European Union, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, mandatory requirements have been introduced for both bioethanol and biodiesel. Paraguay and Ecuador apply ethanol mandates, and Uruguay and Thailand apply biodiesel mandates. The targets are set at different levels. In the EU, a 10 % share of energy from renewable sources in total transport energy consumption will be obligatory in 2020. However, in 2015 the EU amended its legislation by setting a maximum allowed share counting towards the 10 % target of 7 % for “biofuels produced from cereal and other starch-rich crops, sugars and oil crops and from crops grown as main crops primarily for energy purposes on agricultural land” [13]. This policy aims at lessening the fuel vs. food debate and promoting biofuels from other sources such as algae, lignocelluloses and waste cooking oil. By 2022,

142

V. Wolf et al.

36 billion gallons of renewable fuels must be used in US transportation of which 15 billion gallons can come from corn-based ethanol. Canadian mandates require 5 % renewable content in petrol by 2010 and 2 % renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012. In the remaining countries, targets are mainly set for E10 and B54 in 2010 and should increase over time to E10+ and B20+. For instance, the Brazilian target for 2013 is E25, and in Indonesia, the mandatory level of biofuel consumption is supposed to increase to E15 and B20 by 2025. China, Japan and Australia have set non-binding targets for biofuel production [11]. Due the relatively high share of biodiesel in European biofuel consumption, the main feedstock for the production of biofuel is vegetable (in particular, rapeseed) oil and, in recent years, the use of waste oils. For ethanol, the main crop-based feedstock besides cereals is sugar beet in the EU. The proportion of sugar beet used to produce ethanol has surpassed 10 % in the last decade, but it remains unclear how this share will develop after the EU sugar quota expiry in 2017. Therefore, most future growth will be in the use of other cereals, especially corn. However, it is assumed that increasing demand for ethanol will not be based on domestically produced crops, but on imported ethanol towards 2020 [9]. The projections of the European Commission show a decline in domestic ethanol production after 2020 due to several reasons, e.g., declining consumption of total petrol and a strong demand for feed cereals. It is also not expected that market shares for corn processed to ethanol will account for much more than 5 % of overall demand for cereals with only limited impact on feedstock markets.

7.7

Final Considerations

World population will continue to grow in the next decades. Cereals are important staple foods. Hence, cereal demand as food will grow with population. Additionally, the demand for cereals as feed will increase with an increasing demand of the world population for meat and dairy products as income per capita increases. The use of cereals for ethanol is unlikely to grow as in the past because the European Union as well as the United States aim at limiting its biofuel production based on them. In the short term a slight increase can be expected and afterwards a constant demand. However, the biofuel market is very uncertain as it depends mainly on policies in all regions of the world. Growing demand requires growth in production. As shown, historical growth in production has mainly come from yield growth and additional area was not required to meet current demands, except for corn. This trend might continue as several large

E# describes the percentage of ethanol in the ethanol-petrol mixture by volume; for example, E10 stands for fuels with 90 % petrol and 10 % ethanol. B# describes the percentage of biodiesel in the biodiesel-diesel mixture by volume; for example, B5 stands for diesel fuel with 95 % (“fossil”) diesel and 5 % biodiesel.

4

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops143

producers have not yet utilized their full yield potential (e.g., Russia and Ukraine). Additionally, yields are likely to increase through the development and use of new crop varieties, crop protection, fertilizer application, machinery and changes in the production system. The potential and willingness to expand agricultural area is restricted to a limited number of regions. As cereals compete with other – often more profitable – crops for agricultural land, it seems unlikely that their area will expand. The variability of production in regions is high and depends mainly on weather conditions. While one region might experience good weather conditions and so a good harvest, another region might experience bad weather conditions leading to a bad or devastating harvest. On the one hand, globally bad harvests over several years lead to a depletion in stocks and hence a rise in prices as has happened most prominently in 2007/2008 after the harvests of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 were low and the harvest in 2007/2008 was expected to be low as well. On the other hand, good global harvests over several years, as experienced between 2013/2014 and 2015/2016, lead to an accumulation of stocks and hence decreasing prices. This relationship holds for future developments and prices will stay volatile. Even though the cereal markets are strongly interlinked and dependent on each other, each market has special features. The wheat market is characterized by several large producers. China and India mainly produce wheat for their own demand for food. If the development of consumption and production diverts, these countries might become important players in the trade markets. The most rapidly growing players on the export side are Russia and Ukraine which export nearly all of their additional production, which is expected to increase further. On the import side, Egypt is the most important country. Due to changing regulations about requirements of wheat quality, it is a market potential exporters need to monitor carefully. The corn market is the most dynamic market in terms of past growth and also the largest in terms of quantity. However, it can be expected that growth will slow down. The dominating country is the United States, which has nearly reached production capacity and demand, mainly driven by ethanol production, and is expected to slow down and stagnate in the long-term. Also for China, the second largest player in the corn market, a change in current developments is expected. In the short to medium-term, China might reduce its corn stocks as well as change the domestic support policy for corn production further. Countries that might even gain more shares in the export markets are Ukraine and Russia, as well as Brazil and Argentina. The largest corn importer, Japan, is expected to maintain demand at its current level. The demand for corn imports of the European Union depends on the production levels in the European Union as well as on the availability of other feedstocks and their prices. The barley market has not seen an increase in production, which is likely to continue. Its production is concentrated in regions where corn production is not profitable due to the climate conditions. The large producers are also the large exporters. On the import side, a constant demand from Saudi Arabia for feed barley is

144

V. Wolf et al.

expected, while the demand of China focuses on malting barley and feed barley is only imported if it is cheaper than other feed cereals. Thus, growth in world cereal supply is determined by a limited expansion of agricultural land. Future growth will depend almost entirely on the development of yields. With the observed increases in weather variability and low prices for fossil energies, uncertainties on the supply side will become greater rather than smaller. Future cereal demand will be driven by population and income growth. Higher per capita income will increase the demand for meat and other livestock products. Consequently global feed demand is expected to increase. With a continuous growth on the demand side and the relatively uncertain conditions on the supply side, one can expect that cereal prices will remain volatile.

References [1] International Grains Council (IGC) (2016) Grain export prices. http://www.igc.int/en/ markets/marketinfo-prices.aspx. Accessed 27 Sept 2016 [2] Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA FAS) (2016) Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) for grains, update of 12.09.2016. http:// apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdDownload.aspx. Accessed 28 Sept 2016 [3] Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA FAS) (2016) Data availability and market year definitions. http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ psdAvailability.aspx. Accessed 28 Sept 2016 [4] Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA FAS) (2016) Grain: world markets and trade. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1487. Accessed 12 Sept 2016 [5] Global Trade Atlas (GTIS) (2016) Global Trade Atlas. https://www.ihs.com/products/maritime-global-trade-atlas.html. Accessed 29 Sept 2016 [6] United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA) (2016) Corn supply, disapperances and share of total corn used for ethanol. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-bioenergy-statistics.aspx. Accessed 30 Sept 2016 [7] OECD-FAO (2016)OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016–2025. Paris. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2016_agr_outlook-2016-en. Accessed 07 Oct 2016 [8] Economic Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (ERS USDA) (2016) 2016 International Long-Term Projections to 2025. http://www.ers.usda.gov/ data-products/international-baseline-data.aspx#26290. Accessed 05 Oct 2016 [9] DG Agri and JRC-IPTS (2015) EU Agricultural Outlook Prospects for EU agricultural markets and income 2015–2015. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/medium-term-outlook_en. Accessed 01 Sept 2016 [10] Offermann F, Banse M, Deblitz C, Gocht A, Gonzalez-Mellado A, Kreins P, Marquardt S, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Rösemann C, Salamon P and Sanders J (2016) Thünen-Baseline 2015–2025: Agrarökonomische Projektionen für Deutschland. Thünen Report. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig. https://www.thuenen.de/de/infrastruktur/ thuenen-modellverbund/die-thuenen-baseline/aktuelle-ergebnisse-die-thuenen-baseline2015–2025/. Accessed 05 Oct 2016

7  World Markets for Cereal Crops145 [11] Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C (2010) An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energ Policy 38:6977–6988 [12] OECD (2008). Biofuel Support Policies: An Economic Assessment. OECD Publishing, Paris [13] European Parliament and Council (2015). Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (Text with EEA relevance)

Verena Wolf  is a researcher at the Thünen-Institute of Market Analysis. Her research concentrates on cereal and oilseeds markets with a focus of long-term developments and projections in these markets. Jakob Dehoust  is a market analyst at the economics department of ADM. He focuses on cereals from a short-term as well as in a long-term perspective. Prof. Dr. Martin Banse  is director at the Thünen Institute of Market Analysis. He has over 25 years of experience in quantitative analyses of agricultural policy and international trade. He has done much work in projecting medium term development of agricultural and food markets based on quantitative models.

Chapter 8

World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats Dynamics of Global Production, Trade Flows, Consumption and Prices Thomas Mielke

Abstract  Vegetable and animal oils & fats are the major feedstock for biodiesel production. The following article analyses the development of world supply and demand and the effects on prices, with special focus given for four major oils, i.e. palm oil, soy oil, rapeseed oil and sunflower oil. During the past 20 years world consumption of 17 oils & fats more than doubled from 92.9 million t in calendar year 1995 to 204.3 million t in the year 2015. By far most of the growth was for edible purposes, primarily in Asia and Africa, caused by further rapid population growth and rising consumption per person (on account of changed diets and rising income levels). The annual increase in total consumption of all animal oils & fats has accelerated since 2004 with a boost in biodiesel production by almost 29 million t. Government targets for a further expansion in biodiesel consumption in Indonesia, the USA, Brazil and other countries in the years ahead may result in more or less sizably increasing prices of vegetable and animal oils & fats owing to the limitations of resources (arable land and water), unless a major breakthrough is accomplished in yields per hectare of oilseeds and palm oil. There is the risk that consumers worldwide in their effort to cover food demand (particularly in the low-income developing countries) will suffer from appreciating prices of oils & fats if biodiesel consumption mandates are increased too quickly to levels producers worldwide cannot comply with.

T. Mielke (*) ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_8

147

148

T. Mielke

8.1 Introduction Over the past 20 years the demand in 13 vegetable oils has grown significantly from 72 million t in 1995 to 177.5 million t in 2015. Accordingly world trade of the 17 most important vegetable oils and animal fats showed a strong growth; world exports almost trebled within the past two decades from 29.8 million t in 1995 to 84.0 million t in 2015. A growing portion of world exports is being shipped from a declining number of locations/countries. In 2015, for example, Indonesia exported 29.2 million t of oils and fats (of which palm oil made up 26 million t) or 35 % of the world total of the 17 most important oils and fats. Malaysia contributed with 19.0  million t or 23  %, Argentina with 6.5 million t, Ukraine with 4.3 million t, Canada with 2.9 million t, the USA with 2.5 million t, Russia with 2.2 million t and Brazil with 1.9 million t. Thus a smaller number of export locations have to satisfy rising demand, which leads to increasing infrastructure requirements. At the same time, the risk of unforeseen supply disruptions rises. The global markets of oilseeds, of vegetable oils and animal fats as well as of oilmeals are highly interrelated. Partly there are substitution possibilities among the individual commodities. A shortage of sunflower oil, for example, triggers price increases and widening price premiums over competing products, which – in a following response – trigger demand changes, as consumers try to substitute, wherever possible, part of the consumption by a lower-priced commodity. Therefore the production, consumption as well as the trade flows for palm, soy, rapeseed and sunflower oils will be discussed in detail after a brief introduction of every oilseed crop. Afterwards the overall market for the 17 most significant vegetable oils and animal fats will be presented to show possible interrelations. Therefore again the production, consumption as well as the exports/imports of these commodities will be assessed. In addition, an excursus to the biofuel production and the dependencies between oil markets and markets for meals will be provided. The analysis ends with an outlook.

8.2

Palm Oil Market

Palm oil has become the most important vegetable oil in the global market and has experienced the most dynamic growth in production and exports compared to all other vegetable oils. Insufficient production growth of soybean oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil and other oils and fats has made consumers worldwide more and more dependent on palm oil. With prices generally at a discount to soy oil and other vegetable oils, and with global supplies rising rapidly, palm oil has gained increasing acceptance from industry and is now being imported and consumed in more than 150 countries worldwide. The Plant.  Oil palms are single-stemmed trees grown typically in large scale plantations (Fig. 8.1). A single oil palm tree can grow to a height up to 20 m and more.

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 149 Fig. 8.1  Oil palm tree and fruit (www.uli-schmidt-­ paintings.com)

The leaves are pinnate. They may reach a length between 3 and 5 m. Typically it takes 7 to 8 months for the palm fruit to develop from pollination to maturity. A mature fruit bunch weights between 5 and 35 kg; the weight depends on the age of the tree as well as production site. It consists of different fruit. Each of these fruits is made of an outer layer mainly of fruit pulp and a single kernel; both, the flesh of fruit as well as the kernel are rich in vegetable oil. Typical oil yields (including palm oil and palmkernel oil) are in the range of 4.0 to 4.5 t/(ha a) but can go as high as 5.5 to 7.0 t/(ha a) for well-managed plantations [1]. Oil palms are growing in tropical areas close to the equator characterized by a substantial rainfall. Thus a production is possible in South-East Asian countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, in African countries like Ghana and Ivory Coast as well as Central and South America like Colombia, Costa Rica and Honduras. Production.  In the past 35 years, world production of palm oil virtually doubled every 10 years from 4.6 million t in 1980 to 11.0 million t in 1990, 21.9 million t in the year 2000 and 46.2 million t in 2010. A further steep expansion to 62.5 million t occurred in the 5 years period ended 2015. In the calendar year 2015 the production of palm oil and of its by-product palm kernel oil accounted for 34 % of world production and even 61 % of world exports of the 17 most important vegetable oils and animal fats, although it is produced on only 5 % of the total area of the 10 most important oilseeds. The reason is to be seen in the comparatively high yields per hectare; i.e. measured in vegetable oil produced the productivity per hectare in palm oil is much greater than for any other agricultural crop (in other words, the oil palm is the world’s most efficient oil-­bearing crop). World production of palm oil was boosted to keep pace with rising demand. Malaysia and Indonesia are the largest producers so far (Fig. 8.2; for the timely development see Table 8.1). These two countries account for 85 % of world production in 2015. Malaysia was the top palm oil producer until 2005 and has since this year been overtaken by Indonesia. The sharp increase in Indonesian output

150 Fig. 8.2  World production of palm oil (62.5 million t in 2015)

T. Mielke &RORPELD  ,YRU\ &RDVW 

7KDLODQG 

(FXDGRU 

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

1LJHULD 

0DOD\VLD 

,QGRQHVLD 

(average annual growth in palm oil production of 9.0 % in the 10 years until 2015) was mainly driven by the rapidly rising mature oil palm areas. Taking into account the large land reserves still available and suitable for oil palm cultivation, Indonesia has a much larger production growth potential than Malaysia in the years ahead. Given the strong global demand, this should drive investments into the development of new oil palm plantings. However, concern exist among consumers worldwide that the growth in palm oil production may slow down because of insufficient growth of palm oil yields as well as a slowing-down of the expansion in new plantings. In fact, the expansion into new areas has dramatically slowed down in Indonesia in 2015 and the first half of 2016. This will show up in a slowing-down of the growth in production from 2018 onward. The sharply reduced prices of palm oil in the second half of 2014 and throughout most of calendar year 2015 have reduced the interest in investment in the palm oil industry. Another factor curbing palm oil production is to be seen in lower than expected yields per hectare achieved on many oil palm plantations in Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries, primarily among smallholders but also in plantations which are not well managed. 2016 will be the first in many years that world palm oil production will decline. The extent of the decline is still uncertain. Consumption.  Palm oil was able to attract new consumers and to increase its market share by means of attractive prices relative to other vegetable oils in most of the past 10 to 20 years. Figure 8.3 gives an overview about the most important consumers. India was the largest single consumer of palm oil in most of the past 10 years (Table 8.2). Indonesia is in the second place followed by the European Union and China. Other markets with strong demand growth for palm oil are different countries

0.2

1.2

15.2

Ecuador

Oth c’tries

Total

0.7

34.2

2.3

0.3

0.7

37.5

2.4

0.4

0.9

0.7

0.3

0.8

15.9

16.1

2006

39.1

2.6

0.4

1.1

0.7

0.3

0.8

15.8

17.4

2007

43.6

2.9

0.4

1.3

0.8

0.3

0.8

17.7

19.4

2008

45.6

3.0

0.4

1.3

0.8

0.4

0.8

17.6

21.3

2009

46.2

2.9

0.4

1.4

0.8

0.4

0.8

17.0

22.5

2010

50.9

3.4

0.5

1.7

0.9

0.4

0.8

18.9

24.3

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

0.4

0.4

Colombia

Thailand

0.3

0.8

0.7

0.3

Nigeria

Ivory Coast

14.1

15.0

4.2

7.8

Indonesia

2005

Malaysia

1995

Table 8.1  World production of palm oil by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

53.9

3.7

0.5

1.8

1.0

0.4

0.8

18.8

26.9

2012

56.6

3.8

0.5

2.0

1.0

0.4

0.9

19.2

28.8

2013

59.7

3.8

0.5

1.9

1.1

0.4

0.9

19.7

31.4

2014

62.5

4.1

0.6

1.8

1.3

0.4

0.9

20.0

33.4

2015

6.3

5.9

5.8

10.1

6.6

3.5

1.6

2.9

9.0

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 151

152

T. Mielke

Fig. 8.3  World consumption of palm oil (61.1 million t in 2015)

,QGLD 

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

,QGRQHVLD 

(8 

3DNLVWDQ 

0DOD\VLD 

&KLQD 35 

in Asia, nations in the Middle East, several countries in Africa as well as nations in Central and South America as well as Turkey and Russia. The decline in Indonesian domestic consumption of palm oil in 2015 occurred in the biodiesel sector. In 2015 about 8.8 million t of palm oil has been used for biodiesel worldwide, of which 3.35 million t in the European Union (EU-28), 1.4 million t in Indonesia, 1.0  million t in Thailand and 0.7 million t in Malaysia. Approximately 14 % of world palm oil consumption occurred in the biodiesel industry in 2015. Trade.  In 2015 world palm oil exports increased steeply by 3.9 million t from a year earlier to 48.3 million t (Table. 8.3). The average annual increase in the most recent 5 years was 2.4 million t. The boost in 2015 occurred mainly on account of Indonesia (up 3.6 million t), while exports from Malaysia were increased by 0.2 million t and from the rest of the world by 0.1 million t. Indonesia has overtaken Malaysia as the largest exporter of palm oil since 2012 and it will continue to outpace Malaysia in the years ahead (Fig. 8.4). Accordingly world palm oil imports (Fig. 8.5, Table 8.4) increased. They almost doubled in the 12 years up to calendar year 2015 to a new high of 47.8 million t. India, China and the European Union are key importers. But considerable growth was also registered in imports of the USA, Bangladesh, Iran, Russia and several other countries. During the past 10 years palm oil has benefited from the insufficient global production and export supplies of other vegetable oils. Today palm oil is imported and consumed in more than 150 countries.

8.3

Soy Oil Market

Soy oil has become the second most important vegetable oil in the global market. Similar to palm and palm kernel oil it has experienced a dynamic growth in production and exports.

6.3

14.7

Oth countries

Total

33.7

14.5

1.6

2.0

4.3

4.4

3.6

3.3

2005

36.3

15.9

1.6

2.2

5.5

4.3

3.7

3.1

2006

37.8

16.2

1.6

2.2

5.5

4.4

4.1

3.8

2007

42.7

17.8

1.9

2.6

5.6

5.0

4.4

5.4

2008

45.2

17.5

1.9

2.4

6.2

5.6

4.8

6.8

2009

46.5

18.5

2.0

2.2

5.8

5.8

5.5

6.7

2010

48.8

20.0

2.0

2.3

6.1

5.2

6.4

6.8

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

1.1

1.2

Malaysia

1.3

China, PR

Pakistan

2.2

1.8

Indonesia

EU-28

0.8

India

1995

Table 8.2  World consumption of palm oil by country in million t/a (Oth countries other countries)

52.5

21.2

2.1

2.3

6.2

6.0

7.1

7.6

2012

57.8

23.2

2.4

2.4

6.3

7.0

8.1

8.4

2013

59.4

24.6

2.3

2.8

6.1

7.1

8.6

7.9

2014

61.1

26.1

2.5

2.9

5.9

7.2

7.3

9.2

2015

6.1

6.1

5.0

4.1

3.1

5.1

7.5

10.8

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 153

1.9

18.0

1.8

10.3

Market share (%)

Indonesia

Market share (%)

Oth countries

Total

26.5

2.7

39.4

10.4

50.8

13.4

2005

30.0

3.1

41.9

12.5

48.2

14.4

2006

29.7

3.2

42.6

12.7

46.3

13.8

2007

33.7

3.7

43.4

14.6

45.8

15.4

2008

36.1

3.3

46.9

16.9

43.9

15.9

2009

36.5

3.3

45.1

16.5

45.6

16.7

2010

39.1

4.0

43.7

17.1

46.0

18.0

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

6.6

64.3

Malaysia

1995

Table 8.3  World palm oil exports by country in million t/a (Oth countries other countries)

40.6

3.9

47.0

19.1

43.3

17.6

2012

43.8

4.1

49.0

21.5

41.5

18.2

2013

44.4

4.1

51.7

23.0

39.0

17.3

2014

48.3

4.2

55.0

26.6

36.2

17.5

2015

6.2

4.5

9.8

2.7

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

154 T. Mielke

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 155

3DOPRLOH[SRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 0DOD\VLD



,QGRQHVLD

   































































Fig. 8.4  Palm oil exports from Malaysia and Indonesia

The Plant.  Soybean (name typically used in North and South America) or soya bean (name typically used in British English) is an annual cash crop from the species of legume. The plant is in general filed as an oilseed rather than a pulse; nevertheless, soy produces significantly more protein per hectare than most other commercial grown crops. This is the reason why soy is grown for the provision of oil as well as protein fodder (i.e. coupled products sold to two different markets). The plant (Fig. 8.6) can grow up to a height of roughly 2 m. Once days become shorter than 12.8 h soybeans form inconspicuous, self-fertile white, pink or purple

(8 ,QGLD  &KLQD 86$ 0H[LFR

&HQWUDO $PHULFD

0DOD\VLD ,QGRQHVLD

([SRUWV

Fig. 8.5  Main global trade flows of palm oil

,PSRUWV

1.7

0.6

0.8

1.1

0.0

Pakistan

Malaysia

0.4

26.5

7.6 29.0

9.0

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.6

1.8

3.2

5.5

4.5

2006

29.1

8.8

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.7

0.3

0.8

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.3

1.7

3.7

5.5

4.5

2007

33.8

9.1

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.9

0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.6

1.9

5.8

5.6

5.2

2008

36.0

8.5

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.9

0.4

1.0

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

2.0

6.8

6.6

5.8

2009

37.2

9.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

1.1

0.4

1.0

0.3

0.6

0.8

1.2

2.1

6.7

5.8

6.0

2010

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

10.5

Total

0.3

0.6

3.3

Singapore

Oth countries

0.5

0.4

Japan

0.9

0.5

0.0

0.1

Bangladesh

0.3

Iran

0.1

0.1

USA

Mexico

0.2

0.0

Ukraine

0.6

0.4

0.1

Egypt

Russia

4.3

3.3

1.6

0.9

China, PR

India

4.5

1.8

2005

EU-28 (excl. intra-trade)

1995

Table 8.4  World imports of palm oil by country in million t/a (Oth countries other countries)

38.7

10.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

1.0

0.4

1.1

0.2

0.7

0.7

1.8

2.0

6.7

6.2

5.3

2011

41.2

10.8

0.8

0.6

0.7

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.2

0.7

0.7

1.6

2.0

7.8

6.6

6.2

2012

44.0

11.9

0.6

0.6

1.0

1.3

0.5

1.4

0.2

0.8

0.8

0.6

2.4

8.5

6.2

7.2

2013

44.4

13.7

0.6

0.6

0.8

1.3

0.5

1.2

0.2

0.8

0.9

0.5

2.4

7.9

5.6

7.4

2014

47.8

14.5

0.6

0.6

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.2

0.1

0.9

0.8

1.0

2.8

9.5

6.0

7.3

2015

6.1

6.7

6.0

2.6

0.2

4.5

5.5

11.3

−3.5

4.6

0.3

6.3

5.2

11.1

3.4

5.1

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

156 T. Mielke

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 157 Fig. 8.6  Drawing of soy (left side: plant with fruits, right side: flower; www.ulischmidt-paintings.com)

flowers. The hairy pods growing in clusters of three to five are developed. Each of these pods is 3 to 8 cm long. Typically each one contains two to four marble-like black, brown, blue, yellow, green and mottled seeds with a diameter of 5 to 11 mm. Typical oil yields are in the range of 0.4 to 0.5 t/(ha a) [1]. Production.  During the past 20 years world production of soybeans increased very fast especially in South America. Sizeable expansion was also seen in North America, Russia, Ukraine, India and several other countries. The biggest increase in recent years occurred in the soybean crops of Brazil to 98  million t in 2015/2016 compared with the most recent 4-year average of 81.6  million t as well as in the USA to 107 million t in 2015/2016 against 91.2 million t, respectively. The production in Argentina also showed a significant increase during the past 10 years to almost 60 million t in 2014/2015, but a setback to an estimated 55 million t occurred in Apr/May 2016 when torrential rainfall and flooding destroyed at least 5 million t of soybeans. Considerable expansion has also taken place in the European Union, in Russia, within the Ukraine and in Canada, but the actual production in these countries in 2015 was still relatively low at 2.2, 2.6, 3.7 and 6.2 million t, respectively (Fig 8.7, Table 8.5). Globally, soy oil has shown unusually sharp year-on-year increases. More soy oil is currently needed by consumers worldwide due to the tightness in palm oil and insufficient supplies of rapeseed oil and other vegetable oils and animal fats in 2016. Soybeans are mainly a “meal seed” with an average meal content of 79 to 80 %, while the soy oil yield is relatively small at 18 to 19 %. By sharply raising soybean crushings in an effort to increase soy oil production, a surplus in soy meal is created simultaneously.

158

T. Mielke

2LOVHHGSURGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 6R\EHDQV



2WKHURLOVHHGV







)







































Fig. 8.7  World production of soybeans compared to the other nine most important oilseed crops (F forecast)

Despite the recent acceleration of world production of soy oil, the average annual growth over the past 10 years in world soy oil production was relatively moderate at only 3.8 %, trailing the growth of palm oil, sunflower oil and rapeseed oil. Biggest producers of soy oil are China, the USA, Argentina and Brazil (Fig. 8.8). It should be noted that soy oil alone cannot solve a volume problem in palm oil. Consumption.  World consumption of soy oil increased sharply from 19.4 million t in calendar year 1995 to 32.7 million t in the year 2005 and to a new high of 47.9 million t in 2015. The average annual increase during the most recent 10 years was 3.9 %. Today China is the world’s largest consumer of soy oil; 13.1 million t were consumed in the year 2015, accounting for 27 % of world consumption (Fig. 8.9, Table 8.6), up substantially from just 7.3 million t in 2005 and 2.4 million t in 1995. Other major consumers are the USA, Brazil and India. Sizable increases have also taken place in Pakistan, Iran and several other countries in Asia, Africa and Central America. In the European Union soy oil has lost market share and consumption has fallen in recent years, partly as a result of rising resistance against genetically modified organisms (GMO). In 2015 approximately 7.7 million t of soy oil or 16 % of world consumption was destined for the production of biodiesel, of which 2.7 million t in Brazil, 2.2 million t in the USA, 1.8 million t in Argentina and 0.5 million t in the European Union. Trade.  Soy is traded as soybeans, as soy oil and as soy meal. All three markets are discussed below.

3.0

20.4

Oth c’tries

Total

33.5

4.3

1.0

5.5

5.7

35.1

4.4

1.2

6.0

5.4

6.2

9.3

2.6

2006

37.2

4.5

1.3

6.2

6.1

7.0

9.4

2.7

2007

36.7

4.4

1.6

6.7

6.3

6.0

9.1

2.6

2008

36.0

4.4

1.2

7.5

5.9

5.8

8.8

2.4

2009

40.0

4.8

1.4

8.7

6.9

7.0

8.8

2.4

2010

41.4

4.9

1.6

9.7

7.3

7.1

8.5

2.3

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

1.3

0.6

China

India

4.0

Brazil

5.4

8.9

7.1

1.6

USA

2.7

2005

2.8

Argentina

EU-28

1995

Table 8.5  Soy oil world production by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

41.7

4.7

1.6

10.3

7.0

6.4

9.3

2.4

2012

42.8

5.4

1.6

10.8

7.1

6.4

9.0

2.5

2013

45.3

6.2

1.3

11.7

7.4

7.1

9.1

2.5

2014

48.8

7.1

1.0

12.2

8.1

7.9

9.8

2.7

2015

3.8

5.1

0.0

8.3

3.5

3.8

1.0

0.2

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 159

160

T. Mielke

Fig. 8.8  World production of soy oil (48.8 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

(8  86$ 

,QGLD 

&KLQD  $UJHQWLQD  %UD]LO 

Fig. 8.9  World consumption of soy oil (47.9 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

(8 

$OJHULD (J\SW  

0RURFFR 

7XQLVLD  86$ 

,QGLD 

0H[LFR  $UJHQWLQD  &KLQD 

%UD]LO 

Soybeans.  World exports of soybeans have skyrocketed to 130 million t in 2015, of which 54.3 million t shipped from Brazil, 48.2 million t from the USA and 11.6  million  t from Argentina. China has become the by far largest importer of soybeans. China imported in 2015 81.7 million t, of which 40.1 million t have been imported from Brazil, 28.4 from the USA and 9.4 million t from Argentina. Sharply rising domestic requirements and declining interior production turned China from a net exporter of soybeans in the early 1990’s to the world’s largest importer. In the year 2015 China absorbed 62 % of world soybean exports (Fig. 8.10). Figure 8.11 shows the main trade flows on a global scale.

0.0

0.2

0.1

5.9

0.4

0.1

2.5

2.4

0.7

4.6

19.4

Libya

Morocco

Tunisia

USA

Mexico

Argentina

Brazil

China

India

Oth c’tries

Total

32.7

6.9

2.8

7.3

3.1

0.3

0.8

7.9

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.3

34.3

7.2

2.8

7.4

3.1

0.3

0.8

8.2

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.3

3.2

2006

36.8

7.6

2.7

8.7

3.6

0.4

0.8

8.4

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.3

0.2

3.5

2007

37.7

7.4

2.3

9.2

4.0

0.9

0.8

8.2

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.6

0.3

3.4

2008

35.9

6.4

2.3

9.4

4.4

1.3

0.8

7.3

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.4

2.6

2009

39.0

6.8

2.9

10.0

5.3

2.0

0.8

7.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.5

0.4

2.7

2010

41.8

6.9

2.6

11.0

5.6

2.6

0.8

8.1

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.7

0.4

2.5

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

0.2

Egypt

0.2

2.4

2.2

0.1

EU-28

Algeria

2005

1995

Table 8.6  Soy oil world consumption by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

41.5

6.8

2.8

11.8

5.4

2.6

0.8

8.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.4

1.9

2012

43.0

7.2

2.8

11.9

5.8

2.1

0.9

8.8

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.5

0.5

1.9

2013

45.4

7.6

3.2

12.7

6.1

2.8

0.9

8.5

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.6

2.0

2014

47.9

8.5

4.2

13.1

6.5

2.1

0.9

8.7

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.7

0.6

1.9

2015

3.9

2.1

4.2

6.1

7.9

21.3

1.5

0.9

0.6

0.0

0.0

9.8

10.7

−2.2

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 161

162

T. Mielke

:RUOGLPSRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 

&KLQD



5HVWRIZRUOG

      











































Fig. 8.10  World imports of soybeans and the growing dominance of China

86$

&KLQD (8 8NUDLQH 2WKHU$VLD 

%UD]LO  0H[LFR

3DUDJXD\ 8UXJXD\

$UJHQWLQD

([SRUWV

,PSRUWV

Fig. 8.11  Soybean global trade flows

Soy Oil.  A main share of the produced soy oil is exported. World exports amounted to 12.5 million t in 2015 (compared with 10.2 million t in 2010). Argentina is the largest exporter with 5.7 million t in 2015, followed by Brazil with 1.7 million t (2015) and the USA with 1.0 million t (2015). India has become the world’s largest importer of soy oil, taking 3.6 million t in 2015, while 1.7 million t were shipped to

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 163 (8 ,QGLD  86$

&KLQD

1RUWK$IULFD 

&HQWUDO $PHULFD %UD]LO  $UJHQWLQD

([SRUWV

,PSRUWV

Fig. 8.12  Soy oil global trade flows

North Africa, 0.8 million t to China, 0.6 million t to Bangladesh and 0.5 million t to Iran (all values related to 2015). Figure 8.12 shows the main trade flows. Soy Meal. World exports of soy meal showed a phenomenal growth, too, with exports reaching a record 64.4 million t in 2015. Argentina is the world’s largest exporter at 29.4 million t in the year 2015, followed by Brazil with 14.8 million t and the USA with 11.5 million t. The European Union is the by far largest importer of soy meal, taking 21.3 million t in 2015. Other major importers are Vietnam with 4.2 million t in 2015, Indonesia with 4.1 million t, Thailand with 2.7 million t, the Philippines with 2.3 million t, Mexico with 2.1 million t and South Korea with 1.9 million t (all values related to the year 2015).

8.4

Rapeseed Oil Market

Rapeseed oil is the third largest vegetable oil with world production in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 ranging between 25.5 and 27.0 million t/a. Included is canola oil produced from the canola crops in North America and Australia. The Plant.  Rape is a bright-yellow flowering member of the family Brassicaceae (Fig. 8.13). It is an annual crop which needs high fertilization and a high amount of plant protection to reach high oil yields. Depending on genetics, soil and climatic conditions the crop grows up to 180 cm high. The flower develops during further growth to 5 to 10 cm long pods containing the seeds. Typical oil yields when harvested in the second half of July are in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 t/(ha a) for winter crops and between 0.7 and 1.1 t/(ha a) for summer crops [2].

164

T. Mielke

Fig. 8.13  Drawing of rape (left side: flowering plant, right side: pod; www.ulischmidt-paintings.com)

Production.  World production showed an average annual increase of 4.9 % in the most recent 10 years with biggest increases registered in the European Union and Canada (Fig. 8.14, Table 8.7). Relatively moderate growth, however, occurred in Mexico, China and Japan, while Indian production is even on a longterm decline.

Fig. 8.14  World production of rapeseed oil (26.3 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

-DSDQ 

(8 

,QGLD 

&KLQD 

0H[LFR 

86$ 

&DQDGD 

5XVVLD 

0.0

1.1

0.2

0.2

2.7

2.1

0.8

0.3

11.0

Russia

Canada

USA

Mexico

China

India

Japan

Oth c’tries

Total

16.4

1.1

0.9

1.8

4.7

0.5

0.3

1.3

0.1

5.7

2005

18.5

1.2

1.0

2.5

4.8

0.5

0.4

1.6

0.1

6.4

2006

18.8

1.4

0.9

2.4

4.4

0.5

0.4

1.6

0.2

7.0

2007

20.0

1.6

1.0

1.9

4.5

0.5

0.4

1.8

0.2

8.1

2008

21.8

1.6

0.9

1.9

5.3

0.5

0.5

1.8

0.3

9.0

2009

24.3

2.2

1.0

2.1

5.6

0.5

0.5

2.5

0.2

9.7

2010

24.1

2.0

1.0

2.5

5.2

0.6

0.5

2.9

0.3

9.1

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

3.6

EU-28

1995

Table 8.7  World production of rapeseed oil by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

24.9

1.7

1.1

2.2

5.5

0.7

0.5

3.2

0.4

9.6

2012

25.5

2.2

1.0

2.4

5.7

0.6

0.6

2.8

0.4

9.8

2013

27.0

2.3

1.1

2.5

5.7

0.6

0.8

3.1

0.5

10.4

2014

26.3

2.3

1.1

1.8

5.3

0.6

0.7

3.4

0.5

10.6

2015

4.9

8.2

1.3

−0.2

1.3

2.3

7.8

10.1

19.1

6.3

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 165

166

T. Mielke

World production of rapeseed has been on a declining trend lately. In the crop season 2015/2016 world production of rapeseed and canola reached 64.1 million t, which is a 3-year low and down sharply from 67.5 million t 1 year and 69.7 million t 2 years earlier. There has been a declining trend in plantings and production in China, India, Ukraine and in some parts of the European Union, as farmers switched to other crops considered more lucrative. The European Union was the largest producer of rapeseed oil at 10.6 million t in the year 2015, approximately double the quantity produced in China (5.3 million t) and above three times the quantity of canola oil produced in Canada (3.4 million t). Consumption.  World consumption of rapeseed oil amounted to 26.9 million t in 2015. It is mainly concentrated in the European Union and reached 10.6 million t in 2015, of which approximately 60 % is used for biofuel (mainly production of biodiesel). China is the second largest consumer of rapeseed oil worldwide, followed by India, the USA and Japan (Fig. 8.15, Table 8.8). Worldwide 7.2 million t of rapeseed oil was used for the production of biodiesel in 2015, equivalent to approximately 27 % of world consumption. Trade.  World trade in rapeseed oil has been relatively small at 4.0 to 4.2 million t/a during the past 4 years. The USA and China are the world’s largest importer of rapeseed oil. World exports amounted to 4.2 million t in 2015, with Canada providing the largest quantity (2.6 million t or 61 % of the total). World trade in rapeseed is considerably larger and reached about 14.2 million t in the year 2015. Canada shipped 9.2 and Australia 2.75 million t. China is the world’s largest importer of rapeseed and canola, taking 4.5 million t in 2015, while the European Union imported 2.9 and Japan 2.4 million t. Figure 8.16 shows the main global trade flows.

Fig. 8.15  World consumption of rapeseed oil (26.9 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

-DSDQ 

(8 

,QGLD 

&KLQD  0H[LFR 

86$ 

&DQDGD 

16.2

1.2

18.1

1.3

1.0

2.5

4.7

0.6

0.8

0.4

6.8

2006

19.1

1.6

1.0

2.5

4.6

0.5

1.0

0.4

7.5

2007

19.8

1.7

1.0

1.9

4.7

0.6

1.3

0.4

8.2

2008

21.2

1.8

1.0

1.9

5.2

0.5

1.2

0.4

9.2

2009

23.5

2.1

1.0

2.2

5.9

0.5

1.3

0.5

10.0

2010

24.0

2.2

1.1

2.5

5.9

0.7

1.7

0.5

9.4

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

10.7

Total

1.0

0.8

0.9

Japan

Oth c’tries

1.8

2.0

India

0.6

4.8

0.3

3.0

Mexico

0.7

0.4

5.7

2005

China

0.5

0.5

Canada

USA

2.7

EU-28

1995

Table 8.8  World consumption of rapeseed oil by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

24.0

2.3

1.1

2.2

5.9

0.7

1.7

0.6

9.5

2012

24.5

2.4

1.1

2.4

6.2

0.6

1.7

0.6

9.5

2013

26.6

2.6

1.1

2.6

6.4

0.7

2.1

0.8

10.3

2014

26.9

2.7

1.1

2.2

6.6

0.7

2.2

0.8

10.6

2015

5.2

8.5

0.8

2.1

3.4

1.8

11.6

8.3

6.4

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 167

168

T. Mielke

&DQDGD

1RUZD\ (8

8NUDLQH

5XVVLD

(8 86$

&KLQD ,QGLD 

$XVWUDOLD 

([SRUWV

,PSRUWV

Fig. 8.16  Main global trade flows of rapeseed oil

8.5

Sunflower Oil Market

Sunflower oil is the fourth largest vegetable oil with world production in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 ranging between 14.0 and 16.2 million t. The Plant.  Sunflowers are an annual or perennial crop from the family Compositae (Fig. 8.17). During growth they develop a flower head with bright yellow ray florets at the outside and yellow or maroon disc florets inside. The seed is contained within the flower. It needs high fertilization and a medium amount of plant protection to reach high oil yields. Depending on genetics, soil and climatic conditions the crop grows up to 180 cm high. The flower develops during further growth to 5 to 10 cm long pods containing the seeds. Typical oil yields when harvested between end of August and mid-September are in the range of 0.8 to 2.0 t/(ha a) for winter crops and even lower for summer crops in the Northern hemisphere. Production.  Stimulated by attractive returns per hectare relative to other crops, farmers in Ukraine and Russia lately showed increasing interest in the cultivation of sunflowers. With favorable weather production in the Ukraine approached a record of 14 million t of sunflower seed in 2016 and the Russian crop amounted to about 11.0 million t – both well up from 12.1 and 9.7 million t, respectively, produced in 2015. A pronounced recovery in sunflower oil production is likely to occur in Ukraine, Russia and the European Union in 2016/2017 due to a higher sunflower seed crop harvested in the autumn of 2016. In Argentina the reforms made by the new government boosted not only corn and wheat but also sunflower plantings and this is likely to result in considerably higher production in early 2017.

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 169 Fig. 8.17  Sunflower plant (www.uli-schmidtpaintings.com)

World production of sunflower seed showed an increasing trend in recent years and reached 42.2 million t in 2015/2016, the second highest on record and above the most recent 5-year average of 39.0 million t. With plantings again expanded in 2016, a further increase in global production is forecast for the 2016/2017 season. World production of sunflower oil showed an average annual increase of 4.6 % in the most recent 10 years, with biggest increases in Ukraine and Russia. Other growth markets are the European Union and Turkey. A declining trend has occurred in sunflower seed production and sun oil output in China and India (Fig. 8.18, Table 8.9).

Fig. 8.18  World production of sunflower oil (15.1 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

(8 

7XUNH\  $UJHQWLQD  86$ 

8NUDLQH 

5XVVLD 

1.5

8.6

Oth c’tries

Total

9.6

1.7

0.5

1.5

0.2

11.1

2.0

0.5

1.6

0.3

2.1

2.4

2.2

2006

10.8

2.0

0.5

1.2

0.3

2.3

2.4

2.1

2007

10.7

2.0

0.5

1.7

0.3

2.0

2.2

2.0

2008

13.0

2.3

0.5

1.4

0.3

2.9

2.9

2.7

2009

12.5

2.3

0.6

1.1

0.3

3.1

2.6

2.5

2010

13.1

2.0

0.7

1.5

0.2

3.4

2.6

2.7

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

2.0

0.4

Argentina

Turkey

0.5

USA

1.4

2.0

0.8

0.6

Russia

2.3

2005

2.8

Ukraine

EU-28

1995

Table 8.9  World production of sunflower oil by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

15.0

2.1

0.7

1.5

0.2

4.1

3.7

2.7

2012

14.0

2.0

0.8

1.1

0.2

3.6

3.5

2.8

2013

16.2

2.3

0.8

0.9

0.2

4.7

4.1

3.2

2014

15.1

1.9

0.7

1.1

0.2

4.3

3.7

3.2

2015

4.6

1.1

3.9

−3.1

0.0

12.2

6.3

3.3

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

170 T. Mielke

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 171

Consumption.  World consumption of sunflower oil is, similar to rape oil, mainly concentrated in the European Union and reached 3.8 million t in 2015. Russia is the second largest consumer of sunflower oil worldwide, followed by India and China (Fig. 8.19, Table 8.10). Other major consumers of sunflower oil are the North African countries, Turkey and Iran. All of these countries are major importers because their domestic production is insufficient. Only very small quantities of sunflower oil are used for biodiesel production partly because of the fatty acid composition and partly because of the generally higher price relative to rapeseed oil and other vegetable oils. For example, in 2015 only 1 % of world consumption of sunflower oil was used for biodiesel. Trade.  World trade in sunflower oil was relatively high between 7.5 and 8.1  million  t/a during the past 2 years and the average annual growth in world exports amounted to 9.3 % in the most recent 10 years compared with increases of 6.2 % in palm oil and 2.5 % in soy oil. World consumption of sunflower oil has shown an average annual growth of 4.8 % in the most recent 10 years. After the setback in 2015, higher production and consumption is likely to materialize in 2016/2017 due to increasing production in major countries (Fig. 8.20). Ukraine has become the world’s largest exporter of sunflower oil, shipping 3.9 million t in 2015. This sharply exceeds the total exports of 1.44 million t from Russia and 0.5 million t from Argentina. India has become the biggest importer of sunflower oil, taking 1.5 million t in 2015, followed by the European Union at 1.0 million t, Turkey at 0.8 million t and China at 0.65 million t (all values related to 2015). World exports of sunflower seed are relatively small with exports only 1.7 million t in the year 2015. Most of the seed is being crushed in the producing countries, partly because of the fact that transportation costs are relatively higher than in the case of

Fig. 8.19  World consumption of sunflower seed oil (15.1 million t in 2015)

2WKHU FRXQWULHV 

(8 

5XVVLD 

,QGLD  &KLQD 

0H[LNR 

8NUDLQH 86$  

1.0

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.0

3.4

8.4

Russia

Ukraine

USA

Mexico

China

India

Japan

Oth c’tries

Total

9.4

3.5

0.0

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.4

1.7

2.9

2005

10.7

3.8

0.0

0.6

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.4

1.9

3.4

2006

11.2

4.2

0.0

0.7

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.4

1.9

3.4

2007

10.4

4.0

0.0

0.5

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.5

1.9

3.1

2008

12.6

4.9

0.0

1.0

0.4

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.1

3.5

2009

12.7

4.9

0.0

0.9

0.4

0.0

0.3

0.5

2.3

3.4

2010

12.8

5.2

0.0

1.1

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.1

3.4

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

2.5

EU-28

1995

14.5

6.2

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.2

3.6

2012

Table 8.10  World consumption of sunflower oil by country in million t/a (Oth c’tries other countries)

14.1

6.0

0.0

1.2

0.6

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.2

3.4

2013

16.0

6.5

0.0

1.8

0.7

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.4

3.9

2014

15.1

6.0

0.0

1.6

0.8

0.1

0.2

0.4

2.2

3.8

2015

4.8

5.5

0.0

13.0

13.8

−3.3

4.7

0.5

2.6

2.5

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

172 T. Mielke

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 173 8NUDLQH (8 7XUNH\

5XVVLD

(8 1$IULFD 

&KLQD

,QGLD 

$UJHQWLQD

([SRUWV

,PSRUWV

Fig. 8.20  Main global trade flows of sunflower oil

rapeseed and soybeans. A second factor is to be seen in the still persisting sunflower seed export taxes of Russia and Ukraine, the world’s largest producers.

8.6

Overall Oil and Fat Market

Based on the discussions within the sections 8.2 till 8.5 below the overall market for vegetable oils and animal fats is discussed in detail.1 Production.  World production of vegetable oils and animal fats has grown at a compound annual average rate of 3.9 % from an aggregate of 141.0 million t in 2005 to 206.1 million t in 2015 (Fig. 8.21, Table 8.11). In these 10 years the production of vegetable oils increased the fastest at a compound annual growth rate of 4.3 %, from 117.4 million t in 2005 to 179.4 million t in 2015. During that same period, animal fat output grew at a compound annual rate of only 1.4 %, from 22.6 million t in 2005 to 25.9 million t in 2015. Marine oil production in the same period declined. Among the vegetable oils, palm oil has become the world’s leading oil in respect of production and consumption, while soybean oil has fallen to second place. The production pattern over the last 10 years clearly confirms palm oil as having the highest growth rate of all oils and fats. For example, the compound average annual

1   All the statistics used in this analysis were taken from the Oil World databank, which has been established since 1970 and which includes detailed data on production, trade, stocks consumption and processing for all oilseeds, vegetable and animal fats as well as oilmeals world wide and for every country. Reference is also made to the weekly, the monthly and the annual.

174

T. Mielke 

:RUOGSURGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 





$QLPDO)DWV 2WKHUYHJRLO





0DULQHRLOV

5DSHVHHGRLO 6XQIORZHURLO



6R\RLO 3DOPNHUQHORLO



3DOPRLO

 







Fig. 8.21  Development of the world production the most important 14 vegetable oils and 4 animal fats from 1995 to 2015

growth rate of palm oil production for the 10 years ended 2015 is 6.3 %, compared to 3.8 % for soybean oil. Consumption.  During the past 20 years the outstanding feature on the world market for vegetable oils and animal fats is to be seen in the accelerating growth in world consumption. World consumption of oils and fats more than doubled from 92.9 million t in 1995 to 200.6 million t in 2014. In 2015 world consumption reached a new peak of 204.3 million t. In the 10 years up to 2015 the compound average annual growth rate of world consumption reached 3.9 %. Figure 8.22 (see also Table 8.12) shows this impressive development. This impressive development has been characterized by yearly growth rates within the last 20 years between scarcely more than 2 and roughly 8 % (Fig. 8.23). Especially between the years 2005 and 2014 the yearly growth rate has been in average clearly above 5 %. Though fluctuating, the average annual growth was pushed up to almost an average 7.0 million t/a in the 10 years ended 2014. Out of that the average annual growth in the consumption of the 17 most important oils and fats for biodiesel production amounted to scarcely 2.7 million t. Palm oil accounted for most of the increase in world consumption with an annual growth rate of 6.1 % in the 10 years ending 2015. World palm oil consumption quadrupled from 14.7 million t in 1995 to 59.4 million t in 2014 and in 2015 a further sizable increase to 61.1 million t occurred. Palm oil thus accounted for 29.9 % of world consumption of the most important 17 oils and fats in 2015 compared with 15.9 % in 1995.

1.9

20.4

8.6

11.0

17.1

74.2

19.4

1.3

94.9

16.0

Palmkernel oil

Soy oil

Sun oil

Rape oil

Oth. veg. oils

Total veg. oils

Animal fats

Marine oils

Total oils & fats

Palm oil share (%)

24.2

141.0

1.0

22.6

117.4

19.8

16.4

9.6

33.5

3.9

34.2

2005

25.0

150.2

1.0

23.2

126.0

19.5

18.5

11.1

35.1

4.3

37.5

2006

25.3

154.3

1.1

23.4

129.8

19.5

18.8

10.8

37.2

4.4

39.1

2007

27.2

160.6

1.1

23.9

135.6

19.7

20.0

10.7

36.7

4.9

43.6

2008

27.5

165.9

1.1

24.0

140.8

19.3

21.8

13.0

36.0

5.1

45.6

2009

26.7

173.4

0.9

24.4

148.1

20.0

24.3

12.5

40.0

5.1

46.2

2010

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

15.2

Palm oil

Vegetable oils

1995

28.1

181.0

1.1

24.7

155.2

20.1

24.1

13.1

41.4

5.6

50.9

2011

28.6

188.3

0.9

25.1

162.3

20.9

24.9

15.0

41.7

5.9

53.9

2012

Table 8.11  World production of the 17 most important oils and fats in million t/a (oth. other; veg. vegetable)

29.5

191.7

0.9

25.5

165.3

20.1

25.5

14.0

42.8

6.3

56.6

2013

29.6

201.7

0.9

25.7

175.1

20.4

27.0

16.2

45.3

6.5

59.7

2014

30.3

206.1

0.8

25.9

179.4

19.8

26.3

15.1

48.8

6.9

62.5

2015

3.9

−1.7

1.4

4.3

−0.01

4.9

4.6

3.8

5.9

6.3

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 175

176

T. Mielke 

:RUOGFRQVXPSWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 





$QLPDO)DWV 2WKHUYHJRLO





0DULQHRLOV

5DSHVHHGRLO 6XQIORZHURLO



6R\RLO 3DOPNHUQHORLO



3DOPRLO

 







Fig. 8.22  Development of the global consumption of the 17 most important vegetable oils and animal fats from 1995 to 2015

The acceleration of consumption in the past 10 years was a combined result of (i) higher demand for food (primarily in Asia, above all in China and India), (ii) further expansion of oleochemical requirements and (iii) rapidly increasing consumption of oils and fats for energy, primarily for biodiesel. The impact on biodiesel on the total consumption of the most important 17 vegetable oils and animal fats has been significant. In the 10 years ended 2014 world consumption of 17 vegetable oils and animal fats increased by 69.8 million t. About 38 % of that growth occurred due to the consumption for biodiesel production. For this reason the biodiesel market is discussed in more detail below. Additionally the global markets especially for vegetable oils are highly influenced by the markets for meal (i.e. protein rich fodder like e.g. soy meal). Thus this dependency between the two markets is also outlined in depth below. Biodiesel.  The past decade can be characterized as the era of biofuels. Substantial increases were registered in production and consumption of both ethanol and biodiesel, put in force by government decisions, primarily by introduction of mandatory admixture of biofuels to fossil fuels (the term “biodiesel” also includes here HVO). World production of biodiesel was boosted from just 2.0 million t in 2004 to 31.2 million t in 2014 (Fig. 8.24, Table 8.14). This is a dramatic increase, requiring an acceleration of the growth in world oilseed plantings, primarily of soybeans and rapeseed, but also an expansion of oil palm cultivation.

1.9

19.4

8.4

10.7

17.0

72.1

19.4

1.4

92.9

15.9

Palmkernel oil

Soy oil

Sun oil

Rape oil

Oth. veg. oils

Total veg. oils

Animal fats

Marine oils

Total oils & fats

Palm oil share (%)

24.2

139.0

1.0

22.7

115.3

19.5

16.2

9.4

32.7

3.8

33.7

2005

24.6

147.4

1.1

23.2

123.1

19.6

18.1

10.7

34.3

4.1

36.3

2006

24.6

153.3

1.1

23.4

128.8

19.5

19.1

11.2

36.8

4.4

37.8

2007

26.7

159.8

1.0

23.9

134.9

19.6

19.8

10.4

37.7

4.7

42.7

2008

27.5

164.5

1.1

24.0

139.4

19.2

21.2

12.6

35.9

5.3

45.2

2009

27.0

172.0

1.0

24.3

146.7

19.9

23.5

12.7

39.0

5.1

46.5

2010

27.3

178.3

1.0

24.6

152.7

20.0

24.0

12.8

41.8

5.3

48.8

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

14.7

Palm oil

Vegetable oils

1995

28.4

184.8

1.1

25.0

158.7

20.5

24.0

14.5

41.5

5.7

52.5

2012

30.0

192.6

0.9

25.5

166.2

20.5

24.4

14.1

43.0

6.4

57.8

2013

29.6

200.6

0.9

25.7

174.0

20.3

26.5

15.9

45.4

6.5

59.4

2014

Table 8.12  World Consumption of the 17 most important oils and fats by product in million t/a (oth. other: veg. vegetable)

29.9

204.3

0.9

25.9

177.5

19.7

26.9

15.2

47.9

6.7

61.1

2015

3.9

−1.7

1.4

4.4

0.1

5.2

4.9

3.9

5.8

6.1

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 177

178

T. Mielke 

PLOOLRQWD@

        











































Fig. 8.23  Yearly growth of the global consumption of the 17 most important vegetable oils and animal fats

In 2008 rapeseed oil was the largest feedstock with 5.0 million t used for biodiesel production (most of which in the European Union), accounting for 37 % of the global biodiesel production. Demand for palm oil for biodiesel in 2008 was still small at only 2.15 million t (or 16 %), while 4.4 million t of soy oil (32 % total

%LRGLHVHOZRUOGSURGXFWLRQE\ FRXQWU\LQ>PLOOLRQWD@

       

            

Fig. 8.24  Global biodiesel production

0.9

29.8

34.6

Marine oils

Total oils & fats

Palm oil share (%)

51.8

51.1

0.6

3.0

47.5

4.6

1.4

3.1

9.8

2.1

26.5

2005

52.1

57.5

0.7

3.0

53.8

4.4

2.1

4.5

10.4

2.4

30.0

2006

51.1

58.1

0.8

3.1

54.2

4.2

2.1

4.3

11.2

2.7

29.7

2007

55.4

60.8

0.7

3.0

57.1

4.2

2.3

4.1

10.1

2.7

33.7

2008

56.4

64.0

0.9

2.9

60.2

4.0

2.6

5.2

9.3

3.0

36.1

2009

54.9

66.6

0.8

3.0

62.8

4.8

3.4

4.8

10.2

3.1

36.5

2010

56.8

68.8

0.8

2.7

65.3

4.5

3.7

5.5

9.4

3.1

39.1

2011

Source: OIL WORLD Data Bank and publications of ISTA Mielke GmbH, www.oilworld.de

3.4

Animal fats

1.9

Rape oil

3.7

3.1

Sun oil

25.5

5.7

Soy oil

Total veg. oils

0.8

Palmkernel oil

Oth. veg. oils

10.3

Palm oil

Vegetable oils

1995

55.7

72.9

0.9

2.5

69.5

4.9

4.1

7.4

9.4

3.1

40.6

2012

Table 8.13  World exports for the 17 most important oils and fats in million t/a (oth. other; veg. vegetable)

58.0

75.5

0.7

2.5

72.3

4.9

4.1

6.6

9.6

3.3

43.8

2013

57.4

77.3

0.8

2.6

73.9

4.4

4.0

8.2

9.7

3.2

44.4

2014

57.5

84.0

0.8

2.5

80.7

4.8

4.2

7.6

12.5

3.3

48.3

2015

5.1

1.8

−1.6

5.4

0.4

11.5

9.3

2.5

4.7

6.2

10-year averages until 2015 (%)

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 179

180

T. Mielke

feedstock) was used for that purpose. But the contribution of the individual vegetable oils and animal fats changed drastically until 2013 and again in 2014, due to the increasing importance of biodiesel production in the USA and in South America (mainly using soy oil as a feedstock) as well as in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Singapore (using palm oil). Therefore, in 2014 a record 10.0 million t of palm oil and 8.0 million t of soy oil was used for biodiesel production worldwide, while rapeseed oil fell back into the third place at 7.3 million t. In 2015 world production of biodiesel declined by 1.5 million t from a year earlier to 29.8 million t. It was the first time that world production of biodiesel declined, which occurred after an uninterrupted growth from 2 million t in 2004 to 31.2 million t in 2014. In 2015 the steep decline in fossil fuel prices made biodiesel unattractive and this virtually eliminated discretionary (price-elastic) demand for biodiesel which had still been relatively large in 2013 and 2014 in China, parts of Europe and in North Africa. The widening price premium of biodiesel relative to fossil-based diesel fuel (gas oil) limited biodiesel production just to the mandates in most countries. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia and some European countries actual biodiesel consumption even fell short of the mandate in 2015. In the European Union (EU) a high of 12.4 million t in biodiesel production has been reached in 2015. About 6.5 million t of rapeseed oil was used for this biodiesel production, which is approximately 61 % of the total EU consumption of rapeseed oil. In addition, 3.35 million t of palm oil, 0.48 million t of rapeseed oil, 0.44 million t of tallow and 1.47 million t of used cooking oil has been used as feedstock for biodiesel production (2015 values). An additional increase of the rapeseed use will probably be very limited. This will affect future growth of rapeseed production in Europe. Thus for the next 10 years a stagnation in rapeseed plantings in Europe is expected. Nevertheless, though moderate increases of the hectare specific yields the overall produced amount will most likely slightly increase. But with little growth in EU rapeseed crushings, imports of rapeseed are likely to decline in the years ahead. In addition, the changes towards greenhouse gas (GHG) saving requirements for biodiesel is reducing the usage of rapeseed oil as a feedstock for biodiesel and has caused considerable concern among rapeseed producers within the EU of late. GHG savings have already been implemented in Germany with effect of early 2015 and this is likely to result in higher imports and usage of palm oil as a feedstock for biodiesel in Germany, which comes at the expense of rapeseed oil. However, it is unlikely that the GHG savings will become effective in France and several other EU member countries because of the concern that it will ultimately reduce EU rapeseed production and would, in turn, lead to more pressure to raise palm oil plantings and production in South East Asia or soy plantings in South America. In such a scenario the discussion about indirect land use changes (ILUC) would again be a “hot issue”. The recent stagnation or slight decline in EU biodiesel consumption has apparently cooled down the discussion about ILUC. Dependencies Between Oil and Meal Markets.  When oilseeds are processed in a crushing plant, the seed oil is being extracted and the remainder (the oilseed meal) is simultaneously produced as a by-product, mainly used as an animal feed.

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 181

The individual oilseeds have different oil content and thus different extraction rates. The oil content of soybeans normally ranges between 18 and 19 %, and, in fact, soy meal is becoming the major product. In the case of rapeseed and sunflower seed, however, the oil content is much higher at 40 to 44 %; groundnuts show oil content of 42 to 44 % and cottonseed of 16 to 18 %. Palm oil is the highest oil-yielding crop and produced from the flesh which is surrounding the palm kernels in the individual fruits which are harvested in a fruit bunch. Fruit bunches cannot be stored and must be processed within 24 hours after harvesting. These circumstances create considerable dynamics in the global market. A crusher is only processing a certain oilseed, if he can sell the oil and meal products at a higher price than he has to pay for the raw material, the oilseed. In periods of unattractive or negative crushing margins, oilseed processing is slowing down, which, in turn, slows down production and thus tends to raise the price for the respective seed oil and meal. Soybeans dominate the protein market owing to its high soy meal content. In the year 2015 world production of soy meal amounted to 206.8 million t; i.e. it accounts for 70 % of the world production of the most important seven oilseed meals. As against this, soy oil production of 48.8 million t accounts for only 29 % of world vegetable oil production, although soybeans account for 46 % of the global area of the most important seven oilseeds. The contribution to satisfying world demand of vegetable oils is relatively higher in the case of rapeseed and sunflower seed, which together accounted for 24 % of world production of vegetable oils in the year 2015 while they covered 22 % of the world oilseed area. The oil palm is the most productive crop and its oil output per hectare is more than ten times as high as the oil output of soybeans per hectare and more than five times as high as the oil production per hectare in the case of rapeseed and sunflower seed. As against this, only very little palmkernel meal is being produced per hectare (substantially less than in the case of soy beans and other oilseeds). In the year 2015 world production of palm oil and palmkernel oil reached a combined 69.4 million t. This is 41 % of the world production of the most important seven vegetable oils although it accounts for only 7 % of the harvested area of the most important seven oilseeds (Fig. 8.25). Trade.  World exports of oils and fats have expanded at a higher rate than output and consumption over the past 10 years. Palm oil contributed to this development with a growing share of both trade and consumption, as it is the biggest and most dynamic product among all oils and fats. Approximately 77 % of its annual output was exported in 2015, compared with 26 % in the case of soybean oil, 50 % in that of sunflower seed oil and 16 % in the case of rapeseed oil. As the bulk of world palm oil production is concentrated in only a few countries (Malaysia and Indonesia accounted for 85 % of the total in 2015), the enormous growth in output registered during the past decade was also accompanied by

182

T. Mielke



6KDUHLQ>@



























 



 

&RSUD *URXQGQXW



&RWWRQ



6XQIORZHU  



6R\D



3DOP SDOPNHUQHOV





5DSHVHHG

 

 $UHD PLOOLRQKD

 2LORXWSXW PLOOLRQW

0HDORXWSXW PLOOLRQW

Fig. 8.25  Area and production of oils and oilmeals of the seven most important oil crops in 2015

a similar increase in exports. In 1990 the share of palm oil of total exports of the 17 most important oils and fats had been only 36 %, but in the year 2005 it had increased to 52 % and continued to rise to 58 % in 2013 but dropped marginally in 2014 and 2015. However, the share of soy oil of world exports declined from 19 % in 2005 to 13 % in 2014, but recovered to 15 % in 2015. For sunflower seed oil and rapeseed oil there was some recovery in the export market share during the past 10 years to 9 and 5 %, respectively, in 2015 (Fig. 8.26, Table 8.13). In fact, the very strong and rapidly rising world import demand has been the driving factor behind the growth of palm oil production. Due to the rising global requirements (from the food industries as well as from the oleochemical sector and the biofuels industries), the dependence on a further acceleration of the annual growth of palm oil production should continue to increase rapidly in the future as the production of the competing seed oils (derived from soybeans, rapeseed and other oilseeds) cannot be expanded sufficiently. Prices are the regulator to bring world production in line with demand. Although there are time lags involved, periods of shortages or surpluses can be solved best worldwide if prices can react and change according to global supply and demand developments. However, involvement of governments and political decisions often make this process more complicated.

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 183 



:RUOGH[SRUWVLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 0DULQHRLOV





$QLPDO)DWV



2WKHUYHJRLO



 

5DSHVHHGRLO 6XQIORZHURLO 

6R\RLO



3DOPNHUQHORLO



3DOPRLO

  







Fig. 8.26  Development of the exports of the 17 most important vegetable oils and animal fats

Imbalances are often generated from unforeseen developments on the supply side as well as the demand side. • Imbalances on the supply side might occur due to reduced supplies because of lower than expected yields as a result of detrimental weather conditions. In contrary, surplus supplies might occur as a result of excellent growing conditions and above-average yields. • Distortions on the demand side also happen sometimes; but they are not as severe as the disruptions on the supply side. There was one major external influence on the demand side, triggered by government decisions in the years 2005 to 2007 to sharply raise biodiesel consumption mandates. This created a big demand wave. The world production of biodiesel increased significantly from 4 million t in 2005 to 17 million t in 2009. This resulted in a corresponding boost in consumption of vegetable oils and animal fats as a feedstock for biodiesel production. But it was difficult for the market to adjust (raise) production quickly. In the case of rapeseed, soybeans and sunflower seed it takes at least 1 to 2 years to cultivate new land and boost production. In the case of palm oil it takes at least 4 years until a price signal (a higher price on the world market) translates into higher production, because it takes time from the decision to increase cultivation, to the buying of land, preparing for new plantings and the actual plantings of oil palm seedlings. Only 2.5 to 3 years after plantings the oil palms start producing fruit bunches.

184

T. Mielke  3DOPRLOFUXGHFLI5RWW



6R\DRLO'XWFKIREH[PLOO

0DUNHWSULFHLQ>86W@

      

















































Fig. 8.27  Development of the monthly market prices for soy and palm oil

Price changes for vegetable oils and animal fats as well as for oilseeds and oil meals can be rather extreme. The volatility has increased during the past 15 years. Figure 8.27 shows exemplarily the development of monthly prices of palm oil and soy oil – the two leaders in this sector – from January 1972 until June 2016.

8.7

Final Considerations

There is no doubt that within the next 10 years – and also the following years – ­significant further growth in world demand for vegetable oils and animal fats as well as for oil meals will require additional significant expansion of world production. It remains to be seen to what extent the additional production can be achieved by raising yields and to what extent new fertile land have to be taken into production. During recent years yield improvements per hectare have not come up to expectations in most countries, which raised the dependence on further increases in the cultivated land. This, in turn, has created criticism and new concern about clearing of forests for agricultural production. Most of the growth in demand for vegetable oils will come from the food industry, primarily from developing countries in Asia, but also in Central and South America as well as in Africa. That means, the demand growth will come from countries where per capita consumption is still comparatively low and still far below the usage

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 185

per person registered in recent years in Europe, North America and industrialized countries elsewhere. Also the future development in India and China is of great importance. These are the two most populous countries, currently accounting for 37 % of world population. There is an alarming trend caused by insufficient domestic production and rapidly rising import requirements of these two countries. In China, the cultivated area is contracting year after year. The domestic oilseed production is on a declining trend in China, also because farmers are shifting from oilseeds to grains and other crops. But also in India domestic oilseed production is shrinking, mainly because of a continuous postponement of overdue agricultural reforms, which has kept actual yields per hectare at extremely low levels. If these negative trends in India and China will stay for the next 10 to 20 years there will be an even greater need for expansion in the production of oilseeds and products in the exporting countries, primarily in North and South America as well as in South-East Asia. In coming years the edible consumption of oils and fats will grow sizeable from the currently still very low average level of only around 16 kg per person in India, 13 kg in Vietnam and Bangladesh, 10 kg in the Philippines and 10 to 18 kg in several African countries. There is also considerable growth potential for the demand for these commodities in Indonesia and several other countries. Additionally the demand for vegetable oils from the biodiesel industry will continue to grow in the next 10 years but at a considerably slower pace mainly because of increasing difficulties to raise production sufficiently. Most of the growth potential has already been exploited in the European Union and probably also in the USA. But significant additional growth in biodiesel production and consumption is in prospect for Brazil, Argentina and several other Central and South American countries as well as in Asia, above all Indonesia. When oilseeds are crushed (like soybeans, rapeseed and sunflower seed) profit is achieved through selling both vegetable oil as well as oil meal. Therefore, market and price forecasting of vegetable oils always requires also an analysis of the meal market. If vegetable oils become a limiting factor – so that crushings are mainly made for oil – meal prices generally come under pressure and the vegetable oil price will have to cover a larger share of the crush value. Sizably growing global demand for feed – determining consumption patterns for soy meal, sunflower meal, rape seed meal and feed grains – will be generated by the livestock industries. There is significant growth potential for poultry production in India (originally a country of vegetarians), but also in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and several other Asian countries. Also in South America and Africa there is considerable growth potential for poultry meat. The same is true in all the developing and emerging countries for the egg-producing industry as well as for the dairy sector, aquaculture and pork. Global population is currently rising at an annual rate of 82 to 84 million people. As of mid-2015 the world population is estimated at 7.35 billion people. Approximately 8.1 billion people will have to be fed in 2025, and by 2050 most likely 9.5 to 9.6 billion people will live on our earth (Fig. 8.28). The middle class is seen

186

T. Mielke  7RWDO /HVV'HYHORSHG5HJLRQV 0RUH'HYHORSHG5HJLRQV

3RSXODWLRQLQ>ELOOLRQ@

   



























Fig. 8.28  Development of the global population (UN statistics)

expanding rapidly in the most populous countries (China and India) as well as in other Asian countries and in South America. Thus an expanding food demand from a growing and more affluent population is to be seen as the main driver for further rapid growth in production of oilseeds, vegetable oils and meals as well as other agricultural products in the years ahead. A special demand boost for oils and fats as well as for livestock products will come from the rapidly rising middle class within the next decades. According to available forecasts worldwide the middle class will more than double from around 2 billion people in the year 2013 to around 5 billion people in 2050. This trend will fuel demand for food as increasing affluence will change dietary habits. This will result in considerably higher consumption per person of oils and fats as well as of protein, meat and dairy products. In parallel arable land will inevitably shrink as a resource to produce food. One hectare of land currently feeds 4.5 people. By the year 2050 it is likely that the food for 6.5 people has to be produced from one hectare of fertile land. And in many countries the total area currently cultivated with grain and oilseed crops can hardly be expanded further. This is true, for example, for the USA, Canada, most European countries, China, Japan, Malaysia and Australia. But also in countries like Argentina additional growth in combined oilseed and grain plantings is limited, considering that during the past several years large regions of former grassland were turned into arable land for the production of crops. Instead, cattle were taken in feedlots, which, in turn, required larger quantities of oil meals and feed grains. The solution to generate the required additional quantities of agricultural products is – to a large extent – to be seen in raising yields per hectare. Actual production per unit is significantly trailing the potential in many countries, primarily in Asia and Africa. One example is India. This huge country is characterized by the

8  World Markets for Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats 187 Table 8.14  Biodiesel world production by country in million t/a

EU-28

2015

2014

2013

2012

2004

12.37

12.20

10.65

9.74

1.88

USA

4.90

4.80

4.72

3.50

0.09

Argentina

1.81

2.58

2.00

2.46

–

Brazil

3.46

3.00

2.56

2.39

–

Colombia

0.51

0.52

0.50

0.49

–

Singapore

0.82

0.76

0.79

0.74

–

Indonesia

1.40

2.86

2.60

1.91

–

Malaysia

0.67

0.60

0.47

0.25

–

Thailand

1.03

0.99

0.93

0.92

–

Other countries

2.80

2.93

2.65

2.18

0.08

Total

29.77

31.24

27.87

24.58

2.05

world’s largest area of oilseeds under cultivation but with unusually low yields. In India without the necessary (and overdue) structural reforms it will be impossible to raise yields per hectare in a sustainable way. In general, in all countries improved management, better varieties, more inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), improved mechanization and a reduction of losses during and after harvesting have to be accomplished. In coming years further considerable growth in agricultural land is to be expected in the CIS countries, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Indonesia and in several African countries. In the CIS countries a further rapid growth in oilseed plantings and production is expected due to the following factors: lower production costs and higher returns per hectare as compared to grains as well as limited weather-related risks for spring planted oilseeds (like soybeans and sunflower seed) as compared to winter crops (rapeseed, barley and wheat). Also, oilseeds are less vulnerable to government intervention (than grains) in the form of export restrictions and/or export quotas. Declining export duties on oilseeds in Russia (in accordance with its WTO commitments) are to be seen as an additional incentive for farmers to expand oilseeds plantings. The expanding requirements of domestic poultry and pig production are also promoting a further increase in oilseed production and processing, primarily in Russia; here a significant increase in production of sunflower seed, soybeans and rapeseed is expected in the years to come. In Brazil huge areas in the Northern part of the country are available which could ultimately be used for agricultural production. Some of the area, however, is located in environmentally sensitive regions, particularly when it comes to the plans of the Brazilian government to sharply increase oil palm cultivation within the Amazon region. However, Mato Grosso and some Northern states still have considerable potential to expand plantings of soy beans, corn and other crops.

188

T. Mielke

Nevertheless, prices of oilseeds and products will have to be sufficiently high to promote further investments also in breeding technology, inputs as well as farm machinery to achieve higher yields per hectare on a global average. In the years ahead the prospective slowing-down of the growth in world vegetable oil production could create supply shortages unless the growth in biodiesel production will slow down in the years ahead. Much will depend on government policies in all the major producing and consuming countries. It appears that the governments in Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, the USA and Argentina are committed to further support and raise domestic production and consumption of biodiesel. In fact, very ambitious consumption targets have been announced in Brazil and Indonesia. Tentative projections point to a global biodiesel production of 46 million t in 2025, which implies a considerable slowing-down of the growth registered in the 10 years until 2015. This already assumes that several of the ambitious government targets will not be implemented. Biodiesel production in Indonesia is seen approaching 7 million  t in 2025, while Brazil is likely to produce 7.5 million t,Argentina 4.0 million t, the USA 6.5 million t, Malaysia 1.2 million t, Singapore 1.0 million t, Colombia 0.65 million t and the European Union about 13.5 million t2.

References [1] Zimmer Y (2010) Competitiveness of rapeseed, soybeans and palm oil. J Oilseed Brassica 1(2):84–90 [2] Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H (eds) (2016) Energie aus biomasse, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

Thomas Mielke  is the executive director of ISTA Mielke GmbH in Hamburg (Germany). This research organization provides global supply, demand and price analyses and forecasts for all major oilseeds, vegetable oils and animal fats and oilmeals as well as for biodiesel and other related products. ISTA Mielke GmbH was founded in 1958 and is recognized worldwide as a independent, authoritative, reliable and unbiased information provider with clients in almost 100 countries (www. oilworld.de).

2   All the statistics used in this analysis were taken from the Oil World databank, which has been established since 1970 and which includes detailed data on production, trade, stocks consumption and processing for all oilseeds, vegetable and animal fats as well as oilmeals world wide and for every country. Reference is also made to the weekly, the monthly and the annual.

Chapter 9

Lignocellulosic Biomass Anne Rödl

Abstract  This paper gives an overview of some important annual and perennial crops for the provision of lignocellulosic biomass. It describes their cultivation practices as well as their requirements concerning site characteristics and typical logistic chains. Information on physical and chemical properties of these different lignocellulosic biomass plants determining their capability for biokerosene production is presented. Additionally, data on the potential yields and the areas currently under cultivation are given for each of the described crops.

9.1 Introduction Higher plants, mostly with perennial growth patterns, deposit stabilizing substances like lignin in their cell walls. Because of this lignified (woody) structural tissue they are also called lignocellulosic plants. The solid organic matter of such lignocellulosic plants is composed of celluloses, hemicelluloses and lignin in varying composition depending on the species and to some extent also on the site conditions. Such lignocellulosic biomass is often seen as a promising raw material for the production of biofuel because it is an abounded source of organic material that is not directly competing with the markets for food and fodder. Lignocellulosic biomass can also be supplied from waste streams in forestry and agriculture as well as from industry or the final consumer (e.g. demolition wood). Due to these advantages the use of lignocellulosic biomass for biokerosene production is investigated in various countries in the recent years. Mainly the following conversion pathways have been studied. • Kerosene can be produced based on pyrolysis oils provided from solid organic feedstock. Pyrolysis means the heat induced cracking of the organic A. Rödl (*) Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_9

189

190

A. Rödl

macromolecules within an oxygen-free atmosphere providing a gaseous, liquid and solid phase. The liquids can be further treated within “classical” refinery processes to comply with the kerosene specifications; the most important treatment processes are dehydration, oligomerization and hydrogenation. This conversion route is still in an early research state; but lots of research and demonstration projects are underway [1]. • Fisher-Tropsch (FT)-based kerosene can also be produced from solid biomass. Within such a route the organic matter is first transferred to a syngas within a heat induced processes operated with a lack of oxygen within a gas atmosphere, the so called gasification. The provided syngas mainly consisting of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) is then used as a source material for a subsequent chemical synthesis process. This heat induced chemical conversion is the so called Fisher-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. Here long chain hydrocarbons are formed from the syngas components. This intermediate or FT-product can then be further processed into jet fuel via existing refinery processes to meet the given product specifications. The gasification step of this so called BtL-process (biomass-to-liquid) has been successfully demonstrated in the Güssing plant in Austria. Large scale plants for fuel production via the Fischer-Tropsch route from coal or natural gas are located in South Africa and in the Middle East. Nevertheless, for biomass this route has not yet been successfully demonstrated at large scale. • Biokerosene based on alcohols can also be provided from lignocellulosic biomass. Here the solid organic matter is firstly converted via an enzymatic or acidic hydrolysis to sugar molecules. These organic molecules can be used afterwards as a base material for a “classical” alcoholic fermentation; i.e. the sugar is converted via biocatalysts (yeast) to alcohol (e.g. ethanol). Afterwards the alcohol is processed into biokerosene via the so called alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) processes consisting mainly of the sub-processes dehydration, oligomerization and hydrogenation. Again, several parts of this route have been demonstrated at various stages of development but the overall process is still in an early stage and thus not yet ready for the commercial market. • A similar conversion pathway from solid biomass to kerosene is based on the thermo-chemical gasification of solid biomass for the provision of a syngas similar to that from the BtL-route. This gas can then be used as a raw material within syngas fermentation (biological conversion) or alcohol synthesis (chemical conversion) in order to produce different types of alcohols (e.g. biobutanol). These alcohols can then be further transferred into biokerosene via alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) processes. Like the other pathways this route is not yet available, not even on a pilot scale. Due to this various conversion options for biokerosene production lignocelluloses is an important feedstock for the provision of next generation biofuels. Therefore, this promising organic resource is described in detail below.

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass191

9.2

Resources and Characteristics

9.2.1 Origin Lignocellulosic resources can be grown on fields or in forests, can be obtained as by-products from primary (i.e. agricultural forestry) or secondary (i.e. industrial) production or remain as wastes from the processing of organic material. These different types of resources for lignocellulosic biomass are characterized briefly in the following. • Energy crops. Energy crops are cultivated on agricultural fields or in forests in order to provide biomass solely for energetic use (i.e. typically no other use is intended). The following criteria can be used to classify energy crops: –– Annual or perennial crops. Lignocellulosic biomass can be obtained from annual or perennial plants. Typical for the latter are trees like poplar or willow that are grown in so called short rotation plantations. Other examples are perennial grass species (e.g. giant reed) that are grown on intensively or extensively managed fields. Also annual grasses with huge yields can provide lignocelluloses. –– Herbaceous or woody biomass. Energy crops can also be categorized according to its origin from herbaceous or woody biomass. The latter is typically biomass from trees and shrubs characterized by an obviously wooden structure. Annual and perennial grasses are in general referred to as herbaceous biomass. This group of plants is characterized by huge variations in particular related to its chemical composition. Typical for this group are e.g. reed canary grass or switch grass. –– Agricultural or forestry production. A further classification of energy crops can be made according to their production scheme. Agricultural production is typically intensive with high input (e.g. fertilizer, plant protection agents and soil preparation) and short production cycles. Forestry production scheme can be characterized as extensive production with low inputs and long rotation periods. The latter includes also virgin biomass from natural forests [2]. The differentiation between these two groups is sometimes not clear. • By-products. By-products of bio-based products either occur already during harvest on fields and in forests or during subsequent processing of the biomass in industry. It is barely impossible to produce marketable goods from any type of biomass without any by-products. By-products are mostly arising from parts of the plant that have a supporting function for the usable part of the plant, e.g. stabilization, protection, attraction etc. In general by-products are not that parts of plants they have initially been cultivated for. From an economic and practical point of view it makes a difference where by-products accrue. Collecting them from fields or forests is more complex then separating them from

192

A. Rödl

a production process. Therefore, the following classification of by-products is suggested. –– By-products occurring in primary sector (during harvests). Parts of the cultivated plants that are not needed for the production of the final product are separated during harvest operations and typically remain on the agricultural field or in the forest. A typical example is the coupled production of grain and straw. Another example is the co-production of wood saw- or veneer logs together with branches, stumps and bark. –– By-products from secondary sector (occurring during processing). Agricultural and forestry commodities are typically further processed within various downstream industrial upgrading processes in order to receive a merchantable product. During processing also by-products will occur. Typical examples are the production of sawdust, slabs, edgings and trimmings etc. in the forest processing industry (e.g. saw mills). Other examples are husks and bran provided during rice and grain processing. The same is true for the production of sugar from sugar cane; here bagasse is provided as a by-product. • Waste. Lignocellulosic biomass is also contained in waste streams. These materials can be classified by the following two criteria. –– Waste from unprocessed material. This group contains lignocellulosic waste available as more or less “virgin” material. This means the structure and composition of the lignocellulosic material has not been changed within chemical or physical processes. Examples for this group are the woody fraction of garden wastes or wastes from landscape management. Additionally untreated construction wood, demolition wood and other waste wood can be included in this group. –– Waste from processed material. A significant amount of the globally traded lignocellulosic biomass is processed into products where the original structure and composition of the lignocellulosic material has been modified like for example pulp and paper. At the end of their use phase they are typically treated as wastes. An example of this group is waste paper like old packing materials or newspapers.

9.2.2 Characteristics Lignocellulosic biomass is composed of organic macromolecules forming complex structures. Thus, their molecular and chemical structure is discussed below. Further, some important impurities are addressed. The molecular components of lignocellulosic biomass are mainly hemicelluloses, celluloses and lignin [3]. The distribution of these components varies between different types of plant species. Thus Table 9.1 shows the average share of these components within different lignocellulosic feedstocks. According to these data the

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass193 Table 9.1  Physical-chemical properties of different lignocellulosic biomass crops (LHV: lower heating value, SRC: short rotation coppice) Cellulose [% dry basis]

Hemicellulose [% dry basis]

Lignin [% dry basis]

Ash [%]

Water content [% wet basis]

LHV [MJ/kg]

Miscanthus

44–57a

16–30a

8–22a

1–9a

3–49a

15–21a

Reed Canary Grass

26–39a

17–28a

4–5a

2–13a

7–65a

16–20a

Elephant grass

34b–42c

20b–23c

8c–24b

6a–10c

74a

18a

Common Reed

34d–38e

21e–28d

19d–23e

3–8f

16a

Giant reed

31 –39

21 –35

18 –23

3 –6

h

36–42

14g–15a

Switchgrass

30–45a

21–35a

5–23a

2–10a

8–15a

17–19a

Sugarcane (bagasse)

34–42

a

29–43

19–21

2–12

6–50

a

17–18a

Wheat (straw)

29–52a

11–39a

8–30a

1–19a

10–17a

15–21a

Corn (stover)

28–51a

19–30a

11–17a

4–10a

5–6a

17–19a

Wood, coniferous

35–83a

8–42a

12–43a

1–6a

0–63a

16–24a

Wood, broadleaved

28–50

18–39

13–28

0.2–5

3–48

a

15–21a

SRC (poplar, willow)

35–80a

13–42a

15–32a

0.2–5a

2–50a

17–20a

Crop

a

h

i

a

a

j

h

a

h

j

a

a

a

a

a

14g–15a a

See Ref[4], bSee Ref. [5], cSee Ref. [6], dSee Ref. [7], eSee Ref. [8], fSee Ref. [9], gSee Ref. [10], See Ref. [11], iSee Ref. [12], jSee Ref. [13]

h

variations between various types of plants are less pronounced compared to the differences within one single group. The most important chemical components in lignocellulosic biomass are carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). Typically carbon is contained in woody or herbaceous biomass with 45 to 47 mass-%. Hydrogen contributes with a minor share; 5 to 6 mass-% are characteristic values. Similar to the share of carbon is also the fraction of oxygen with 40 to 46 mass-% in average. For energetic purposes oxygen is in most cases an undesired component because it reduces the heating value. Thus one factor determining the potential to produce high value liquid fuels is the relation of hydrogen and oxygen to carbon within the virgin organic material. The closer the hydrogen to carbon ratio to the desired hydrocarbon molecules, the more efficient is the overall conversion process of the respective biofuel. Figure 9.1 shows the H/C to O/C ratio of different lignocellulosic biomasses. According to this graphic biomass crops are characterized by a higher O/C ratio

194

A. Rödl

Ϭ͘ϭϴ

DŝƐĐĂŶƚŚƵƐ ZĞĞĚĂŶĂƌLJŐƌĂƐƐ ůĞƉŚĂŶƚŐƌĂƐƐ;EĂƉŝĞƌŐƌĂƐƐͿ ŽŵŵŽŶƌĞĞĚ 'ŝĂŶƚƌĞĞĚ ^ǁŝƚĐŚŐƌĂƐƐ ^ƵŐĂƌĐĂŶĞďĂŐĂƐƐĞ tŚĞĂƚƐƚƌĂǁ ŽƌŶƐƚŽǀĞƌ ĐŽŶŝĨĞƌŽƵƐǁŽŽĚ ŶŽŶͲĐŽŶŝĨĞƌŽƵƐ ^Z;ƉŽƉůĂƌ͕ǁŝůůŽǁͿ >ŝŐŶŝƚĞ;'ĞƌŵĂŶLJͲZŚĞŝŶůĂŶĚͿ >ŝŐŶŝƚĞ;'ĞƌŵĂŶLJͲKƐƚĞůďĞͿ >ŝŐŶŝƚĞ;'ĞƌŵĂŶLJͲtĞƐƚĞůďĞͿ ŶƚŚƌĂĐŝƚĞ;'ĞƌŵĂŶLJͿ ŶƚŚƌĂĐŝƚĞ;h^Ϳ ŶƚŚƌĂĐŝƚĞ;^ŽƵƚŚĨƌŝĐĂͿ ŶƚŚƌĂĐŝƚĞ;ZƵƐƐŝĂͿ ƌƵĚĞKŝů

Ϭ͘ϭϲ Ϭ͘ϭϰ

ƌƵĚĞKŝů

,ͬƌĂƚŝŽ

Ϭ͘ϭϮ Ϭ͘ϭϬ

ŝŽŵĂƐƐ

Ϭ͘Ϭϴ >ŝŐŶŝƚĞ

Ϭ͘Ϭϲ Ϭ͘Ϭϰ ŶƚŚƌĂĐŝƚĞ Ϭ͘ϬϮ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘Ϭ

Ϭ͘Ϯ

Ϭ͘ϰ

Ϭ͘ϲ

Ϭ͘ϴ

ϭ͘Ϭ

ϭ͘Ϯ

KͬƌĂƚŝŽ

Fig. 9.1  H/C to O/C ratio of different lignocellulosic biomasses in comparison to selected fossil energy carriers

in comparison to fossil fuels. Additionally the energy content of the material is increasing with decreasing ratios [3]. Apart from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen other elements like nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are contained in lignocellulosic biomass. Due to e.g. poisoning effects on catalysts and toxic emissions these trace elements are critical for the further processing of the biomass in most of the cases. Additionally they are influencing the ash content negatively. As a very general rule of thumb it can be stated, the higher the share of trace elements and the ash content the lower is the energy content of the fuel. Ash might also cause serious operational problems in thermo-chemical conversion processes. As a further disturbing substance always moisture is contained in biomass. Water is typically unwanted from an energetic point of view because it decreases the heating value. For this reason biomass crops with a low moisture content can typically be converted more efficiently to liquid fuels via thermo-chemical conversion than biomass with a higher water content [3].

9.3 Wood Wood can be found in perennial plants whose typical structure is produced from the tissue between wood and bark called the vascular cambium. The cambium is forming a ring of cell producing tissue in the stem or the root of woody plants. All

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass195

tissue that is produced to the inside of the stem is called wood or xylem and all tissue produced to the outside is called bast tissue or phloem. Depending on the species the cambium is producing xylem and phloem continuously or just during periods with favorable conditions (e.g. growing season, rainy season etc.). In zones with distinct seasons therefore the typical pattern of year rings occurs. Compared to this wood from tropical tree species show no or just a very weak formation of year rings due to the year-round balanced growing conditions. The xylem consist of the water conducting cells tracheids or vessels, fiber cells for support and parenchyma cells for the storage of reserves. The structure of xylem varies considerably between the group of gymnosperm and angiosperm plants. Coniferous trees are belonging to gymnosperm plants. Their wood consists mostly of tracheides. These are less specialized cells that are acting as water conducting and supporting cells at the same time. Therefore the wood of gymnosperm does not have any fiber cells; they show only a few parenchyma cells and often contain resin. Wood of angiosperm plants mainly consists of vessels but all other elements, like fiber cells, parenchyma cells and tracheids can also be found. Broadleaf trees that are belonging to the angiosperm plants, can be classified into ring porous and diffuse porous trees, according to the arrangement of their vessels. Ring-porous wood has bigger vessels that can conduct water very fast. These big vessels are just produced in spring and are arranged circularly in the early wood of the year ring. They are only functional for one season wherefore the total water conducting system of ring-porous trees has to regrow in spring. Diffuse porous trees have smaller vessels which are spread all over the cross section and which are functional for more than one year. Therefore the water-conducting stem section is bigger in diffuse porous trees than in ring-porous species [14]. With the time older tracheides or vessels of all species are not used for water transport anymore. So called tyloses block vessels or tracheids and a lot of species fill them with pigments, tannins or resins which help to prevent fungi or bacteria attacks and increase the durability of the wood. This so called heartwood mostly differentiates from the sapwood by a different color and changed wood properties. Wood is produced from trees. Latest statistics estimate that 4 billion ha worldwide are covered by trees in forests. This is roughly 30 % of the total land area [15]. Three of the world’s major biomes are dominated by trees. They are listed below. • The Taiga or boreal forest is dominated by coniferous tree species. • The deciduous forests are characterized by broad-leafed tree species either mixed with coniferous species or not. Due to their appearance in the temperate zone, a major part of the area is characterized by deciduous tree species that shed their leaves in winter due to a shortage of light and warmth. There are also areas e.g. in the Mediterranean zone that are characterized by evergreen species. • The tropical forests are dominated mainly by broad leaved tropical tree species. They are located in the area around the equator, which is characterized by much precipitation and balanced temperatures between 20 and 30 °C around the year. Tropical rainforests have the highest tree species diversity on earth and contain in general more than half of all animal and plant species [16].

196

A. Rödl

In the following, selected coniferous and broadleaf tree species are described and most important forest management schemes are presented.

9.3.1 Selected Tree Species Trees and bushes can be classified into coniferous and broadleaf species. Ginkgo plants are considered to belong to the gymnosperm plants. They neither belong to coniferous nor to broadleaf species but form a third division of trees –the Gingkophyta. Only Gingko biloba is still existing as the last species of this archaic division. Southeastern China is believed to be the last natural home of gingko, while it was distributed around the globe in the Mesozoic era [17]. Meanwhile it has spread again around the world because it is very popular as an ornamental plant and as a city tree because of its tolerance against air pollution [18]. In the following some characteristic and economically significant tree genera that can be found around the globe are described. 9.3.1.1 Coniferous Species Conifers are evergreen, needled trees which develop wooden cones containing the seeds. Coniferous trees can be found around the globe but mostly in the Northern hemisphere within the boreal and temperate zone. The Southern hemisphere is dominated by Araucariaceae. Within the genus of coniferous trees the tallest (sequoia sempervirens), thickest (sequoiadendron giganteum) and oldest trees (pinus longaeva) on earth can be found. Coniferous trees are often settling extreme sites with special environmental conditions, like very low or high temperatures, a short vegetation period or sites with very dry, nutrient-poor or acid soils. On sites with average growing conditions deciduous trees are more competitive. Their growth is straight and mostly monopodial which makes them very attractive for forest and wood industry. Pine (Pinus).  Pines can be found in about 100 species in the Northern hemisphere. They often have 2, 3 or 5 evergreen needles on short shoots (Fig. 9.2) [19]. Pines are important timber producers and are often planted in forests, parks or gardens. Pines tolerate dry and poor soils and are in general quite undemanding. It can grow on extreme dry but also on extreme wet sites. As a pioneer species pines demand a lot of light and are therefore suitable for afforestation of poor and dry sites. Naturally pines are widespread all over North America, Eurasia and native to low lands and hilly regions. Pines are the characteristic trees of the Polish, Swedish, Finnish and Russian-Siberian Forests [20]. In the tropics and sub-tropics of Central America and Asia pines can be found in mountainous regions [21]. In Germany Pinus sylvestris is the second most tree species in forests and is cultivated on 22 %

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass197 Fig. 9.2  Drawing of pine (left side: tree, right side: branch with cones; www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

of the wooded area [22]. It reaches heights up to 45 m and develops a strong taproot that protect it from windthrows. Pine wood, especially the heartwood, is hard and durable and is widely used as construction wood, for interior constructions or furniture production [23]. Further it is used for production of Oriented Strand Boards (OSB) and in pulp and paper industry for obtaining brown pulp and semi-pulp for kraft paper or paperboard. Spruce (Picea).  50 species of spruce can be found worldwide and especially on the Northern hemisphere in the temperate zone. They are evergreen trees (Fig. 9.3) and belong to the family of pines (Pinacea). Picea abies (Norway spruce) is an important tree species for timber production in Central Europe; it is also is often planted in forests, parks or gardens [19]. In Germany Norway spruce is the most common species in forests and is cultivated on 25 % of the wooded area [22]. Naturally Norway spruce can be found from Scandinavia to the Balkans whereby in Central Europe preferably the moist mountainous regions from 800 to 2,500 m are settled. These trees can reach heights up to 60 m but have a relatively shallow root system, which makes them vulnerable against storm events. Spruce has a high water demand but is not suitable for waterlogging soils because of its shallow root system and the danger of windthrows. Nutrient requirements of spruce are low and soils with pH 4 to 5 are preferred. Further Norway spruce is suffering from warm temperatures and draughts which increases the danger of insect pests and other diseases [24].

198

A. Rödl

Fig. 9.3  Drawing of spruce (left side: tree, right side: branch with cones; www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

The wood is light and bright and has a high strength, elasticity and shrinks only to a small extent. Because of its good processing properties spruce wood is widely used as construction wood (doors, windows, floors, roof trusses etc.) or in timber processing industry for pulp and paper or board production. But also for various other purposes like music instruments, packaging material, wooden toys etc. spruce wood is suitable. If spruce wood is impregnated it can also be used outdoors in landscaping and gardening. 9.3.1.2 Broad-Leaved Species Broad-leaved trees belong to the group of angiosperms which is a relatively young group of plants compared to gymnosperms. They distinguish from gymnosperms because they produce flowers which contain the enclosed ovary. The floral organs mature to fruits that contain the seeds. Broad-leaved trees can be deciduous or evergreen. Deciduous trees shed their leaves during seasons with unfavourable conditions. Leaves are dropped to reduce transpiration and to prevent their water conducting system of collapsing. Trees in the temperate zone shed their leaves during the winter when water is frozen in the soil and cannot be withdrawn, while Mediterranean species shed their leaves in dry periods. Evergreen trees keep their leaves also during periods with unfavourable conditions because their structure protect them against water losses.

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass199

Broad-leaved trees can be found in a big variety around the globe. Temperate deciduous forests are mainly dominated by oaks, beeches, maples and birches. Tropical forests contain a huge variety of broad-leaved species that cannot be described here in detail. Below just some of the most important tree genera for timber production are characterized. Oak (Quercus).  There are 400 to 600 species of oak spread all over the world mainly in the Northern hemisphere. There are some species of oak with evergreen leaves and others which shed their leaves. Typical for all oaks is their characteristic fruit  – the acorn (Fig. 9.4). Oaks grow slowly and can grow very old. They will reach heights up to 40 m and their roots develop a deep taproot [25]. The largest diversity of oak species occurs in North America while in Germany mainly two indigenous and one alien species can be found. Indigenous species in the centre of Europe are Quercus robur (Pedunculated oak) and Quercus petrea (Sessile oak), while Quercus rubra (Red oak) is imported from North America. Moreover in warmer regions of Europe small populations of Quercus pubescens (Downy oak) and Q. cerris (Turkey oak) can be found; but these trees do not have any commercial relevance. Oaks are light demanding tree species. Their water demand depends on the respective species. Q. robur needs more humid and nutrient rich soils than Q. petrea. Q. robur can even grow on waterlogged and compacted soils. Especially in North America oaks are important trees for timber industry. In Germany oak grows on 10 % of the wooded area [22] and is often used for high quality products like veneers, flooring, furniture and stairs. Oak has a very hard and durable wood. It is therefore very well suited for the construction of wooden houses, bridges or ships. In former times oak forests have been used as fuel wood reservoirs

Fig. 9.4  Drawing of oak (left side: tree, right side: branch with acorns; www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

200

A. Rödl

and have been managed as coppiced woodland that is regrowing after periodically cuts. The acorns have been used for breeding pigs and the bark that contains a lot of tannins has been used for tanning leather. Today oak wood is sought for barrel production [25]. Beech (Fagus).  The genus beech can be found around the globe in the Northern hemisphere with the greatest diversity in Eastern Asia. To the Southern hemisphere a similar genus called the southern beeches (Nothofagus) is native. Beeches are deciduous trees and can reach heights up to 40 m. The fruits called beechnuts are characteristic for the genus (Fig. 9.5). Beech forest is the potential natural vegetation of Central European forests. Beeches prefer a humid, Atlantic climate with nutrient rich, calcareous soils. Too dry or wet sites are avoided. Due to its shade tolerance they are very competitive against more light demanding species. They can endure long times in the shade of older trees awaiting their collapse. After that they start their rapid growth even in older ages. Beech is an important timber producing tree in Europe and covers for example 15 % of the wooded area in Germany [22]. Its importance grew in recent years because of ecological reasons. Forest administrations try to increase the share of broad-leaved trees in order to improve the soil and biodiversity in monoculture spruce stands which have been the typical industrial forests within the last 100 years in most parts of Europe. Beech wood is bright and very hard but not very resistant against fungi and decay. Therefore it can only be used for interior constructions, stairs, floors and

Fig. 9.5  Drawing of beech (left side: tree, right side: beechnut; www.uli-schmidt-paintings.com)

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass201

furniture. In the last years experiments with chemically or thermally modified beech timber have taken place to increase its applicability outdoors. Also the pulp and paper industry uses small diameter wood assortments of beech and additionally it’s popular as fuel wood [26]. Eucalyptus.  Another important tree for forestry and wood processing industry is eucalyptus. Almost all of the about 600 species of eucalyptus that is cultivated all over the world can be found have their origin in Australia. Only a few species stem from New Guinea, Indonesia or the Philippines. Today eucalyptus is cultivated mainly in dry tropical and subtropical zones in South America, Africa, India and the Near East [27]. In 2012 about 14 million ha have been covered with eucalyptus plantations [28]. Eucalyptus grows fast and has low demands on soil fertility but is very light demanding. Most of the species are draught resistant, but some species have a very high water demand. Eucalyptus is used as a fast producer of fuel wood and timber. Further the leaves contain the well-known oil that is used commercially from some species. Eucalyptus is not frost tolerant. Eucalyptus globulus was the first eucalypt species that was introduced in Europe and North America mainly for timber and pulp production. But also its oil is extracted. This species growths and spreads very fast and threatens endemic vegetation. It is very water demanding and is considered to lower the water table [28] which increases the danger of forest fires. Portugal has the largest area of planted eucalyptus in Europe covering 25 % of the Portuguese forest area [29].

9.3.2 Production Schemes 9.3.2.1 Forests Forests can be classified in primary forests, planted forests and other naturally regenerated forest [30]. • Primary forests are all forests that are not influenced by any human activities. • Naturally regenerated forests show clearly visible indications of human activities. • Planted forests are mainly composed by trees which have been introduced through planting or seeding. Most of the natural forests especially in the temperate zone are not existing any more today; they have been cleared already in ancient times. Only 30 % of all forested area on earth are still primary forests. All other forested land is more or less influenced by humans. In Europe just 2 % of all forests can be classified as primary forests and in Germany no single square meter of primary forest exists any more. While natural forest area declined, planted forest area was increasing between 1990

202

A. Rödl

and 2015 [31]. Fertile soils, good growing conditions and a high demand on food and fodder lead to a large conversion of forested area into agricultural land. Furthermore, due to the high demand on fuel and construction wood the natural forests have been converted into commercial forests characterized by a controlled cultivation of selected tree species. According to the FAO definition the major forested area in the temperate zone is dominated by planted forests. Northern Europe and the mountainous regions are dominated by coniferous forest with a coverage of 50 to 100 % [32]. Compared to this, South and South-East Europe is dominated by broadleaved forest [32]. For example in Germany coniferous tree species still dominate forestry with 57 % of the total forest area. But the share of broadleaved species increased by 7 % within the last decade [22]. All over, there is a tendency towards a more nature based forest management in Central Europe which promotes the introduction of broad leaved tree species and low impact harvesting regimes avoiding clear cuts. The harvested logs can be classified into roundwood, industrial roundwood and pulpwood which are foremost processed in forest industries. Wood assortments with lower value are often used as fuel wood. Thus there might be a competition on this type of forest products when it comes to a large scale biokerosene production. Additionally, these low value assortments are also interesting for other industries, like biorefineries or biomass fired power plants. Worldwide about 1.2 billion m³ of coniferous roundwood1 and 2.5 billion m³ of non-coniferous roundwood have been harvested in 2015 [33]. Wood or tree production is characterized by perennial production cycles and is therefore different from agricultural production, where the crop is typically produced within one growing season. Forestry is controlling the composition, growth and quality of forests by different silvicultural interventions. Among these are • • • •

planting or regeneration, stand improvements by release cuttings or pruning, thinning, final harvest.

In traditionally managed forests (high-growing coppices) all trees in the same section have more or less the same age and are planted, thinned and harvested at the same time or within a defined period. Forest clearcutting systems are worldwide the most common forest management system. But especially in Europe more nature based, preserving systems are on the rise because of environmental concerns [34]. The idea behind nature based forest management is that the soil is continuously covered with forest and not periodically bare. This is more advantageous for several indigenous plant and animal species in the forest, the soil structure and its nutrient flows.

1

cubic meters underbark (i.e. excluding bark) – see FAO [35]

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass203

Besides, further forest management concepts are common. These are coppices or mixed coppices. Coppices are mostly used for fuelwood production and have been common until the middle of the nineteenth century in Central and Southern Europe. For these forests broadleaved tree species like hazel, chestnut, ash, maple or hornbeam are used that are able to re-sprout after harvest. Mixed coppices are a combination of coppiced trees and high trees to meet the demand of fuel- and construction wood at the same time. 9.3.2.2 Plantations Cultivation of fast growing trees on fertile land gains more and more importance some years ago when agricultural lands have been left abandoned (i.e. set aside land). But since prices for agricultural goods rise again it became less and less economic feasible to grow energy crops on fertile land. That’s why for example the cultivation of short rotation coppice (SRC) stagnates at the moment within Europe. Currently eucalyptus, poplar and willow are typical species for such wood plantations managed with production schemes close to an intensive agricultural production. Globally approximately 95 million ha are covered by such plantation [36]. For example, roughly on 9.2 million ha poplar and willow are planted, of which 3.4 million ha are outside forests in agroforestry systems [36]. Willow plantations can be found in Argentina (56,400  ha), Italy (20,000  ha), Romania (19,505 ha), Sweden (11,100 ha) and Iran (10,000 ha). Willow plantations in Europe have been marginal in 2012 with the largest cultivated area in Sweden, followed by Poland (9,000 ha), the UK (6,000 ha) and Germany (5,000 ha) [37]. Besides Sweden no real commercial willow plantations have been established in Europe so far [37]. Average yields in Europe are between 4 and 10 t/(ha a) while willow plantations grow more slowly in the North (on average 4 to 7 t/(ha a)) than in the South (8 to 10 t/(ha a)) on average of Europe [37]. Worldwide area of planted poplar is bigger than that of willow. Poplar can be grown in warmer regions than willow. Thirty-five percent of the planted poplar area is established in agroforestry which amounts on around 2 million ha worldwide [38]. Those plantations can be mainly found in China (7.6 million ha), India (305,000 ha), France (236,000 ha), Turkey (125,000 ha), Spain (105,000 ha), Italy (101,430  ha) and Argentina (40,500  ha) [36]. The poplar wood from India and China is mostly used for wood products like matches or plywood [38]. Italy has 7,000 ha planted poplar plantations with yields up to 25 tDM/(ha a) [39]. On average yields of planted poplar are lower, ranging between 6 and 12 tDM/(ha a). Globally growth rates range between 1 and 14 tDM/(ha a) are reported with 6 tDM/(ha a) on average [36]. The average yield for example in Northern Europe lies between 3 and 5 tDM/(ha a) and might reach 10 to 11 tDM/(ha a) if the plantation is fertilized and properly weeded [37]. Rotation periods in short rotation plantation are short compared to that in regular forestry. The trees are harvested every 2 to 4 years depending on the soil fertility, water availability and average ambient temperatures which are influencing

204

A. Rödl

parameter on the increment. On low fertility soils rotations are longer with 5 to 7 years. The plantation can be coppiced 6 to 8 times [40]. Before planting typically herbicide application is needed in some cases to remove weeds; this is especially true on old pasture land. After that the area is ploughed. The used planting materials are mostly un-rooted cuttings or rods where the roots normally develop very quickly. For energy plantation often 10,000 to 15,000 cuttings per ha [41] are planted with mechanical planters between April to May. Weed control is needed in the first year and can be done mechanically or by the application of herbicides. Fertilizer application is recommended especially on poor soils and from the second or third growing season to secure the health of the coppice. Fertilizer demand is modest compared to “classical” agricultural cash crops because nutrients contained in the leaves are recycled at the end of each growing season [40]. Harvesting is carried out in the winter period every 3 to 4 years, on average. The crop can be directly chipped during harvest or can be harvested as whole shoots with special self-propelled harvesting machines. Those harvesting machines are typically modified standard forage harvesters with fixed harvesting heads. The harvested material has to be transported to the storage facility or has to be stacked at the edge of the field. Transport of chipped material is mostly carried out with tractors on very short distances or trucks on longer distances. After harvesting and transportation the material has to be stored and dried if it is not used immediately. Whole stem harvesting and bundling can be advantageous if no proper drying facilities are available. This is true because biomass losses during drying of whole stems are typically lower compared to wood chips if they are not stored sufficiently ventilated in piles. Chipping is then required after a drying period. The optimization of storage operations is an important aspect to be considered within the overall biomass supply chain because it determines biomass quality and operation costs [37]. At the end-of-life the coppice site has to be restored. Stools and roots have to be removed using a rotovator or forestry mulcher; it is also suggested to kill the crop by applying a herbicide like glyphosate and sow grass in the following year and wait until the roots are decaying.

9.3.3 Production and Trade Production.  Wood is an important and valuable good that is traded all over the globe. Total world production of roundwood reached 3.7 billion m³ in 2015 [42]. Figure 9.6 shows the breakdown of total roundwood production on major producing countries sort by continents. It should be noticed that the broad category “roundwood” includes coniferous and non-coniferous wood for material use (industrial roundwood) as well as wood fuel (e.g. for charcoal production). Slightly more than the half of the globally produced roundwood is used as fuelwood [42, 43]. In total almost twice as much non-coniferous roundwood as coniferous roundwood

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass205

has been produced worldwide in 2015. Just looking on industrial roundwood production (sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood etc.) more coniferous wood is produced [42]. Major producers of roundwood are the US, India, China, Brazil and Russia. If Russia is included, Europe produces almost 20 % of the globally provided roundwood. Big timber producing countries in Europe are Sweden (2.0 %), Finland (1.6 %) and Germany (1.5 %). Most roundwood in total comes from Asia with India and China as the major players. But this is mainly non-coniferous fuel wood. Fuel wood production is highest in India, China, Brazil and in African countries. In 2015 India produced 16 % of the global fuel wood and China 9 % [33]. Major producers of industrial roundwood are the US (19 %), Russia (10 %), China (9 %) and Canada (8 %) followed by Brazil and Sweden (4 %) in 2015 [42]. Consumption.  Figure 9.7 shows the breakdown of total roundwood consumption on major consuming countries sort by continents. The consumption is calculated from the production plus imports minus exports (see also FAO [35]). All over global demand on wood for wood products, pulp and paper as well as wood fuel is strongly increasing especially in the western world [43, 44]. In 2014

KƚŚĞƌ>ĂƟŶŵĞƌŝĐĂΘ ĂƌŝďďĞĂŶ ϱй

h^ ϭϭй

ĂŶĂĚĂ ϰй

ƚŚŝŽƉŝĂ ϯй

ŚŝůĞ Ϯй

ĞŵŽĐƌĂƟĐZĞƉƵďůŝĐ ŽĨƚŚĞŽŶŐŽ Ϯй

ƌĂnjŝů ϳй

EŝŐĞƌŝĂ Ϯй

KƚŚĞƌƵƌŽƉĞ ϭϬй &ŝŶůĂŶĚ Ϯй

KƚŚĞƌĨƌŝĐĂ ϭϮй

^ǁĞĚĞŶ Ϯй

ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ&ĞĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ ϲй

KĐĞĂŶŝĂ Ϯй

/ŶĚŝĂ ϭϬй KƚŚĞƌƐŝĂ ϭϭй

ŚŝŶĂ ϵй

Fig. 9.6  World production (reported as cubic meters in the rough; includes coniferous and non-coniferous wood for charcoal, sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood round and split and industrial roundwood) of roundwood in 2015 (3.71 billion m³) (major producing countries by continents; data obtained from FAO [33])

206

A. Rödl

KƚŚĞƌĨƌŝĐĂ ϭϮй

hŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐŽĨ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ ϭϬй

KĐĞĂŶŝĂ ϭй

EŝŐĞƌŝĂ Ϯй

ĂŶĂĚĂ ϰй

ZŽĨƚŚĞŽŶŐŽ Ϯй ƚŚŝŽƉŝĂ ϯй ŚŝŶĂ ϭϬй

KƚŚĞƌƵƌŽƉĞ ϳй &ƌĂŶĐĞ ϭй

/ŶĚŝĂ ϭϬй

'ĞƌŵĂŶLJ Ϯй &ŝŶůĂŶĚ Ϯй

/ŶĚŽŶĞƐŝĂ ϯй

^ǁĞĚĞŶ Ϯй

ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ&ĞĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ ϱй

KƚŚĞƌ> ϱй

ŚŝůĞ Ϯй

ƌĂnjŝů ϳй

KƚŚĞƌƐŝĂ ϵй

Fig. 9.7  Consumption of roundwood in 2015 (3.70 billion m³) (major consuming countries (LAC: Latin America and Caribbean) by continents; data obtained from FAO [33])

the highest growth of the global wood industries in the last 5 years occurred. Production and consumption of wood-based panels increased in all regions of the world but mainly in China. Additionally fuel wood consumption increased rapidly on a global scale. Mainly driven by European consumption also the production of wood pellets has shown a strong growth. But also production and consumption of wood pellets in Asia has more than doubled in 2014 compared to the year before [44]; but all over this market is still on a very low level. Major consumers of roundwood in total are not differing very much from the major roundwood producing countries (US, China, India, Brazil and Russia). If only industrial roundwood is taken into consideration the main consumers are the US with 19 %, China with 12 %, Russia with 9 %, Brazil with 8 %, Canada with 8 % and Sweden with 4 % of total world industrial roundwood consumption [42]. China grew as a consumer of forest products and has overtaken the US recently. China is also the biggest producer and consumer of paper and wood-based panels [42]. Overall wood fuel consumption increased only slightly in 2014 with the strongest rises in Europe [42].

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass207

Fig. 9.8  Top five importing and exporting countries of roundwood in 2015 (data obtained from FAO [33])

In Africa and Latin America wood fuel is used for charcoal production. Charcoal is used in Africa in urban households for cooking, whereas it is mainly used for industrial purpose e.g. in steel industry in Brazil [42]. Looking at roundwood trade (Fig. 9.8) the biggest importers are the European Union (EU28), China and Russia. China is even the world largest importer of industrial roundwood (40 % of total industrial roundwood imports) followed by Germany with 6 % [42]. India became the world’s fourth largest importer of industrial roundwood in 2014. Big roundwood exporting nations are Russia and New Zealand and the EU28. On the other side, Russia, New Zealand and the US are the largest exporters of industrial roundwood. Latin American or African countries even cannot be found neither under the top 10 importing nor exporting countries in 2015 [33].

9.4

Herbaceous Biomass

Similar to the presentation of lignocellulosic biomass from wood below herbaceous biomass for the provision of lignocellulosic organic matter is discussed. Therefore selected species are presented and a brief overview on possible production schemes is given. Table 9.2 gives an overview of the described lignocellulosic biomass crops and their most important parameters.

208

A. Rödl

Table 9.2 Selected parameters of cultivation and harvest for different lignocellulosic biomass crops Crop

Yield [tDM/(ha a)]

Fertilizer demand [kgN/(ha a)]

Dry matter lossesc [%]

Water content at harvest [%]

Miscanthus

15–25 (8–11)d

50–75

20

15–2

Reed canary Grass

e

12–13 (UK) 6–8 (Finland)h

100

30

10–15

Elephant grass

10–30 (fertilized) 2–10 (unfert.)f 25–35a

150–300b

n/a

80–90

Common reed

5–10g

–

–

18–20h

Giant reed

25–40

ca. 100

30

36–49j

Switchgrass

8–17e

0–50

20–40k,l

15–20

i

e

j

See Ref. [5], bSee Ref. [7], cDue to harvest after winter, dIn brackets yields on sandy soils in Germany [45], eSee Ref. [46], fSee Ref. [47], gSee Ref. [48], hSee Ref. [49], iSee Ref. [50], jSee Ref. [10], kSee Ref. [51], lSee Ref. [52] a

9.4.1 Miscanthus Miscanthus is a plant family with 20 species indigenous in Africa and East Asia. It was introduced in Europe as an ornamental plant some 50 years ago. Often the hybrid version Miscanthus x giganteus is grown [45]. It is a perennial reed and its above-ground parts die back in winter. Miscanthus belongs to the group of C4plants which have another type of carbon fixation process within photosynthesis then “normal”, so called, C3-plants that are indigenous in Central and Northern Europe. This makes these plants more efficient in dry, sunny, warm climates which results in higher biomass yields than that of “normal” C3-plants. It can reach 4 m in height within 1 year [45]. The crop propagates through rhizomes but not through seeds because the hybrid produces infertile seeds. A miscanthus plantation can be utilized up to 20 years [53]. Currently, miscanthus is cultivated on estimated 30,000  ha in Europe with the largest share in the UK (20,000 ha), followed by Austria, Switzerland and Germany [54]. In China an area of 400,000 ha is under cultivation [54]. Miscanthus is planted by 8 to 10 cm rhizome pieces (2 to 4 rhizomes per m²) with row spacing of about 75 cm. A full soil preparation before planting is required and weeding is needed especially in the first year. The plantation is first harvested after 2 years with yields from 4 to 7 tDM/(ha a) and as from the third year yields from 10 to 20 tDM/(ha a) can be reached depending on the site conditions. Harvest can be carried out with maize choppers or balers [45]. Roughly 10 % of the biomass is lost during harvest [55]. To avoid high water contents within the harvested biomass, harvesting should be carried out in March or early April. Also the content of unwanted

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass209

elements in the biomass is lower if harvest takes place after winter because during autumn and winter these elements are washed out from the grown biomass. The disadvantage of such a late harvest is the considerable biomass losses occurring during winter time. If the material is not used immediately the storage under a roof is recommended to protect the material re-wetting [56]. Nutrients are removed by the plant from the upper parts and stored in the roots during winter. This means nutrients are recirculated by the plant and fertilizer input can be reduced. The removal of the rhizomes is quite easy because they are shallow and therefore two treatments by cultivator dries out the rhizome water content in late winter which then is lower than in autumn.

9.4.2 Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Phragmites australis or common reed belongs to the family of poacea and can be found in wetlands around the globe with several sub families. Like the before described miscanthus it is a perennial grass which reaches up to 4 m in height and dries back in winter. It spreads aggressively from its root system [57]. Since common reed grows naturally in reed beds of lakes or slow-running rivers it prefers basic, nutrient rich and wet soils. There are reported yields up to 30 tDM/(ha a) but in field trials in Europe only 5 to 10 tDM/(ha a) have been reached [48]. Traditionally it is used for housing construction, especially for thatching roofs, but also as an insulating material. Reed for thatching has to be dry and is therefore traditionally harvested in winter [48]. If reed is used for energy purposes it is also favorable to harvest in winter when water contents are low. During harvest the material is chipped and might be pressed to pellets, bails or bulks [48]. Increasingly the standing crop is also used as a natural wastewater treatment facility. In most of the cases it is not planted but occurs naturally. Köbbing et al. [58] estimated that there might exist around 20 million ha of common reed in 2013.

9.4.3 Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Giant reed (Arundo donax) is perceived as an invasive species and spreads in the tropics and subtropics. In some regions of the US and Australia it has a pest potential. Most important in this respect seems to be the control of spreading. Nevertheless, the potential production of giant reed as an energy crop is discussed widely [59]. Very high yields from 25 to 40 tDM/(ha a) have been reported [50]. Giant reed prefers humid soils on the banks of rivers, lakes or swamps but also tolerates drier conditions once it is established. The harvest can be carried out in autumn or after the winter [10]. A harvest after winter causes considerable biomass losses during the winter. After harvest it can easily be stored in the field without any protection.

210

A. Rödl

Storage losses of 10 to 15 % of the total biomass production can occur if the blades and sheaths are lost [19].

9.4.4 Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is also a perennial grass where the upper parts of the plant dry back in winter. It is indigenous in temperate zones of Europe, Asia and North America and an invasive species in wetlands and disturbed areas. It propagates through seeds and rhizomes and can reach heights of 2 m within one vegetation period [60]. The grass needs nutrient rich and well ventilated soils. It is possible to cultivate reed canary grass on wet soils which are flooded 2 to 3 months per year. Therefore the grass is especially interesting for peatlands renaturation [61]. The use of the harvested grass from restored peatland sites can help the farmer to receive an alternative income from former drained agricultural lands. Stand establishment is realized after soil preparation. About 25  kg/(ha a) are sowed. Reed canary grass can reach yields of 12 to 13 tDM/(ha a) and the plantation can be harvested over 10 to 15 years. If harvesting is carried out in early spring biomass losses of 15 to 26 % have been reported to occur during the winter period. But on the other hand the water and mineral content decrease considerably over the winter period which is favorable if the biomass is used energetically [46]. Harvesting machinery depends on the soil conditions. In general harvesters or mowers with wide tires or crawler track are required [62]. The plant has a higher nitrogen demand than other C4 plants and fertilizing can be advantageous to stabilize high yields [46]. High ash contents especially occur on heavy clayey soils with high silicon contents. The removal of the reed canary plantation is possible by deep ploughing. Reed canary grass is cultivated on 20,000 ha in Finland and on 7,000 ha in Sweden [63].

9.4.5 Elephant Grass (Pennisetum purpureum – Napier Grass) Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) is a tropical perennial grass with high yields [57]. It is also called elephant grass because it is the favorite food of elephants. It might reach heights up to 3.6 m and is indigenous to subtropical Africa (e.g. Zimbabwe). Elephant grass is a plant with high water requirements and depends on rainfalls around 1500 mm/a. But this plant tolerates also dry times because of its deep root system. Apart from that the grass is not tolerant to flooding and also not frost-resistant. Therefore it only can be cultivated in tropical or subtropical areas. Full soil preparation is needed before planting of root cuttings. The yield depends on the water availability, soil fertility and management. Further it should be planted in fertile soil because yields decline quickly if the plantation is not fertilized sufficiently. Yields between 25 and 35 tDM/(ha a) [5] can be reached in fertilized stands

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass211

but only 2 to 10 tDM/(ha a) are possible without fertilization. More frequent cutting give less dry matter [47]. At present it is mostly planted for fodder. The young stems can be fed as hay or pellets [47]. The crop is mostly planted in rows from setts or cuttings.

9.4.6 Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum) Switch grass (Panicum virgatum) also belongs to the group of C4 plants and is indigenous in North America. It is also a perennial grass that spreads through its rhizome system and reaches up to 3 m in height. The grass tolerates drought and prefers warm temperatures. Therefore it grows in Central Europe only in the summer season. Before seeding or planting switch grass site preparation is needed. As already mentioned for the other perennial grasses it is also favorable to harvest switch grass after winter when water and nutrient content is reduced. Fertilize demand depends on the time of harvest and is less if the grass is harvested after winter. In general switch grass has relative low requirements for water and fertilizer.

9.5

By-Products and Wastes

Below important by-products typically used for the provision of lignocellulosic biomass are discussed in detail. Therefore, again a distinction is made between woody and herbaceous biomass.

9.5.1 Wood Residual Wood from Forests.  Wood residues occur from forest operations. After the harvest of timber, wood from twigs, branches or stumps etc. is often left in the forests. This wood can be classified into unused coarse wood and non-coarse wood. • Unused coarse wood are parts of the tree with a diameter above 7 cm including bark. This wood can originate from strong branches or from the lower parts of the tree trunk. In general broadleaved trees have naturally a higher share of unusable parts above 7 cm in diameter than coniferous trees. • The term non-coarse wood denotes woody parts of the tree which have a diameter below 7 cm. That can be smaller branches, twigs etc. In former times these wood assortments have been left in the forests. Since some years they are sold partly to private small-scale wood buyers who process them by themselves and use them as fuel wood. Nevertheless, leaving a certain share of

212

A. Rödl

residual wood in the forests is sometimes essential for environmental reasons, like securing a sufficient nutrient supply or providing a varying habitat for different animal species. Since for example in Germany and most likely also in other countries annual fellings of roundwood are expected to be higher than reported in the official statistics [64] also the share of residual wood is believed to be underestimated. For Germany it has been estimated that 3.5 million m³ of non-coarse wood and 3.2 million m³ unused coarse wood have been produced in 2013 [64]. Nevertheless sometimes parts of the unused coarse wood are used for fuel wood. It might be difficult to use these parts for liquid fuel production because they have a relative big share of bark, which causes higher contents of extractives, lignin and suberin, whereas the cellulose content is comparatively low [65]. Nevertheless, a certain share of this residual wood from forests could be used for fuel production. Residual Wood from Forest-Based Industry. In forest industries where the wood is further processed to high-value products wood residues for example occur from sawmill processes. During these processes (e.g. sawmilling) different residual “products” can be obtained, e.g. sawdust, woodchips, bark, planer shavings. These resources are mostly untreated. The ash content depends on the share of the bark relative to the overall mass as well as on the tree species. Most of the wood processing companies already make use of these residues since they use them for energy generation for their own processes (e.g. for wood drying) and thus for internal use. There also exist combined saw mill – pellet, saw mill – fiber or particle board producing plant concepts. In general it could be expected that woody resources from these sources are highly sought and therefore only partly available for other uses. Waste Wood.  The term waste wood is clearly defined in the German “Waste Wood Directive” (Altholzverordnung) which entered into force in 2003. Hence, waste woods are used products from massive wood, wood-based panels or other wooden composites with a share of more than 50 % wood intended for disposal. The directive further defines four categories that classify waste wood after its grade of treatment with chemicals or colors. For example, category AI is denoting untreated wood that has been only processed mechanically. While category AIV is denoting treated wood with wood preserving chemicals and a high pollution load like railway sleepers or poles. Category AII and AIII denote the respective gradations between these two extremes. According to the mentioned directive waste wood has to be separated and afterwards used for recycling or generating energy in approved facilities. Landfilling of these wood resources is not allowed any more. Waste wood from the category A1 might also be a suitable resource for biokerosene production, but also one of the smallest fractions of waste wood [66]. Besides, it is also a thought resource in particle board industry.

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass213

9.5.2 Herbaceous Biomass Below selected organic mass streams of herbaceous biomass occurring as a by-product are discussed. Bagasse.  Sugarcane bagasse is a fibrous residue that remains when sugar juice is removed from sugarcane. Sugarcane is a perennial grass and belongs to the family of poaceae. It originates from New Guinea and the South Pacific but is now cultivated all around the world in tropical and sub-tropical regions because it does not tolerate temperatures below 15 °C. Major producing countries are Brazil, India, China, Thailand and Pakistan. Sugarcane can grow on a lot of different soil types but it is characterized by a high water demand. A new plantation is usually established typically with cuttings. A plantation can be harvested 10 times or even more, depending on the nutrient supply, because the shoots are re-growing. Sugarcane shoots can be harvested every 9 months in highly intensive cultivation or every 10 to 18 months in more extensive cultivation typically realized in small scale farming [67]. After harvesting leaves, trash and roots have to be removed and the cane has to be transported quickly to the sugar mill. Harvesting can be carried out manually or mechanically with cane harvesters. Manual harvesting is still done in many countries and needs skilled workers. In case of high labor costs and high crushing capacities of the mills harvesting is mechanized. In Western or emerging producing countries, like Australia, Brazil, the US or South Africa, sugarcane cultivation is highly mechanized [68]. Yields between 150 and 175 t/(ha a) in sub-tropical zone and up to 300 t/(ha a) depending on the growing season can be realized. In 2014 the worldwide average fresh cane yield was around 70 t/(ha a) [33]. Information on the dry amount of bagasse which can be obtained from 1 t of sugarcane varies between 14 and 17 % [69, 70]. Weijde et al. [71] even adopt a dry-matter ratio of 0.6:1 from Kim and Dale [72], which would result in an average bagasse yield of about 11 tDM/(ha a). An Australian publication even reports about 30 % wet bagasse from crushed wet sugarcane [73]. Total production of sugarcane worldwide reached 1.9 billion t/a in 2014 [33]. The crop was cultivated on about 27 million ha. This would mean 266 to 317 million tDM/a of bagasse have been produced. Bagasse is already widely used in sugar mills for heat and power provision. But it is already by now used outside of sugar industry as a resource for co-firing, fodder, paper production or as raw material for fiberboards or the production of chemicals. Straw.  Straw are leafs and stalks which remain when different agricultural crops like cereals, oil and fiber crops or legumes are threshed. Usually, straw is left on the field after harvesting the crop to secure reproduction of the humus layer for a sustainable nutrient supply. Typically the amount of straw is related to the main product (e.g. grain). In most cases with the straw-grain ratio is around 1:1 [74]. Harvest of the grain is mostly

214

A. Rödl

carried out by combined harvesters and the grain is removed by lorries while the straw remains on the field. In general only 60 % of the totally available straw is usable [75]. Relatively widespread are wheat, rye and barley straw. Their water content at harvest is below 20 %, but compared to other bioenergy crops they contain more ash (5 to 15 %). A number of possible supply chains for straw exist. Chopped straw can be c­ ollected and transported lose from the fields but with low bulk densities between 40 and 65 kg/m³ [74]. A higher density can be reached if the straw is baled (100 to 150 kg/m³). Highest densities (550 kg/m³) can be reached by pelleting the straw directly on the field. After e.g. baling the straw on the field it is transported into the temporary storage facility by a tractor where it is handled with a telescopic handler and is stored there. After storage it has to be transported to the conversion plant via tractor, lorry or railway according to the transport distance [76]. The supply chain of biomass provisioning to a conversion plant consists of collecting, pre-conditioning like chipping, baling etc.), storage and transport [77]. Wheat has been cultivated on 222 million ha in 2014 [33] with an average yield of 3.3 tDM/(ha a). This would amount to a worldwide amount of 731 million t/a of wheat straw if a ratio of 1:1 between the grain and the straw is assumed. So far this resource is only very scarcely used as a renewable resource for heat production – mainly in Denmark, Austria and Great Britain [78]. Rice Husks.  Rice husks are encasing and protecting the rice grains. They are separated from the grains during milling process. About 20 % of the total grain weight are husks [79]. For long time rice husks have been treated as a waste product and have been burned or landfilled. Recently rice husks have been recognized as a valuable resource for energetic or material use (e.g. chopsticks, insulating material). About 741 million t/a of paddy rice have been produced worldwide in 2014 [33]. This would mean an amount of 148 million t/a of rice husks occurred in the same year. The biggest rice producer was China with around 207 million t/a of paddy rice in 2014, followed by India with around 157 million t/a and Indonesia with about 71 million t/a of rice [33]. Corn Stover.  Corn stover are leaves and stalks from corn (maize) remaining on the field after harvest of the grains. The straw which was left on the field has to be collected from the field and to be transported to the conversion site. Straw quality and dry matter content might worsen when removal from the field is delayed. Cleaning of the straw before conversion might be required [80]. In Europe about 56 million t/a of maize have been harvested in 2015 [81]. Worldwide 958 million t/a maize have been produced on about 177 million ha [82, 83]. Main producers in 2015 were China, the US, Brazil and Europe [82]. According to FAOSTAT [33] the average yield between 2010 and 2013 was about 5.2 t/(ha a). Assuming a cornstraw relation of about 1:1 [84] there would have been a theoretical potential of

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass215

approximately 918 million t of straw. Only 20 to 60 % of the available corn stover can be harvested sustainably [85]. This would mean a theoretical sustainable potential of 184 to 551 million t/a of available corn stover worldwide. Parts of that are already used today for animal feed or bedding. Removal of straw from the field might cause humus balance deficits especially if in the following crop rotation cereals, root crops or again maize is cultivated on the same field [84].

9.6

Final Considerations

Table 9.3 gives an overview of the yields and currently cultivated area for some of the previously discussed crops. Reliable data for most of the described perennial grasses is not available. Mostly there only exist some field trials that amount globally to some thousand ha. Further the table contains calculations of the total potentially harvested amounts of each crop. For this purpose the indicated average yields have been used. The result gives an idea of the currently globally available amounts of these crops. The used resources discussed throughout this paper comprise waste material in the cases of sugarcane, wheat and maize. Wheat and corn straw can be assumed to equal the displayed harvested amount, because they have a straw-grainratio of approximately 1:1. Sugarcane bagasse will be on average 30 % or less of

Table 9.3  Currently cultivated areas, average yields and potentially harvested amounts of selected lignocellulosic biomass crops Cultivated area [million ha]

Reference year

Crop yield [t/(ha a)]

Miscanthus

0.4b

2002

15b

6

Sugarcane

27.18

2014

69.9c

1,900

Wheat

221.6

2014

3.3c

731

Corn (maize)

183.3

2014

5.6

1,027

Rice, paddy

163.2

2014

4.5d

Willow, planted

0.57

2012

5–10

3–6

Willow, outside forests

0.04

2012e

5–10f

0.2–0.4

Poplar, planted

8.6

2012e

6–14g

52–120

Poplar, outside forests

3.2

2012

6–14

19–45

e

e

c

Potentially harvested amount [million t/a]a

741 f

g

a Potential amount if average yields are considered (own calculations) bSee Ref. [3] cWet mass at harvest according, average according to FAOSTAT [33] dSee Ref. [33] eSee Ref. [36] fDry matter, average yield according to Hinge and Christou [37] gDry matter, average yield according to FAO [36]

216

A. Rödl

the totally harvested wet sugarcane biomass and might therefore be estimated on approximately 570 million t/a. Rice husks make up 20 % of the total harvested amount of paddy rice. It should be kept in mind that some of this total amount is already distributed on the market and will not be available to other uses. But the future distribution of these lignocellulosic resources depends also on market prices and the “new” customer’s willingness to pay.

References [1]

Maniatis, K., Weitz, M.and Zschocke, A. (2013): 2 million tons per year: A performing biofuels supply chain for EU aviation. August 2013 Update. Revision of the version initially published June 2011. Brussels. [2] Andersson B, Lindvall E (1997) Use of biomass from reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as raw material for production of paper pulp and fuel. In: Christie BR (ed) Proceedings of the XVIII International Grassland Congress, Canada. XVIII International Grassland Congress. Calgary. [3] McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresource Technol 83(1):37–46 [4] Phyllis2 (2012) Database for biomass and waste. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. https://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2 [5] Mohammed IY, Abakr YA, Kazi FK, Yusup S, Alshareef I, Chin SA (2015) Comprehensive characterization of napier grass as a feedstock for thermochemical conversion. Energies 8(5):3403–3417 [6] Rengsirikul K, Ishii Y, Kangvansaichol K, Sripichitt P, Punsuvon V, Vaithanomsat P, Nakamanee G and Tudsri S (2013) Biomass Yield, Chemical Composition and potential Ethanol Yields of 8 Cultivars of Napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) Harvested 3-monthly in central Thailand [online]. J Sustain Bioenergy Syst 3: 107–-112 [7] Rabemanolontsoa H, Saka S (2013) Comparative study on chemical composition of various biomass species. RSC Adv 3(12):3946–3956 [8] Cotana F, Cavalaglio G, Pisello AL, Gelosia M, Ingles D, Pompili E (2015) Sustainable ethanol production from common reed (Phragmites australis) through simultaneuos saccharification and fermentation. Sustainability 7(9):12149–12163 [9] Vaičekonytė R, Kiviat E, Nsenga F, Ostfeld A (2014) An exploration of common reed (Phragmites australis) bioenergy potential in North America. Mires Peat 13(12):1–9 [10] Bassam N.El (1998) Energy plant species. Their use and impact on environment and development. James & James, London [11] Lemons e Silva CF, Schirmer MA, Maeda RN, Barcelos CA, Pereira Jr, N (2015) Potential of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) for second generation ethanol production. Electron J Biotechnol 18(1):10–15 [12] Komolwanich T, Tatijarern P, Prasertwasu S, Khumsupan D, Chaisuwan T, Luengnaruemitchai A, Wongkasemjit S (2014) Comparative potentiality of Kans grass (Saccharum spontaneum) and Giant reed (Arundo donax) as lignocellulosic feedstocks for the release of monomeric sugars by microwave/chemical pretreatment. Cellulose 21(3):1327–1340 [13] Lopez F, Garcia JC, Perez A, Feria JM, Zamudio MA, Garrote G (2010) Chemical and energetic characterization of species with a high-biomass production: Fractionation of their components. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29(4):499–509 [14] Nultsch W (2001) Allgemeine Botanik. 11.völlig neubearb. und erweiterte Auflage; Thieme, Stuttgart, New York. [15] FAO (2015a) FAO statistical pocketbook. FAO, Rome

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass217 [16] Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca, Gustavo AB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858 [17] Gifford E M (2016) Gingkophyte. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago. https://www.britannica.com/plant/ginkgophyte accesed on: 20.07.2016 [18] Roloff A (2016) Baum des Jahrtausends – Ginkgo Biloba. Stiftung Baum des JahresMarktredwitz. http://baum-des-jahres.de/index.php?id=6 accesed on: 20.07.2016. [19] Roloff A, Bärtels A (1996) Gehölze: Bestimmung, Herkunft und Lebensbereiche, Eigenschaften und Verwendung. Gartenflora, vol. 1, Ulmer, Stuttgart. [20] Hooge H (2016) Die Waldkiefer. Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald (SDW). Baum Infos Faltblätter, Bonn [21] Aas G (2007) Systematik, Verbreitung und Morphologie der Waldkiefer (Pinus sylvestris). In: Wauer A, Schmidt S (eds) Beiträge zur Waldkiefer, LWF Wissen Vol. 57, Bayrische Landesanstalt für Wald und Forstwirtschaft (LWF), Freising. pp 7–11 [22] Polley H, Hennig P, Krother F, Marks A, Riedel T, Schmidt U, Schwitzgebel F, Stauber T (2016) Der Wald in Deutschland. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der dritten Bundeswaldinventur. 2. korrigierte Auflage. BMEL, Berlin [23] Grosser D (2007) Das Holz der Kiefer – Eigenschaften und Verwendung. In: Wauer A, Schmidt O (eds) Beiträge zur Waldkiefer, LWF Wissen Vol. 57, Bayrische Landesanstalt für Wald und Forstwirtschaft (LWF), Freising. pp 67–71 [24] Griesche C (2016) Die Fichte. Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald (SDW). Baum Infos Faltblätter, Bonn. [25] Gössinger L. (2016) Die Eiche. Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald (SDW), Wald. Deine Natur. Baum Infos Faltblätter, Bonn [26] Schmidt O. (2016) Die Buche. Schutzgemeinschaft Deutscher Wald (SDW), Wald. Deine Natur. Baum Infos Faltblätter, Bonn [27] Cheers G (2003) Botanica – Das ABC der Pflanzen 10.000 Arten in Text und Bild. 4.aktualisierte deutsche Ausgabe. Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft, Köln. [28] Indufor (2012) Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Strategic review on the future of foresat plantations. Indufor, forest intelligence, Helsinki [29] Serra R, Stefania B, Meira T (2015) Eucalyptus monoculture and common lands, Portugal. Joan Martinez Alier, Environmental Justice Atlas, Barcelona. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/ eucalyptus-monoculture-and-common-lands-portugal accessed on: 15.07.2016 [30] FAO (2012a) FRA 2015. Terms and definitions, forest resources assessment working paper (180). FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome [31] Keenan RJ, Reams GA, Achard F, Freitas JV de, Grainger A, Linquist E (2015) Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO global forest resources assessment 2015. Forest Ecol. Manag 352:9–20 [32] EEA (2007) European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management reporting and policy, 2nd edn. EEA Technical report (No 9/2006). EEA European Environment Agency, Copenhagen [33] FAO (2016b) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E. Accessed 27 July 2016 [34] Köhl M, Plugge D (2016) Forstwirtschaftlich produzierte Biomasse. In: Martin K, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H (eds) Energie aus Biomasse. Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–166 [35] FAO (2016c) Yearbook of forest products 2014. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Forestry Series (49), Rome [36] FAO (2012b) Improving lives with poplars and willows. Synthesis of country reports. 24th session of the International Poplar Commission, Dehradun, India. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Working Paper (IPC/12), Forest Assessment, Management and Conservation Division, Rome [37] Hinge J, Christou M., (2012) Optimum harvest-storage options – handling requirements. SP2 – studies on biomass feedstock and optimisation for the selected value chain. WP2.2 – biomass supply chains. EUROBIOREF European multilevel integrated Biorefinery design for sustainable biomass processing, (D2.2.2 and D2.2.3), FP7 – Energy. 2009. 3.3.1, Paris

218

A. Rödl

[38] Ball J, Carle J, Del Lungo A (2005) Contribution of poplars and willows to sustainable forestry and rural development. Unasylva 56(221):3–9 [39] Facciotto G, Minotta G, Paris P, Pelleri F (2015) Tree farming, agroforestry and the new green revolution. A necessary alliance. In: Ciancio O, Ciuti A, Chiara L, Morosi C, Piemontese FP, Puccioni G (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Sylviculture, Vol. 2 Accademia Italiana di Sienze Forestali Florence, pp 1–13 [40] Caslin B, Finnan J, Johnston C, McCracken A, Walsh L, (2015) Short rotation coppice willow. Best practice guidelines. Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Belfast [41] Eppler U, Petersen J-E (2007) Short rotation forestry, short rotation coppice and energy grassess in he European Uninion: agro-environmental aspects, present use and perspectives, Background Paper. Fachhochschule Eberswalde, Eberswalde [42] FAO (2016a) 2014 Global forest products facts and figures. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Forest products statistics. http://www.fao.org/ forestry/statistics/80938/en/. Accessed 09 May 2016 [43] Pepke E (2010) Global wood markets: cosumption, production and trade. International Forestry and Global Issue, UNECE/FAO Timber Section, Nancy [44] FAO (2015b) Resurgence in global wood production. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. News Article. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/ item/359583/icode/. Accessed 07 Oct 2016 [45] Pude R (2012) Miscanthus-Anbautelegramm. Universität Bonn, Bonn. http://www.miscanthus.de/index.htm. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 [46] Lewandowski I (2016) Landwirtschaftlich produzierte Biomasse. In: Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H (eds) Energie aus Biomasse. Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren. Springer, Berlin pp 167–247 [47] Cook BG, Pengelly BC, Brown SD, Donnelly JL, Eagles D, Franco A, Hanson J, Mullen B, Patridge I, Peters M, et al, Schultze-Kraft R (2005) Tropical forages: an interactive selection tool. CSIRO, DPI&F (Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane. http://www.tropicalforages.info. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 [48] Köbbing JF, Thevs N, Zerbe S (2013a) The utilisation of reed (Phragmites australis): a review. Mires and Peat 13(1):1–14. [49] Komulainen M, Simi P, Hagelberg E, Ikonen I, Lyytinen S (2008) Reed energy. Possibilities of using the common reed for energy generation in Southern Finland, Reports (67). Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku [50] Laurent A, Pelzer E, Loyce C, Makowski D (2015) Ranking yields of energy crops: a meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons. RENEW SUST ENERG REV 46:41–50 [51] Mitchell RB, Schmer MR (2012) Switchgrass harvest and storage. University of Nebraska, Agronomy & Horticulture – Faculty Publication (Paper 548), Nebraska [52] Venturi P, Monti A, Piani I, Venturi G (2004) Evaluation of harvesting and post-harvesting techniques for energy destination of switchgrass. In: ETA. Florence (ed) 2nd World Conf. and Tech. Exhibit. on biomass for energy, industry and climate protection. ETA-Florence, WIP-Munich, Florence, Munich, pp 234–236 [53] Grebe, S.; Hartmann, S.; Belau, T.; Döhler, H.; Eckel, H.; Frisch, J.; Fröba, N.; Funk, M.; Grube, J.; Horlacher, D.; Horn, C.; Kloepfer, F.; Lorbacher, R.; Sauer, N.; Schroers, J. O.; Wirth, B.and Witzel, E. (2012): Energiepflanzen. Daten für die Planung des Energiepflanzenanbaus, 2. Auflage. KTBL-Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft: Damstadt. [54] OPTIMISC (2016) Information Platform FP7 OPTIMISC – Optimizing Miscanthus biomass production, Agentur für Nachhaltige Nutzung von Agrarlandschaften, Freiburg. http://miscanthus.anna-consult.de/. Accessed 01 Aug 2016 [55] Larsen S, Jaiswal D, Bentsen N S, Wang D and Long S P (2016) Comparing predicted yield and yield stability of willow and Miscanthus across Denmark. GCB Bioenerg 8 (6):1061-1070.

9  Lignocellulosic Biomass219 [56] Fritz M, Formowitz B (2009) Miscanthus: Anbau und Nutzung. Informationen für die Praxis, Berichte aus dem TFZ (19), TFZ-Technologie- und Förderzentrum im Kompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Straubing [57] Andersson M, Cameron DG, Dear BS, Halling M, Hoare D, Frame J, Houérou H. Le, Izaquirre P, Koivisto J, Ladner J, et al, Victor J (2005) Grassland species profiles, FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/ agpc/doc/gbase/Default.htm. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 [58] Köbbing JF, Thevs N, Zerbe S (2013b) The utilization of common reed (Phagmites australis) – a review. Reed as a resource. Institut für Botanik und Land­schafts­ökologie Universität Greifswald [59] Odero D, Gilbert R, Ferrell J, Helsel Z (2011) Production of giant reed for biofuel, SS-AGR (318). University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Gainsville [60] Pankratius M (2010) Rohrglanzgras – phalaris arundinacea L. – reed canary grass – Havelmielitz, Nachwachsende Rohstoffe – Die Zukunft vom Acker. http://www.nachwachsende-rohstoffe.biz/glossar/rohrglanzgras-%E2%80%93-phalaris-arundinacea-l-%E2%80%93-reedcanary-grass-%E2%80%93-havelmielitz/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 [61] Schröder C, Schulze P, Luthardt V, Zeitz J (2015) Extensiv genutzte Rohrglanzgras Feuchtwiesen (Phalaris arundinacea L.) für Futter- und energetische Verwertung, Steckbrief für Niedermoorbewirtschaftung bei unterschiedlichen Wasserverhältnissen (Nr. 07). HNE Eberswalde, Humbold-Universität Berlin, Berlin [62] Wichtmann W, Wichtmann S (2010) Paludikultur – Alternativen für Moorstandorte durch nasse Bewirtschaftung. Energetische Verwertung von Niedermoorbiomasse. Acker + plus, 05 Oct, pp 86–89 [63] Christou M (2011) The terrestrial biomass: formation and properties (crops and residual biomass). EUROBIOREF – summer school, CRES, Lecce [64] Jochem D, Weimar H, Bösch M, Mantau U, Dieter M (2015) Estimation of wood removals and fellings in Germany: a calculation approach based on the amount of used roundwood. Eur. J. For. Res. 134(5):869–888 [65] Kupferschmid A (2001) Rindenkunde und Rindenverwertung, (Teil 4). ETH Zürich, Professur Holzwissenschaften, Zürich [66] Lang A (2002) Altholzverwertung, Altholzverordnung. 9. Quedlinburger Holzbautagung, Quedlinburg [67] Verheye W (2010) Growth and production of sugarcane. In: Verheye WH, Bayles MB (eds) Soils, plant growth and crop production, vol. II. UNESCO-EOLSS, Paris pp 1–10 [68] Abd-El Mawla HA, Hemeida BE (2015) Sugarcane mechanical harvesting-evaluation of local applications. J Soil Sci Agric Eng Mansoura University 6(1):129–141 [69] Andreoli C, Pimentel D, Pereira de Souza S (2012) Net energy balance and carbon footprint of biofuel from corn and sugarcane. In: Pimentel D (ed) Global economic and environmental aspects of biofuels. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 221–248 [70] Hunsigi G (1993) Production of sugarcane: theory and practice. Advanced series in agricultural science, 21. Springer, Berlin [71] Weijde T, Alvim Kamei CL, Torres AF, Vermerris W, Dolstra O, Visser RG, Trindade LM (2013) The potential of C4 grasses for cellulosic biofuel production. Front Plant Sci 4 (Article 107):1–18 [72] Kim S, Dale BE (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26(4):361–375 [73] Clean Energy Council (2014) Using bagasse for bioenergy, Clean Energy Council Australia, Melbourne, bioenergy bulletin. https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/bioenergy.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 [74] Reinhold G (2001) Betriebswirtschaftliche Bewertung derBereitstellung von Stroh und Energiegetreide. In: FNR (ed) Energetische Nutzung von Stroh, Ganzpflanzengetreide und weiterer halmgutartiger Biomasse. Gülzower Fachgespräche vol. 17, FNR, Gülzow, Gülzow. pp 50–61

220

A. Rödl

[75] Vetter A (2001) Qualitätsanforderungen an halmgutartige Bioenergieträger hinsichtlich der energetischen Verwertung. In: FNR (ed) Energetische Nutzung von Stroh, Ganzpflanzengetreide und weiterer halmgutartiger Biomasse. Gülzower Fachgespräche vol. 17, FNR, Gülzow. vol. 17. Gülzow, pp 36–49 [76] Leible L Kälber S, Kappler G (2011) Systemanalyse zur gaserzeugung aus Biomasse. Untersuchung ausgewählter Aspekte: KIT Scientific Reports, 7580. KIT Scientific, Karlsruhe [77] Lange S (2008) Untersuchung ausgewählter Aspekte: Biomasseaufkommen und -bereitstellung Biomasseeinspeisung in einen DruckvergaserSystemanalytische Untersuchung zur Schnellpyrolyse als Prozessschritt bei der Produktion von Synthesekraftstoffen aus Stroh und Waldrestholz. Dissertation, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe. Fakultät für Chemieingenieurswesen und Verfahrenstechnik [78] Oechsner H (2009) Thermische Verwertung halmgutartiger Biomasse. In: Fachtagung Bioenergie “EEG und Gülleverwertung – Thermische Verwertung von Energiepflanzen Herbertingen-Marbach [79] Santiaguel AF (2013) A second life for rice husk. Rice Today (April–June), pp 12–13 [80] Thompson J. L, Tyner W. E (2014) Corn stover for bioenergy production: cost estimates and farmer supply response. Biomass and Bioenergy 62:166–173 [81] DMK (2016b) Erntemengen Körner- und Silomais, DKM-Deutsches Maiskomitee e.V., Bonn. http://www.maiskomitee.de/web/public/Fakten.aspx/Statistik/Europ%C3%A4ische_ Union/Erntemengen_K%C3%B6rner-_und_Silomais. Accessed 11 Aug 2016 [82] DMK (2016a) Die wichtigsten Körnermais-Anbauländer in der Welt, DKM-Deutsches Maiskomitee e.V., Bonn. http://www.maiskomitee.de/web/public/Fakten.aspx/Statistik/ Welt/K%C3%B6rnermais-Anbaul%C3%A4nder. Accessed 11 Aug 2016 [83] DMK (2016c) Flächenproduktivität des Maisanbaus weltweit, DKM-Deutsches Maiskomitee e.V., Bonn. http://www.maiskomitee.de/web/public/Fakten.aspx/Statistik/Welt/ Fl%C3%A4chenproduktivit%C3%A4t. Accessed 11 Aug 2016 [84] Kolbe H (2013) Standortangepasste Humusversorgung im Maisanbau. Mais 40(2):56–62 [85] Kadam KL, McMillan JD (2003) Availability of corn stover as a sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production. Bioresource Technol 88(1):17–25

Dr. Anne Rödl  is working as a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics (IUE) at Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH). She received her PhD from the Department of Biology at Hamburg University and holds a Master of Science in Forestry. After graduating from her studies she worked for the German Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries. There she investigated the environmental impacts of wood production from short rotation coppice and wrote her PhD thesis about a further development of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology in terms of water use. After finishing her PhD she joined IUE and inter alia gives lectures in environmental assessment and sustainability management.

Chapter 10

Waste as Resource Christina Dornack, Axel Zentner and Antje Zehm

Abstract  In the past waste management proved to reduce CO2 emissions both by reuse of recyclables and energetic utilization of substrates with high available energy load. This paper provides an overview about biomass originating from waste. Therefore the biogenic waste fractions are classified by origin. In this manner one can separate the origin of biomass in forestry, agriculture, landscape maintenance, municipal solid waste and industrial waste. Subsequent chemical and physical parameters were described to assess the applicability for thermal utilization as well as for the production of biokerosene. The focus is on calorific values, ash and water content as well as on inhibiting parameters such as sulfur, nitrogen and heavy metals. Based on this, the second part of this paper describes the energy potential of the ubiquitous occurring biomass originating from waste. Therefore the incidence of each waste fraction is related to a specific energy potential respectively calorific value. Due to this the theoretical applicability of waste as feedstock for the production of biokerosene can be assessed.

10.1 Introduction In the past waste management proved to reduce CO2 emissions both by reuse of recyclables and energetic utilization of substrates with high available energy load. It can be noted that it is unrewarding to relate to a heterogenic waste composition which C. Dornack (*) Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Waste Management and Circular Economy, Dresden, Germany e-mail: [email protected] A. Zentner BIRES – Energie & Umwelt, Dresden, Germany e-mail: [email protected] A. Zehm VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_10

221

222

C. Dornack et al.

differs both spatially and temporally. For that reason the biogenic waste fractions are classified by origin. In this manner the biomass can be classified in mass fractions coming from forestry, agriculture, landscape maintenance, municipalities and industry. Forest residues, animal waste, municipal solid waste etc. are possible usable biogenic waste for the production of biofuels. Thus the potential for the production of biofuels will be shown. It needs to be considered that the biokerosene production from such waste streams is limited due to the high quality demands and due to legislative constraints. Chemical and physical parameters such as water content, caloric value or ash content assess the applicability for thermal utilization as well as for production of biokerosene. Sulfur, nitrogen and heavy metals need to be investigated because of inhibiting properties. The energy potential of the ubiquitous occurring biomass originating from waste is evaluated for suitable biokerosene production.

10.2 Classification of Biomass Originating from Waste Biomass can be classified separately depending on their origin. This is useful in many cases because the availability of bio-waste differs both spatially and temporally. The varying substrate characteristics require different utilization concepts. Fig. 10.1. categorisizes the available biomass according to its origin [1]. Sewage sludge and sewage gas are excluded from this consideration and treated as a separate biomass fraction.

%LRPDVV

$JULFXOWXUH

/DQGVFDSH 0DLQWHQDQFH

5DZ:RRG

6WUDZ

,QGXVWULDO

&URS5HVLGXHV

:RRG:DVWH

%LRPDVVIURP

)RUHVWU\

:RRG:DVWH

0XQLFLSDO 6ROLG:DVWH

,QGXVWULDO :DVWH

*UDVV&XWWLQJV

%LRZDVWH

5HVLGXHVRI

7UHH&XWWLQJV

*UHHQ:DVWH

,QGXVWULDO

/HDYHV

*UDVV&XWWLQJV

3URFHVVLQJ

*UDVVODQG

7UHH&XWWLQJV

%HHU3URGXFWLRQ

$QLPDO:DVWH

%XVK&XWWLQJV

:LQH3UHVV

/HDYHV

+RXVH 6ODXJKWHUKRXVHV 6XJDU,QGXVWU\ HWF

(QHUJHWLF8WLOL]DWLRQ8VHDV5HVRXUFH

Fig. 10.1  Biomass sources (modified according to [1])

10  Waste as Resource223

10.2.1 Forestry Biomass Forestry biomass can be subdivided into the fractions of raw wood material, industrial waste timber, and wood waste. Raw wood material comprises all forest wood and is composed of the following compartments [1]: • raw wood –– wood harvested for sale –– felled that have not undergone further processing • wood residues –– residues, by-products, and wastes from logging –– supply volumes are linked to raw wood consumption • weak wood –– part of the forest wood from maintenance measures –– upper diameter limit of 16 cm [2] –– minimum diameter of ≥8 cm Industrial residual wood comprises the residues, by-products and waste generated by the wood processing industry. This can be in the form of bark and sprays (approx. 35 %), wood chips (approx. 30 %) and shavings (about 30 %) [1]. During wood processing, approx. 5 % of the residues are available in form of piece of wood [3]. Waste wood comprises the quantities of wood that are separated from a utilization process and occur as pure wood waste or compounds with predominant wood content. The German Waste Wood Decree (AltholzV) categorizes waste wood into the groups AI to AIV as well as PCB-contaminated waste wood. Depending on the category, this wood fraction can be provided as a secondary raw material or must be disposed of [4].

10.2.2 Agricultural Biomass Agricultural biomass can be divided into agricultural waste and residual materials as well as energy crops grown to provide energy. Agricultural waste and residual materials include straw, crop residues, grassland biomass, and animal waste [1]. Straw accounts for the bulk of the biomass potential provided by agriculture. The amount depends on the area cultivated by grain as well as the grain to straw ratio. Depending on the confinement, the straw volume is limited to cereals [5] or additional amounts of oilseed straw, maize, and other straw [3] such as grain legumes (e.g. fodder peas) [6]. Crop residues are primarily potato tops, beet leaves, and residues from vegetables and ornamental plants as well as the wine and hops [1]. Likewise, biomass is provided in the form of green waste in permanent greenland (i.e. land used for the cultivation of grass or other green fodder plants that has not been part of the crop rotation of the holding for at least five years [7]).

224

C. Dornack et al.

Animal waste from agriculture originates from the livestock sector and consists mainly of animal excreta as well as solid manure [1]. Depending on the number of animals per facility [3, 5], these can be categorized as usable biomass plants.

10.2.3 Biomass from Landscape Management Because of the lack of scientific and legal definition, the term “landscape management material” is not clearly defined. According to [8], surface types were based on landscape management material. Biomass can be generated from the landscape management. This includes [9]: • legally protected biotopes, • specially protected nature and landscapes, • nature conservation areas, land from agro-environmental or similar support programs, • areas on which the management requirements of subsidy programs are voluntarily respected, • areas on which vegetation conservation measures (e.g. communal areas, private and public garden and park maintenance, transport and water management) are carried out.

10.2.4 Biomass in Municipal Waste According to the German Biomass Decree (BiomasseV [10]), biomass in municipal waste is based on bio-waste in the sense of § 2 No. 1 of the German Bio-waste Ordinance (BioAbfV [11]). According to Appendix 1 of the BioAbfV [11], these include “biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste” (AVV 20 01 08 [12]) as well as “biodegradable waste” (AVV 20 02 01 [12]) [BioAbfV [11]]. Biomass in urban waste thus includes the separately collected organic fraction of waste from households as well as garden waste, park paste, and bio-waste in municipalities. Organic waste can either be collected separately in special bins or collected together with the residual waste. They can also be independently delivered to recycling plants or regional collection points. On average, the specific green and waste volume is 104.7  kg/(capita a); approx. 51  kg/(capita a) is generated as organic waste, approx. 53 kg/(capita a) as green waste, and approx. 1 kg/(capita a) as other organic wastes [13]. Composition of Separately Collected Bio-Waste.  Separately collected bio-waste primarily consists of the following fractions:

10  Waste as Resource225

• • • • •

kitchen waste, green waste, paper products, trash (e.g. textiles, plastics, glass, metals, and composites), and fine fraction.

The material composition is subject to fluctuations caused by container size, the structure of the building, the collection schedule, the season, and the motivation of the population [14]. These changes in material composition also affect the grain size spectrum. Approx. 92 wt-% of the pure bio-waste has a grain size 60 mm and can thus be separated with relatively low efforts [15]. Other reasons for variations in the composition include the building structure, the container size, and the collection system. Small container sizes favor composting. However, in larger containers, there is more waste and a greater percentage of trash. In the suburbs, the proportion of green waste is greater related to the downtown area. This is due the fact of the larger number of gardeners in such suburbs. In core areas such as the inner city, bio-waste is largely made up of kitchen waste. These changes in the organic waste composition also lead to fluctuations in the physical and chemical waste properties. This is discussed below. Physical and Chemical Characterization Water Content.  Water content is defined as weight loss of the sample to mass constancy at a temperature of 105 °C, although readily degradable or volatile substances are also detected as water content. The lower the water contents of the organic waste, the lower the difference between the higher and the lower heating value. In order to ensure the energetically efficient use of a substrate, the water content must be as low as possible. Table 10.1 shows a literature review with regard to the water content for bio-waste. Heating Value.  The heating value of solid and liquid fuels is an indicator for the amount of heat released during combustion.

Table 10.1  Water content of bio-waste

Water content

Source

60–70 %

[16 in 17]

50–70 %

[18 in 17]

52–80 %

[19 in 17]

69.1 %

[20]

226

C. Dornack et al.

The so called higher heating value is defined as the quotient of the amount of heat released during complete combustion/oxidation and the mass of the fuel when the temperature of the fuel before combustion and that of its combustion products is 25 °C and when the water present in the fuel prior to burning and the water formed when the hydrogen is burned are in liquid state. The combustion products of carbon and sulfur must also be in a gaseous state as carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Oxidation of the nitrogen must not have taken place [21]. The so called lower heating value differs from the higher heating value in the fact that the water is present in a vapor state after combustion; i.e. the higher and the lower heating value differ in terms of the heat of vaporization of the water. The lower heating value is more important for the interpretation of industrial combustion plants because the condensation heat of the water is typically not used and the water is released through the chimney as a vapor. Fig. 10.2 depicts typical values of biogenic waste depending on the ash content. Additionally Table 10.2 shows typical values of bio-waste.

Fig. 10.2  Calorific values of biogenic waste depending on the water content [17]

Table 10.2  Data for the calorific value of bio-waste (fm fresh matter)

Calorific value

Source

101

> 93

EN ISO 2719/EN ISO 3679

[mg/kg]

10 (max)

15 (max)

EN ISO 20 846/EN ISO 20 884

Flash point Sulfur content Cetane number

–

51 (min)

47 (min)

EN ISO 5165

Sulphated ash content

[% (m/m)]

0.02 (max)

0.02 (max)

ISO 3987

Water content

[mg/kg]

500 (max)

500 (max)

EN ISO 12 937

Total contamination

[mg/kg]

24 (max)

[3 h/50 °C]

1

3

EN ISO 2160

[h]

6 (min)

3 (min)

EN ISO 2160

[mg KOH/g]

0.5 (max)

0.5 (max)

–

120 (max)

EN 14 111

Linolenic Acid Methylester

[% (m/m)]

12 (max)

EN 14 103

Poly-unsaturated (≥ 4 double bonds) Methylester

[% (m/m)]

1 (max)

EN 14 103

Methanol content

[% (m/m)]

0.2 (max)

Monoglyceride content

[% (m/m)]

0.8 (max)

EN 14 105

Diglyceride content

[% (m/m)]

0.2 (max)

EN 14 105

Triglyceride content

[% (m/m)]

0.2 (max)

EN 14 105

Free glycerine

[% (m/m)]

0.02 (max)

0.02 (max)

Total glycerine

[% (m/m)]

0.25 (max)

0.24 (max)

EN 14 105

Group 1 metals (Na+K)

[mg/kg]

5 (max)

5 (max)

EN 14 108/EN 14 109 / EN 14 538

Group ll metals (Ca+Mg)

[mg/kg]

5 (max)

5 (max)

EN 14 538

Phosphorus content

[mg/kg]

4 (max)

10 (max)

EN 14 107

Copper band corrosion Oxidation stability at 110 °C Acid value Iodine value

EN 12 662

0.2 (max)

EN 14 104

EN 14 110

EN 14 105/EN 14 106

12  Camelina – An Alternative Oil Crop271

Biodiesel can be refined by fractional distillation or hydroprocessing to form biokerosene or bio-jet fuel potentially usable to fuel planes. For use in aviation, biokerosene is required to satisfy some very sensitive properties to ensure the safety of the passengers, crew and planes during flights. Test flights using biofuels have been conducted since 2008. Several commercial flights using biofuels from various feedstocks, including Camelina, have happened since 2011. Few trial flights have been fueled by 100 % biokerosene. Often the fuel is a blend of biokerosene and conventional jet fuel.

12.5 Final Considerations The aviation fuels market could use biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [66]. However, there are various issues relating to the production and use of biofuels. Life cycle assessments of biofuels from various feedstocks show there may be limited savings in energy and greenhouse gas emissions compared with those of fossil fuels. Production costs for the different crops and the transport of seed, oil, meal or biofuel across large distances will reduce any potential greenhouse gas savings. Each crop should be assessed individually. Land used for growing crops for biofuel could be used for growing food crops and could involve direct land use change. However, if the biofuel crop were to be grow on land that was otherwise to be left fallow or if the crop were to grow successfully on marginal land or in environments not suitable for food crops, then competition with food crops would be avoidable. Oilseed crops destined as feedstocks for biofuels are usually not acceptable for food. Oils containing high concentrations of erucic acid are valued in industry as lubricants etc. and are deemed unacceptable for human consumption. Camelina is approved for human consumption in many countries such as Russia, Finland, France, Australia and the United Kingdom as the oil has limited erucic acid and a good concentration of alpha linolenic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid, with proven health benefits. However, the market for Camelina oil for human consumption is under-developed and demand is very low. Similarly, the markets for Camelina seed and residual meal are currently limited and these need to be explored and established. Potential markets in baking products for human food, fish food in aquaculture, as a protein source in stockfeed and in the equine industry should be researched and the benefits advertised. Camelina usually costs less to grow than other oilseed crops. Generally considered to be a low input crop, it responds well to applications of fertiliser. Relatively tolerant of drought, Camelina seed yields increase with moderate increases of rainfall. Resistant to many pests and diseases that plague other oilseed crops, pesticide sprays are unnecessary. Camelina will grow and produce seed on marginal soils where other crops fail. However, its low productivity on poorer soils results in low economic returns.

272

M. Campbell

The use of Camelina oil in aviation has been tested successfully [67]. Producing biokerosene from Camelina oil by various processes and in various blends has been proven [68]. Technically feasible and with possible environmental benefits, the current use of Camelina oil for biodiesel and biokerosene will be limited by economics and adequate supply of sufficient seed.

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Bernardo A, Howard-Hildige R, O’Connell A, Nichol R, Ryan J, Rice B, Roche E, Leahy JJ (2003) Camelina oil as a fuel for diesel transport engines. Ind Crop Prod 17:191–197 Fröhlich A, Rice B (2005) Evaluation of Camelina sativa oil as a feedstock for biodiesel production. Ind Crop Prod 21:25–31 Toncea I, Necseriu D, Prisecaru T, Balint L-N, Ghilvacs M-I, Popa M (2013) The seed’s and oil composition of Camelia – first romanian cultivar of Camelina (Camelina sativa, L. Crantz). Rom Biotech Lett 18 (5):8594–8602 http://plants.usda.gov Francis A, Warwick SI (2009) The biology of Canadian weeds. 142. Camelina alyssum (Mill.) Thell.; C. microcarpa Andrz. Ex DC.; C. sativa (L.) Crantz. Can J Plant Sci 89:791–810 Putnam DH, Budin JT, Field LA, Breene WM (1993) Camelina: a promising low-input oilseed. In: Janick J, Simon JE, (eds) New crops.Wiley, New York, pp 314–322 Klinkenberg B (ed) (2008) E-Flora BC: electronic atlas of the plants of British Columbia [eflora.bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Ehrensing DT, Guy SO (2008) Camelina. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis. EM 8953-E. Retrieved 22 Aug 2015 Campbell MC, Rossi AF, Erskine W (2013) Camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz): Agronomic potential in Mediterranean environments and diversity for biofuel and food uses. Crop Pasture Sci 64(4):388–398 Groeneveld JH, Klein A-M (2014) Pollination of two oil-producing plant species: Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) and pennycress (Thlaspi arvenseL.) double-cropping in Germany. BioenergConservBiodivers 6(3):242–251 Knorzer KH (1978) Evolution and spread of Gold of Pleasure (Camelina sativa S.L.). Ber Deut Bot Ges 91:187–195 Hjelmqvist H (1979) Beitrage zur Kenntnis der prahistorishen Nutzpflanzen in Schweden (German). Opera Bot 47:34–57 Ghamkhar K, Croser J, Aryamanesh N, Campbell M, Kon’kova N, Francis C (2010) Camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) as an alternative oilseed: molecular and ecogeographic analyses. Genome 53:558–567 Zubr J (1997) Oil-seed crop: Camelina sativa. Ind Crop Prod 6:113–119 Walsh D, Sanderson D, Hall LM, Mugo S, Hills MJ (2014) Allelopathic effects of Camelina (Camelina sativa) and canola (Brassica napus) on wild oat, flax and radish. Allelopathy J 33(1):83–95 CBIF (2003) Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility. http://www.cbif.gc.ca/. Accessed Apr 2016. Plessers AG, McGregor WG, Carson RB, Nakoneshny W (1962) Species trials with oilseed plants II. Camelina. Can J Soil Sci 42:452–459 Robinson RG (1987) Camelina: a useful research crop and a potential oilseed crop. Minnesota Agr. Expt Sta Bul 179. Report No. 579. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/141546

12  Camelina – An Alternative Oil Crop273 [19] Grady K, Thandiwe N (2010) Camelina production. South Dakota State University, Extension Extra, ExEx8167, May 2010 [20] Crowley JG, Fröhlich A (1998) Factors affecting the composition and use of Camelina. Teagasc Project Report No. 4319, Crop Research Centre, Teagasc. Dublin [21] Sintim HY, Zheljazkov VD, Obour AK, Garcia y Garcia A, Foulke TK (2016) Evaluating agronomic responses of Camelina to seeding date under rain-fed conditions. Agron J 108:349–357 [22] Dobre P, Jurcoane S, Matei F, Stelica C, Faracas N, Moraru AC (2014) Camelina sativa as a double crop using the minimal tillage system. Rom Biotech Lett 19(2) [23] McVay KA, Lamb PF (2008) Camelina production in Montana. Montana State University Extension, MontGuide, MT200701AG Revised 3/08 [24] Chen C, Bekkerman A, Afshar RK, Neill K (2015) Intensification of dryland cropping systems for bio-feedstock production: Evaluation of agronomic and economic benefits of Camelina sativa. Ind Crop Prod 71:114–121 [25] Crowley JG (1999) Evaluation of Camelina sativa as an Alternative Oilseed Crop. Crops Research Centre, Oak Park, Carlow. Teagasc, Dublin [26] Jha P, Stougaard RN (2013) Camelina (Camelina sativa) tolerance to selected preemergence herbicides. Weed SciSoc Am 27(4):712–717 [27] Hulbert S, Guy S, Pan B, Paulitz T, Schillinger B, Wysocki D, Sowers K (2011) Camelina production in the dryland Pacific Northwest. Washington State University, Extension Fact Sheet • FS073E [28] Hunter J, Roth G (2010) Camelina production and potential in Pennsylvania, Agronomy Facts 72. College of Agricultural Sciences, Crop and Soil Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College [29] Lovett JV (1985) Defensive stratagems of plants, with special reference to Allelopathy. Pap. proc. R. Soc. Tasmania 119:1985 [30] Urbaniak SD Caldwell CD Zheljazkov VD Lada R Luan L (2008b) The effect of seeding rate, seeding date and seeder type on the performance of Camelina sativa L. in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Can J Plant Sci 88:501–508 [31] Johnson EN, Falk K, Klein-Gebbinck H, Lewis L, Malhi S, Leach D, Shirtliffe S, Holm FA, Sapsford K, Hall L, Topinka K, May W, Nybo B, Sluth D, Gan Y, Phelps S (2011) Agronomy of Camelina sativa and Brassica carinata. Western Applied Research Corporation (WARC), Saskatchewan, Canada Final Report [32] Obour KA, Sintim YH, Obeng E, Jeliazkov DV (2015) Oilseed Camelina (Camelina sativa L Crantz): production systems, prospects and challenges in the USA great plains. Adv Plants Agric Res 2(2):00043. doi:10.15406/apar.2015.02.00043 [33] Enjalbert JN, Johnson JJ (2009) Guide for producing dryland Camelina in Eastern Colorado Fact Sheet No. 0.709 [34] DuByne D (2016) Oilseed crops food & energy. Myanmar Times, http://www.oilseedcrops. org/Camelina/. Accessed 24 Apr 2016 [35] Porcher FP (1863) Resources of the Southern fields and forests, medical, economical, and agricultural. Being also a medical botany of the Confederate States; with practical information on the useful properties of the trees, plants, and shrubs. Steam-Power Press of Evans & Cogswell, Richmond [Online]. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/porcher/porcher.html. Accessed 19 Oct2009 [36] Gesch RW (2014) Influence of genotype and sowing date on Camelina growth and yield in the north central U.S. Ind Crop Prod 54(March): 209–215 [37] Gugel RK, Falk KC (2006) Agronomic and seed quality evaluation of Camelina sativa in western Canada. Can J Plant Sci 86:1047–1058 [38] Berti M, Wilckens R, Fischer S, Solis A, Johnson B (2011) Seeding date influence on Camelina seed yield, yield components, and oil content in Chile. Ind Crop Prod 34:1358–1365 [39] Jackson G Professor of agronomy western triangle Ag. Research Center, Conrad (2008) Response of Camelina to nitrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur, February 2008 Number 49

274

M. Campbell

[40] Johnson EN, Falk K, Klein-Gebbinck H, Lewis L, Vera C, Shirtliffe S, Gan Y, Hall L, Topinka K, Nybo B, Sluth D, Bauche C, Phelps S (2008) Agronomy of Camelia sativa. Western Applied Research Corporation (WARC), Saskatchewan, Canada Annual report [41] Urbaniak SD, Caldwell CD, Zheljazkov VD, Lada R, Luan L (2008a) The effect of cultivar and applied Nitrogen on the performance of Camelina sativa L. in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Can J Plant Sci 88(1): 111–119 [42] Malhi SS, Johnson EN, Hall LM, May WE, Phelps S, Nybo B (2014) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer application on seed yield, N uptake, and seed quality of Camelina sativa. Can J Soil Sci 94:3547 [43] Hansen LN (1998) Intertribal somatic hybridization between rapid cycling Brassica oleracea L. and Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz. Euphytica 104 (3):173–179 [44] Li H, Barbetti MJ, Sivasithamparam K (2005) Hazard from reliance on cruciferous hosts as sources of major gene-based resistance for managing blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) disease. Field Crop Res 91:185–198. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.06.006 [45] Fleenor RA (2011) Plant Guide for Camelina (Camelina sativa). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Spokane [46] Bramm A, Dambroth M, Schulte-Kome S (1990) Analysis of yield components of linseed, false flax, and poppy. Landbauforsch Volk 40: 107–114 [47] Roseberg RJ, Shuck RA (2009) Growth, seed yield, and oil production of spring Camelina sativa in response to irrigation rate, seeding date, and nitrogen rate, in the Klamath Basin, 2009. Agronomy Research in the Klamath Basin 2009 Annual Report. Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center Annual Research Report [48] Johnson J, Enjalbert N, Schneekloth J, Helm A, Malhotra R, Coonrod D (2009) Development of oilseed crops for biodiesel production under Colorado Limited Irrigation Conditions. Final Report to the Colorado Water Institute, Fort Collins [49] Korsrud GO, Keith MO, Bell JM (1978) A comparison of the nutritional value of Crambe and Camelina seed with egg and casein. Can J Animal Sci 58: 493– 499 [50] Lange RW, Schumann M, Petrika H, Busch H, Marquand R (1995) Glucosinolates in linseed dodder. Fat Sci Tech 97(4):146– 152 [51] Schuster A, Friedt W (1998) Glucosinolate content and composition as parameters of quality of Camelina seed. Ind Crop Prod 7:297–302 [52] Agegnehu M, Honermeier B (1997) Effects of seeding rates and nitrogen fertilization on seed yield. Seed quality and yield components of false flax (Camelina sativa Crtz.). Bodenkultur 4:15–21 [53] Francis CM, Campbell MC (2003) New high quality oil seed crops for temperate and tropical Australia. RIRDC Publication No. 03/045 (RIRDC Project No. UWA-47A). ix + 27pp [54] Roseberg RJ, Bentley RA (2011) Growth, seed yield, and oil production of spring Camelina sativa in response to irrigation rate and harvest method, in the Klamath Basin 2011. Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center Annual Research Report [55] Masella P, Martinelli T, Galasso I (2014) Agronomic evaluation and phenotypic plasticity of Camelina sativa growing in Lombardia, Italy. Crop Pasture Sci 65(5):453–460 [56] Budin JT, Breene WM, Putnam DH (1995) Some compositional properties of Camelina (Camelina sativa L Crantz) seeds and oils. J Am Oil Chem Soc 72: 309–315 [57] Katar D (2013) Determination of fatty acid composition on different false flax (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) Genotypes under Ankara ecological conditions. Turk J Field Crops 18(1): 66–72 [58] Gunstone FD (1958) Introduction to the chemistry of fats and fatty acids Chapman and Hall, London (2nd edn, 1967) [59] http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids1.html [60] Calais P, Clark AR (2007) Waste vegetable oil as a diesel replacement fuel. Western Australian Renewable Fuels Association (WARFA). www.warfa.asn.au/paper.html [61] Blin J, Brunschwig C, Chapuis A, Changotade O, Sidibe S, Noumi E, Girardet P (2013). Characteristics of vegetable oils for use as fuel in stationary diesel engines – towards specifications for a standard in West Africa. Renew Sust Energ Rev 22: 580–597.

12  Camelina – An Alternative Oil Crop275 [62] Abramovic H, Abram V (2005) Physio-chemical properties, Composition and oxidative stability of Camelina sativa oil. Food Technol, Biotechnol 43(1): 63–70 [63] Dubois V, Breton S, Linder M, Fanni J, Parmentier M (2007) Fatty acid profiles of 80 vegetable oils with regard to their nutritional potential. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 109: 710–732 [64] Ole World Oils, Idaho (2011) http://camelinagold.com [65] Council of the European Union (1976) Council directive 76/621/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 202/35 [66] Davidson C, Newes E, Schwab A, Vimmerstedt L (2014) An overview of aviation fuel markets for biofuels stakeholders. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20–60254. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO [67] Shonnard DR, Williams L, Kalnes TN (2010) Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy 29:382–392 doi:10.1002/ ep.10461 [68] Llamast A, Al-Lal A-M, Hernandez M, Lapuerta M, Canoira L (2012) Biokerosene from Babassu and Camelina Oils: production and properties of their blends with fossil kerosene. Energ Fuel 26(9):5968–5976

Margaret Campbell B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.  was a research officer for a number of years, with the Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture at The University of Western Australia in an alternative oilseed program supported by Rural Industries Research and Development. One of the most commercially promising of the oilseeds was Camelina sativa. Her experience with oil chemistry was essential in the evaluation of the potential of Camelina as a food, fuel, fodder and in industrial applications.

Chapter 13

“New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production Thilo Zelt

Abstract  This paper explores the potential of seven tropical and subtropical oil crops to become serious options as feedstock for the production of biokerosene. By means of descriptive and evaluative criteria, the plants are analytically compared in order to determine their potential to reach a large scale production and an economic viability. Utilizing the case study of Acrocomia aculeata (“Macauba”), an analytical framework is created to examine economic, social, and environmental factors that play a role in cultivation efforts. Based on this analysis, the paper draws conclusions regarding the development of sustainable business models for alternative oil crops.

13.1 Introduction The International Air Transport Association (IATA) considers alternative aviation jet fuels as crucial in order to achieve a significant reduction of GHG emissions. In this context, IATA outlined three major objectives: to build a long-term sustainable aviation industry, to deliver on industry-stated environmental goals, and to pursue affordable bio-jet fuel solutions. More specific is the IATA’s goal of to reduce emissions, which aims to achieve (1) a 1.5 % average annual improvement in fuel efficiency, (2) a carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards, and (3) a 50 % absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 [1].

T. Zelt (*) Roland Berger GmbH and INOCAS GmbH, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_13

277

278

T. Zelt

To reach this goal, large amounts of bio-based jet fuel (“biokerosene”) have to be produced. Biokerosene can be produced with a variety of different processes and is based upon different feedstock, such as ethanol, ligno-cellulosic materials, organic waste or animal fats and vegetable oil. Since hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) can be seen as the most established and scalable production route for biokerosene production today, the main challenge is to create sufficient amounts of sustainable feedstock. If it is assumed that only 5 % of yearly global jet fuel demand would be replaced by biokerosene produced by the HVO path, at least 10 million t/a of vegetable oils would be needed. This represents approx. 8 % of the current global vegetable oil market. Global demand for vegetable oils for food as well as for fuel needs has increased at a rate of 5 % annually over the last decade and is expected to continue doing so in the future [2]. This development is mainly driven by population growth and the respective increased demand for food and fodder as well as from other industries such as chemicals or lubricants. Rising vegetable oil production traditionally translated into higher demand for crop land. Particularly land area for soybean and palm oil production – the most relevant plant oils on the global market – has increased resulting in numerous negative consequences, foremost from an environmental perspective with respect to the loss of tropical forests [3–5] and release of carbon emissions.1 This puts pressure on both the industry and the scientific community to find realistic and sustainable alternatives to palm oil as the potential main source for biofuel. Jatropha curcas has been widely introduced as one potential alternative crop, but significant problems with the domestication and economic viability of the crop have been reported and they remain to be addressed [6]. In light of the ambivalence between higher demand and problematic implications of currently used oil plants, the necessity to examine further alternative oil crops becomes evident. Alternative forms of plant oil production that do not result in land use change are required to avoid negative social and environmental impacts. At the same time, the plants must be economically viable and need to have a sufficient potential to be scaled up. In a scoping exercise, literature has been reviewed and some of the seminal feedstocks in the outlined context were identified. Among the oil crops with particularly promising features are Acrocomia aculeata (“Macauba”), Allanblackia, Orbignya speciosa (“Babassu”), Moringa oleifera, Azadirachta indica (“Neem”), Pongamia pinnata, and Swida wilsoniana. All of these plants have the advantage to grow in tropical and subtropical regions of the world where large areas of land are available which are particularly suitable for sustainable production of these plants [7]. In this paper, these seven “new” oil plants are introduced as candidates and compared to each other based on a number of descriptive and evaluative criteria. For this purpose, the article is methodically structured as follows. First, the groundwork will be laid by a brief presentation of each plant. Then, a comparison of each plant’s basic characteristics is followed by an evaluation of environmental, social, and Agus F, Gunarso P, Sahardjo BH, Harris N, van Noordwijk M, Killeen TJ (2013) Historical CO2 emissions from land use and land use change from the oil palm industry in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Kuala Lumpur. 1

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production279

economic criteria using Acrocomia aculeata as a case study to examine their potential viability as alternative oil crops. Finally, building on the findings, the paper seeks to draw conclusions and outline research avenues that remain to be explored.

13.2 Alternative Oil Plants for Biokerosene 13.2.1 Acrocomia Aculeata Acrocomia aculeata (commonly referred to as “Macaúba”) is a palm tree species which grows naturally in South and Central America and the Caribbean. Predominantly, the species is native to three regions in the States of Minas Gerais, Brazil where it grows with a high natural density: Alto Paranaíba, Zona Metalúrgica, and Montes Claros. It needs to be distinguished from Acrocomia totai, a variety that mainly exists in Paraguay, but shows a smaller fruit than Acrocomia aculeata. The species is characterized by a height of 15 to 20 m with a trunk of up to 50 cm in diameter and long leafs between 3 and 4 m. The tree bears large branched inflorescences, producing seeded fruits that vary in color from yellowish to brownish. Acrocomia prefers subtropical conditions, but tolerates droughts and short cold periods. Annual mean precipitation should amount to between 1,000 and 2,500 mm, while the average temperature should ideally be between 23 and 25 °C. Acrocomia grows on a broad variety of soils, although research has indicated that high degrees of organic substance and well drained (sandy) soils are most beneficial to its growth [8]. Therefore, the plant has demonstrated a significant degree of plasticity with respect to environmental contingencies. The estimated annual oil yield potential ranges from 1,500 to 2,000 kg/(ha a). The plant yields a range of products, most of all the edible pulpa and kernel oil. The characteristics of the pulpa and kernel oil resemble those of the African palm oil (Elaeis guineensis) and can consequentially be used for similar purposes, such as nutrition, biofuels, and other technical applications. According to research, the quality of Acrocomia’s oil is sufficiently high to be used for the production of biofuels [9, 10]. Even though Acrocomia’s yield rates are estimated to be lower than in the case of the African oil palm, their yield rates are predicted to be significantly higher compared to Jatropha curcas, rape seed, soy bean, and sun flower [11, 12]. Low maintenance and harvesting requirements can also be attributed to the plant, especially compared to similar oil-producing crops [13]. The production of Acrocomia can be integrated into pasture areas and cattle farming to form so-called “silvopastoral systems”. Initial evidence suggests that the plant can contribute to local bio-diversity in homogeneously structured pasture areas [14, 15]. Hence, Acrocomia shows the potential to be used sustainably with positive effects both on bio-diversity as well as local population because it can create an additional income source for smallholder cattle farmers. Particularly its property of being able to capture and store substantial amounts of carbon is noteworthy from

280

T. Zelt

an environmental standpoint [16]. In terms of usage for biokerosene production and use, there have already been first test flights with engines powered by Acrocomia-based biokerosene.

13.2.2 Allanblackia Allanblackia comprises about ten species of flowering trees found in equatorial African countries, occurring from Sierra Leone in the West to Tanzania in the East. Currently three countries assume the main responsibility for supplying the industry with oil obtained from the seed of Allanblackia: Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania. These are also the major countries involved in the promotion of cultivation and the development of the plant’s supply chain [17]. Mature Allanblackia trees reach a height of up to 40 m, depending on the specific species, and can be found in evergreen lowland and deciduous forests (Fig. 13.1). Optimal conditions for growth are characterized by an average annual temperature of approximately 24 to 33 °C and annual rainfall between 1,200 and 2,400 mm. Allanblackia produces berry-like fruits containing between 40 and 100 seeds [18]. One tree is able to produce 30 to 60 kg of seeds per year from which oil can be extracted. Because it is a seasonal crop, it has a productive period of 3 to 4 months every year. The annual oil yield potential is estimated to amount to 200 kg/ha. Fig. 13.1  Drawing of Allanblackia floribunda (1 base of bole, 2 flowering branch, 3 fruit, 4 fruit in cross section) ( http://database.prota.org/ PROTAhtml/Photfile%20Images/ Linedrawing%20Allanblackia%20floribunda.gif) accessed 25 march 2017

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production281

Among Allanblackia oil’s favorable characteristics are its moderately high melting point and its content of a high level of saturated fatty acids. An analysis of the seed oil’s composition has shown that it can be used as an alternative vegetable oil to African palm oil and cocoa butter in food and non-food products [19]. This makes the plant interesting for the production at an industrial scale. In the food context, Allanblackia has gained approval of the European Union (EU) under the Novel Food Regulations, certifying the plant’s safe usage. This paves the way for an increasing demand within the EU [20]. There is no comprehensive research yet on Allanblackia related to the transformation into biofuel. The contemporary harvesting procedure is not professionalized, as the species has not been domesticated yet and thus continues to almost exclusively grow in the wilderness of tropical African forests. In these regions, the seeds are harvested by local populations who crush them in order to produce oil. This lack of professionalism leads to a massive excess demand for Allanblackia oil. The supply from natural forests cannot meet the quantitative and qualitative demand created by commercial enterprises [21]. Several research initiatives as well as industry players highlight the economic potential of Allanblackia provided that domestication succeeds. Under the roof of the World Agroforestry Centre, they have launched a domestication program through a public-private partnership (PPP) named “Novella Partnership”. The announced plan calls for planting Allanblackia extensively on farms in order to increase the quantity and quality of the product as well as to guarantee a more efficient supply chain [17]. A forecast undertaken by researchers claims that returns from a cultivation of Allanblackia compare to those of similar plants like the African oil palm [22]. In economic terms, the collection of Allanblackia seeds can be carried out at opportunity costs close to zero, since it would be conducted during lean season and be embraced by local communities often dependent on external aid during this period. However, the domestication of Allanblackia poses certain challenges which need to be addressed. First of all, the germination of Allanblackia has different success rates, ranging from 20 to 75 % within different time frames [17, 23]. Despite many efforts to enhance germination, these rates are still unsatisfactory. In oder to increase these rates, ongoing research on, for example, the best soil composition must be deepened [23]. Secondly, the potential consequences of cultivation on biodiversity in the respective region need to be carefully considered. Strategies are required to emphasize a cautious management of Allanblackia and other affected species [24]. Lastly, it remains to be proven that the production of Allanblackia at a large scale has positive impacts on the local population and the environment. Prior experiences in domesticating similar indigenous fruits have led to varying results in this respect [21].

13.2.3 Orbignya Speciosa (“Babassu”) Orbignya speciosa (commonly named “Babassu”) is a palm tree that is native to Northern Brazil. It is also widespread in Mexico, Bolivia, and Guyana. It occupies a substantial area of up to 200,000  km² in the Amazon region of Brazil, where it grows concentrated in the states of Maranhão, Piauí, and Goiás [25]. In these

282

T. Zelt

regions, the oil extracted from Babassu seeds already forms an important factor in the local economy, but there is further potential for the cultivation of this species due to a long-standing agricultural tradition [26]. The Babassu palm mainly grows in zones below 200 m altitude, but is found growing at up to 1,000 m. In Brazil, it is indigenous to evergreen forests, savannas, and woodlands, where the seasonal rainfall varies between 700 and 2,100  mm/a and temperatures average 25 to 30 °C. The tree is about 20 m tall with small, coconut-resembling fruits that can be yielded in huge amounts of at least 800 fruits per inflorescence. These fruits offer seeds with a rich oil content of 60 to 70 %. The total annual oil yield is estimated to be at approximately 100 kg/(ha a) [27]. Babassu oil displays saturated fatty acids at levels between 81 and up to 96 % [28, 29]. Particularly promising for the application in biofuels is the fact that Babassu oil is largely composed of short-chained fatty acids, such as lauric and myristic acid [29]. Therefore, the oil is among the most suitable oils for biokerosene production and has already been used to power an aircraft engine in a test run in 2008 [30]. The evidence strongly underlines that Babassu oil fulfills all technical standards that have been formulated by agencies like the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to be transformed into biokerosene [26]. In spite of its potential usage, Babassu is not yet a domesticated species and still grows in an entirely natural environment [31]. The potential for professionalization is limited due to the difficulty of collecting and transporting the nuts in dense jungles. Accordingly, the fruits are still collected manually by experienced locals during the months of September to March, when it is off-season for soybean and corn harvest. Because the harvesting process is rudimentary and rather non-commercial, productivity still remains at low levels. As predictions indicate, Babassu plant could provide high yields and annual productivity if domestication efforts are successful. Only in this case it can be considered a serious alternative in the context of biofuel [32]. Discussions on the social consequences of cultivating Babassu point at both economic benefits and potential social damages. However, in contrast to the use of soybean oil as the main raw material for the production of biofuel in Brazil, Babassu oil has decisive advantages and thus ascends as an excellent alternative [33].

13.2.4 Moringa Oleifera Moringa Oleifera (among the many common names are drumstick tree and horseradish tree) is a multipurpose, fast-growing tree (Fig. 13.2). It is indigenous to Northwest India, but is now planted in tropical and subtropical regions around the world, either domesticated or semi-wild, making it one of the most widely cultivated crops in these regions of the world [34]. There is even evidence of cultivated Moringa in India dating back several thousand years [35]. Moringa grows at elevations of up to 1,200 m above sea level, preferably on pasture land, river basins, or on hillsides. Its growth proceeds quicker if annual rainfall is between 1,000 and 1,500 mm. The optimal temperature is between 25 and

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production283 Fig. 13.2  Drawing of Moringa Oleifera (A branch, B petal, C sepal, D fertile stamen, E anthers, F sterile stamen, G carpel, H L.S. of ovary, I fruit, J seed) (http://www. efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=115339&flora_id=5) Accessed 27 March 2017

30 °C, but the tree can tolerate light frosts and is known for its remarkable resistance to dry weather and diseases. Because it has a low demand for soil nutrients and water, it is easy to manage on a farm and can be beneficial to farm-based ecosystems [35]. Moringa can be grown easily from seeds during any time of the year and has high germination rates within 2 weeks [36]. After several years, each tree can produce the impressive amount of 15,000 to 25,000 seeds per year. The estimated annual yield of oil per hectare after several years adds up to between 250 and a maximum of 1,500 kg/(ha a) [37, 38]. Moreover, Moringa leafs contain significant amounts of protein, which can be employed sensibly as a food supplement in regions where people face nutritional problems [39]. What makes Moringa particularly interesting for consideration as a biofuel is its high oil content of between 33 and up to 42 % of fruit weight. In addition, the fatty acids profile, although being contingent on growing conditions, includes concentrated oleic acid which precisely allows for industrial applications like the production of biofuel [40]. To this day, there is little literature on the potential use

284

T. Zelt

of Moringa seed oil for biofuel. However, a study by Azad et al. [34] investigated Moringa as a prospective industrial crop for biodiesel production and drew the conclusion that Moringa has many suitable properties to use it as biodiesel, but also calls for further research to confirm and extend the findings.

13.2.5 Azadirachta indica (Neem) Azadirachta indica (“Neem”) is an evergreen tree species, which is used for multiple purposes (Fig 13.3). Similar to Moringa, Neem is native to the Indian subcontinent, where it has an extensive history of human use, and has been established in many countries throughout tropical and subtropical world regions too. These regions include Australia, South America, and Africa. The tree grows almost anywhere in the lowland tropics, for example in mixed forests, monsoon forests, and dry deciduous forests [41]. In terms of its biophysical limits, it can cope with mean annual temperatures of up to 40 °C, while the annual rainfall should be in the range of 400 to 1,200 mm. It does not grow well above an altitude of 1,500 m. Although the tree shows some tolerance against frost, its

Fig. 13.3  Drawing of Azadirachta indica (A flowering branch, B fruit, C flower) (http://www.efloras.org/ object_page.aspx?object_id=111440&flora_id=5) accessed 27 March 2017

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production285

seedlings are more sensitive. Besides requiring little water, it can flourish on a wide variety of soils and it performs better than most species on shallow, stony as well as sandy soils [42]. At the age of 5 years, the tree starts flowering and fruiting, but the yield reaches economic levels after 10 to 12 years, when a tree produces 5 to 8 kg/a seeds. After 20 years, the tree reaches maximum productivity with a yield of 20 to 30  kg/a. Neem’s seeds contain about 30 to 40 % oil, although some reports indicate an oil content of up to 50 %, implying a total annual oil yield of 600 kg/(ha a) [43]. The management of Neem in a domesticated context is relatively challenging. It requires constant weeding, as the plant struggles with competition from other plants, primarily from grasses. In spite of being relatively resistant to pests, some scale insects have been reported to infest it [41]. Neem-based biofuel has comparable properties to diesel [42] and therefore qualifies as a substitute. These observations are confirmed by another study, which also highlights the need for reduced costs of production in order to become more attractive from an economic point of view [43].

13.2.6 Pongamia Pinnata Pongamia pinnata (common name: Karanja) is a fast-growing, medium-sized evergreen tree of Indian and Southeast Asian origin (Fig 13.4), but equally to Neem and Moringa it has been introduced to various humid tropical world regions. Among the countries where it is established are Australia, New Zealand, China, and the US. The best agronomic conditions for Pongamia are characterized by temperatures between 16 and 38 °C and an annual rainfall of 500 to 2,500 mm. It tolerates light frost and grows at a maximum altitude of 1,200 m. Pongamia’s growth is performs best on well-drained, humid sandy loams, although the tree can grow on almost all kinds of soil [41]. The tree grows at a quick pace and reaches maturity after 4 to 7 years, when it starts yielding fruits which contain 1 to 2 kernels, each with a nonedible oil content of 30 to 40 %. The oil consists of nearly 50 % of oleic acid. The annual fruit yield per tree is said to be between 9 and 90 kg. Thus the annual yield potential adds up to between 900 and 9,000  kg/(ha a) seed; 25 % of which can be rendered as oil. Due to its low costs and ready availability, Pongamia is already relatively popular in India and, for example, used by farmers to run generators to irrigate the fields [45]. From a biofuel perspective, one of Pongamia’s advantages as a nonedible feedstock is the lack of competition with food crops and that it can be grown on degraded, marginal land. However, the oil may contain high levels of unsaponifiable material which cannot be turned into biofuel. Some studies outline that the transesterification procedure is able to produce high-quality Pongamia-based biofuel that compares well with the accepted ASTM and DIN biodiesel specifications [45, 46].

286

T. Zelt

Fig. 13.4  Drawing of Pongamia pinnata (A flowering branch, B fruit) (http://www. efloras.org/object_page. aspx?object_id=53910& flora_id=5) accessed 27 March 2017

13.2.7 Swida Wilsoniana Swida wilsoniana is a native tree from China. This tree mainly grows south of the Yellow River region. It is among the most promising feedstocks in this country. Swida is mainly distributed in forest land with elevations in a range from 100 to 1,000 m. Temperatures between 18 and 25 °C and an annual precipitation of 1,000 to 1,750 mm form ideal conditions for Swida to thrive. The preferred soil is limestone, but the tree is tolerant of most soil types. It is among Swida’s most interesting properties that it thrives in regions with cold and freezing winters, especially in comparison to the plants presented above. Additionally, Swida can be grown on marginal land where no food crops are grown and therefore does not lead to increased food prices, making it an ethically viable choice among the crops. On average, a mature Swida tree can yield 50 kg/a dry fruits whose oil content is about 33 to 36 % [47]. The annual harvest takes place in October and November. The tree’s life span can reach more than 200 years. It maintains its maximum productivity for a period of at least 50 years. Over many years field trials documented an annual yield of 1,650 kg/(ha a) oil. Additionally, there have even been successful field projects with cloned trees, producing a similar annual yield. In the past, most available knowledge on Swida came from China and the tree did not receive much attention outside of the country. For example, extensive data is available from the Chinese Government Forestry Academies. However, Swida’s

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production287

productivity and amount of oil content laid the groundwork for an expansion in the undertaken research. According to experimental studies, Swida can be conversed to biofuel with excellent chemical and physical properties through transesterification and thus presents itself as an alternative oil crop worth of further investigation. Based on its properties, it is suggested that Swida oil is suitable for biodiesel, bio-petrol, and biokerosene [47]. Another research path has focused on improving the crop to provide even higher yields. In fact, this proved to be successful, as the oil content was increased to 50 % and a greater seed production was achieved.

13.3 Comparative Analysis of Selected Oil Plants Based on the description of each oil plant, their major characteristics will now be carefully assessed and discussed from a normative point of view. The table below provides an overview of the indicators to determine the viability of each crop with respect to the usage for biokerosene production and use. As already indicated before, all plants can be considered as biokerosene, but the table illustrates that they still differ – sometimes significantly – in terms of their agronomic and economic features. In contrast to the first part of this paper which had the primary purpose of providing descriptions of each plant, this part continues with an analysis of the listed categories and puts a special emphasis on the most crucial aspects in a biokerosene context. It is intended to highlight distinguishing features and outline those oil crops that possess advantages over others. • First, the plasticity to agronomic conditions, such as temperature requirements, precipitation and soil requirements, make up one dimension of the discussion. • Second, the plants’ fruits and particularly their oil characteristics form another central part of the evaluation. This also includes the annual oil yield potential per hectare. • Third, the table focuses on the existing research on each plant and on their potential use in biofuels as well as the group of relevant actors from the scientific and commercial arenas that could prove to be crucial for driving progress in research and cultivation. All plants grow in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Most of the plants flourish in spite of dry periods, except for Swida, but they all prefer ideal temperatures between approximately 25 and 30 °C and regular rainfall. Droughts always involve the danger of diminishing a plant’s yield, especially when they span over a longer time period. Most of the discussed plants can, however, resist dry periods of up to 6 months, like in the case of Acrocomia. Of all discussed plants, Neem shows the highest resistance to droughts and extreme temperatures, whereas Swida pertains to a species that favors colder temperatures between 18 and 25 °C and thrives in cold winters, making it a unique case among the selected plants and a worthwhile consideration for cultivation in regions with lower average temperatures.

Wide range, preferably high organic substance or sand, pH 4.5–7

Timber, animal feed, food, soap

Soil requirements

Uses

Yes

1,000–2,500

Optima annual precipitation (mm)

Adapted to dry periods?

20–30

Brazil, Paraguay (only collection and processing), Costa Rica

Acrocomia aculeata

Optimal temperature range (Celsius)

Commercial projects

Category

Food, medicine, comsmetics

Strongly leached, acid soils, pH 3.8–4.1

Yes

1,200–2,400

24–33

Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania

Allanblackia spp.

Animal feed margarine, soap, lamp oil, detegent

Wide range preferably welldrained, not waterlogged, pH 4.5–8

Yes

700–2,100

25–30

Limited in Brazil

Babassu (Orbignya spp.)

Food, medicine, animal feed, cosmetics, water purification

Wide range preferably well-drained, salt tolerance, pH 4.5–9

Yes, but lower yield

1,000–2,000

25–30

India, Africa, Australia

Moringa oleifera

Timber, disinfectant, insect repellent, soap, animal feed

Wide range preferably well-drained and deep, pH 5.5–7

Yes

400–1,200

26–40

Southeast Asia, West Africa, Carribean, North and Central America

Neem (Azadirachta indica)

Animal feed, fire wood, medicine

Wide range preferably welldrained, humid sandy loans, pH 6.5–8.5

Yes

500–2,500

16–38

India, Australis

Pongamia pinnata

Table 13.1  Overview of agronomic and economic features of each oil crop (sources: [48], or cited in the previous section)

–

Wide range preferably limestone, can grow on marginal land, pH 5.5–6.5

No

1,000–1,750

18–25

China

Swida wilsoniana

288 T. Zelt

22 % saturated, 78 % un saturated

53 % oleic, 18 % palmitic

10,000– 15,000 kg

1,500–2,000 kg

5–6 years

Embrapa, University of Vicosa

Fatty acids with highest sharesa

Estimated annual fruit yield perhectare

Estimated annual oil yield perhectare

Time until first harvest

Important scientific players

Yes

Acrocomia aculeata

Fatty acid compositiona

Edible

Category

Table 13.1  (Continued)

Novella Partnership, World Agroforestry Centre

12 years

200 kg

2,200 kg

60 % stearic, 36 % oleic

63 % saturated, 37 % un saturated

Yes

Allanblackia spp.

Embrapa

8 years, full production within 15–20 years

100 kg

Up to 1,500 kg

47 % lauric, 14 % myristic, 12 % oleic

81 % saturated, 19 % un saturated

Yes

Babassu (Orbignya spp.)

Long list of stakeholders, including United Nation and World Agroforestry Centre

6–8 months

1,000– 1,500 kg

30,000 kg

71 % oleic, 6 % palmitic

18 % saturated, 82 % un saturated

Yes

Moringa oleifera

United Nations

5 years, full production within 10–12 years

Up to 600 kg

4,000 kg

50 % oleic, 16 % linoleic, 19 % palmitic

41 % saturated, 59 % un saturated

Yes

Neem (Azadirachta indica)

Center for Jatropha Promotion and Biodiesel (CJP)

4–6 years

Up to 2,250 kg

Up to 9,000 kg

45 % oleic, 27 % linoleic, erucic 16 %

21 % saturated, 79 % un saturated

No

Pongamia pinnata

Chinese Government Forestry Academies

–

1,650 kg

5,000 kg

–

28 % saturated, 72 % un saturated

Yes

Swida wilsoniana

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production289

Can be grown by smallholders

No

Moderate

Unilever

Allanblackia spp.

Does not compete with food crops for land, can be integrated into sustainable agroforestry systems, industrialization questionable

Yes

Moderate

The Body Shop International PLC

Babassu (Orbignya spp.)

Can be grown by smallholders

Limited

Moderate

–

Moringa oleifera

–

Yes

Moderate

Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd

Neem (Azadirachta indica)

–

Yes

Moderate

BioEnergy Plantations Australia

Pongamia pinnata

a

The fatty acid compositions are subject to a certain variability due to ecological factors. The values in the table are estimated averages.

Can be grown by smallholders on existing pastures, can be integrated in silvopastoral systems, contributes to biodiversity

Yes

Research on use in biokerosene

Social or environmental sustainability aspects

Rather comprehensive

Acrotec, INOCAS

Important commercial players

Amount of research available

Acrocomia aculeata

Category

Table 13.1  (Continued)

Does not compete with food crops for land

Limited

Limited outside of China

BIONAS

Swida wilsoniana

290 T. Zelt

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production291

Taking the soil requirements into account, there is a certain degree of diversity in terms of which soil conditions the plants tolerate. Although research points out that all plants can grow on a wide variety of soils, there are differences regarding the pH levels. While species such as Acrocomia, Babassu and Moringa tolerate a wide range of pH levels, the plants Allanblackia and Swida prefer to grow on soils within a narrow pH range. Another aspect to be illuminated in this context is the question whether a plant is able to grow on marginal land or whether it can be integrated into silvopastoral systems, implying that the plant does not compete for land with food crops and animal life. This is true for most of the discussed plants with Swida and Acrocomia displaying particular suitability. Shifting the focus from an ecological toward a usage-oriented perspective, the discussed plants share many commonalities in their utilization, as they all are multipurpose trees. Typically, each plant provides a number of portions that can be processed and put to productive use, for example, its wood, leaves and fruits, as well as the press cakes stemming from the oil extraction. In some cases, such as Moringa, the leaves have additional nutritional properties and the plants often provide firewood. The fruits constitute the most important portion for this analysis. In principal, the fruits of oil crops either have a kernel or seeds which contain oil. Aside from Pongamia, the oil plants in focus here deliver edible oil. Resulting from the oil extraction process, two products emerge that can be put to different utilization. • On the one hand, the oil provides numerous potential uses. These range from cosmetic use in soaps and lotions to nutritional use for humans as well as animals. • On the other hand, the press cake to be obtained from the residuals is mostly used as fodder. But it might also have toxic properties, like in the case of Neem seed cake [49]. Apart from the fact that edible fruits provide for a broader range of usage, the variety of possible applications is similar for the plants in scope here. It is however noteworthy that Acrocomia is the only plant which generates two types of oil (such as the African palm tree). Additionally, the fruit of Acrocomia also has a shell that provides a dense and high-quality biomass, a property that cannot be attributed to the other plants. This biomass, for example, can be processed into granulate which can be used as a high value blasting abrasive. Acrocomia thus has a variety of viable byproducts that compare well with the other plants. The estimated annual fruit and oil yield forms one of the pivotal aspects in this discussion, as it is a crucial component in carving out the economic viability of a plant. Moreover, existing research on all presented plants suggests that there are significant differences in yield potentials. It should, however, be noted that these estimates show significant variability, depending on ecological factors as well as the state of domestication and cultivation. The estimates are also impacted by the number of trees that can sensibly be planted within one hectare. In spite of these validity constraints, the results reveal a spectrum that reaches from annual oil yields of 100  kg/ha to oil yields of more than 2,000  kg/ha, drawing into question the

292

T. Zelt

productivity and, hence, economic viability of some plants. Although productivity is only one aspect of a general assessment of economic viability, a high level of productivity is nonetheless crucial in light of the ever-widening demand for oil that can be turned into biofuel. For example, Babassu and Allanblackia suffer from poor annual yields of 100 kg/(ha a) respectively 200 kg/(ha a), ruling them out as best choices. To the contrary, Acrocomia, Swida and Pongamia can reach annual yields of above 1,500 kg/(ha a) and up to 2,250 kg/(ha a) in the case of Pongamia. The calculation for Acrocomia rest upon an estimated 400 trees per hectare and is rather conservative, as some scholars predict far higher yields [50, 51]. Accordingly, these three plants plus Moringa with an estimated yield of up to 1,500 kg/(ha a) are most promising with respect to their yield potential and scalability, narrowing down the field of the alternative oil crops that should seriously be considered. By factoring in the time until the plants can first be harvested, additional qualitative differences become evident. While it only takes the fast-growing Moringa 1 to 4 years until the first significant harvest, Pongamia and Acrocomia need at least 5 years. Other plants that already have been identified as not overly productive, such as Babassu and Allanblackia, even need 8 to 12 years. For all these plants full productivity at economically profitable levels, however, is typically reached some years after the first harvest. Finally, the amount of research available as well as the number of actors from the commercial and scientific arenas should not be left unmentioned. The knowledge on the general botanic characteristics and agronomic requirements is for most plants quite comprehensive and complemented by a strong body of research on the oil characteristics. As for Acrocomia, existing knowledge is sufficient to establish viable plantations due to existing insights into plant breeding, germination, crop management, harvesting techniques, processing, and associated business models. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that in each of these domains there remain blind spots that require further research [52]. Research on other plants is at a comparable level, although the degree to which the research is progressed still varies widely. The research on Acrocomia and Pongamia, for example, is fairly well grounded and advanced. Studies on a plant like Swida whose geographical expansion is limited to China remain relatively sparse, especially those with a focus on best cultivation practices. In the research areas of environmental and social sustainability, there is however still the greatest lack of rigorous studies across all discussed plants. Only very few researchers have analyzed the social implications of cultivating a plant, although a vast array of research questions continues to be unresolved in this context: Are there any ecological, social or economic constraints for smallholder farmers to grow these plants on a larger scale? How many decent-paying jobs can potentially be created? Are there any negative externalities, either in a social or environmental sense? In these fields, research was found to be most comprehensive for Acrocomia, but multiple research initiatives on other plants are incrementally compiling knowledge and thereby closing the gap. For example, the Novella Partnership supported by Unilver is an exemplary research consortium that conducts many studies on Allanblackia, indicating the importance of commercial as well as

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production293

nonprofit players acting as catalysts of sustainable cultivation. Likewise, this can be very well illustrated by the research undertaken to shed light on the value chain of Acrocomia. Here, multiple actors with commercial or non-commercial interests come together and team up in research projects in order to compile and advance the prevailing body of knowledge and improve the chance of an economically and socially successful cultivation of the plant.

13.4 Environmental, Social, and Economic Evaluation – Case Study Acrocomia Aculeata When attempting to examine and evaluate the sustainability of a plant, the three pillars of sustainability, also known as the “triple bottom line” [53], serve as the major frame of reference for this endeavor (Fig. 13.5). This framework allows for an overall measurement of sustainability as it considers different dimensions and relates them to each other. Against the background of this model, the environmental sustainability factor is constituted of considerations regarding biodiversity and emissions. Social sustainability can be accomplished by a meaningful integration of smallholder farmers and the associated provision of decent-paying jobs which create opportunities and economic security for the local population. Economic sustainability is created if feasible business models and a long-term profitability of the oil crop can be created. The triple bottom line, hence, serves as an instrument that helps to determine whether alternative oil crops can be produced in a sustainable manner. However, as was indicated in the previous section, the existing research on these sustainability dimensions is limited. Therefore, the following discussion will focus

Fig. 13.5  Three pillars of sustainability

294

T. Zelt

on the potential of Acrocomia aculeata as a feedstock option. Based on its potential economic viability and drawing on the relatively comprehensive body of existing work from an array of mostly Brazilian research programs, Acrocomia emerges as a serious option for further cultivation efforts in order to meet the contemporary demand for plant oil. This discussion demonstrates the opportunities offered by Acromia aculeata and provides an analytical framewokr for exploring the potential of the other presented plants.

13.4.1 Environmental Sustainability Cultivating Acrocomia increases local biodiversity within homogeneously structured pastoral areas. According to initial research in this field, Acrocomia plantations can offer new micro habitats for plant and animal life. The plants provide shelter for birds and insects and can serve as a feeding ground [14, 15]. Furthermore, Acrocomia’s fruits are an integral part of nutrition for animals [54]. As widespread monocultures might harm biodiversity, business models that rely on diversified silvopastoral systems should be preferable. Integrating Acrocomia plantations on pasture areas with established cattle farming avoids a change in land use. Apparent benefits include, for example, that the trees improve pasture growth and that press cake can be used as animal fodder, adding to the total fodder yield of the pasture [55]. Cattle take shelter in the shadow of Acrocomia palms which makes them use less energy and decreases their demand for water. As a result, silvopastoral systems bring synergies between oil and meat production, as the density of meat and dairy production can also be strengthened. In addition, such silvopastoral systems avoid the exploitation of agriculturally viable soils. The second factor in play when it comes to an assessment of the environmental impact of oil crops are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the case of Acrocomia, these are positively influenced by the significant level of carbon sequestration in the palms. Calculations suggest that a recommended plantation of 400 palms per hectare can sequestrate 12 t/(ha a) of carbon, resulting in a very positive greenhouse gas balance, even if fertilizers are employed.

13.4.2 Social Sustainability Acrocomia grows in large natural stand in the Brazilian region of Minais Gerais, where also large amounts of coffee are produced. Over 200,000 rural workers in Minais Gerais are employed during the coffee harvest, but many of them do not have any employment off season [16]. One of the major advantages of cultivating Acrocomia is the fact that its annual harvest takes place after the coffee harvest from November to January, which has a number of positive social implications. A study indicates that workers in the Acrocomia harvest can earn “more than twice the

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production295

minimum wage and significantly more than in potential alternative jobs during the off-season” [16]. Workers fortified their commitment in interviews, stating that they intend to work in the Acrocomia harvest in future seasons. A comparable project demonstrates that the integration of smallholder farmers into Acronomia production can be very well accomplished. The project has been running since 2005 and involves about 350 families who collect wild-growing Acrocomia fruits, resulting in a production of approximately 340 t/a of fruits. The fruits get processed on-site into kernel and pulpa oil which are then turned into soap, while the press cake is utilized as cattle fodder. The project is already profitable, but bears further potential of being scaled up beyond current operations. Accordingly, the cultivation of Acrocomia fulfills the two most critical aspects of achieving social sustainability by firstly creating additional jobs and incomes during an annual period of generally high unemployment and secondly offering smallholder farmers more profitable production alternatives.

13.4.3 Economic Sustainability and Potential Business Models In order to determine the economic sustainability of Acrocomia, it is of critical importance to understand the potential usage of Acrocomia products. Acrocomia has a number of products, each with distinct properties and thus different courses of processing that can generate economic revenues. • First, its pulpa oil has a fatty acid composition with an oleic acid content of over 60 % [56]. It therefore can be used by the cosmetics and chemical industries as well as for biofuel production. • Second, the kernel oil has a fatty acid composition which closely resembles the palm kernel oil with a high share of lauric acid of over 40 %, making it a suitable product for numerous usages in the cosmetics and chemical industries as well as for nutrition and biofuel production. Therefore, it can be expected that there are large industrial players interested in becoming purchasers of both oils. Among them are producers of biodiesel or biokerosene, food companies, and cosmetics companies, highlighting the broad market potential of a successful cultivation. Besides the two oils, byproducts include the endocarp, a dense inner shell that can be used as a feedstock for activated carbon or abrasive materials, and the press cake from both pulpa and kernel. The press cake is suitable as animal fodder due to its metabolizable energy content that is similar to corn silage, yet having lower protein content. Finally, the exocarp or outer shell is less interesting from an economic standpoint, but can be turned into fertilizer or used as fuel for the processing chain. Aside from integrating Acrocomia plantations and the corresponding processing into silvopastoral systems, other business models build on the collection of wildly

296

T. Zelt

growing palms or on establishing pure Acrocomia plantations. These three models shall be briefly discussed, in order to provide a general overview of how the cultivation of an alternative oil crop could look like in practice from a business point of view. • The integration of Acrocomia into silvopastoral systems is the first option, which would support groups of trees on existing pasture land. Although finding partners and farmers from the cattle industry would be a precondition, it is realistic to overcome this hurdle, as all actors can benefit financially from an involvement as partners. In this model, capital expenditure could be reduced, but one has to assume a higher general complexity in comparison to the other business models. • The second model is the collection of fruits within natural habitats. In specific areas of Latin America, this model might be attractive and feasible. It implies the creation of collection systems for wild-growing fruits and the establishment of processing facilities that operate in cooperation with smallholder farmers. This would lead to the possibility of an immediate start of actual oil production, but quickly bump into limitations of scalability and executing control over resource stocks. • Pursuing the third model means to implement pure Acrocomia plantations by creating entirely new plantations on separate areas with an exclusive focus on Acrocomia. This model has logistical advantages based on the single focus on one plant, which brings opportunities to employ effective and efficient harvesting techniques. On the flipside, this model creates a necessity for high investments and struggles with a long duration until reaching the first profitable yields. Against the backdrop of this analysis, the integration of Acrocomia into silvopastoral systems is not only feasible, but also a preferable option, especially by factoring in sustainability considerations, whereas the other models do not display similar advantages and are more dependent on external contingencies.

13.4.4 Potentials of Cultivating Acrocomia The potential of Acrocomia is significant, although the plant has only been explored and developed to a limited extent from a serious cultivation perspective. The research on Acrocomia is, however, on a solid path toward comprehensiveness, particularly in Brazil, even though some blank spaces remain unexplored. Since Acrocomia species slightly differ between Latin American countries, one has to be careful in assuming that results from Brazil are transferable to other native Acrocomia regions. Acrocomia bears high yield potential and its products offer many application possibilities in a variety of industries. The integration into silvopastoral systems provides a unique opportunity, also compared to other oil plants, especially with respect to the given availability of preexisting pasture areas in Latin American countries

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production297

where Acrocomia is indigenous. This opportunity also links to the production of the plant having the potential to be sustainable in each of the three dimensions. Consequently, the market potential of cultivating Acrocomia are significant in a global economic environment in which the growth of plant oil markets is strongly driven by the ever-widening demand for sustainable plant oils. The pasture area in Brazil adds up to a total of 170 million ha [57]. If only 50 % of those pastures would be converted into silvpastoral systems with a realistic amount of 200 to 300 palms per hectare, the Acrocomia oil production could exceed today’s global palm oil production [2]. Acrocomia is not only native in Brazil, but also other South American countries such as Paraguay, Colombia, and parts of Argentina, which could be equally suitable for silvopastoral systems that do not compete for land with other crops. According to various research institutions, Acrocomia’s yield potential is also estimated to be significantly higher than, for example, the yield potential of Jatropha. Since both kernel and pulpa oil are edible, the fruit offers multiple uses. In spite of this positive outlook, the cultivation of Acrocomia also has weaknesses that either need to be accepted or in some cases can be at least partially overcome. The lead time of 5 to 7 years until the first harvest is quite long. Although the yield potential is already widely accepted and confirmed, a further validation is necessary to extend the scientific evidence and allow for a substantiated communication of the results beyond the community of existing Acrocomia stakeholders. Up to this point in time, the scientific community has not yet started to systematically investigate the domestication of the species which means, for example, that the fruits ripen unevenly in many instances. Furthermore, after the harvest has taken place, all plants must be quickly processed and sterilized, since otherwise free fatty acids would be developed within the fruit, causing negative effects on the transformation process when attempting to produce biofuel.

13.4.5 Transferability of the Case Study to Other Oil Plants This analysis of cultivating Acrocomia against the backdrop of the three pillars of sustainability underlines the potential of this particular alternative oil crop. Integrating Acronomia into existing silvopastoral systems can provide an economic and sustainable production opportunity. It must however be noted that these findings are not easily transferable to the other presented oil crops, as they mostly grow in different tropical and subtropical regions and therefore face different circumstances in economic, ecological and social respect. The descriptions of each plant in Section 13.2 touch upon these circumstances, making clear that serious cultivation considerations must be undertaken separately. In this context, this paper intended to provide an analytic framework for a thorough analysis of similar oil plants with respect to their viability and sustainability. Most research on these oil crops is limited to specific biological or chemical aspects, and in most cases there is a lack of interdisciplinary research that integrates

298

T. Zelt

a economic, environmental, and social perspective. The objective of such holistic research must be to lower the barriers between different (sub-)disciplines and illuminate the potential of using the feedstock for the production of biofuel. Other oil plants such as Pongamia pinnata, Moringa oleifera, and Swida wilsoniana display resembling levels of productivity and should thus be carefully assessed in a similar fashion in order to pave the way for extended research.

13.5 Final Considerations This paper introduces seven tropical and subtropical oil crops which could become serious alternatives for the production of biokerosene feedstocks. While stemming from different native regions, most of these plants show similarities in terms of suitable cultivation conditions. They have all rather similar temperature and precipitation requirements and are mostly adapted to dry periods. From a usage-oriented perspective, all presented plants are multipurpose trees, implying that their products can be sold to various industries. In terms of the plants’ productivity, the comparison indicated significant differences. While Acrocomia aculeata, Moringa oleifera, Pongamia pinnata, and Swida wilsoniana reach annual oil yields of above 1,000 kg/ha, the other species remain clearly below this threshold. For almost all plants it can be said that a diverse range of scientific and commercial players have a stake in advancing the existing research body. New research initiatives and projects are needed to cover existing research gaps. To sum up, this paper identified Acrocomia aculeata as an interesting case study, offering several insights into future potentials associated with alternative oil crops. The investigation of Acrocomia illustrated that it is possible to scale the production of the oil crop in a thoroughly sustainable manner. Integrating the plant into silvopastoral systems leads to favorable economic, environmental and social outcomes, making such systems a worthwhile consideration for profitable and sustainable business model. Based on this analysis, the cultivation of Acrocomia can arguably become a realistic and reasonable alternative to palm oil production in the not too distant future.

References [1] [2] [3] [4]

IATA (2009) Carbon-neutral growth by 2020. https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/200906-08-03.aspx. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 USDA (2013) Oilseeds: world markets and trade. USDA, Washington May-Tobin et al (2012) Recipes for success. Union of Concerned Scientists. Cambridge UNEP (2011) Oil palm plantations: threats and opportunities for tropical ecosystems. UNEP, Nairobi

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production299 [5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

[13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Schrevel A et al (2008) Oil-palm estate development in Southeast Asia: consequences for peat swamp forests and livelihoods in Indonesia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Achten WMJ et al (2010) Towards domestication of Jatropha curcas. Biofuels 1 (1):91–107 Bahrs E et al (2012) Globale Analyse und Abschätzung des Biomasse-Flächennutzungspotentials. https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/i410b/download/publikationen/Globale%20Biomassepotenziale%20_%20FNR%2022003911%20Zwischenbericht%202012.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 Teixeira E (1996) Acrocomia aculeata. In: Tassaro H (ed) Frutas no Brasil. Empresa das Artes, São Paulo Carlos Hernández, Alberto Mieres Pitre (abril 2005) Extracción y purificación del aceite de la almendra del fruto de la palma de corozo (Acrocomia aculeata) Revista INGENIERÍA UC 12(1): 68–75, Universidad de Carabobo Valencia, Venezuela da Silva CAS et al (2010) Influência da temperatura sobre o equilíbrio líquido-líquido de sistemas compostos por biodiesel de macaúba (Acrocomia aculeata) + etanol + água. COBEQ/EBA/CBTERMO – 18°Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Química. Kurki A et al (2006) Biodiesel. The sustainability dimensions. https://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/download.php?id=312. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 Bohn E (2009) Tablero de comando para la promoción de los biocombustibles en Paraguay. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Colección Documentos de Proyectos, Naciones Unidas, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) y financiado por el Ministerio Federal de Cooperación Económica y Desarrollo de Alemania (BMZ) Murta L (2011) Macauba Palm as a Source of Biofuels: the potential of Acrocomia Aculeata in the state of Minas Gerais. n.p Martins RC (2007) Biodiversidade do bioma Cerrado, http://.semark.df.gov.br/semarh/site/ cafuringa/Sec04/Sec_04_08.htm. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 Zuchowski W et al (2007) Tropical plants of Costa Rica: a guide to native and exotic flora. Cornell University Press, New York Averdunk K et al (2013) Macauba – sustainable palm oil. Results of the feasibility study of the Leuphana University of Lüneburg. http://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ portale/inkubator/download/Summary_Macauba_Feasibility_Study.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 Ofori DA et al (2011) Germination requirements of Allanblackia parviflora seeds and early growth of seedlings. New Forest 41:337–348 Atangana AR et al (2006) Domestication of Allanblackia floribunda: amenability to vegetative propagation. Forest Ecol Manag 237(1–3):246–251 Adubofuor J et al (2013) Nutrient composition of Allanblackia Paviflora seed kernels and oil compared with some plant fats and oils and application of the oil in soap preparation. J Cereal Oilseeds 4 (1): 1–9 Hermann M (2009) The impact of the European Novel Food Regulation on trade and food innovation based on traditional plant foods from developing countries. Food Policy 34: 499–507 Jamnadass R et a (2010) Allanblackia, a new tree crop in Africa for the global food industry: market development, smallholder cultivation and biodiversity management. For Trees Livelilhoods 19:251–268 Shrestha RB et al (2007) Relative attractiveness of Allanblackia cultivation in Ghana: farmer’s perceptions and willingness. Novella Partnership Ghana. The Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV), Accra Munjuga M et al (2008) Allanblackia propagation protocol. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi

300

T. Zelt

[24] Dawson IK et al (2007) Mainstreaming biodiversity around threatened biodiversity hotspots in Africa, building on the innovative Allanblackia business. Supporting synthesis for a proposal to the Global Environment Facility. The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi [25] May PH et al (1985) Babassu palm in the agroforestry systems in Brazil’s Mid-North region. Agroforest Syst 3 (3):275–295 [26] Silva FC et al (2010) Production of biodiesel from babassu oil using methanol-ethanol blends. Eclética Química 35(1):47–54 [27] Heuzé V et al (2015a) Babassu (Attalea speciosa), Feedipedia. http://feedipedia.org/ node/30. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 [28] Oliveira JS et al (2006) Determination of methyl ester contents in biodiesel blends by FTIRATR and FTNIR spectroscopies. Talanta 69: 1278–1284 [29] Ferreira MEM et al (2014) Energy evaluation of the production process of babassu biodiesel synthesized via methanolic and ethanolic route. Int J Appl Sci Technol 4 (3):204–219 [30] BBC (2008) Airline in first biofuel flight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7261214.stm. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 [31] Carvalho MG et al (2007) Regulatory mechanism for biomass renewable energy in Brazil, a case study of the Brazilian babassu oil extraction industry. Energy 32:999–1005 [32] Paiva, Eduardo José Mendes de (Catálogo USP)Nome completoEduardo José Mendes de PaivaUnidade da USPEscola de Engenharia de Lorena Área do ConhecimentoProcessos Catalíticos e Biocatalíticos Imprenta; Lorena. [33] Silva MLCP et al (2011) Evaluation of biodiesel production from babassu oil and ethanol applying alkaline transesterification under ultrasonic technology. World Renewable Energy Congress, Brighton [34] Azad AK et al (2015) Prospect of moringa seed oil as a sustainable biodiesel fuel in Australia. A review. Procedia Engineer 105:601–606 [35] Foidl N et al (2001) The potential of Moringa oleifera for agricultural and industrial uses. http://miracletrees.org/moringa-doc/the_potential_of_moringa_oleifera_for_agricultural_ and_industrial_uses.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 [36] Price ML (2007) The moringa tree. http://miracletrees.org/moringa-doc/ebook_moringa. pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 [37] Bosch CH (2004) Moringa oleifera. In: Grubben GJH and Denton OA (eds) Plant resources of tropical Africa, volume 2, Vegetables Flora / Fauna. Earthprint Limited, Wageningen [38] Azam MM et al (2005) Properties and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India. Biomass Bioenerg 29:293–302 [39] Heuzé V et al (2016) Moringa (Moringa oleifera), Feedipedia. http://feedipedia.org/ node/124. Accessed 15 Mar 2016. [40] Mbeza HF et al (2008) Optimization of oil extraction from Moringa oleifera and Jatropha curcus using Ram and Spindle Presses, Lilongwe [41] Orwa C et al (2009) Agroforestree database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi [42] Heroor SH et al (2013) Production of bio-fuel from crude neem oil and its performance. Int J Environ Eng Manage 4(5):425–432 [43] Ali MH et al (2013) Biodiesel from neem oil as an alternative fuel for diesel engine. Procedia Engineer 56: 625–630 [45] Karmee SK et al (2005) Preparation of biodiesel from crude oil of Pongamia pinnata. Bioresource Technol 96(13): 1425–1429. [46] Naik M et al (2007) Production of biodiesel from high free fatty acid Karanja oil. Biomass Bioenerg 32(4):354–357 [47] Li C et al (2015) Production of biodiesel using a vegetable oil from Swida wilsoniana fruits. Period Polytech Chem 59(4):283–287 [48] El Bassam N (2010) Handbook of bioenergy crops. A complete reference to species, development and applications, 1 edn. Routledge, London [49] Heuzé V et al (2015) Neem (Azadirachta indica), Feedipedia. http://feedipedia.org/ node/182. Accessed 14 Mar 2016

13  “New” Oil Plants and Their Potential as Feedstock for Biokerosene Production301 [50] Roscoe R et al (2007) Análise de viabilidade técnica de oleaginosas para produção de biodiesel em Mato Grosso do Sul. Revista Política Agrícola 1 [51] Motoike S et al (2009) The potential of macaw palm (Acrocomia aculeata) as source of biodiesel in Brazil. Int J Chem Eng 1(6):632–635 [52] Oberländer D et al (2011) Acrocomia ssp. als Energie- und Rohstofflieferant. http://www. acrocomiasolutions.com/uploads/pdf/acrocomia_th_2011.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016 [53] Slaper T et al (2011) The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus Rev 86(1):4–8 [54] Pott A et al (1994) Plantas do Pantanal. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Pantanal. EMBRAPA-SPI, Corumbá [55] Villanueva C et al (2008) Disponibilidad de Brachiaria brizantha en potreros con diferentes niveles de cobertura arbórea en el trópico subhumedo de Costa Rica., Grupo Ganadería y Manejo del Medio Ambiente, Centro de Agricultura Tropical de investigación y Enseñanza. Turrialba, Costa Rica [56] Duarte ID et al (2010) Variação da composição de ácidos graxos dos óleos de polpa e amêndoa de macaúba; Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos and Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina [57] SECOM (2010) Brazil-insights series: agriculture and livestock. Secretariat of Social Communication, Sao Paolo

Thilo Zelt  is Partner at Roland Berger GmbH, Berlin, and Managing Director of INOCAS GmbH. Over the last 12 years, he has been a management consultant and an entrepreneur in the field of public institutions, infrastructure, green technologies and energy. He is an expert in strategy development, reform and transformation issues, digitalization and renewable energy, specifically in the field of sustainable biomass production. Thilo Zelt studied Management, Economics and Literature at Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Munich, University of California, Irvine, and University of Lausanne.

Chapter 14

Algae as a Potential Source of Biokerosene and Diesel – Opportunities and Challenges Dominik Behrendt, Christina Schreiber, Christian Pfaff, Andreas Müller, Johan Grobbelaar and Ladislav Nedbal

Abstract  In times of dwindling petroleum reserves, microalgae may pose an alternate energy resource. Their growth is vast under favorable conditions. However, producing microalgae for energy in an economically as well as ecologically feasible way is a difficult task and the prospects are challenging. The chapter gives an insight into perspectives of growing microalgae as a crop, highlighting some of their exceptional energy storage properties in regard to commercial exploitation. Large scale algae production techniques and concepts up to downstream processes are presented. Today, conversion to fuels is constrained by energy usage and costs – but future combination of fuel production with added value products may improve balances and lower the industrial CO2 footprint. These challenges drive research and industry worldwide to constant improvement, supported by numerous funding opportunities. Microalgae in their tremendous diversity are a young and still very much unexplored crop. It is a challenge worth addressing. D. Behrendt (*) · C. Schreiber · C. Pfaff · A. Müller · L. Nedbal Institute of Bio- and Geosciences/Plant Sciences (IBG-2), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany e-mail: [email protected] C. Schreiber e-mail: [email protected] C. Pfaff e-mail: [email protected] A. Müller e-mail: [email protected] L. Nedbal e-mail: [email protected] J. Grobbelaar University of the Free State, Department of Plant Sciences, Bloemfontein, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_14

303

304

D. Behrendt et al.

14.1 Introduction The finite supply of crude oil reserves necessitates a search for alternate energy sources. Since microorganisms fix carbon photosynthetically as energy storage since 2.5 billion years [1–3], the exploitation of mass-cultivable microalgae as a possible new generation biofuel is compelling. The challenge is to fuse biology with technology – producing an economically competitive fuel without harming the environment and compromising food safety. As yet, this task only becomes economically feasible if synergistic technologies are integrated with biofuel production. Algae, and in particular microalgae, are a generic reference to a large and diverse group of organisms that are capable of oxygenic photosynthesis. This group comprises the eukaryotic protist or multicellular green algae and the prokaryotic Cyanobacteria – not related, but commonly referred to as blue-green algae. Currently economically produced algae include eukaryotic microalgae, e.g. Chlorella, Dunaliella, Phaeodactylum or Nannochloropsis, as well as Spirulina (Arthrospira) a cyanobacterium; and also the large multicellular forms such as giant kelp (Phaeophyceae). Here the focus is put on micro-eukaryotic algae, of which many are capable of doubling their biomass more than twice a day. Microalgae could challenge conventional crops in productivity, given the right circumstances, while not being restricted to arable land [4, 5]. The fundamental ability that algae, as well as plants, use to produce energy-rich biomass is oxygenic photosynthesis. Solar light energy is used to assimilate CO2 into carbohydrates while releasing O2 derived from water. The subsequent cell energy storage processes provide two different products, i.e. lipids and carbohydrates (Triacylglycerols (TAG) and starch/cellulose). The first one can be directly converted into liquid hydrocarbon fuels (e.g. diesel, kerosene) while the latter requires more extensive possessing. Algal lipids as a raw material for biofuel production are an alternative to fossil fuels [6–8]. A selection of current larger-than-laboratory scale projects are listed in Table 14.1. In addition, algae synthetize numerous essential biochemical molecules, and applications of economic interest also include the production of fine chemicals, pigments, cosmetics, food or pharmaceutical additives, algae use in bioremediation/waste water treatment or CO2 sequestration in flue gas treatment.

14.2 Algae as an Energy Source Lipids in general, therefore also microalgal lipids, constitute a reservoir of chemical energy, a role that is of crucial importance for production of biofuels [9, 10]. It includes numerous valuable biochemical molecules. They are a very heterogeneous group of hydrophobic molecules, synthesized by several biochemical pathways and serving multiple physiological roles [11]. Lipids can be categorized in terpenes, containing pigments – carotinoids, e.g. Astaxanthin, a popular antioxidant and “salmon red”; prenylquinones, e.g. vitamin E and coenzymes; and further terpenes, also the primary constituents of essential oils, and many more of commercial interest. Terpenes e.g. from Botryococcus braunii are considered as potential candidates for biofuels from algae [12].

Cultivation type* and system (P=phototroph, H=heterotroph)

Fermenter

Fermenter

Pond, PBR and fermenter

bottles

Tubular

Vertical plastic bags

H

H

P/H

P/H

P

P

Organism

Chlorella protothecoides

Proprietary

N.a.

Chlorella sorokiniana

Scenedesmus almeriensis

Proprietary

p/c

p

p

30 m³

US, Florida

Spain

Spain

BC, Canada

c

Geographical location

US, Brasil, etc.

5–10,000 L

Area/volume

p/c

p

Produced/ calculated

Centrifugation/freeze drying

Centrifugation

Harvest type

8–9,000 gal crude/(acre a) 2017: est. 18 million gal/a

3,8 t/a

Biomass

Biofuels Bioethanol

147 (photo)-165(hetero) g/(m³ d)

62.5, 61.2 g/ (m² d) and 100 g/L with 16–27.3 % oil content

Biofuel

C-N-P balance evaluation

70,000 t jet fuel planned from 2014 on, 42,000 t oil/a

12.8–15.5 g/ (L d), 44–49 % oil

Productivity

Biofuel

Biodiesel

Designated product

NER

Table 14.1  Examples of currently employed or recently researched bioreactors, their use, and other microalgae-derived products

Est. 1.30 US-$/ gal (2014) refocus 2015 to CO2 sequestration and freshwater production

69 €/kg biomass

[14]

14.44, 24.6 and 2.58 US-$/L oil

Algenol

[16]

[15]

Solazyme

[13]

2.4 US-$/L oil

Claim: 0.9 US$/L oil

Reference/ manufacturer

Cost

Cultivation type* and system (P=phototroph, H=heterotroph)

PE bag PBR

Mesh Ultra-Thin Layer (MUTL)

Tubular PBR

PBR and pond

Vertical plastic bags

Raceway pond

P

P

P

P

P

P

Organism

Nannochloropsis sp.

Scenedesmus sp., Chlorella sp.

Haematococcus pluvialis, N. spp., C. vulgaris, P. tricornutum etc.

Various

Nannochloropsis sp., Chlorella sp.

Nannochloropsis sp., Chlorella sp.

Table 14.1  (Continued)

c

c

4050 ha

500 m²

4 ha 85 m³

500 m² 2–4 m³

p

p

315 ha

Area/volume

c

Produced/ calculated

US

Germany, China

–

Germany

Germany

US

Geographical location

HTL

Centrifugation/ membrane filtration

Membrane separation

Centrifugation

Harvest type

Biofuel

Biomass

Cosmetics, Omega3 fatty acids, carotenoids

Biomass

Biodiesel

Designated product

14.6 g/(m² d) 4 million gal/a naphta, 27 million gal/a diesel

65–80 t biomass/ha 20,000 L oil/ ha

1535 and 0.117 g/(L d), 30 % oil

2–15 g/l

25 g/(m² d)

Productivity

0.41

0.93

NER

9.8–12.4 US-$/L diesel

1.62 and 2.08 US-$/L oil

Cost

[20]

[19] Phytolutions GmbH

[6]

Astaxa

[18] IGV GmbH

[17]

Reference/ manufacturer

Cultivation type* and system (P=phototroph, H=heterotroph)

Airlift/acrylic glass columns

raceway pond

10 l polyethylene bags

raceway pond

Flat plate

Tubular horizontal

P

P

P

P

P

P

Organism

Chlorella v.

Scenedesmus obliquus & Clostridium butyricum

Nannochloropsis sp.

Nannochloropsis sp.

Nannochloropsis sp.

Nannochloropsis sp.

Table 14.1  (Continued)

c

c

c

p

p

p

Produced/ calculated

10,763 m²

10,147 m²

25,988 m²

48 m²

Area/volume

Lisbon

Lisbon

China

Geographical location

Centrifugation, drying (70°C), soxhlet, SFE

Decantation/ centrifugation

Centrifugation/freeze drying

Harvest type

7,3 g H2/kg biomass

H2

Biofuel

Biofuel

Biofuel

100 t/a 1.02 g/L at 29,6 % oil content

100 t/a 2.7 g/L at 29,6 % oil content

100 t/a 0.35 g/L at 29,6 % oil content

0,4 g oil/g dw

0.89–0.28 g biomass/(L d), 147 mg/(L d) lipids

Lipids

H2/lipids

Productivity

Designated product

9.5 US-$/kg biomass

0.4 US-$/kg biomass Oil: 1.65, biomass: 4.51 Oil: 0.07, biomass: 0.2

0.22 US-$/kg biomass

~365 €/kg oil

Calculated ~63 US-$/bbl

Cost

Oil: 3.05, biomass: 8.34

127–245 MJ/MJprod

71– 100 MJ/ MJprod

0.38– 1.25

NER

[24]

[23]

[22]

[21]

Reference/ manufacturer

Cultivation type* and system (P=phototroph, H=heterotroph)

raceway pond

Raceway pond

Raceway pond

Tubular vertical

Airlift/glass tubes

V-bags

Flat-panel vertical

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Organism

N.a.

Haematococcus pluvialis

N.a.

Tetraselmis suecica

Chlorella sp.

Chlorella v., Scenedesmus

Chlorella v., Scenedesmus

Table 14.1  (Continued)

p

p

p

p

c

c

c

Produced/ calculated

200 m²

500 m²

100 L

1 ha

4,875 ha

Area/volume

Germany

Germany

China

Italy

New Mexico, US

US

Geographical location

Centrifugation

Centrifugation

Centrifugation drying

Centrifuge, drying

Flocculation, centrifugation

Gravitational, microfiltering

Harvest type

15 g/m² d−1 at 25% oil content 1,000bbl/d

Algal oil

Biomass/ biogas

Biomass

Biomass

15 g/(m² d) 900 kg/a 361 L oil/a

0.5–1.5 g/(L d)

0,21 g/(L d)

15 g/(m² d), 36 t/(ha a)

1 kg ME & 2.6m³ biogas

Methyl esters & biogas

Bbiofuel

10–50 g/(m²a) 15–50 %DW lipid

Productivity

Biodiesel

Designated product

0.59, incl. photovoltaic 1.7

[30]

NOVAgreen GmbH

[29]

[28]

[27]

4.10$/l oil (10y return)

2.73

[25]

750–7500 US-$/t diesel

[26]

Reference/ manufacturer

Cost

0.4–0.5

NER

Cultivation type* and system (P=phototroph, H=heterotroph)

raceway ponds

Raceway ponds

Raceway ponds

Ponds

Tubular

Ponds

Raceway ponds

Fermenter

floating bags (on sea)

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

H

P

Organism

Arthrospira pratensis

Spirulina

Arthrospira p.

Dunaliella sp.

Haematococcus p.

Dunaliella sp.

Proprietary

Proprietary

Variable

Table 14.1  (Continued)

p

p

p

p

p

p

p

p

p

Produced/ calculated

0.5–12.5 m³ per PBR

–

40 ha (120 ha)

250 ha, 106 m³

300 km tubes, 4 ha

10 ha

180,000 m²

36,567 m²

Area/volume

Bangladesh/ CAUS

France

New Mexico, US

Electro water separation

>2 t DW, 1 t oil 25 t DW/ month

Biomass/ biofuels

0,1–0,5 g DW/L

Algasol/Origin Oil (OriginClear)

Fermentalg

Sapphire Energy

Cognis [31]

ALGATechnologies

Nature Beta Technologies

Hainan DIC microalgae

Cyanotech

Reference/ manufacturer

2 g/(m² d), 70 t/a

17 US-$/kg DW

Cost

Earthrise Nutritionals LLC 2012

NER

>500 t biomass/a

>350 t biomass/a

>350 t biomass/a

Productivity

Omega oils

Omega oils

Biomass/ beta carotene

Astaxanthine

SC CO2 extraction

Israel

Hutt Lagoon, Australia

Biomass/ beta carotene

Biomass/ protein

Biomass/ protein

Biomass/ protein

Designated product

Spray drying

Ocean chill drying

Harvest type

Japan

CA, US

China

Hawaii, US

Geographical location

310

D. Behrendt et al.

Another typical group in algae are the glycerol lipids, which are derived from fatty acids bound to a glycerol backbone. According to their structure – one, two or three aliphatic residues – they are named monoacylglycerols (MAG), diacylglycerols (DAG), or triacylglycerols (TAG). Polar lipids, typically phospho- and glycol-DAGs, play an important role as constituents of biological membranes forming a hydrophobic barrier to the environment and between cellular compartments. The most abundant are triacylglycerols that are the central component of the lipid energy catabolism in algae. Due to their non-polar nature, TAGs do not contribute to the osmotic potential of the cell and can accumulate in large quantities. Compared to starch, the specific energy content of TAGs is approximately twice as high and less rapidly mobilized. Based on the fatty acid composition, these storage lipids can be utilized for the production of biofuels – transesterification with methanol yields FAME (fatty acid methyl ester), which is used as Biodiesel – but also as food and feed additives or in pharmaceutical applications. In spite of similar chemical nature, TAG’s can be variable, differing by the level of saturation and the length of the aliphatic carbonyl chains. The differences vary between species, but can also be induced or increased in some species by different environmental conditions [32]. Only organisms reaching a high TAG or polyisoprenoids content are suited for biokerosene or diesel production. Several strategies attempting to optimize lipid biosynthesis have been researched so far. In an unique attempt to explore biological diversity of aquatic algae for biofuel production, the US Department of Energy (DOE) screened 3,000 algal strains in the 1980s for their capacity to produce lipids [4]. Eventually the project was terminated and many important issues remained unresolved [33]. In some organisms, lipids can accumulate as a natural preferential form of energy storage (e.g. Dunaliella salina with ca. 54 % lipid/DW [34], Botryococcus braunii with more than 60 % lipid/DW [35], Ochromonas danica with 37 to 71 % lipids/DW [36, 37]). The starch and lipid energy-storage pathways can be influenced in green algae by specific cultivation conditions (e.g. [38–41]). The accumulation of lipids occurs under distinct regimes. 1) Under favorable irradiance and temperature and with abundant supply of nutrients and CO2, the algal cells grow and divide rapidly with most lipids targeted to membranes, particularly those constituting chloroplast as the main anabolic driver. No energy reserves are accumulated. 2) When starved, for example by nitrogen or sulfur depletion, the photosynthetic CO2 fixation continues but is directed towards generating nitrogen- and sulfur-free reserves, such as starch or non-polar lipids [42]. 3) Enhanced accumulation of triacylglycerols (TAGs) also occurs under conditions when the light is too strong and induces a partial photoinhibition of photosynthetic activity [43, 44]. Such high light intensities generate reactive oxygen species that act as signal molecules not only for the production of neutral lipids but often also for secondary carotenoids synthesis [45], a putative high value by-product of biofuel production. The secondary carotenoids are assumed to protect the chlorophylls by light shading and, thus limiting photoinhibition. They are localized in cytoplasmic lipid bodies [44] and sometimes in stroma of the chloroplast [46].

14  Algae as a potential source of biofuels

311

4) Phosphorus starvation can also be used for enhancing lipid production [47]. However, the onset of lipid production may be delayed due to luxury P-uptake of algae [48]. The effect of temperature on TAG accumulation in algae is less than that for light [32]. In this respect however, one ought to remember that a lower temperature leads to saturation of photosynthetic reactions in lower light levels and, thus, to potential early onset of light stress [49]. High salinity [50] or extreme pH [51] may also lead to enhanced lipid production. Until now, little has been achieved with attempts to genetically modify certain microalgae, as well as efforts to modify expression of key enzymes implicated in lipid synthesis, especially with a view to mass cultivation.

14.3

Growing Algae

The cultivation modes of currently commercially used microalgae [52] consist of variants of heterotrophic and photoautotrophic growth. Commonly used carbon sources in heterotrophic culture include various sugars and organic acids. Additional light supply to the algae culture is optional, since the energy within these feed molecules – which themselves have been produced photosynthetically elsewhere before – is being transferred into growth and biomass production in algae bioreactors. Examples of the heterotrophic large scale production of microalgae and their constituencies are companies such as Martek, Solazyme and Alltech Winchester (Table 14.1) [53]. CO2 and HCO3− are the single photoautotrophic carbon sources, with compulsory light supply to fix carbon photosynthetically in photobioreactors (PBRs). Cultivation systems for photoautotrophic growth of algae with sunlight as the primary source of energy are wide-spread (Fig. 14.1). These systems are designed to capture solar irradiation, absorb CO2, and nutrients, and to produce O2 and algal biomass. Two major kinds of photobioreactors exist [54]: “open” and “closed” types. Open systems are those in which the algal suspension is partially in direct contact with the ambient environment, whereas closed systems essentially have no contact with the outside air and light does not impinge directly on the culture. Typical open systems are raceway ponds [22], open stirred tank reactors [55] and thin layered sloping systems [17, 24, 38]. The culture light path reaches from a few millimeters in the thin layered sloping ponds to 0.5 m depth in others. Pond sizes can vary from a few m2 up to more than 2,000 m2. Various means are used to mix the cultures (e.g. by paddle wheel, pump or air lift). The design is simple and costs are relatively low, making open ponds the currently leading system for commercial biomass production. Yet the use and proper dissolving of additional CO2 is complicated (loss to atmosphere). Evaporation and risk of contamination is high. Large scale examples are the commercially used ponds of Sapphire, USA, or the pigment-producing facilities of Algatech, Israel. Closed systems can be tubular and of various configurations [56, 57], consist of vertical or horizontal plates, plastic foils, bags and many other variants with variable short light path (8 to 10 fraction, for Jet A fuel and SPKs, respectively [84]. Benzene shows a higher mobility in the environment than the other compounds that are contained in the assessed fuels and, therefore, low regulatory limits are in place. Consequently, a spill of Jet A fuel is significantly more harmful compared to SPK50 and SPK100.

  

&ULWLFDO3&/LQVRLOLQ>PJNJ@

   

     

   

       

 

 

P P P P P P P P P P 63.

63.

63.

63.

-HW$

)XHOW\SHDQGVRLOGHSWK

Fig. 15.2  Critical soil-protective-concentration levels (PCLs) of SPK50, SPK100 and conventional Jet A fuel (data labels present absolute and critical PCLs as percentage of PCLs of JET-A kerosene; SPKs are derived from camelina (SPK1 and 2) and from jatropha (SPK3); the critical PCL of SPK3 at 3 m depth is set to 8,000 mg/kg, the mobility limit of middle distillates in fine to medium grained sands [84–87]; data obtained from [84])

3 SPK50 and SPK100 denote a mixture of conventional Jet-A fuel and SPK biokerosene of 50/50 and 0/100 (vol.-%/vol.-%), respectively. 4 The equivalent carbon number (ECN) is the difference between the total carbon number (CN) and twice the number of double bonds (DB): ECN = CN – 2DB.

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene337

15.3.1.2

Water

The biokerosene provision and use chain affects water most likely due to feedstock provision and to a minor extent by water demands for feedstock conversion. In a first step, general aspects of water contamination originating from agriculture are discussed. In a second step, an estimate of water requirements for different biokerosene production pathways is presented. Water Pollution.  The application of fertilizers and agrochemicals might result in the eutrophication and contamination of waterbodies. Leached, washed and eroded nutrients lead to nutrient enrichment of waterbodies, which results in multiple negative consequences: shift in species composition [88], enhanced biomass production, bloom of toxic algae [89] and severe damage to (aquatic) ecosystems, e.g. mashes [90]. Freshwater ecosystems are usually limited in nitrogen, whereas oceans are limited in available phosphorus [91]. An influx of these nutrients will result in an increase in biomass production in the respective waterbody which might result in the formation of oxygen depleted zones: enhanced biomass production promotes microbial decomposition of dead organic matter, which increases oxygen demand [92]. A stratification of the water column eventually results in a transient depletion of oxygen triggering mass mortality of benthic organisms. The increase in dead organic matter propels the former process and hypoxia occurs seasonally or periodically. If processes persist, hypoxic zones expand, which is accompanied by a microbial formation of toxic hydrogen sulfide (H2S). This is a globally occurring phenomenon that is not limited to any specific region or that occurs as a consequence of a specific plant that is cultivated. The use of fertilizer should hence be optimized and scheduled according to plant demand and climatic conditions. In specific cases, bioenergy crops can improve water quality and reduce negative impacts on water quality due to the capacity to remove nutrients or certain contaminants and to serve as a barrier that filters leachate and runoff from other agricultural lands [93]. Apart from nutrients originating from excessive fertilizer application, the intensive use of agrochemicals results in a contamination of the environment: in Europe, for example, 8 % of groundwater measurement stations report excessive levels for one or more pesticides in 2010 [94]. In 1 % of stations, quality standard levels were exceeded. River monitoring stations indicate a contamination by many pesticides of which Cyclodiene, Endosulfan and Clorpyrifos are found to be the most present pollutants: 42.8, 35.4 and 4.8 % of monitoring stations reported an exceedance of environmental quality standards as annual averages in 2009. In the US, 61 % of agricultural streams, 90 % of urban streams and 46 % of mixed streams exceeded an aquatic-life benchmark for the period of 2002 to 2011 [95]. The presence of pesticides effects the aquatic environment in many ways: alteration of species composition, richness and food chain, changes in nutrient and oxygen dynamics and ultimately in the ecosystem function [96–98]. The production of feedstock for biokerosene, as any other agricultural production, possibly contributes to these trends. The extent of impact is depending feedstock and management practice; corn and soybean cultivation, for example, accounted for more than 60 % of the pesticide use in the US [99].

338

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

Water Demand.  An increase in feedstock cultivation for biofuel production will ultimately result in an increased demand for water, which might result in a competition for water needed for conservation or food cultivation [100]. The use and consumption of water is commonly assessed by the water footprint (WF) methodology [101], which distinguishes green, blue and grey water consumption. Green water refers to precipitation that evapotranspirates from plants; blue water refers to the consumption of surface water and ground water; grey water describes the volume of water needed to dilute pollutants contained in wastewater to a level below agreed quality standards. To assess the water demand of biokerosene a WF was conducted for HEFA, BtL-FT, DSHC and AtJ pathways for multiple feedstocks. Only few data on water and feedstock demand of these processes exist so far. Results presented here, are consequently just an overview and preliminary assessment of the water demand of biokerosene provision. In this analysis, the water demand was apportioned to all co-products based on average prices of products.5 According to modelling data found in the literature, HEFA, BtL-FT and DSHC from sugarcane require 0.45, 0.11 and 0.34 L water per kg of feedstock input (no feedstock-specific data available), respectively [102, 103]. Feedstock inputs are: 6.37 kg biomass, 1.04 kg oil and 18.6 kg sugarcane per L of biokerosene for HEFA, BtL-FT and DSHC, respectively [102, 103]. AtJ from sugarcane, maize and switchgrass requires 0.58, 0.84 and 0.63 L water per kg of input material. Per L of biokerosene, 25.9 kg sugarcane, 6.8 kg maize and 11.4 kg switchgrass are needed, respectively [102]. The water demand for feedstock production is strongly dependent on location, prevailing climatic conditions and management practices.6 Not all studies report grey water originating from leaching nutrients or agrochemicals. In those cases, grey water values were obtained elsewhere [104], if available. In this study, irrigated (IR) and rain-fed (RF) cultivation systems are assessed. It should be noted, though, that the WF can vary significantly within a country. For algae, chlorella vulgaris cultivation in open ponds (OP) and neochloris oleoabundans cultivation in closed bioreactor (CBR) designs with varying recycling rates are assessed. Results show that the water consumption in the production phase is irrelevant in comparison to water requirements of the feedstock provision phase (Fig. 15.3). Considering oil plants, oil palm appears to be more water efficient than jatropha or soybean. Interestingly, rain-fed jatropha cultivation is more water effective than irrigated jatropha, even taking lower yields into account. The WF is dominated by green water. An increase in productivity reduces the green WF. The blue WF, which represents irrigation, can be reduced by more efficient irrigation schemes and a synchronization of

Prices for agricultural co-products and feed products are based on prices from August 2011 to July 2016 [105, 106], except for the following products: jatropha oil and seedcake [107], algae oil [108] and meal [109], as well as AtJ from corn and sugarcane [102]. In these cases, allocation is based on prices referred to in the respective study or based on reported monetary allocation factors. 6 Water footprints (WF) were obtained from the following sources: jatropha [107, 110], oil palm [111, 112], soybean [65, 104], rapeseed [104], algae [113, 114], sugarcane [65], maize [115], switchgrass [102], poplar [116] and miscanthus [117]. 5

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene339 

  

  

&ĞĞĚƐƚŽĐŬ

+()$ *UHHQ)HHGVWRFN

%OXH)HHGVWRFN

$/

6& '6+&

*UH\)HHGVWRFN

6*

32

$W-

3/5)

(6,5F

(6,5G

%5,5

6&

865)

86,5 0$

%55)

%5,5

%55)

*HQHULF&%5E

8623

*HQHULF&%5D

&15)

56

8623

$5,5

6%

'(5)

86,5

%55)

7+,5 23

WĂƚŚǁĂLJ

0Pñ*-@



0,

%W-

%OXH3URGXFWLRQ

Fig. 15.3 Water footprint (WF) of biokerosene production (for jatropha (JA), oil palm (OP), soybean (SB), rapeseed (RS), sugarcane (SC), maize (MA), switchgrass (SG), poplar (PO) and miscanthus (MI), irrigated (IR) and rain-fed (RF) systems are considered; algae (AL) production is realized in open ponds (OP) or closed bioreactors (CBR); percentages indicate water recycling rates; other abbreviations present ISO 3166 county codes of the respective location of cultivation; case (a) and (b) refer to different biomass production rates of 0.5 and 1 g/L/d), respectively; in case of poplar, two different planting densities are assessed: 6,666 (c) and 20,000 (d) plants/ha

rainfall and crop scheduling, as well as by efforts in all other measures that influence evapotranspiration, e.g. plant alignment, canopy management, control of cover plants, etc. In case of algae, the recycling of water is crucial to reduce the WF. In case water is recycled, biokerosene from algae shows the lowest WF among all analyzed variants. Energy crops, i.e. miscanthus, rapeseed and poplar do not result in a more favorable WF than food crops. According to the feedstocks and origins assessed, there is no process that is preferable: The WF is feedstock dependent and thus only influenced by a minor extent of the water demand of the conversion process. However, the conversion efficiency is crucial. The decision what feedstock and what process is preferable in terms of water consumption should furthermore consider the water availability and demand in a specific region. 15.3.1.3 Air The reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is the core motivation of using biofuels in the aviation sector [118, 119]. In this section, a carbon footprint of biokerosene and the discussion of non-CO2-related effects are provided.

340

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

Carbon Footprint.  A literature review reveals a high variability of GHG emissions of biokerosene production and use7 (Fig. 15.4). Only few studies assessing GHG emissions from the provision of biokerosene exist and results are often uncertain as many technology options are not operating at industrial scale yet. Vertical bars reflect high and low emission scenarios based on yields and technical parameters. The inner data point represents the baseline scenario obtained from the respective literature source. A comparison of different studies is difficult due to differing assumptions, data sources, various and partly inconsistent methods to account for co-products.8 The method to account for co-products is a crucial aspect of GHG emission estimation as results are profoundly affected by the chosen method. Results indicate, however, regardless of the fuel, that direct land-use change (dLUC) plays a crucial role concerning GHG emissions. In case of HEFA from soy and palm oil, for example, the consideration of possible dLUC effects results in GHG emissions that are up to 8 times higher than those of conventional jet fuel. Jatropha results in lower GHG emissions than conventional jet fuel in all assessed cases, except for the case that shrubland is converted to plantations. HEFA-fuel from jatropha results in about the same GHG emissions, regardless of the use of jatropha seed cake, i.e. electricity generation from seeds [57], as feed (assuming detoxification) [120] or as fertilizer [121]. In case of HEFA-fuel from algae, dewatering accounts for 44 % of emissions [122]. High algae concentrations and high lipid content of algae are consequently key parameters to reduce emissions of providing algae-based fuels. Salicornia can be grown on degraded soils and can be irrigated with saline water. The former aspect might increase SOC and thus sequester carbon. Results presented in Fig. 15.4 refer to a cultivation on carbon depleted soils; in case soils contain a higher amount of carbon, carbon sequestration is expected to be lower [57]. The extent of N2O emissions from salicornia salt water farms or algae cultivation in open ponds is highly uncertain and has substantial impact on results [57, 123]. Emissions from AtJ-fuels [124] are as well based on low, high and baseline scenarios. For each feedstock, different platform molecules, which lead to other conversion routes than AtJ, e.g. via fatty acids or triglycerides, are assessed. Each feedstock reported in Fig. 15.4 refers to AtJ-fuels, using an alcohol as a platform. The conversion pathways present low and high efficient concepts as defined by Staples

The assessment does not consider non-CO2 emissions from combustion and entailed effects, such as particle emissions, cloud formation, etc. These effects are considered separately below. 8 The analysed studies apply different approaches to account for co-products: Stratton et al. [57] use market value-based allocation at the oil mill stage and energy-based allocation at the fuel production stage and for energetic co-products, i.e. electricity; Egowainy et al. [125] assign credits for co-products other than fuels and apply energy-based allocation at the fuel processing stage; Meyer et al. [121] allocate emissions based on energy content and give credits for surplus heat; Bails et al. [120] apply energy-based allocation; Ou et al. [122] assign credits for co-products other than fuel, i.e. fertilizer, heat and electricity, and apply energy-based allocation for fuels; Staples et al. [124] allocate emissions based on market value. 7

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene341 ϭϬϬϬй й

5HODWLYH*+*HPLVVLRQVLQ>@

й

й

й

й

ϭϬϬй

Ͳй Ě>h

&ĞĞĚƐƚŽĐŬ 3DWKZD\

1R/8&D &HUUDGRJUDVVODQGD 7URSLFDOUDLQIRUHVWD 1RLQIRUPDWLRQE 1R/8&D /RJJHGIRUHVWD 7URSLFDOUDLQIRUHVWD 3HDWODQGUDLQIRUHVWD 1R/8&D 6HWDVLGHODQGD 1R/8&D 1R/8&F 1R/8&G 'HJUDGHGSDVWXUHG *UDVVODQGGU\]RQH G 6KUXEODQGG 1R/8&H 2SHQSRQGD 2SHQSRQGD 2SHQSRQGH 1R/8&D 'HVHUWODQGD 1R/8&I &HUUDGRZRRGHGI 1R/8&I &HQWUDOJUDVVODQGI 1R/8&I $EDQGRQHGFURSODQGI 1R/8&D &DUERQGHSOHWHGVRLOD 1RLQIRUPDWLRQE

Ϭй

6%

23

56

-$ +()$

&$

$/

6$

6&

&* $W-

6*

6* &6 %7/ 3\U

Fig. 15.4  Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of biokerosene relative to conventional kerosene. The combustion and provision of conventional kerosene emits 90 g CO2eq/MJ [101]. Climatic effects due to non-CO2 compounds emitted during combustion are not considered (see text). Several direct land-use change cases are considered. Biokerosene from salicornia includes HEFA and BtL-FT SPK from oil and biomass, respectively [57]. The vertical bar presents variations in results due to a change in yields, technical parameters and LUC effects, etc.: the lower and higher end present low- and high emission scenarios, respectively. The inner data points refer to baseline scenarios, as reported in the respective source. Feedstocks: soybean (SB), oil palm (OP) rapeseed (RS), jatropha (JA), camelina (CA), algae (AL), salicornia (SA), sugarcane (SC), corn grain (CG), switchgrass (SG), corn stover (CS). Data obtained from (a) [57], (b) [125], (c) [121], (d) [120], (e) [122], (f) [124]

342

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

et al. [124]: Sugarcane and switchgrass concepts use ethanol as a platform molecule and present low-emission scenarios, thus, highly efficient production routes. Corn grain is assumed to be converted to iso-butanol as a platform molecule. This route presents a high emission scenario according to Staples et al. [124]. These low and high emission scenarios of Staples et al. were taken as reference case and low and high dLUC emission estimations are added to obtain low and high estimates that are presented in Fig. 15.4. Among AtJ-fuels assessed by Staples et al. [124], sugarcane results in lowest GHG emissions, followed by switchgrass. The conversion route of corn grains via iso-butanol is less efficient and entails higher LUC emissions. A high degree of uncertainty exists in terms of fertilizer induced N2O emissions, process parameters and the extent of direct and indirect LUC induced emissions. For some feedstocks, N2O emissions constitute a considerable share of total emissions: More than 50 and 40 % of emissions originate from N2O volatilization at the cultivation stage in case of switchgrass and rapeseed, respectively [57]. The estimation of N2O emissions is often based on the application of generic emission factors, which entail a high degree of uncertainty [126]. Emission estimations are furthermore often based on model assumptions due to the fact that the investigated concept does not operate at industrial scale yet. Still, analyzed studies reveal that biokerosene provision and use might even result in GHG emissions multiple-times larger than conventional kerosene, not even considering indirect land-use change (iLUC) effects. Indirect LUC is a change in land-use at another location triggered by change in utilization of the harvested crop or a change in crop type: The cultivation of biofuel crops (or for any other use) might displace food or fiber production which will be provided from elsewhere, potentially triggering a conversion of land. The extent of dLUC and iLUC has been extensively discussed in the context of other biofuels and some studies indicate considerable emissions from dLUC and iLUC and a high uncertainty concerning iLUC, see e.g. [127–136]. There is a high variation among modelled iLUC factors, but the magnitude can be substantial and exceed emissions from fuel provision and combustion [134]. Even without being able to accurately quantify iLUC effects, it is obvious that mechanisms that help to avoid direct and indirect transformation of native vegetation into agricultural areas are needed to avoid the emission of substantial amounts of GHGs and to prevent various other negative effects, such as biodiversity loss (see below). Non CO2-Effects.  The combustion of biokerosene results in lower GHG emissions than conventional fuel due to a lower carbon content of fuel. The theoretical CO2 emission reduction, assuming a complete conversion of educts, is 2.7 and 2.8 %/MJ of fuel for SPK50 and SPK100, respectively, in relation to conventional jet fuel [137]. Elgowainy et al. report a slightly higher combustion efficiency for SPK50 and SKP100 in relation to conventional jet fuel of about 0.15 % and 0.3 %, respectively [125]. Both mixtures reduce the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM109) and sulphur oxides (SOx) in cruise, landing and take-off mode:

9

PM10 denotes particulate matter with a maximum diameter of 10 µm.

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene343

NOx emissions are reduced by less than 10 %, PM10 between 10 and 92 % depending on fuel mixture and operation mode, and SOx up to 100 % in case of SPK100 and by 49 % in case of SPK50 [125]. Lobo et al. report a reduction of PM10 mass by 39 ± 7 % and 62 ± 4 %, for SPK50 and SPK100, respectively [138]. A reduction in emission of these pollutants might improve local air quality and reduce adverse effects for human health, especially at airports and in close proximity [139, 140]. The change in exhaust gas composition affects the formation of contrails and aircraft induced clouds (AICs), as well as optical properties of the latter [141]. Stratton et al. [142] assessed the change in radiative forcing due to a change in emission patterns and found an increase in radiative forcing due the use of SPK biokerosene. This is mainly due to an increase in water vapor, in contrails and AICs, as well as a decrease in SOx. SOx scatters short-wave radiation and thus exerts a negative climate forcing. Consequently, a positive climate forcing results from a reduction in SO2 emissions [140, 143]. The formation of AICs takes place at altitudes and environmental conditions under which, naturally, no cirrus clouds form and might increase cloud cover [144, 145]. AIC reflect outgoing long-wave radiation [146]. As a consequence AIC exert a positive climate forcing. Stratton et al. [142] quantify that SPK100 with a 100 % GHG reduction, results only in 48 % reduction of climate change impacts on a 100-year time horizon: The combustion of conventional jet fuel emits 73.2 g CO2/MJ but impacts the climate by non-CO2 emissions as emitting 151.3 g CO2/MJ, a factor of 2.07. The combustion of SPK100 emits 70.4 g CO2/MJ and affects the climate as emitting 2.22 times that amount. It should be noted that high uncertainties are associated with the determination of the radiative forcing of contrails and cirrus clouds as well as with the formation of contrails and AICs from conventional and biofuel mixtures [142, 144]. These findings show, however, that non-CO2 emission related effects on global warming might play an important role and might (partly) offset positive effects due to CO2 emission reductions.

15.3.1.4

Biodiversity

The provision of biofuels can be associated with a direct or indirect conversion of land. Whether the effect on biodiversity (or other aspects, as discussed above) is negative or positive depends on previous and new land use. A conversion of degraded land can result in positive effects, e.g. sequestration of carbon, increased biomass production, etc. However, the demand for agricultural commodities, socio-economic structures and the regulatory framework often result in a conversion of native environments to agricultural areas. An extensive review of published literature reveals mostly negative impacts on biodiversity related to the provision of biofuels [147]. An extensive review by Immerzeel et al. [147], encompassing 53 publications, reveals solely negative effects of first generation biofuels concerning habitat loss, species abundance and composition, species richness and species distribution at local, regional and continental scale. Second generation biofuels can result in neutral or positive effects regarding these indicators, depending on specific circumstances, e.g. previous land use). The main drivers for negative impacts on

344

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

biodiversity are changes in land cover, which cause habitat loss and fragmentation of landscapes, pollution and the introduction of invasive species. There is a difference in impacts reported for tropical and temperate climates: in 88 % of studies, negative effects are reported in tropical regions, whereas in temperate regions 47 % of studies reported negative and positive or neutral impacts; 31 % reported negative results and the remainder described positive effects. Only few crops result in positive effects (miscanthus, switchgrass, short rotation coppice and other second generation biofuel feedstocks), while most other feedstocks result in predominantly negative effects, in particular corn, oil palm and soy. Oil palm plantations, for example, are reported to inhabit only about 15 to 25 % of species recorded in primary forests [47, 148]. The mean species abundance (MSA) is strongly dependent on land use category and patch size (Fig. 15.5). Alkemade et al. [149] report MSA for different land-use categories and patch-sizes based on a literature review and found much lower MSAs in managed agricultural systems compared to primary vegetation. There is a high variability in MSA in different ecosystems. However, even upper values of reported MSAs indicate significant differences compared to primary vegetation. These results show that intensive agriculture, forestry and fragmentation of large ecosystem areas result in a loss of the majority of species. Additionally, the introduction of nutrients into ecosystems, presents another trigger of MSA loss and change in species composition in various ecosystems [149, 150]. It should be kept in mind that these problems are triggered by many factors, such as an increasing demand for agricultural products in general, not biofuels specifically, and other socio-economic conditions. In 2010, for example, only 5 % of global palm oil consumption was used for energy purposes; 71 % was consumed as food and the remaining 24 % was used for industrial purposes [151]. Kline et al. [152] argue that land is not the limiting factor concerning food and bioenergy production and that political and social conditions are often main drivers of deforestation and should thus be addressed. Consequently, the issue of land requirement, land conversion and biodiversity conservation need to be discussed in a wider scope than with regards to biofuels alone. 15.3.1.5

Land Requirements

The future demand for agricultural products for food, fiber and industrial needs, including biofuels, will inevitably increase due to a growing world population, changing consumption patterns and the need to find alternatives to fossil fuel-derived fuels and products [153, 154]. An increase in demand for agricultural products by 70 to 80 % until 2050 is expected [155, 156]. This will be accompanied by an expansion of arable land [155, 157]. Yield increases observed in the past, are expected not to fulfil the increase in demand. Furthermore, there is statistical evidence that an increase in yield does not necessarily result in a reduction of cultivated land, especially in industrialized countries [158]. Consequently, the conversion to arable land can be expected in the decades to come. Global efforts to promote biofuels as a measure to reduce GHG emissions will ultimately contribute to this trend at least to some extent, considering that biofuels only account for a minor share of agricultural production [154, 159].

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene345

Fig. 15.5  Mean species abundance (MSA) for different land-use categories (top) and different patch size categories (bottom) [149] (reprinted with permission under the CC BY-NC license)

The future demand for biokerosene that is not met by residual feedstocks or wastes can be fulfilled by an increase in productivity, by a change in cultivated crop, the change in use of the cultivated crop (potentially resulting in iLUC) or the conversion of land (dLUC). The land requirements for biokerosene production strongly depend on the chosen feedstock (Fig. 15.6). Yields of soybean, oil palm, rapeseed, sugarcane, corn and winter wheat are based on FAOSTAT data from 2005

346

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

Fig. 15.6  Area-specific fuel yield of a selection of feedstocks Low, high and average estimates present the first quintile, fourth quintile and the average of reported yields, or estimations based in experiments and meta-studies (see text). The optimized value presents an estimate based on high feedstock yields achieved under optimal conditions. Conversion efficiency and fuel product slates are kept constant. The data labels present feedstock yields in t/ha. Wheat and corn yields include grain yields plus sustainable potentials of straw and stover, respectively.

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene347

to 2014 for all covered countries [23]. Yields of switchgrass and miscanthus are based on a meta study that summarizes reported yields from six and eight countries.10 respectively [160]. Productivity of open pond (OP) and closed bioreactor (CBR) algae cultivation stem from a meta study assessing 13 and 11 studies dealing with open pond (OP) and closed bioreactor (CBR) systems, respectively [161]. Most of these yields present extrapolated yields that have not been proven in reality at commercial scale. For all these data sets, low and high yield estimates are based on the first and fourth quintile and give an indication of low and high yields that are achieved under average global conditions. The 95 %-quantile reflects yields that can be achieved under optimized conditions. Yields of the remaining feedstocks stem from field experiments in the US, Mexico and on a global scale in the case of camelina, salicornia and jatropha, respectively [57, 121, 162–164]. The HEFA and BtL-FT process yield 32.0 and 6.7 GJ fuel (kerosene, diesel and gasoline) per tonne of oil and biomass, respectively [103]. The AtJ process yields 2.95, 7.91, 7.95, 7.99, 6.37, 7.03 and 10.00 GJ fuel per tonne of sugarcane, wheat grain, wheat straw, corn grain, corn stover, switchgrass and miscanthus, respectively, based on ethanol yields from the respective feedstock [21, 165–170]. Results presented for wheat and corn assume a biorefinery concept, which converts starch and lignocellulose, i.e. grain and straw or stover, respectively. In case of lignocellulosic feedstock, fermentation of pentose and hexose is assumed. The sustainable potentials of wheat straw and corn stover are 33 and 28 %, respectively [171, 172]. As detailed process models or industry data of AtJ processes are missing, a conversion efficiency of ethanol to fuel of 90 % is assumed. The product slates consisting of kerosene, diesel and gasoline are 68, 12, 20; 54, 25, 21 and 48, 17, 35 %, for HEFA, BtL-FT and AtJ, respectively [103, 173]. In Fig. 15.6 the fuel output comprising of all three products is presented: even if shares of products vary due to a different technical setup, total fuel output remains in about the same range. Results show that HEFA-fuel from algae is by far the most area-efficient way of providing biokerosene. However, it should be kept in mind that reported yields have not been achieved on commercial scale yet. Among the other options, miscanthus, sugarcane and oil palm are most area-efficient. Several crops that are already extensively used to provide biofuels, i.e. corn, wheat, rapeseed and soybean, yield comparably low amounts of fuel per hectare. Jatropha, often praised as a promising feedstock, shows comparably low yields. However, jatropha as well as salicornia can be cultivated on degraded soil or in saline environment, thus, on land that is otherwise not or barely suitable for agriculture. To make use of this positive aspect, it needs to be assured that plants are not grown on fertile land that could be used for other purposes. If fertile land is used, oil palm is the better choice due to significantly higher yields and suitability for similar climatic conditions [174, 45]. Apart from those feedstock presented in Fig. 15.6, residues and wastes offer an alternative to provide fuels without any additional land requirement. Consequently, these results indicate that a transition Yields of switchgrass stem from Belgium, England, France, Germany, Japan and USA from 1983 to 2011; miscanthus yields are reported from Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, USA, Wales from 1992 to 2011 [160].

10

348

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

towards lignocellulosic feedstocks or algae is advisable in terms of land requirements. The aspect of land investments, often referred to as “land grabbing”, is discussed in a socio-economic perspective in Section 15.3.2.3.

15.3.2 Socio-Economic Dimension The economic and social dimensions of sustainability are closely linked to each other due to many aspects that affect both. The economic dimension comprises the economic viability of biofuel provision as well as impacts on the economic system, e.g. by employment creation and impacts on other commodity markets. Social consequences of biofuel projects are closely linked to economic aspects: the creation of employment, working conditions as well changes in land-use rights have economic and social implications. Figure 15.7 presents a selection of indicators concerning the socio-economic dimension of sustainability that are either under direct control of enterprises along the biofuel provision chain or that are under influence of other actors such as governmental institutions and other market actors as well. Enterprises providing fuels have direct influence on production modalities and efficiencies. They are furthermore responsible for legal compliance, recognition of land-use rights as well as fair working conditions etc. According to Cramer et al. [175] working conditions, human rights, prosperity rights, social circumstances of local population and integrity are aspects that contribute to social-wellbeing. Other %LRIX

HOHQ

%LRIX

HOHQ

WHUSU

LVHV

&RVWVDQGSURGXFWLYLW\ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

2WKHUVRFLRHFRQRPLFLQGLFDWRUV

/RQJWHUPFRPPLWPHQWWRHFRQRPLF YLDELOLW\ /HJDOFRPSOLDQFH 6XSSRUWRIORFDOVWDNHKROGHUV 7UDQVSDUHQF\ZLWKLQWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ (PSOR\PHQWFRQGLWLRQVDQGVDIHW\ )UHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQVDQGWKHULJKWRI FROOHFWLYHEDUJDLQLQJIRUZRUNHUV &KLOGODERXU 2FFXSDWLRQDOVDIHW\ 5HFRJQLWLRQRIODQGULJKWV

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

HL

HUWK

XQG

GXFH

HSUR

RIWK

QFH QIOXH

JRYH

UQPH

QW 

PDUN

HWDF

WRUV

‡ ‡

*'3SHUFDSLWD *URZWKUDWH 3RYHUW\UDWH $YHUDJHLQFRPH *LQLLQGH[ 7KHLOLQGH[ (PSOR\PHQWUDWHDQGHPSOR\PHQW FUHDWLRQ (QHUJ\SULFHV 3ULFHVRIFRPPRGLWLHVDIIHFWHGE\WKH ELRHQHUJ\VHFWRUHJIRRGODQG

NHW

PDU

VWRFN

IHHG

WKH UDQG

LVHV

6RFLR(FRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWDQG PDUNHWHIIHFWV

&RVWVRISURYLVLRQDQG&2DEDWHPHQW 3URFHVVHIILFLHQF\ 1HWHQHUJ\EDODQFH

‡

WHUSU

Fig. 15.7 Selection of indicators concerning the economic dimension of sustainability, partly based on [176–178]

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene349

indicators in Fig. 15.7 present the socio-economic performance at a national level and can only be partly influenced by a single enterprise or industry sector. The establishment of a biofuel industry sector can lead to a change in these indicators, e.g. by creating employment, increasing per capita GDP, lowering the poverty rate etc. In this chapter, three important aspects regarding the socio-economic dimension of sustainability are discussed in detail: 1. costs of biokerosene production, 2. the effect of biofuels on food prices and price volatility and consequences, and 3. implications of investment in land (often referred to as “land grabbing”). Furthermore, more general impacts on the socio-economic system are briefly discussed. 15.3.2.1 Minimum Fuel Selling Price In order to allow a market penetration of biokerosene, novel biofuel technologies need to be suitable to be used in existing infrastructure and aircrafts due to slow replacement rates of existing infrastructure and high costs of infrastructure and aircraft fleet replacement. Current estimates show that most biokerosene provision pathways are not able to compete economically with fossil kerosene (Fig. 15.8). The literature review of minimum fuel selling prices (MFSP’s) is based on data from industrial facilities and techno-economic models, mostly assuming commercialized production (nth plant conditions11). Basic assumptions like e.g. feedstock prices, discounting rates, interest rates and technical parameters differ among the available studies. The review is thus rather thought to serve as a preliminary assessment of costs. In case of HEFA-biokerosene, camelina and soybean result in lowest price estimates. Feedstock cost accounts for the highest share of cost in case of soybean [181]. The assumed price of soybean is about 2.5 times higher than that of camelia, which results in lowest prices in case of camelina [181, 187]. The MFSP of HEFA biokerosene from used cooking oil is among the lowest of compared studies [188, 189]. Despite being a residue, feedstock costs account for around 70 % of the overall costs. There is a high variation in algae-derived fuel due to technical specifications of open pond (OP) and closed bioreactors (CBR) concepts: the costs of CBRs is about 17.5 times higher than the installation of an OP system [183]. The authors see the highest potential of cost reduction in optimizing algae productivity and lipid content. Klein-Marcuschamer et al. [184] estimate comparably high costs for HEFA from algae grown in OP systems due to high investment costs for ponds and harvesting equipment. Atsonios et al. [190] assessed different pathways to synthesize n-butanol and iso-butanol via hydrolysis and fermentation as well as syngas fermentation. In all cases, total installation costs account for about 50 % of total costs. The resulting price of renewable jet fuel is higher than that of conventional kerosene in all assessed cases. However, short-chained products, i.e. butanol, butane and C8 to C16 olefins, could be sold at nth plant assumptions imply mature technology (no pioneer plant) and assumes that other plants with similar specifications are or have been in operation on a commercial scale [179].

11

350

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt  

0)63LQ>¼NJ@

     

3DWKZD\

QE LE $W-

)$ )DUQHVHQH %7/

'6+&

2LO

:KHDWVWUDZ

$OJDH

)RUHVWUHVLGXHV

:KHDWVWUDZ

:RRG

)RUHVWUHVLGXHV

:KHDWVWUDZ

6XJDUFDQH

)RUHVWUHVLGXHV

&RUQVWRYHU

:KHDWVWUDZ

:RRGFKLSV

)RUHVWUHVLGXHV

:RRGFKLSV

:RRGFKLSV

3RSODU

(WKDQRO

:KHDWVWUDZ

:KHDWVWUDZ

)RUHVWUHVLGXHV

7DOORZ

&RUQVWRYHU

&DPHOLQD

2LO +()$

8VHGFRRNLQJRLO

3ODWIRUP

$OJDH

)HHGVWRFN

-DWURSKD



6R\EHDQ



2LO

3\URO\VLV +7/+'&-

Fig. 15.8  Minimum selling price of biokerosene in EUR2013/kg for different production pathways and platform compounds produced in nth plant facilities. The dashed and solid lines present the average and 90 %-percentile monthly price of conventional jet fuel between August 2011 and July 2016 [105]. Sources, partly obtained from [180]: HEFA – soy [181, 182], algae [183, 184, 185], jatropha [186], camelina [187], used cooking oil [188, 189], tallow [189]; AtJ – corn stover [190, 191], forest residues [188], wheat straw [188, 190], poplar [192], wood chips [190]; BtL – wood chips [190], forest residues [188], wheat straw [188]; DSHC – corn stover [193], sugarcane [184], forest residues [188], wheat straw [188]; Pyrolysis – wood [194], forest residues [188], wheat straw [188]; HTL-HDCJ – algae [195]. Abbreviations: FA – fatty acids, i.-b. – iso-butanol, n-b. – n-butanol

a competitive price. Among compared AtJ pathways, the acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation from corn stover [190], at which ethanol and butanol are further converted to biokerosene, results in lowest prices. The process has significantly lower capital costs and double the operating costs compared to the other pathways and benefits from revenues from acetone. Among DSHC pathways, there is no clear picture to be drawn from reported prices: Davis et al. [193] reported a MFSP of around 1,775 €/t that can be achieved using nth plant technology to produce biokerosene via fatty acids. Davis et al. [193] emphasize the importance of creating valuable co-products, e.g. from lignin and acetate, in order to reach lower fuel prices. Klein-Marcuschamer et al. [184] estimate MFSPs of 2,560 and 1,410 €/t to produce biokerosene via farnesene; the low estimate presents prices of future optimized conditions. Raw materials account for 70 % of costs in case of standard cost estimations. Compared to the former results, de Jong et al. [188] estimate comparably high prices for DSHC biokerosene from forest residues and wheat straw. The difference between the two originates from feedstock costs: the price of wheat straw (190 €/t) is twice as much as that of forest residues. The MFSPs of DHSC biokerosene lies above prices of the other pathways to

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene351

obtain fuel from forest residues and wheat straw that are assessed by de Jong et al. [188]: AtJ 3,253 and 4,731 €/t, BtL 2,334 and 3,377 €/t and HTL 1,290 and 1,781 €/t for forest residues and straw, respectively. HTL and pyrolysis benefit from high yields and comparably low total purchased equipment costs (TPEC). The MFSP of pyrolysis is slightly higher due to higher upgrading requirements and slightly higher TPEC. In both cases, the share of operational expenditures constitutes a high share of total costs. None of the considered cases reaches a fuel price that is comparable with conventional jet fuel. De Jong et al. [188] even argue that renewable fuel production from DSHC and AtJ pathways create opportunity costs due to more favorable market conditions for the intermediate products, i.e. farnesene, or ethanol and butanol, which could be used for many other industrial purposes, e.g. cosmetics, fragrances, biopharmaceuticals, etc. MFSPs of biokerosene production in pioneer plants are likely to exceed MFSPs of production under nth plant conditions: De Jong et al. [188] assessed the increase in MFSP in case of production in a pioneer plant and estimate an increase in MFSP by 1, 64 to 86, 57 to 82, 77 to 105 and 63 to 87 % in the case of HEFA, AtJ, BtL, pyrolysis and HTL, respectively. The HEFA pathway shows the lowest difference due to the maturity of technology. Consequently, immature technologies face larger differences between pioneer facilities and under nth plant conditions. The literature review shows no clear advantage for any conversion pathway or feedstock. Modelled estimates are uncertain due to missing technical parameters and uncertainty about future technical improvements. Still all studies assume a mature technology and consider conditions not achieved yet in many pathways. The majority of assessed concepts produce biokerosene at a much higher cost than that of fossil kerosene. The production in pioneer plants might result in much higher MFSPs than reported in Fig. 15.8 [188]. To increase competitiveness, the production of high value co-products is essential [188, 196]. Furthermore, the introduction of a monetary burden on fossil fuels seems inevitable to make biokerosene financially competitive considering current price estimates and fossil fuel prices. 15.3.2.2 Competition for food, feed, fibre and fuel The competition for land and the effect on food prices is a frequently discussed aspect in the context of biofuels and presents the most popular critique against them. Fertile land and agricultural productivity is inevitably limited (even considering yield improvements). This ultimately results in the question of how fertile land could be used in the most productive and sustainable manner while serving the needs of a growing world population, changing consumption patterns, increasing demands for energy and biogenic products as well as the need for nature conservation. The rapidly growing demand for biofuels in the past decade was therefore accompanied by a public and scientific debate on the effects of biofuels on food prices and food security. This debate was propelled by several aspects. • Increasing and volatile food prices (Fig. 15.9). Price indices indicate a strong relation between crude oil price and prices of agricultural commodities. Increasing

352

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

 

,QGH[

   

















































 



)RRG3ULFH,QGH[1

)RRG3ULFH,QGH['

&HUHDO3ULFH,QGH['

2LO3ULFH,QGH['

6XJDU3ULFH,QGH['

&UXGH2LO3ULFH'

Fig. 15.9  Indices of food prices and crude oil [200, 201] - (indices are presented in nominal (N) and deflated (D) values)

prices and a high volatility of prices can be observed in the past 20 years. The so called “food crisis” in 2007/2008 triggered a large debate on factors influencing food prices. The demand for biofuels, the fossil fuel price, increasing demand, exchange rates and financial speculation on the demand side, and relatively low production increases, low investments preceding the crisis, low stocks, trade impediments and decreasing exports on the supply side are named as probable causes for the sharp increase in food prices in 2007/2008 [197–199]. Wright [199] emphasizes the importance of stocks and that biofuel mandates magnify occurring increases in prices due to a decrease in supply at low stocks. • On the demand side. A growing world population, changing diets and the use of agricultural products for other purposes (e.g. bioenergy and biofuels) increase the need for agricultural commodities. In the years to come, the growth in demand due to biofuels is expected to prevail but to slow down due to blending walls that are reached in the US and EU [154]. Currently, most first generation fuels are produced from feedstock suitable as food or feed or feedstock that is grown on land that could be used to provide food and feed. Still, the majority of most feedstocks used for bioethanol and biodiesel production are used for other purposes than biofuel production (Fig. 15.10). These shares are not expected to change significantly on large scale in the upcoming decade. On a regional scale, shares of commodities used for fuel production could be significantly higher [154]: In the US 44 % of maize is converted to bioethanol and around 38, 41 and 69 % of vegetable oil consumed in the EU, Thailand and Argentina, respectively, are used for biofuels. • On the supply side. Yields are increasing year by year, but yield increases are declining, e.g. wheat yields increased in average by about 2.1 %/a from 1961 to 2007 and are expected to increase by about 0.7 %/a from 2007 to 2050 [202].

&(

&*

6& 92

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene353

:RUOG :RUOG 'HYHORSLQJ 'HYHORSHG 'HYHORSLQJ 'HYHORSHG 









^ŚĂƌĞŽĨĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶŝŶ΀й΁ %LRIXHO

)RRGIHHGRWKHU

)RRG

)HHG

2WKHU

%LRIXHO

Fig. 15.10  Share of consumption of cereals (CE), coarse grains (CG), sugarcane (SC) and vegetable oil (VO) used for biofuel production and other purposes 2011 to 2013 and 2023 [154]

Based on these aspects two main questions arise that present the core of the food vs. fuel debate: 1. What is the impact of biofuels on commodity prices? 2. What is the linkage between staple food prices, poverty and food security? To what extent biofuels influence commodity prices is of major concern, especially since the food crisis in 2007/2008 and a steadily increasing demand for biofuels. Hochman and Zielberman [203] analyzed 43 studies and found that there is a (limited) effect of biofuels on food and fossil fuel prices. On average, US corn prices increased by 17.54 €2007/t (SD = 18.69), while fossil fuel prices decreased to a small extent. The effect on fossil fuel prices seems to be constant, despite increasing ethanol production. According to Hochman et al. [204], economic growth and entailed changes in consumption patterns contributed by more than 50 % to the increase in price. Another literature review by Condon et al. [205] lists increases in corn prices from −0.2 to 72 % that were reported in 19 studies. This yields a study-weighted average increase of corn prices of 0.24 % per 1 % increase in ethanol production. Most of the variation in price increase among studies can be explained by modelling framework, assumed and predicted ethanol production, projection year and the inclusion of the production of other biofuels. Kretschmer et al. [206] analyzed 7 studies and found an increase in commodity prices of 8 to 20, 1 to 36 and 1 to 22 % in case of oilseeds, vegetable oils and cereals, including maize, respectively as a consequence of EU biofuel mandates. Another 5 studies report price increases 2 to 7, 35 and 1 to 35 % for the same feedstocks as a consequence of global biofuel mandates. Persson [207] reviewed 121 studies dealing with the impact of biofuels on commodity prices on a global scale. The review yields an average

354

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

increase in US corn price of 36 %/(EJ a)12 of increase in bioethanol production. This equals 11 to 43 % of price increase of corn in the US between 2000 and 2008. During that period, bioethanol production increased by 0.68 EJ. In the EU, the price increase of oilseeds triggered by an increase in biofuel production is 25 %/(EJ a)13, equaling about a third of the price increase observed in the EU between 2000 and 2008 considering the biodiesel production increase during that period. The author emphasizes that current assessments assume rather small biofuel demand shocks that are much lower than future predictions and targets. Facing larger demand shocks, demand and supply behave in a non-linear manner so that demand becomes more inelastic due to physical and agronomical limits, e.g. limited land resources, declining yield increases. Hence, price increases might be larger. Based on reviewed literature, Persson [207] concludes that a positive feedback of prices triggered by biofuel demand. Still, a better knowledge of elasticities of supply and demand, the functioning of land markets as well as of market transmission is needed to accurately predict price increases. Other literature claims that current biofuel policy links food and energy markets and thereby increases price volatility [208–210]. In contrast to these studies, Kline et al. [152] argue that agricultural land is not the limiting factor and, thus, that food and fuel do not compete. Biofuels could help to reduce price volatility by a flexible biofuel production. Setting flexible biofuel mandates that are adapted to the prevailing market situation, instead of fixed blending rates, could alleviate pressure on food markets as the latter presents an inelastic demand [152, 209–211]. Available review literature yields a heterogeneous picture of potential price changes due to biofuel mandates. However, almost exclusively increasing prices are reported. The extent of increase is highly variable and a matter of high variation among studies. Kretschmer et al. [206] conclude from their review that oil crops are more strongly influenced than cereal crops. This might be due to larger quantities of biodiesel consumed, due to the market structure and due to the high share of vegetable oils used for biodiesel production. Thus, what is the effect of rising food prices? – Increase in income or increase in poverty? There has been a vital debate on the effect of food prices on poverty with many actors presenting contradictory arguments throughout the discussion [212]. Before the 2007/2008 food crisis, many organizations, e.g. non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the FAO, the Wold Bank and other institutions, promoted the idea that low staple food prices, supported by export subsidizes of developed countries, increase poverty by reducing revenue for rural farmers in developing countries. After the crisis, high staple food prices were often criticized for pushing low-income consumers into poverty [212]. Idan [213] reviewed 19 studies and reports that an increase in food staple prices creates winners and losers: Net food producers usually profit from high prices, while net consumers face negative effects. The extent of negative effects is alleviated by changes in consumption patterns,

12 13

SD = 18 %/(EJ a), n = 218. SD = 25 %/(EJ a), n = 25, one outliner removed.

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene355

welfare benefits triggered by those profiting, e.g. by providing employment, etc. The market linkage of global and local food markets varies across countries and some markets for certain commodities appear to be mostly disconnected from world markets while others transmit changes of world market prices to local markets to a larger extent. The impact of higher commodity prices can be especially severe for countries that depend predominantly on imports [211]: A price increase of 0.20 US$/kg of cereals results in costs for imports equaling up to 9.5 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the top ten cereal-importing countries in Africa. Most of the reviewed studies indicate an increase in poverty due to increasing food prices due to a higher decrease in welfare of net consumers opposed to welfare benefits of net producers. Ivanic and Martin [214] report similar findings from nine low income countries. The effects and magnitude effects vary for different commodities, among countries and within a country considering rural and urban population as well as income. The negative consequences for net consumers outweigh positive consequences for net producers. Other studies from around the world report as well that the poorest share of the population is affected negatively by increasing food prices due to similar reasons, while net food producers profit [215–219]. Producers could profit from increased income, which could in turn promote investment in agriculture [220]. Thereby yield improvements could be achieved. The increase in food prices often results in a reduction of quality of food that is consumed [221]. This finding is supported by an analysis by Green et al. [222], who analyses 136 studies that reported price elasticities from 162 countries. The authors found a decrease in demand by 0.61, 0.55 and 0.43 % per 1 % increase of cereal price in low, middle and high income countries, respectively.14 The demand for vegetable oil decreased by 0.60, 0.54 and 0.42 %, respectively, per 1 % increase in vegetable oil price.15 These findings indicate a stronger impact of food price increase in low income countries. Several studies reviewed by Indan [213] focus on the impact of price volatility and most studies report a substitution of commodities facing volatile prices with uncorrelated commodities by consumers, while net producers, in contrast, face more negative consequences. Biofuels could however stabilize markets and reduce price volatility [152, 220]: biofuel production can be increased during low price periods and lowered at high feedstock prices. This has a levelling effect on commodity prices, even though the overall demand for feedstock might contribute to an increase in feedstock prices. Other authors argue that there can be a positive feedback between food prices and productivity: increasing prices might promote investment and thereby increase yields [220]. To summarize, it can be concluded that the introduction of biokerosene will affect food commodity markets, if realized by food crops or on land that could otherwise be used to provide food and feed. All literature reports increasing commodity prices

The 95 % confidence intervals for cereals and fats and oils are −0.66 to −0.56, −0.61 to −0.41, 0.48 to 0.36 and −0.65 to −0.45, −0.60 to −0.47, −0.48 to −0.35 %, in case of low, middle and high income countries, respectively. 15 See note 13. 14

356

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

due to feedstock demand for biofuel production, but the estimated extent of increase varies. The linkages between global and local food markets are difficult to assess and depend heavily on market integration [223, 224]. Review studies report predominantly negative consequences of increasing food prices and price volatility. Both increase the risks of increasing the poverty gap as poor people are most affected by increasing prices. It should be kept in mind that other drivers, e.g. yield variations, population growth, change in diets, speculation etc. contribute (possibly to an even larger extent) to increasing prices and price volatility. Flexible biofuel policies and blending rates are a mechanism to reduce price volatility. The promotion of biofuels based on residues or from feedstock grown on land that is not suitable for food production is a way to mitigate and alleviate negative effects of increasing demands for agricultural products, regardless of their use. 15.3.2.3

Land Acquisition and Direct Investment

The debate on direct investment in land is held as controversially as the food vs. fuel debate. Land acquisition by purchase, lease or joint venture is either considered as an investment that creates employment and offers access to technology and financial resources, or as a land “grab” that increases poverty and ignores the interests of rural farmers, while serving the global demand for agricultural commodities and the interests of international enterprises [225]. Much public attention was drawn to the topic after the announcement that Daewoo Logistics Corporation, a South Korean company, signed a 99-year agreement to rent 1.3 million ha of land in Madagascar [226], an area that amounts to about of half of all arable land in Madagascar. After protests from Madagascan citizens that turned violent, NGOs, media, the public i.a., the contract was cancelled. Still, foreign investment has not come to a halt. Most of the investment in land takes place in Africa (Fig. 15.11). A peak in the number of agreements can be observed in 2009, following the 2007/2008 food crisis [227]. The largest areas affected by agreements that have been verified are located in the Philippines, Madagascar and Ethiopia. The share of areas designated for agriculture amounts to 81 %. The largest share of land acquired is forest land, 31 % of the total area, followed by crop land, 22 %, and shrubland, 17 %. The breakdown of intended uses shows a rather small contribution of biofuels. Around 73 % of non-food projects are designated to jatropha production, most of which are located in East Africa. Projects in Asia rather focus on other commodities such as rubber. Yet, 26 % of all areas presented in Fig. 15.11 are designated to grow “flex crops”, which can be used for food, feed and fuel, e.g. soybean, oil palm, sugarcane. It is therefore difficult to assign these areas to any specific category. Flex crops alleviate the risk of price volatility as crops can be used for food, fuel production and other purposes [152, 227]. This however requires a significant reduction in biofuel production at high prices and thus, a flexible biofuel policy. Due to their flexible use and suitability to different markets, they are especially attractive to investors [229]. They, however, bear the risk of increasing food prices in case of inflexible demands for other use than food (see Section 15.3.2.2). Souza et al. [220] emphasize that there is a huge potential

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene357 

7RWDODUHDLQ>KD@



 







  





 





   

    



D E F D E F D E F D E F D E F D E F $)5

($3

%LRIXHOV

)RRG

(&$

/$&

,QGXVWULDO3ODQWDWLRQ

01$ /LYHVWRFN

8($ 2WKHU

Fig. 15.11  Land projects in Sub-Saharan Africa (AFR), East Asia and Pacific (EAP), Eastern and Central Europe (ECA), Latin America (LAC), Middle East and North Africa (MNA) and US, EU and Australia (UEA). The percentage value presents the share of land used for biofuel projects. Graphic based on data reported in [225]. Data stem from (a) media reports that reported land deals between October 2008 and August 2009 by the NGO grain (www.farmlandgrab.org), (b) historical data on signed agreements collected by Alomar and Cousquer [228] and (c) agreements that have been verified on ground, spanning from 2000 to 2010 [227].

of land that can be used for bioenergy provision even when all other needs, such as food and feed, are fulfilled. A better understanding of the drivers of land scarcity, land-use change and land conversion is required to reduce negative effects and to promote synergetic effects of food and biofuel provision  [152]. The impact of land investments is a matter of debate. Collier and Venables [230] argue that pioneer investors, as opposed to speculators, can facilitate an increase in productivity. Deininger [231] reports socio-economic benefits as well as negative consequences from different countries around the world. Positive results were: increase in productivity, improvement of cultivation through research, reduction of environmental damages, training and qualification of workers, improvement of infrastructure and an increase in profitability through economies of scale. Negative impacts were: conversion of native vegetation, low employment generation due to high mechanization, low poverty reduction, infringement of land rights, disregard of local population’s interests, weakening of political institutions [231]. Often, marginal land is praised for its potential to provide large areas for biofuel production. However, marginal and degraded lands often present the base of subsistence for the local population and their conversion can have severe impacts on the local population [232]. It is a matter of market conditions, infrastructure, political structures and management whether investment in land results in positive or negative consequences. On a local scale, the impact of changes in land-use and land ownership

358

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

can be severe for local population, due to loss of agricultural land, access to forest resources and, consequently, a decline in livelihood of people directly affected by plantations as well as people living in proximity, e.g. [233]. Several case studies report that the change in landownership and land-rights resulted in conflicts within communities, between communities and with companies, often due to a lack of transparency or a breach of contract [233–235]. This might produce mistrust in future biofuel projects. 15.3.2.4

Other Impacts on the Socio-Economic System

The biokerosene industry can provide employment, income in rural areas, investment and shareholder opportunities. The EU, for example, considers the provision of income and the creation of employment opportunities as a core motivation of biofuel production [19]. In 2012, the bio-economy sector provided 18.3 million jobs, 9 % of jobs in the EU [236]. The bioenergy and biofuel sector created around 5 % of the annual turnover. The largest share of jobs can be found in the primary biomass production sector, whereas the biofuel and bioenergy sectors provided approximately 128,000 jobs in the EU-28 in 2013. On a global scale, it is estimated that 7.7 million people are directly or indirectly employed in the renewable energy sector of which 23 % can be found in the liquid biofuel sector [237]. There are many studies from around the world that imply a high potential of renewable energies and biofuels to promote employment creation, e.g. [238–243]. However, opposing opinions can be found as well that argue that high energy prices and subsidies reduce jobs in other sectors [244]. On a local scale, the picture is often more complex: at Indonesian oil palm plantations, employment creation and change in working conditions benefited some workers by granting them higher salaries and a regular income [233, 234], while others face a reduction in income and quality of living [233]. Van Eijck reviewed 39 studies and reports mostly positive socio-economic impacts of jatropha cultivation due to employment creation and increased income; however, some locations faced only marginal or no profitability [245]. The discontinuity of some projects created insecurity and high financial risks for local farmers. A third rationale, next to the reduction of GHG emissions and the creation of jobs and income, is energy security. Biofuels present a way to increase the diversity of energy sources, allows the production of energy from feedstock that can be sourced around the globe, reduces dependency on fossil energy with its geographically and economically limited access and might provide a financially competitive source of energy in future. The implementation of biofuels into existing transport system is, however, connected to costs. Often, biofuels are subsidized via tax-exemptions. In developing countries, tax revenues from fuel can account for up to 25 % of state revenues [246]. The introduction of blending quotas and tax exemptions could thus reduce state revenue by a considerable share as long as the price of fossil fuels is below that of biofuels. This aspect might thus present an obstacle for developing countries to introduce biofuels [247]. However, the demand of feedstock

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene359

for biofuel production and fuel conversion can provide markets for agricultural products, employment as well as investment in infrastructure and technological improvements. It can thereby contribute to a sustainable economic development if permanent and local workforce is promoted instead of seasonal and casual labor [178]. The status of workers should be improved by associations and the allowance of collective bargaining. Additionally, the benefits of local stakeholders should be increased by cooperation with local communities, the formation of cooperatives and the provision of affordable energy. Cooperation can be strengthened by shareholding options, local ownerships, joint ventures and partnerships of globally acting biofuel producers as well as local farmers and communities. Whether developing countries gain access to biofuel markets in the EU and US or not, is a matter of economic competitiveness, market integration and trade restrictions [248]. Often, import tariffs ensure competitiveness of producers within the industrialized countries while it presents obstacles for developing countries to export their products.

15.4 Final Considerations In the course of this paper, several key aspects of sustainability in the context of the provision and use of biokerosene were discussed. From an environmental perspective, biokerosene offers the chance to reduce GHG emissions and emissions of other harmful substances, e.g. particles, sulfur containing compounds, etc. If there is any reduction in GHG emissions, is a matter of cultivation practice, conversion technology and, most important, of land-use change. Direct and indirect land-use changes (dLUC and iLUC) bear a high risk of emitting substantial amounts of GHG resulting in a net increase in GHG emissions compared to conventional kerosene. Land-use change furthermore threatens native vegetation and biodiversity. A substantial loss of native landscapes has taken place in the last decades, mostly triggered by agricultural activities, the expansion of urban areas and other socio-economic factors. These factors need to be better understood in order to avoid conversion of native vegetation and to promote a sustainable use of land for food and fuel provision. Feedstock provision also poses risks to soil and water quality: The application of industrial fertilizers and pesticides potentially reduces soil and water quality. Excess nutrient concentrations can be observed all around the world as a consequence of excessive use of fertilizers. Many of these negative consequences can be alleviated by the following measures: • Heterogeneous plantations such as low intensity high diversity crops (LIHD) can have positive effects on biodiversity and soil properties [73, 70]. • Plantation design and management might reduce negative effects (by a very limited extent), e.g. the retention of forest patches within or in proximity of monoculture plantations [249, 250]. • Buffer zones established at the edge of a plantation could increase biodiversity to some extent and filter nutrients and contaminants.

360

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

• The efficient use of fertilizers by crop-rotation, timing of fertilization and introduction of fertilizer-efficient species can help to reduce the loss of nutrients and the emission of eutrophying and otherwise contaminating substances [251]. • Crop rotations result in an increase in soil quality and yields compared to mono-cropping [74, 252]. • The use of lignocellulosic material as feedstock such as grasses or short rotation coppice can result in positive effects on soil and water quality. • Some plants, e.g. jatropha and salicornia, can be used on land that is not suitable for other crops. They thereby provide an additional source of revenue without competing with food crops. From a socio-economic perspective positive outcomes can be generated while negative consequences can and should be minimized by proper management and adequate economic and political structures. Biofuel provision has created employment opportunities around the world and thus contributed to local income as well as increased state revenues. Feedstock provision can generate a continuous source of income in rural and poor areas. The recognition of land-rights and fair working conditions are key aspects of socio-economic sustainability in rural areas. Presented literature reviews indicate an increase in commodity prices that can be attributed to the demand for biofuels. It should be kept in mind that only minor share of agricultural products serves as feedstock for biofuels on a global scale and other factors such as a growing population, changing consumption patterns, market speculation, etc. play an important role in the increase in prices that has taken place in the past decade. Still, it is undeniable that the introduction of biokerosene, if based on food or flex crops, bears the risk of contributing to increasing food prices and price volatility, if market structures are not adapted appropriately. The effect of increasing prices has been discussed controversially in the past and the majority of scientific work reports an increase in poverty due to high food prices. The negative effects faced by net consumers outweigh positive effects experienced net producers. The impact of biofuels on price volatility is mostly a consequence of biofuel policy: flexible biofuel production and blending can reduce volatility, while fixed mandates and blending rates are likely to contribute to price volatility. Again, the use of (lignocellulosic) residues is the way forward to reduce competition with food and feed. It reduces pressure on commodity markets and increases public acceptance for biofuels. Another obstacle is the price of biokerosene provision: Current estimates of future biokerosene production, even assuming large-scale and commercially operating production, show that the minimum fuel selling price of biokerosene is by far not competitive with its fossil counterpart. The production of valuable co-products and taxation of fossil fuels present ways forward to increase competitiveness and to facilitate market introduction of biokerosene. Many of those environmental and socio-economic impacts presented here are merely impacts of agriculture in general, rather than specifically originating from the provision and use of biokerosene. In case of biofuels used for road transportation, legislative sustainability requirements, such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive [26, 27], the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) [253] and the Californian

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene361

Low Caron Fuel Standard [254], are in place. There are numerous voluntary certification schemes dealing with a wider range sustainability aspects of biofuel and biomass production, see e.g. [255]. In terms of sustainability requirements in place, biofuels are ahead of other commodities: None of the regulatory sustainability requirements is binding for other agricultural products than those used as biofuel. This provokes a paradox situation: many crops, i.e. flex crops, can be used as food, feed or fuel and only the ultimate use of the product defines whether sustainability requirements need to be adhered to or not and not the impact of and the potential risk entailed by the production itself. Consequently, the introduction of a mandatory scheme for agricultural products, regardless of their final use, covering a wider range of sustainability aspects is needed to reduce negative impacts. Acknowledgement  We thank Christophe Spies for reviewing the manuscript.

References [1]

Carlowitz H von (1713) Sylvicultura Oeconomica Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht. Bey Johann Friedrich Brauns sel. Erben. Johann Friedrich Braun, Leipzig Germany [2] Kaphengst T (2014) Towards a definition of global sustainable land use? A discussion on theory, concepts and implications for governance: globalands. Discussion Paper AP 3.1 [3] World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford paperbacks. Oxford University Press, Oxford [4] (1992) 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I)/31 ILM 874 (1992) [5] United Nations (2002) Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development. Johannesburg, United Nations, New York, USA [6] (2015) Integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development: how to achieve a balanced, ambitious and inclusive framework. UNEP Post 2015 Note #1. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya [7] Rapport DJ (2007) Sustainability science: an ecohealth perspective. Sustain Sci 2(1):77–84. doi:10.1007/s11625-006-0016-3 [8] Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28(1):559–586. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551 [9] Solow, R.M (1974) Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Rev Econ Stud 41:29–45. doi:10.2307/2296370 [10] Victor PA (1991) Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory. Ecol Econ 4(3):191–213. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(91)90051-F [11] Hediger W (2006) Weak and strong sustainability, environmental conservation and economic growth. NRM 19(3):359–394. doi:10.1111/j.1939-7445.2006.tb00185.x [12] Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57(4):777–786. doi:10.2307/1815368 [13] Rammel C (2003) Sustainable development and innovations: lessons from the Red Queen. IJSD 6 (4):395. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2003.004210 [14] Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Kline KL et al (2013) Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: what about context? Environ Manag 51(2):291–306. doi:10.1007/ s00267-012-9907-5 [15] Coenen L, Benneworth P, Truffer B (2012) Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res Policy 41(6):968–979. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014

362

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[16] Hodge SJ, Peterken GF (1998) Deadwood in British forests: priorities and a strategy. Forestry 71(2):99–112. doi:10.1093/forestry/71.2.99 [17] Schroth G, D’Angelo SA, Teixeira WG et al (2002) Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 years. Forest Ecol Manag 163 (1–3):131–150. doi:10.1016/ S0378-1127(01)00537-0 [18] Felton A, Lindbladh M, Brunet J et al (2010) Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: an assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. Forest Ecol Manag 260(6):939–947. doi:10.1016/j. foreco.2010.06.011 [19] European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. EUR-OP, Luxembourg [20] International Air Transport Association (2009) Aviation and climate change: pathway to carbon-neutral growth in 2020. IATA, Geneva [21] Neuling U, Kaltschmitt M (2015) Conversion routes for production of biokerosene – status and assessment. Biomass Conv Bioref 5(4):367–385. doi:10.1007/s13399-014-0154-2 [22] Dugar D, Stephanopoulos G (2011) Relative potential of biosynthetic pathways for biofuels and bio-based products. Nat Biotechnol 29(12):1074–1078. doi:10.1038/nbt.2055 [23] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (ed) (1988) Report of the FAO Council, 94th Session [24] European Commission (1999) Directions towards sustainable agriculture European Commission, Brussels, Belgium [25] (2011) United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 7 – agriculture, Chapter 65, Section 3103 [26] (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC [27] (2015) Directive 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable  sources [28] Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292(5515):281–284. doi:10.1126/science.1057544 [29] Liu Y, Pan X, Li J (2015) A 1961–2010 record of fertilizer use, pesticide application and cereal yields: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35(1):83–93. doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0259-9 [30] Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee (2008) Glossary of soil science terms 2008. Soil Science Society of America, Madison [31] Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Cambardella CA (2004) The soil management assessment framework. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68(6):1945. doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.1945 [32] Karlen DL, Andrews SS, Wienhold BJ et al (2008) Soil quality assessment: past, present and future. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA [33] Goodrick I, Nelson PN, Banabas M et al (2015) Soil carbon balance following conversion of grassland to oil palm. GCB Bioenergy 7(2):263–272. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12138 [34] Guillaume T, Damris M, Kuzyakov Y (2015) Losses of soil carbon by converting tropical forest to plantations: erosion and decomposition estimated by delta(13) C. Glob Chang Biol 21(9):3548–3560. doi:10.1111/gcb.12907 [35] Frazão LA, Paustian K, Pellegrino Cerri CE et al (2013) Soil carbon stocks and changes after oil palm introduction in the Brazilian Amazon. GCB Bioenergy 5(4):384–390. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01196.x [36] Chiti T, Grieco E, Perugini L et al (2014) Effect of the replacement of tropical forests with tree plantations on soil organic carbon levels in the Jomoro district, Ghana. Plant Soil 375(1–2):47–59. doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1928-1 [37] Pauli N, Donough C, Oberthür T et al (2014) Changes in soil quality indicators under oil palm plantations following application of “best management practices” in a four-year field trial. Agric Ecosyst Environ 195:98–111. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.05.005

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene363 [38] Comte I, Colin F, Whalen JK et al (2012) Agricultural practices in oil palm plantations and their impact on hydrological changes, nutrient fluxes and water quality in Indonesia: a review. In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 71–124 [39] Hartemink AE, Lal R (2008) Soil erosion, perennial crop plantations. In: Rattan Lal (ed) Encyclopedia of soil science. Taylor and Francis, New York, London, pp 1613–1617 [40] Yusoff S (2006) Renewable energy from palm oil – innovation on effective utilization of waste. J Clean Prod 14(1):87–93. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.07.005 [41] Chin MJ, Poh PE, Tey BT et al (2013) Biogas from palm oil mill effluent (POME): opportunities and challenges from Malaysia’s perspective. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 26:717–726. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.008 [42] Tan KT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR et al (2009) Palm oil: addressing issues and towards sustainable development. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 13(2):420–427. doi:10.1016/j. rser.2007.10.001 [43] Hooijer A, Page S, Canadell JG et al (2010) Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences 7(5):1505–1514. doi:10.5194/bg-7-1505-2010 [44] Rossi S, Tubiello FN, Prosperi P et al (2016) FAOSTAT estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat fires. Clim Change 135(3–4):699–711. doi:10.1007/ s10584-015-1584-y [45] Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conserv Lett 1(2):60–64. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00011.x [46] Wicke B, Sikkema R, Dornburg V et al (2011) Exploring land use changes and the role of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia. Land Use Policy 28(1):193–206. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.001 [47] Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A et al (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol (Amst.) 23(10):538–545. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012 [48] Margono BA, Potapov PV, Turubanova S et al (2014) Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat Clim Change 4(8):730–735. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2277 [49] Yule CM (2010) Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Indo-Malayan peat swamp forests. Biodivers Conserv 19(2):393–409. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9510-5 [50] Ogunwole JO, Chaudhary DR, Ghosh A et al (2008) Contribution of Jatropha curcas to soil quality improvement in a degraded Indian entisol. ACTA AGR SCAND Section B – Soil & Plant Science 58(3):245–251. doi:10.1080/09064710701628925 [51] Francis G, Edinger R, Becker K (2005) A concept for simultaneous wasteland reclamation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded areas in India: need, potential and perspectives of Jatropha plantations. Nat Resour Forum 29(1):12–24. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2005.00109.x [52] Agamuthu P, Abioye OP, Aziz AA (2010) Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with used lubricating oil using Jatropha curcas. J Hazard Mater 179(1–3):891–894. doi:10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2010.03.088 [53] Yadav SK, Juwarkar AA, Kumar GP et al (2009) Bioaccumulation and phyto-translocation of arsenic, chromium and zinc by Jatropha curcas L.: impact of dairy sludge and biofertilizer. Bioresour Technol 100(20):4616–4622. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.062 [54] Kumar GP, Yadav SK, Thawale PR et al (2008) Growth of Jatropha curcas on heavy metal contaminated soil amended with industrial wastes and Azotobacter. A greenhouse study. Bioresour Technol 99(6):2078–2082. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.032 [55] Jongschaap REE, Blesgraaf RAR, Bogaard TA et al (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy from Jatropha curcas L. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(35):E92. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0907272106 [56] Hendricks RC, Bushnell DM (2009) Halophytes energy feedstocks: Back to our roots. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 17–22, 2008, Curran Associates, Inc, Red Hook, USA [57] Stratton RW, Wong HM, Hileman JI (2010) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from alternative jet fuels: PARTNER Project 28 report. Version 1.2, Cambridge

364

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[58] Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Verbeeten E et al (2007) The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Forest Ecol Manag 251(1–2):45–51. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.014 [59] Dimitriou I, Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2012) Impact of willow short rotation coppice on water quality. Bioenerg Res 5(3):537–545. doi:10.1007/s12155-012-9211-5 [60] Mortensen J, Hauge Nielsen K, JØrgensen U (1998) Nitrate leaching during establishment of willow (Salix viminalis) on two soil types and at two fertilization levels. Biomass Bioenerg 15(6):457–466. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00056-7 [61] Dimitriou I, Busch G, Jacobs S et al (2009) A review of the impacts of short rotation coppice cultivation on water issues. Landbauforsch Volk 59(3):197–206 [62] Knur L, Murach D, Murn Y et al Potentials, economy and ecology of a sustainable supply with wooden biomass. In: Proceedings of 15th European Biomass conference, 7–11 May 2007, Berlin, Germany [63] Salvagiotti F, Cassman KG, Specht JE et al (2008) Nitrogen uptake, fixation and response to fertilizer N in soybeans: a review. Field Crops Res 108(1):1–13. doi:10.1016/j. fcr.2008.03.001 [64] Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC et al (2012) Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(4):1341–1346. doi:10.1073/pnas.1111374109 [65] Hernandes TAD, Bufon VB, Seabra JEA (2014) Water footprint of biofuels in Brazil: assessing regional differences. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 8(2):241–252. doi:10.1002/bbb.1454 [66] van der Kamp J, Yassir I, Buurman P (2009) Soil carbon changes upon secondary succession in Imperata grasslands (East Kalimantan, Indonesia). Geoderma 149(1–2):76–83. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.11.033 [67] Woomer PL, Palm CA, Alegre J et al (2000) slash-and-burn effects on carbon stocks in the humid tropics. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Stewart BA (eds) Global climate change and tropical ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 99–115 [68] Martinelli LA, Filoso S (2008) Expansion of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: environmental and social challanges. Ecol Appl 18(4):885–898. doi:10.1890/07-1813.1 [69] Goldemberg J, Coelho ST, Guardabassi P (2008) The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36(6):2086–2097. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.028 [70] Dale VH, Kline KL, Wiens J et al (2010) Biofuels: implications for land use and biodiversity. Ecological Society of America, Washington [71] Nicholson F, Kindred D, Bhogal A et al (2013) Straw incorporation review. HGCA, London [72] Guo Z, Wang DZ (2013) Long-term effects of returning wheat straw to croplands on soil compaction and nutrient availability under conventional tillage. Plant Soil Environ 59(6):280–286 [73] Wallace L, Palmer MW (2007) LIHD biofuels: toward a sustainable future. Front Ecol Environ 5(3):115. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[115:LBTASF]2.0.CO;2 [74] Aziz I, Mahmood T, Islam KR (2013) Effect of long term no-till and conventional tillage practices on soil quality. Soil Till Res 131:28–35. doi:10.1016/j.still.2013.03.002 [75] Huang S, Sun Y, Ruih W et al (2010) Long-term effect of no-tillage on soil organic carbon fractions in a continuous maize cropping system of Northeast China. Pedosphere 20(3):285–292. doi:10.1016/S1002-0160(10)60016-1 [76] Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biol 8(4):345–360. doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x [77] Kort J, Collins M, Ditsch D (1998) A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass Bioenerg 14(4):351–359. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10071-X [78] Wantzen K, Mol J (2013) Soil erosion from agriculture and mining: a threat to tropical stream ecosystems. Agriculture 3(4):660–683. doi:10.3390/agriculture3040660 [79] Geisseler D, Scow KM (2014) Long-term effects of mineral fertilizers on soil microorganisms – a review. Soil biol biochem 75:54–63. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.023 [80] Johnsen K, Jacobsen C, Torsvik V et al (2001) Pesticide effects on bacterial diversity in agricultural soils – a review. Biol Fert Soils 33(6):443–453. doi:10.1007/s003740100351

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene365 [81] Atlas R, Pramer D, Bartha R (1978) Assessment of pesticide effects on non-target soil microorganisms. Soil Biol Biochem 10(3):231–239. doi:10.1016/0038-0717(78)90101-3 [82] Jacobsen CS, Hjelmso MH (2014) Agricultural soils, pesticides and microbial diversity. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:15–20. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2013.09.003 [83] Imfeld G, Vuilleumier S (2012) Measuring the effects of pesticides on bacterial communities in soil: a critical review. Eur J Soil Biol 49:22–30. doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.11.010 [84] Mezher N, Rathbun WE, Wang H et al (2013) Chemical composition and screening-level environmental contamination risk of bioderived synthetic paraffinic kerosene (bio-SPK) jet fuels. Energy Fuels 27(7):3830–3837. doi:10.1021/ef400648j [85] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Chemical maximum contaminant level table: DocumentID: EPA 816-F-09-004, Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC [86] World Health Organization (2004) Petroleum products in drinking water, by “Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, DocumentID: WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/123. World Health Organization, Geneva [87] Brost EJ, DeVaull GE (2000) Non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) mobility limits in soil. Soil & Groundwater Research Bulletin, No. 9 American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC [88] Verhoeven JTA, Arheimer B, Yin C et al (2006) Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends Ecol Evol (Amst.) 21(2):96–103. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.015 [89] O’Neil JM, Davis TW, Burford MA et al (2012) The rise of harmful cyanobacteria blooms: the potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae 14:313–334. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.027 [90] Deegan LA, Johnson DS, Warren RS et al (2012) Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490(7420):388–392. doi:10.1038/nature11533 [91] Correll A, David L (1998) The role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of receiving waters: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 27(2):261. doi:10.2134/jeq1998.00472425002700020004x [92] Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321(5891):926–929. doi:10.1126/science.1156401 [93] Berndes G (2013) Bioenergy and water: challenges and opportunities. In: Dallemand JF, Gerbens-Leenes PW (eds) Bioenergy and water. Publications Office, Luxembourg, pp 49–60 [94] Statistical Office of the European Communities (2015) Agri-environmental indicator – pesticide pollution of water. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_pollution_of_water. Accessed: 09 Sep 2016 [95] Stone WW, Gilliom RJ, Ryberg KR (2014) Pesticides in U.S. streams and rivers: occurrence and trends during 1992–2011. Environ Sci Technol 48(19): 11025–11030. doi:10.1021/ es5025367 [96] Fleeger JW, Carman KR, Nisbet RM (2003) Indirect effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 317(1–3):207–233. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00141-4 [97] Hanazato T (2001) Pesticide effects on freshwater zooplankton: An ecological perspective. Environmental Pollution 112(1):1–10. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00110-X [98] DeLorenzo ME, Scott GI, Ross PE (2001) Toxicity of pesticides to aquatic microorganisms: A review. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(1):84–98. doi:10.1002/etc.5620200108 [99] Fernandez-Cornejo J, Nehring R, Osteen C et al (2014) Pesticide use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960–2008:EIB-124 [100] Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer T (2009) The water footprint of energy from biomass: A quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply. Ecol Econ 68(4):1052–1060. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.013 [101] Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM et al (2011) The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard. Earthscan, London [102] Staples MD, Olcay H, Malina R et al (2013) Water consumption footprint and land requirements of large-scale alternative diesel and jet fuel production. Environ Sci Technol 47(21):12557–12565. doi:10.1021/es4030782 [103] Zschocke A, Randt N, Wahl C et al (2014) Abschlussbericht zu dem Vorhaben Projekt BurnFAIR: Arbeitspakete 1.1 bis 1.4

366

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[104] Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY (2013) Water footprint quantification of energy at a global level. In: Dallemand J, Gerbens-Leenes P (eds) Bioenergy and water. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 61–75 [105] IndexMundi (2016) Commodity prices. http://www.indexmundi.com/. Accessed 07 Jan 2016 [106] Malaysian Palm Oil Board (2016) Monthly prices of palm oil products. http://bepi.mpob. gov.my/index.php/statistics/price/monthly.html. Accessed 09 Sept 2016 [107] Hoekstra AY, Gerbens-Leenes W, van der Meer, TH (2009) Reply to Jongschaap et al: the water footprint of Jatropha curcas under poor growing conditions. P Natl Acad Sci 106(42):E119–E119. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909626106 [108] Molina Grima E, Belarbi E, Acién Fernández F et al (2003) Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options and economics. Biotechnol Adv 20(7–8):491–515. doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(02)00050-2 [109] Boer K de, Bahri PA (2015) Economic and energy analysis of large-scale microalgae production for biofuels. In: Moheimani RN, McHenry PM, Boer K de et al (eds) Biomass and biofuels from microalgae: advances in engineering and biology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 347–365 [110] Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) Reply to Maes et al: a global estimate of the water footprint of Jatropha curcas under limited data availability. P Natl Acad Sci 106(40):E113–E113. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909624106 [111] Bulsink F, Hoekstra AY, Booij MJ (2010) The water footprint of Indonesian provinces related to the consumption of crop products. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14: 119–128, 2010; doi:10.5194/hess-14-119-2010 [112] van Lienden AR, Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY et al (2012) Biofuel scenarios in a water perspective: the global blue and green water footprint of road Transport in 2030 Glob Environ Change 22(3): 764–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.04.001 [113] Gerbens-Leenes PW, Vries GJ, Xu L (2013) The water footprint of biofuels from microalgae. In: Dallemand JF, Gerbens-Leenes PW (eds) Bioenergy and water. Publications Office, Luxembourg, pp 191–200 [114] Subhadra BG, Edwards M (2011) Coproduct market analysis and water footprint of simulated commercial algal biorefineries. Appl Energ 88(10):3515–3523. doi:10.1016/j. apenergy.2010.12.051 [115] Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY (2012) The water footprint of sweeteners and bio-ethanol. Environ Int 40:202–211. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.006 [116] Sevigne E, Gasol CM, Brun F et al (2011) Water and energy consumption of Populus spp. bioenergy systems: a case study in Southern Europe. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(2):1133–1140. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.034 [117] Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer T (2008) Water footprint of bio-energy and other primary energy carriers: value of Water Research Report Series No.29 , UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education; Delft, the Netherlands [118] International Air Transport Association (2013) Responsibly addressing climate change. International Air Transport Association; Montreal, Kanada [119] European Commission (2016) Biofuels for aviation. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ biofuels/biofuels-aviation [120] Bailis RE, Baka JE (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8684–8691. doi:10.1021/ es1019178 [121] Meyer K, Weinberg J, Kaltschmitt M (2012) GHG emissions from jatropha-based bioderived synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Biofuels 3(6):657–674. doi:10.4155/bfs.12.57 [122] Ou X, Yan X, Zhang X et al (2013) Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for bio-liquid jet fuel from open pond-based micro-algae under China conditions. Energies 6(9):4897–4923. doi:10.3390/en6094897 [123] Fagerstone KD, Quinn JC, Bradley TH et al (2011) Quantitative measurement of direct nitrous oxide emissions from microalgae cultivation. Environ Sci Technol 45(21):9449– 9456. doi:10.1021/es202573f

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene367 [124] Staples MD, Malina R, Olcay H et al (2014) Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint and minimum selling price of renewable diesel and jet fuel from fermentation and advanced fermentation production technologies. Energy Environ Sci 7(5):1545. doi:10.1039/C3EE43655A [125] Elgowainy A, Han J, Wang M et al (2012) Life-cycle analysis of alternative aviation fuels in GREET, Argonne National Laboratory; Argonne, USA [126] De Klein C, Novoa RS, Ogle S et al (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: volume 4 – agriculture, forestry and other land use: Chapter 11 – N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland [127] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238. doi:10.1126/science.1152747 [128] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. SCI 319(5867): 1238–1240. doi:10.1126/science.1151861 [129] Plevin RJ, O’Hare M, Jones AD et al (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44(21):8015–8021. doi:10.1021/es101946t [130] Mathews JA, Tan H (2009) Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 3(3):305–317. doi:10.1002/bbb.147 [131] Arima EY, Richards P, Walker R et al (2011) Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ Res Lett 6 (2):24010. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024010 [132] Edwards R, Mulligan D, Marelli L (2010) Indirect land use change from increased biofuels demand: comparison of models and results for marginal biofuels production from different feedstocks. (EUR Luxembourg), vol 24485. Publications Office, Luxembourg [133] Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J et al (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(8):3388–3393. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907318107 [134] Ahlgren S, Di Lucia L (2014) Indirect land use changes of biofuel production – a review of modelling efforts and policy developments in the European Union. Biotechnol Biofuels 7(1):35. doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-35 [135] Banse M, van Meijl H, Tabeau A et al (2011) Impact of EU biofuel policies on world agricultural production and land use. Biomass Bioenerg 35(6):2385–2390. doi:10.1016/j. biombioe.2010.09.001 [136] Wicke B, Verweij P, van Meijl H et al (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3(1):87–100. doi:10.4155/bfs.11.154 [137] Wolters F, Bercker R, Schaefer M (2012) Impact of alternative fuels on engine performance and CO2 emissions. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences [138] Lobo P, Hagen DE, Whitefield PD (2011) Comparison of PM emissions from a commercial jet engine burning conventional, biomass, and Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(24):10744–10749. doi:10.1021/es201902e [139] Kampa M, Castanas E (2008) Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut 151(2):362–367. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012 [140] Barrett SRH, Yim SHL, Gilmore CK et al (2012) Public health, climate, and economic impacts of desulfurizing jet fuel. Environ Sci Technol 46(8):4275–4282. doi:10.1021/ es203325a [141] Rojo C, Vancassel X, Mirabel P et al (2015) Impact of alternative jet fuels on aircraft-induced aerosols. Fuel 144:335–341. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.021 [142] Stratton RW, Wolfe PJ, Hileman JI (2011) Impact of aviation non-CO(2) combustion effects on the environmental feasibility of alternative jet fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(24):10736– 10743. doi:10.1021/es2017522 [143] Turnock ST, Butt EW, Richardson TB et al (2016) The impact of European legislative and technology measures to reduce air pollutants on air quality, human health and climate. Environ Res Lett 11(2):24010. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/024010

368

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[144] Lee DS, Pitari G, Grewe V et al (2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: aviation. Atmospheric environment 44(37):4678–4734. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.005 [145] Boucher O (1999) Air traffic may increase cirrus cloudiness. Nature 397(6714):30–31. doi:10.1038/16169 [146] Burkhardt U, Kärcher B (2011) Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nat Clim Change 1(1):54–58. doi:10.1038/nclimate1068 [147] Immerzeel DJ, Verweij PA, van der Hilst F et al (2014) Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy 6(3):183–209. doi:10.1111/ gcbb.12067 [148] Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND et al (2009) Biofuel plantations on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23(2):348–358. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01096.x [149] Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L et al (2009) GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12(3):374–390. doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5 [150] Bobbink R, Hicks K, Galloway J et al (2010) Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 20(1):30–59. doi:10.1890/08-1140.1 [151] Fachagentur für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (2016) Palm oil consumption worldwide in 2010, by use: statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/274127/world-palm-oil-usage-distribution/. Accessed 29 Sept 2016 [152] Kline KL, Msangi S, Dale VH et al (2016) Reconciling food security and bioenergy: priorities for action. GCB Bioenerg. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366 [153] (2002) World agriculture towards 2015/2030: summary report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome [154] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2014. OECD Publishing, Paris [155] Bruinsma J (2009) The resource outlook to 2050. By how much do land, water use and crop yields need to increase by 2050? In:Proceedings of the FAO Expert Meeting on “How to Feed the World in 2050”, 24–26 June 2009, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Economic and Social Development Department, Rome, Italy [156] Hertel TW (2011) The global supply and demand for agricultural land in 2050: a perfect storm in the making? Am J Agr Econ 93(2):259–275 [157] Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(9):3465–3472. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1100480108 [158] Ewers RM, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A et al (2009) Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Glob Chang Biol 15(7):1716–1726. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01849.x [159] Murphy R, Woods J, Black M et al (2011) Global developments in the competition for land from biofuels. Food Policy 36:S52–S61. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.014 [160] Laurent A, Pelzer E, Loyce C et al (2015) Ranking yields of energy crops: a meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 46:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.023 [161] Brennan L, Owende P (2010) Biofuels from microalgae – a review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 14(2):557–577. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.009 [162] Shonnard DR, Williams L, Kalnes TN (2010) Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy 29(3):382–392. doi:10.1002/ ep.10461 [163] Fleenor RA (2011) Plant guide for Camelina (Camelina sativa), U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), Spokane, USA [164] van Eijck JA, Smeets EM, Jongschaap RE et al (2010) Jatropha assessment: agronomy, socio-economic issues and ecology, facts from literature. NL Agency Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Hague, the Netherlands

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene369 [165] CropEnergies AG (2016) Data on bioethanol production provided by a major European ethanol producer. In: Buchspies B, Kaltschmitt M (eds) Life cycle assessment of bioethanol from wheat and sugar beet discussing environmental impacts of multiple concepts of co-product processing in the context of the European Renewable Energy Directive. Biofuels 7(2):141–153. doi:10.1080/17597269.2015.1122472 [166] Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14(1):65–76. doi:10.1007/ s11053-005-4679-8 [167] Spatari S, Zhang Y, MacLean HL (2005) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9750–9758. doi:10.1021/es048293 [168] Singh BP (2013) Biofuel crop sustainability, 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames [169] Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA et al (2010) Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 44(13):5289–5297. doi:10.1021/es100186h [170] Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L et al (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol: dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden [171] Weiser C, Zeller V, Reinicke F et al (2014) Integrated assessment of sustainable cereal straw potential and different straw-based energy applications in Germany. Appl Energ 114:749–762. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.016 [172] Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J et al (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron J 99(1):1. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0222 [173] Hull A (2012) Technology for the production of fully synthetic aviation fuels, diesel and gasoline. Swedish Biofuels AB, Lidingö, Sweden [174] Trabucco A, Achten WMJ, Bowe C et al (2010) Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate. GCB Bioenerg. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x [175] Cramer J, Wissema E, Bruijne M de et al (2007) Testing framework for sustainable biomass. Final report from the project group “sustainable production of biomass”: 72 , Project group “Sustainable production of biomass”, Utrecht, the Netherlands [176] Diaz-Chavez R (2014) Indicators for socio-economic sustainability assessment. In: Rutz D, Janssen R (eds) Socio-economic impacts of bioenergy production. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 17–37 [177] Hanegraaf MC, Biewinga EE, van derBijl G (1998) Assessing the ecological and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass Bioenerg 15(4–5):345–355. doi:10.1016/ S0961-9534(98)00042-7 [178] Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials RSB Indicators: RSB-IND-01-001 (Version 2.0), Geneva [179] Davis R, Tao L, Scarlata C et al (2015) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbons: dilute-acid and enzymatic deconstruction of biomass to sugars and catalytic conversion of sugars to hydrocarbons . National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, USA [180] Wang W, Tao L, Markham J et al (2016) Review of biojet fuel conversion technologies, Golden. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, USA [181] Pearlson M, Wollersheim C, Hileman J (2013) A techno-economic review of hydroprocessed renewable esters and fatty acids for jet fuel production. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 7(1):89–96. doi:10.1002/bbb.1378 [182] Hileman JI, Ortiz DS, Bartis JT et al (2009) Near-term feasibility of alternative jet fuels. RAND Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Santa Monica [183] Davis R, Aden A, Pienkos PT (2011) Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel production. Appl Energ 88(10):3524–3531. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.018

370

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[184] Klein-Marcuschamer D, Turner C, Allen M et al (2013) Technoeconomic analysis of renewable aviation fuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 7(4):416–428. doi:10.1002/bbb.1404 [185] Davis R, Kinchin C, Markham J et al (2014) Process design and economics for the conversion of algal biomass to biofuels: algal biomass fractionation to lipid- and carbohydrate-derived fuel products. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, USA [186] Lestari D, Zvinavashe E, Sanders JP (2015) Economic valuation of potential products from Jatropha seed in five selected countries: Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mali, Indonesia, and The Netherlands. Biomass Bioenerg 74:84–91. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.12.011 [187] Natelson RH, Wang W, Roberts WL et al (2015) Technoeconomic analysis of jet fuel production from hydrolysis, decarboxylation, and reforming of camelina oil. Biomass Bioenerg 75:23–34. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.001 [188] Jong S de, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A et al (2015) The feasibility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels – a comprehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref 9(6):778–800. doi:10.1002/bbb.1613 [189] Seber G, Malina R, Pearlson MN et al (2014) Environmental and economic assessment of producing hydroprocessed jet and diesel fuel from waste oils and tallow. Biomass Bioenerg 67:108–118. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.024 [190] Atsonios K, Kougioumtzis M, D. Panopoulos K et al (2015) Alternative thermochemical routes for aviation biofuels via alcohols synthesis: process modeling, techno-economic assessment and comparison. Appl Energ 138:346–366. doi:10.1016/j. apenergy.2014.10.056 [191] Anex RP, Aden A, Kazi FK et al (2010) Techno-economic comparison of biomass-to-transportation fuels via pyrolysis, gasification, and biochemical pathways. Fuel 89:S29–S35. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.07.015 [192] Crawford J (2013) Techno-economic analysis of hydrocarbon biofuels from poplar biomass. University of Washington, Washington [193] Davis R, Tao L, Tan ECD et al (2013) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbons: dilute-acid and enzymatic deconstruction of biomass to sugars and biological conversion of sugars to hydrocarbons . National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, USA [194] Dutta A, Sahir A, Tan E et al (2015) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbon fuels. Thermochemical Research Pathways with In Situ and Ex Situ Upgrading of Fast Pyrolysis Vapors . National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, USA [195] Jones SB, Zhu Y, Anderson DB et al (2014) Process design and economics for the conversion of algal biomass to hydrocarbons: whole algae hydrothermal liquefaction and upgrading. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland [196] Alves CM, Valk M, Jong S de et al (2016) Techno-economic assessment of biorefinery technologies for aviation biofuels supply chains in Brazil. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref. doi:10.1002/bbb.1711 [197] Headey D (2011) Rethinking the global food crisis: the role of trade shocks. Food Policy 36(2):136–146. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.003 [198] Timmer CP (2010) Reflections on food crises past. Food Policy 35(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/j. foodpol.2009.09.002 [199] Wright BD (2011) The economics of grain price volatility. Appl Econ Perspect P 33(1):32–58. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppq033 [200] U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) Short-term energy outlook: annual imported crude oil price. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/. Accessed 17 Oct 2016 [201] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) FAO food price index. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/. Accessed 17 Oct 2016 [202] Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Agricultural Development Economics Div. FAO, Rome

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene371 [203] Hochman G, Zilberman D (2016) Corn ethanol and US biofuel policy ten years later: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, July 31-August 2, 2016, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Milwaukee, Boston, USA [204] Hochman G, Kaplan S, Rajagopal D et al (2012) Biofuel and food-commodity prices. Agriculture 2(4):272–281. doi:10.3390/agriculture2030272 [205] Condon N, Klemick H, Wolverton A (2015) Impacts of ethanol policy on corn prices: a review and meta-analysis of recent evidence. Food Policy 51:63–73. doi:10.1016/j. foodpol.2014.12.007 [206] Kretschmer B, Bowyer C, Buckwell A (2012) EU biofuel use and agricultural commodity prices: a review of the evidence base. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London [207] Persson UM (2015) The impact of biofuel demand on agricultural commodity prices: a systematic review. WIREs Energy Environ 4(5):410–428. doi:10.1002/wene.155 [208] Serra T, Zilberman D, Gil J (2011) Price volatility in ethanol markets. Eur Rev Agric Econ 38(2):259–280. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq046 [209] Hertel TW, Beckman J (2012) Commodity price volatility in the biofuel era: an examination of the linkage between energy and agricultural markets. In: Graff Zivin JS, Perloff JM (eds) The intended and unintended effects of U.S. agricultural and biotechnology policies. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 189–221 [210] Babcock BA (2012) The impact of US biofuel policies on agricultural price levels and volatility. China Ag Economic Review 4(4):407–426. doi:10.1108/17561371211284786 [211] Eickhout B, van den Born, Gert J, Notenboom J et al Local and global consequences of the EU renewable directive for biofuels: testing the sustainability criteria: MNP Report 500143001/2008 [212] Swinnen J (2011) The right price of food. Dev Policy Rev 29(6):667–688. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-7679.2011.00552.x [213] Idan MJ (2014) Food price and poverty: agriculture and growth evidence paper series. June 2014, London [214] Ivanic M, Martin W (2008) Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries 1. Agric. Econ. 39:405–416. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00347.x [215] Estrades C, Terra MI (2012) Commodity prices, trade, and poverty in Uruguay. Food Policy 37(1):58–66. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.11.007 [216] Wood BD, Nelson CH, Nogueira L (2012) Poverty effects of food price escalation: the importance of substitution effects in Mexican households. Food Policy 37(1):77–85. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.11.005 [217] Cudjoe G, Breisinger C, Diao X (2010) Local impacts of a global crisis: food price transmission, consumer welfare and poverty in Ghana. Food Policy 35(4):294–302. doi:10.1016/j. foodpol.2010.01.004 [218] Vu L, Glewwe P (2011) Impacts of rising food prices on poverty and welfare in Vietnam. J Agr Resour Econ 36(1):14–27 [219] Wodon Q, Tsimpo C, Backiny-Yetna P et al (2008) Potential impact of higher food prices on poverty: summary estimates for a dozen West and Central African countries. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank, Washington [220] Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA et al (eds) (2015) Bioenergy & sustainability: bridging the gaps. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Paris [221] Brinkman H, Pee S de, Sanogo I et al (2010) High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. J Nutr 140(1):153S–161. doi:10.3945/jn.109.110767 [222] Green R, Cornelsen L, Dangour AD et al (2013) The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ 346:f3703. doi:10.1136/bmj. f3703 [223] Naylor RL, Liska AJ, Burke MB et al (2007) The ripple effect: biofuels, food security, and the Environment. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 49(9):30–43. doi:10.3200/ENVT.49.9.30–43

372

B. Buchspies and M. Kaltschmitt

[224] Gilbert CL, Prakash A (2011) Grains price pass-through, 2005–2009. In: Prakash A (ed) Safeguarding food security in volatile global markets. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 127–148 [225] Arezki R, Deininger K, Selod H (2015) What drives the global “land rush”? World Bank Econ Rev 29(2):207–233. doi:10.1093/wber/lht034 [226] BBC News (2008) Daewoo leases African plantation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7737643.stm. Accessed 20 Aug 2016 [227] Anseeuw WB, Broche T, Giger M et al (2012) Transnational land deals for agriculture in the Global South: report based on the Land Matrix Database, Bern/Montpellier/Hamburg [228] Alomar R, Cousquer D (2012) A Global land purchase monitor. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, April 24-25, 2011, World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA [229] Borras SM, Franco JC, Isakson R et al (2014) Towards understanding the politics of flex crops and commodities: Implications for research and policy advocacy. Think Piece Series on Flex Crops & Commodities. Transnational Institute, Amsterdam [230] Collier P, Venables AJ (2011) Land deals in Africa: pioneers and speculators. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London [231] Deininger K (2013) The global “rush” for land: does it provide opportunities for African countries? In: Stiglitz JE, Yifu JL, Patel E (eds) The industrial policy revolution II. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 386–411 [232] Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenerg 25(1):1–28. doi:10.1016/ S0961-9534(02)00185-X [233] Andriani R, Andrianto A, Komarudin H et al (2011) Environmental and social impacts from palm based biofuel development in Indonesia. In: Article in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Commons (IASC), January 10-14, 2011, International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), Hyderabad, India, Utrecht, the Netherlands [234] Rist L, Feintrenie L, Levang P (2010) The livelihood impacts of oil palm: smallholders in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 19(4):1009–1024. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9815-z [235] Colchester M, Pang WA, Chuo WM et al (2007) Land is life: land rights and oil palm development in Sarawak. Forest Peoples Programme, England [236] Piotrowski S, Carus M, Carrez D (2016) European Bioeconomy in Figures. Ind Biotechnol 12(2):78–82. doi:10.1089/ind.2016.29030.spi [237] International Renewable Energy Agency (2015) Renewable energy and jobs: annual review 2015, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi [238] Lambert RJ, Silva PP (2012) The challenges of determining the employment effects of renewable energy. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 16(7):4667–4674. doi:10.1016/j. rser.2012.03.072 [239] Wei M, Patadia S, Kammen DM (2010) Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 38(2):919–931. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044 [240] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Hünecke K et al (2012) Biofuels and employment effects: implications for socio-economic development in Thailand. Biomass Bioenerg 46:409–418. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.019 [241] Hillring B (2002) Rural development and bioenergy – experiences from 20 years of development in Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 23(6):443–451. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00084-3 [242] Neuwahl F, Löschel A, Mongelli I et al (2008) Employment impacts of EU biofuels policy: combining bottom-up technology information and sectoral market simulations in an input–output framework. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):447–460. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2008.04.018 [243] Dalton GJ, Lewis T (2011) Metrics for measuring job creation by renewable energy technologies, using Ireland as a case study. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev 15(4):2123–2133. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.015

15  Sustainability Aspects of Biokerosene373 [244] Lesser JA (2010) Renewable energy and the fallacy of “Green” jobs. The Electricity Journal 23(7):45–53. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2010.06.019 [245] van Eijck JA (2014) Socio-economic impacts of biofuels in developing countries. Dissertation. Uitgeverij BOXPress [246] Metschies GP (2005) International fuel prices 2005. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Eschborn [247] Peters J, Thielmann S (2008) Promoting biofuels: implications for developing countries. Energy Policy 36(4):1538–1544. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.013 [248] Oosterveer P and Mol PJ (2010) Biofuels, trade and sustainability: a review of perspectives for developing countries. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 4 (1): 66–76. doi: 10.1002/bbb.194 [249] Azhar B, Lindenmayer DB, Wood J et al (2013) The influence of agricultural system, stand structural complexity and landscape context on foraging birds in oil palm landscapes. Ibis 155(2):297–312. doi:10.1111/ibi.12025 [250] Yue S, Brodie JF, Zipkin EF et al (2015) Oil palm plantations fail to support mammal diversity. Ecol Appl 25(8):2285–2292. doi:10.1890/14-1928.1 [251] Canfield DE, Glazer AN, Falkowski PG (2010) The evolution and future of Earth's nitrogen cycle. Science 330(6001):192–196. doi:10.1126/science.1186120 [252] Munkholm LJ, Heck RJ, Deen B (2013) Long-term rotation and tillage effects on soil structure and crop yield. Soil Till Res 127:85–91. doi:10.1016/j.still.2012.02.007 [253] (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Pub. L. No. 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1783–1784 (Dec. 19, 2007), codified at 42 U.S.C. §17381: EISA [254] Schwarzenegger A (2007) Executive Order S-01-07: low carbon fuel standard. Sacramento, Office of the Governor California [255] Alberici S, Spöttle M, Toop G (2014) Assessment of sustainability standards for biojet fuel: final report. Project number: BIEDE14312y. ECOFYS, Berlin

Benedikt Buchspies, MSc,  graduated in Environmental Engineering at the Technische Universität Darmstadt and in the Joint European Master Programme in Environmental Studies at the Hamburg University of Technology, the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the University of Aveiro. He is currently working as a PhD candidate at the Hamburg University of Technology. His research focuses on sustainability assessment of biofuels, conventional fuels and e-mobility. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Kaltschmitt  graduated in Petroleum Engineering and takes his Doctor of Engineering in the field of renewable energies. Afterwards he headed a research group in the field of biomass/renewable energy at Stuttgart University where he did his habilitation. After a research stay at King’s College in London and at the University of California, Berkeley he became the managing director of the Leipziger Institute for Energy. In 2006 he has been promoted to a full professor at Hamburg University of Technology where he is heading the Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics. Between 2008 and 2010 he was in parallel also the scientific managing director of the German Biomass Research Centre. He published more than 20 books and more than 275 articles in scientific magazines in the field of renewable energy with a special focus on biomass and biofuels.

Chapter 16

Direct and Indirect Land Use Change Katharina Plassmann

Abstract  The conversion of (semi-)natural vegetation to other land uses is related to several environmental problems, including climate change and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Land use change (LUC) is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, and preventing the conversion of forests, peat lands and other ecosystems is an important climate mitigation opportunity. If bioenergy feedstocks are cultivated on newly converted land or displace previous food production, then GHG emissions related to LUC can reduce or even negate the climate mitigation potential of bioenergy products. Efforts to reduce LUC are ongoing via various public, private, voluntary and regulatory approaches at local, national and global scales. Although positive trends are evident, further efforts are needed to reduce LUC against a background of growing land use competition. Trade-offs exist between food security, development and environmental targets, and any measures taken need to consider local and global effects, direct and indirect impacts, leakage effects, and environmental and socioeconomic consequences. The impact of bioenergy production on global land use competition can be reduced by promoting feedstocks that do not compete with food or feed crops for land.

16.1 Introduction: What Is “Land Use Change”? The conversion of natural land to croplands, pastures and other land uses has greatly modified terrestrial ecosystems. Agricultural systems now cover one quarter of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, and conversion to croplands alone accounts for the transformation of 20 to 50 % of 9 out of 14 global biomes [1]. This modification is one of the major drivers of global biodiversity loss. It has an impact on biological and physical transformations of carbon and nitrogen pools, affects various ecosystem processes, and influences greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes to and from the atmosphere,

K. Plassmann (*) Yara International ASA, Research Centre for Crop Nutrition, Dülmen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_16

375

376

K. Plassmann

including both sources and sinks of GHG’s [1, 2]. Tropical dry forests, temperate grasslands, temperate broad-leafed forests and Mediterranean forests have experienced the greatest changes [1]. Land use change (LUC) is a change in the use or management of land by humans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) distinguishes six broad land use categories: forestland, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements, and other land (e.g. bare soil, rock and ice), where the conversion from one land use category to another is called LUC. These categories are mutually exclusive. For the purpose of preparing annual GHG inventories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries use their own definitions of these categories (e.g. national land use classification systems), and they may define sub-categories to further stratify these categories (e.g. by climate or ecological zone). For example, agroforestry systems may be counted as cropland or as forestland depending on their vegetation structure and the definition of forests under national classification systems [2]. A change in management practices that does not affect the broad land category is usually not called LUC (e.g. changes in tillage practices within an existing arable cropping system or the regeneration of a plantation forest immediately after clear-felling).

16.2 Global Relevance of Land Use Change The large scale conversion of natural and semi-natural vegetation to other land uses is related to several environmental problems that are of increasing concern, including climate change and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, natural habitats such as forests are important for rural communities, livelihoods and indigenous people. Land use change is also an economic factor: the global annual costs of land degradation due to LUC amounted to an estimated 231 billion US-$/a between 2001 and 2009, with the greatest costs accrued in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the lowest in Western Europe [3]. Globally, the dominant type of LUC has been deforestation, followed by the conversion of grasslands to croplands and grazing lands [4]. Between 1990 and 2015, the global area under forests decreased by 3 % from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha but the annual rate of loss halved during this time period [5]. Forest cover continues to decline in Central America, South America, South and Southeast Asia and across Africa; in contrast, it expanded in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, East Asia and Central Asia [5]. Between 2010 and 2015, the greatest net losses occurred in Brazil and Indonesia but the rate of loss is declining in both countries [5]. Land use change can lead to the emission of large amounts of GHGs due to the release of carbon that was previously stored in above- and below-ground biomass and soils. In fact, LUC is a significant source of GHG emissions worldwide: land use and land use change (mainly deforestation) accounted for 9 to 11 % of global anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2000 to 2010 [6]. Reducing losses of carbon rich ecosystems such as forests or peat lands represents an important climate mitigation

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change377

opportunity [6]. Moreover, LUC is a key driver of biodiversity change due to its negative impacts on habitat availability and the extinction of species [7]. Climate change is another important driver of biodiversity change, where the two drivers LUC and climate change are linked because of the significant contribution of LUC to climate change [8]. Total absolute GHG emissions as well as the percentage share of emissions from forestry and other land uses (including deforestation) in total anthropogenic global GHG emissions have declined over the last two decades (Fig. 16.1). The contribution of deforestation to the total emissions decreased from 12 % in the 1990’s to 7.9 % in 2010 [9]. Land use change often induces losses of carbon, biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g. LUC from forests or grasslands to croplands). However, LUC can also have the opposite effect if land with low carbon stocks is converted to another land use with higher carbon stocks (for example when croplands or grasslands are converted back into forests or agricultural abandonment leads to the re-establishment of natural habitats). This can also have positive impacts on biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services such as improving local water quality [8, 10]. The afforestation of land is an important climate mitigation strategy on surplus agricultural or marginal land, and the restoration of degraded land can also contribute to increasing carbon sequestration [11].

16.2.1 Global LUC and Its Drivers Agriculture is the main direct driver of global deforestation and causes about 70 to 80 % of all deforestation [12, 13]. Both commercial and subsistence agriculture are important drivers but regional differences in their relative importance exist [12]. In the tropics, the expansion of agriculture was the main cause of deforestation in

Fig. 16.1  Percentage share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agriculture, forestry and other land uses (including deforestation) as well as other anthropogenic sources (buildings, energy, industry, transport) in the 1990’s, 2000’s and 2010 (adapted from [9])

378

K. Plassmann

1980 to 2000, with more than 80 % of all new agricultural land derived from either intact (55 %) or disturbed (28 %) forests [14]. Land use change for agricultural expansion is also relevant for biomes other than forests. For example, the conversion of grasslands and shrublands to croplands accounted for between 30 and 55 % of cropland expansion in the 2000’s in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Oceania and South Asia [3]. While agricultural expansion is the most important direct driver of tropical deforestation, other important direct and indirect drivers exist, including rural and urban population growth, the expansion of urban and transport infrastructure, commercial wood extraction, and economic factors such as a growing export or an increasing demand for agricultural and forest products in a globalized market [13, 15, 16]. There are distinct regional variations in the direct drivers of deforestation [15], and these direct drivers are influenced by complex interactions of institutions, national policies and economic, technological and social factors which impact deforestation at local to national and international scales [17]. Production for export, international trade and the growing demand of consumers in distant countries were a major driver of tropical deforestation for commodities such as soybeans or palm oil over the last decade [18]. The global land area under bioenergy feedstocks so far is still relatively limited (1.8 % of all croplands and grasslands in 2011) but the contribution of bioenergy to net global LUC has been growing since the early 1990s. The rate of increase is significant when compared to other land uses, and it is estimated that bioenergy accounted for 36 % of the global net LUC since 1994 [19].

16.2.2 Carbon Emissions and Climate Change Deforestation.  Forests can store substantial amounts of carbon in their biomass and soils. When they are converted to other land uses such as croplands or grasslands, a large part of this stored carbon is lost as the new land use type usually has lower carbon stocks in its biomass, soil and dead organic matter pools [2]. Forests and forest conversion play an important role with regard to global climate change: deforestation is a significant source of CO2 emissions while maintaining forests, expanding forest areas and increasing long-term forest carbon stocks are important mitigation measures [6, 20]. The fluxes of carbon related to land use and land use change are the most uncertain terms in the global carbon budget [21], and different studies estimate somewhat different figures surrounded by large uncertainty ranges [9]. Federici et al. [20] estimated that global GHG emissions related to deforestation decreased from an average of 4.7 Gt CO2 per year in 1991 to 2000 to an average of 3.95 Gt CO2 per year in 2001 to 2010 and 2.9 Gt CO2 per year in 2011 to 2015. Geographically, GHG emissions from net forest conversion in 2001 to 2010 were dominated by non-Annex I countries of the UNFCCC which accounted for over

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change379

90 % of the total [22] or an average of 3.8 Gt CO2eq per year in 1991 to 2015 [20]. They were greatest for the Americas, accounting for 54 % of total emissions from forest conversion, followed by Africa (26 %) and Asia (15 %) [22]. Industrialized Annex I countries, in contrast, had low deforestation rates in the same time period (0.26 Gt CO2 per year) [20]. In contrast, net removals of carbon in woody biomass accounted for an average sink of −2.52 Gt CO2eq per year in 1991 to 2015. This global net forest sink has been decreasing over the last decades (from an average annual sink of −2.99 Gt CO2eq in 1991 to 2000 to −2.24 Gt CO2eq in 2001 to 2010 and −2.15 Gt CO2eq in 2011 to 2015) [20]. In the most recent time period analyzed by [20] (i.e. 2011 to 2015) the area of newly planted forests decreased in Annex I countries and increased in non-Annex I countries. Conversion of Other Habitats.  The conversion of natural habitats such as savannahs, tropical shrubland and wetlands also leads to the emission of considerable amounts of carbon. For example, the Brazilian Cerrado and Caatinga biomes have lost large areas to agricultural expansion (53 % and 37 %, respectively) between 1990 and 2010 [23]. Although the average carbon content of Cerrado vegetation is lower than tropical forests, GHG emissions from LUC in the Cerrado were almost as high as in the Amazon biome in 2010, contributing 9 % and 11 % of total CO2eq emissions in Brazil, respectively [24]. Tropical forested peat lands, mangroves and undisturbed waterlogged organic soils in general are characterized by very high carbon stocks. Drainage for agricultural production leads to increased decomposition rates of the organic carbon and subsequent emissions of CO2 and N2O [6]. Global CO2 emissions from drained peat lands account for about 25 % of all emissions related to LUC [25] and are highest in Asia and Europe [22]. The deforestation of mangroves causes about 10 % of global emissions from deforestation although they occupy less than 1 % of the area of tropical forests [25].

16.2.3 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Land use change also has a significant impact on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services (i.e. the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing) [26]. It can affect biodiversity via the loss, modification, degradation and fragmentation of habitats and landscapes, lead to changes in hydrological cycles, reduce carbon storage, and affect nutrient cycling and climate regulation at local and regional scales [1, 27]. Habitat clearing and LUC, especially for agricultural production, have been amongst the most important drivers of biodiversity loss across all biomes [28]. The conversion of natural habitats to agriculture is a major concern in the so-called biodiversity hotspots that harbor exceptional biodiversity but are threatened by land cover changes [29]. The impacts of LUC for bioenergy

380

K. Plassmann

production on biodiversity depend on the land use prior to the conversion but are also mainly negative, especially in the tropics, and more pronounced for first than second generation bioenergy crops [30]. However, biofuels derived from high diversity perennial crop mixtures grown on degraded lands can provide wildlife habitats and increase the delivery of ecosystem services [31]. Habitat loss as a result of LUC and mainly driven by agriculture is predicted to continue to negatively affect local and global biodiversity [1]. Forest ecosystems are particularly rich in biological diversity and provide a range of important ecosystem services [1]. For example, forests play an important role in reducing flood risks and severity, thus alleviating negative impacts on livelihoods, people and property [32]. Tropical wetlands are also highly biodiverse habitats and deliver a number of ecosystem services from controlling hydrological cycles and watershed protection to erosion control and carbon storage; however, they are threatened by high rates of drainage and LUC [33]. Tropical, sub-tropical and temperate grasslands, savannahs, shrublands and flooded grasslands have also experienced great changes, e.g. the highly biodiverse Brazilian Cerrado savanna [1, 34]. Changes in biodiversity caused by agricultural expansion can have negative feedbacks on agricultural productivity in the long term, e.g. via the loss of ecosystem services such as pollination and nutrient cycling [27]. For example, the continued decline of pollinators is a serious concern for European farmers and agri-businesses, and the economic value of insect pollination in the European Union (EU) is estimated at 15 billion €/a [35]. Costanza et al. [36] valued the global loss of ecosystem services induced by LUC between 1997 and 2011  at 4.3 to 20.2 trillion US-$/a (depending on the assumptions made about the unit value of ecosystem services), with the largest costs associated with losses in coral reefs, tidal marshes/mangroves and tropical forests.

16.3 “Direct” and “Indirect” Land Use Change in Life Cycle Assessments and Product Carbon Footprints In this section, the representation of LUC in environmental impact assessments is discussed. As described in the previous section, GHG emissions related to LUC are significant on a global scale, and any analysis of GHG emissions related to products, countries or projects typically includes LUC emissions. Other LUC impacts, such as on biodiversity or water scarcity, are very location specific and complex, and discussions about appropriate ways of including these impacts are ongoing [37–39]. This is why the discussion below only considers how LUC is included in assessments of GHG emissions. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profiles or carbon footprints can be calculated for various entities (e.g. countries, projects, industrial sectors, organizations, businesses or corporate value chains). Both the scale and the unit of assessment have an impact on the methods used. Whenever an analysis is conducted, it is necessary to define the system boundary, i.e. the extent of processes to be included in the

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change381

assessment, and this will determine how LUC is considered. The following sections focus on product related, life cycle based assessment methods and how they consider GHG emissions from LUC.

16.3.1 Life Cycle Assessments and Product Carbon Footprints Life Cycle Assessments (LCA’s) and product carbon footprinting have emerged as tools for assessing and managing environmental impacts of products and services. They are based on life cycle thinking and cover the entire life cycle of products (i.e. from the extraction of raw materials, production, processing, transportation, storage and consumption to waste disposal) or parts thereof. LCA’s typically address various environmental impact categories (e.g. GHG emissions, eutrophication, acidification or ozone depletion). Methodological guidance on how to conduct LCA studies is provided by ISO [40, 41], where LCA’s typically are a flexible tool that allows the adaptation of the methods depending on the aims and scope of a particular study. Product carbon footprints (PCF’s) also apply life cycle thinking but focus on GHG emissions only. PCF’s are less flexible than LCA’s and leave fewer decisions up to the individual practitioner in order to make results more comparable. The main aims of calculating PCF’s include the identification of GHG emissions hotspots in supply chains in order to inform businesses, policy makers, the general public and other stakeholders, and to encourage targeted climate mitigation efforts. PCF’s can also be used as an internal GHG management tool or for communication purposes with other supply chain partners and consumers (e.g. via consumer facing carbon labels). PCF’s are not holistic indicators of environmental sustainability because they do not consider multiple environmental impacts nor social or economic issues. They are an in-depth analysis of the climate change impact of products and services, enabling meaningful GHG management, but cannot reveal or address trade-offs with other environmental issues due to their focus on one environmental indicator only. There are international standards that define calculation rules and methods in order to drive consistency in the application of PCF calculations, reduce differences between studies and thus ensure the credibility of the results. These standards are either broad international framework standards that cover all products and services [42–44], or they are tailored to individual sectors, specific products or product groups (e.g. [45, 46]). In LCA’s and PCF’s, two types of LUC are being distinguished: direct and indirect LUC. The distinction is based on whether or not LUC can be directly linked to the product analyzed, and it is a consequence of the need to define a system boundary and decide where to cut off the analysis. PCF’s typically follow the “attributional” approach where only those “services, materials and energy flows that become the product, make the product, and carry the product through its life cycle” are included (i.e. only historical, fact-based, actual and measurable data) [44]. All major PCF standards follow the attributional approach. A different approach is the

382

K. Plassmann

“consequential” analysis which can be used to assess the consequences of changing processes, materials or inputs within one product system to other product systems. These changes might be the result of, for example, changing policies, markets or consumer behavior. The consequential approach models a hypothetical life cycle and can inform decision making (e.g. policy decisions). The differences between the two types of LUC will be described in more detail in the following two sections. The focus is on agricultural products; however, if another industrial sector causes LUC, e.g. for the construction of a new factory, this LUC should also be included in PCF’s [42].

16.3.2 Direct LUC (dLUC) If a piece of land has undergone recent LUC, then this LUC and its environmental impacts can be attributed to the products derived from it. This is what is called “direct LUC” (dLUC); i.e. LUC that has taken place within the system boundary of the analysis at the location of production. It can be directly attributed to the product analyzed, is in the past and has already happened at this particular location. Figure 16.2 (left part) illustrates dLUC for increased biofuel production: the area under biofuels is expanded at the cost of natural or semi-natural land and a biofuel product derived from this expanded land would carry a dLUC burden in its GHG emissions assessment. Because dLUC occurred within the system boundary of the analysis at a particular location, the pre-conversion vegetation type is known or can be inferred based on still existing nearby vegetation types. Once the type of vegetation that was converted has been identified, the associated loss of carbon can be estimated and attributed to the products derived from this location. In PCF’s, GHG emissions from dLUC are usually spread evenly across 20 years (or a single harvest period for perennial plants, whichever is longer). This means that for 20 years after the LUC, PCF’s will include 5 % of the total GHG emissions related to this LUC every year. After this time period, LUC emissions are no longer considered.

Fig. 16.2  Graphic representation of direct (left part) and indirect land use changes (right part; EU [47])

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change383

The inclusion of dLUC in PCF’s is required by most if not all PCF standards and more prescriptive LCA based standards, including the major international PCF guidelines [42–44]), the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprinting rules [47], product group specific guidelines (e.g. coffee [46]) and sector guidelines such as horticulture [45], dairy [48], feed supply chains [49] or the Envifood Protocol by the European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table [37]. In LCA’s, LUC emissions have not routinely been included in the past [50, 51] but the importance of LUC has recently been recognized, and it is increasingly included now [52]. However, the best way of including LUC impacts is still being discussed within the LCA community [52, 53]. Generally speaking, PCF standards focus on a particular product and the responsibility of its producer for the way their land is managed. This includes dLUC and the associated GHG emissions which are allocated to the product from a particular location if the land underwent dLUC; if no dLUC occurred on this parcel of land no dLUC emissions are included. The intention of this approach is to disincentive further LUC by allocating responsibility to individual parcels of land and producers, and by rewarding growers that do not convert any land. In contrast, other approaches are being discussed that allocate global or regional LUC emissions to total agricultural outputs to derive a global/regional average LUC emissions value irrespective of the recent fate of a particular piece of land [52, 54]. [55] suggested a similar method that allocates more emissions from global LUC to crops that actually drive LUC so that crops like soy receive a heavier burden than crops less associated with LUC. Other authors apply this thinking to individual countries (e.g. [53]). In such a global or regional top down approach, individual producers will carry the burden of LUC carried out by other stakeholders, and they cannot get recognized and rewarded for avoiding LUC on their land. This approach is therefore used when the origin of an agricultural product is not known or traceability is limited (e.g. [37, 42]). It is also used in macro-level analyses of environmental impacts associated with, for example, consumption patterns within an entire country, where the share of global LUC emissions attributable to the country’s consumption is determined [56]. The magnitude (i.e. absolute GHG emissions) and the relative contribution of dLUC to PCF’s depend on the type of habitat that was converted and the type of crop grown subsequently. Different habitat and soil types contain different amounts of carbon before conversion, and annual and perennial croplands store different amounts of carbon after conversion [2]. The calculation of LUC emissions usually follows the default method and values provided in IPCC [2]. This can, however, lead to the over- or under-estimation of actual emissions, and the uncertainties associated with the calculation of GHG emissions from LUC can be high [57, 58]. It is important to include dLUC in assessments of food, feed and bioenergy products because it is likely to contribute significantly or even dominate PCF’s where it occurs (e.g. [59], [53]). For example, the farm gate PCF of sugar cane grown on three farms in Zambia (Farms A to C) and one farm in Mauritius (Farm D) is shown in Fig. 16.3. Emissions from dLUC were relevant for Farms A to C and contributed

384

K. Plassmann

ϮϮϱ

','ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐŝŶ΀ŬŐKϮĞƋͬƚ΁

ϮϬϬ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ

ϭϳϱ

KϮĨƌŽŵƐŽŝůƐ;ůŝŵĞĂŶĚƵƌĞĂͿ

ϭϱϬ

ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨŽƚŚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚƐ

ϭϮϱ

EϮKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ

ϭϬϬ ϳϱ

EĨĞƌƟůŝƐĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ

ϱϬ

ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ;ŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶͿ

Ϯϱ

ĚŝĞƐĞů;ĮĞůĚŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐͿ

Ϭ &Ăƌŵ

&Ăƌŵ

&Ăƌŵ

&Ăƌŵ

Fig. 16.3  Greenhouse gas emissions for four estates (up to the delivery of the sugar cane to the local refinery) (adapted from [57])

66 to 77 % to the total PCF. Farm D had not undergone any LUC in the last 20 years so that other emissions sources dominated the PCF here and the overall PCF was significantly lower than for Farms A to C [57]. Emissions from dLUC are more likely to be relevant for developing than industrialized countries because the greatest recent increases in agricultural area have occurred in developing countries in South and Southeast Asia, Africa, as well as South and Central America [2, 5], highlighting the importance of LUC for the carbon footprints of products from these regions. The fact that only recent LUC is accounted for leads to potential inequities between developing countries and industrialized countries which were deforested much longer ago [58]. In many industrialized countries now the opposite trend is observed; i.e. cropland areas are declining [60].

16.3.3 Indirect LUC (iLUC) and Carbon Leakage Indirect LUC (iLUC) is land use change that occurs outside of the system that is being assessed [43]. It is a result of changes in the demand for particular land uses elsewhere, where this change in the production level of an agricultural product induces a carbon stock change on other land. It is often driven by policies and mediated by markets [61]. For example, iLUC occurs if an existing food crop is diverted to the production of bioenergy, causing the clearance of natural habitats somewhere else in the world to replace the lost food production. Figure 16.2 (right part) illustrates this situation:

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change385

biofuel crops are being grown on established cropland which used to produce a different (food) crop. This foregone production moves elsewhere and causes LUC outside of the biofuel production system (i.e. iLUC). The amount of land cleared will depend on how much of the continuing demand is met via the intensification of already existing croplands and how much by the expansion of cropland into natural habitats. The loss in food production can also drive increases in crop prices which can induce the expansion of agricultural land elsewhere [62]. Every iLUC is a direct land use change at some location in the world. However, in an assessment of specific products, this dLUC is part of another product’s life cycle, and it cannot be associated directly with the product analyzed [52]. For the studied product system it is an indirect effect because it is an unintended consequence of land use decisions elsewhere and happens outside of the defined system boundary; in addition, it is outside of the control of the individual producer. Therefore, iLUC cannot be directly associated with an individual product [63]. Indirect LUC and its consequences have so far mainly been discussed in relation to bioenergy production. The land use competition between first generation bioenergy crops and food crops has sparked the “food vs. fuel” debate against a background of increasing land scarcity. Due to their profitability, bioenergy feedstocks are often cultivated on high quality land suitable for growing food crops rather than on marginal land, leading to increased land use competition and rising food prices [64]. Some authors argue that the concept of iLUC should be applied to other agricultural products as well as to bioenergy (e.g. [63]). A similar effect as discussed for bioenergy production could arise if voluntary or regulatory climate mitigation actions involve losses in food production which might then induce iLUC. [65] showed that reducing nitrogen fertilizer applications to arable crops lowers nitrous oxide emissions from soils and hence mitigates GHG emissions; however, if iLUC effects due to lost arable production are also considered in the analysis, they may outweigh any GHG emissions savings. In non-LCA carbon accounting exercises, this indirect effect of shifting an impact to locations outside of the boundary of the analysis is often called “leakage” or “displacement”, for example in national carbon accounting or the mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) under the UNFCCC. Leakage refers to a situation where the implementation of a mitigation policy reduces GHG emissions within the scope of an emission accounting system (e.g. a nation, region, project or sector); but this emission reduction is offset to some degree by emission increases that occur outside of the accounting system as a result of induced changes in consumption, prices, land use and/or trade in other nations, regions or sectors [61]. Leakage can occur on different geographical levels (e.g. a nation, province or world region) or result from the implementation of a mitigation project. The similarities and differences between the discussions on leakage and iLUC are described in more detail in [66]. Indirect LUC is a result of complex demand and supply interactions. Unlike dLUC, it cannot be directly observed or measured because it can occur anywhere in the world. Therefore, it is also not known exactly how much and which type of

386

K. Plassmann

natural vegetation may be converted, and the GHG emissions associated with iLUC can only be estimated by using models. Existing models mainly assess iLUC impacts of bioenergy crops based on the dynamics of agricultural markets and the demand for land as a result of a change in bioenergy demand, or by modelling the changes in the location of agricultural activities on a global scale [47]. Two types of macro-economic models are distinguished: • partial equilibrium models that consider one or more sectors of interest, • general equilibrium models that consider all sectors of the economy. Bio-physical models assess land use allocation and bio-physical impacts such as GHG emissions and typically also include economic considerations. These models make assumptions about future changes in land use, considering a baseline vs. a different future scenario based on market predictions, in order to estimate induced LUC. Other assumptions relate to the reference situation, policy developments, macro-economic factors, the degree of intensification to achieve higher yields on already existing cropland, energy yields of bioenergy crops, world trade, shifts in production between regions, land and commodity prices as drivers of iLUC, consumption behavior, the type of land converted, assumptions about the use of by-products which may free up land elsewhere (e.g. animal feed), etc. There is considerable variability in the iLUC estimates derived by different models due to differing assumptions and underlying datasets [62] (Fig. 16.4), and no widely accepted default values exist yet for different crops and scenarios. Moreover, iLUC

Fig. 16.4  Greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land use change (iLUC) for different biofuel feedstocks calculated using different models (other life cycle emissions are not included, and emissions from iLUC were allocated over 30 years) [67]

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change387

effects will change over time as, for example, yields or the conversion efficiency of crops to energy may increase [67]. Because of the large uncertainties attached to modelling GHG emissions from iLUC as well as the lack of a harmonized and widely accepted methodology, their inclusion is so far not required in PCF standards such as BSI [42], WRI & WBCSD [44] and ISO [43] or for attributional product level environmental assessments using EC-JRC-IES [68] and the EC's Product Environmental Footprinting initiative [47]. In these standards, only direct impacts that are directly attributable to a product are included. However, iLUC emissions might be included in future revisions of BSI [42] or ISO [43] if methods and data requirements can be further developed, and analysts are encouraged to report iLUC emissions separately if they can be calculated and are determined to be significant for a particular product under WRI & WBCSD [44]. Within the LCA community, an ongoing debate about iLUC, how to calculate iLUC emissions, and the validity of the concept takes place (e.g. [69], [70], [71], [72]). The usefulness of assessing iLUC effects to guide policy decisions has been questioned because of the large uncertainties, the dependence on assumptions, and the difficulties attached to modelling dynamic future pathways of different technologies, feedstocks and agricultural management practices. Further, indirect effects can be considered under consequential modelling [68] but their inclusion is contrary to the principles of attributional carbon accounting. Another issue that has been raised relates to the inclusion of this indirect effect for bioenergy products but not their fossil fuel reference, leading to an unfair comparison [62]. Another study supports the concept despite its (current) shortcomings and call for its further development [72].

16.4 Land Use Change and Bioenergy One major reason for the promotion of bioenergy by governments (e.g. in the European Union and the USA) is the potential contribution of this renewable energy source to climate mitigation efforts. However, if bioenergy feedstocks are grown on newly converted land or displace previous food production, then the related GHG emissions from both dLUC and iLUC can have significant impacts on the climate mitigation potential of bioenergy products.

16.4.1 Bioenergy and dLUC The impact of dLUC on the GHG emission profile will depend on the bioenergy feedstock, the carbon content of the pre-conversion habitat and associated carbon stock changes, site specific factors such as feedstock crop yields, the consideration of potential co-products, etc. [73], [74]. In general, bioenergy can contribute to climate mitigation if it replaces a GHG emission intensive fossil feedstock and if the GHG emissions (including LUC) related to the bioenergy feedstock are low [75].

388

K. Plassmann

If carbon rich habitats or peat lands are converted for the production of bioenergy, then the mitigation potential of the bioenergy product compared to a fossil fuel reference can become negative [73, 75]. For example, [76] concluded that electricity production using crude palm oil derived from either peat lands or cleared natural forestland currently emits more GHGs than the fossil fuel reference. Carbon payback times (i.e. the time it takes for GHG emission savings from avoided fossil fuel consumption through bioenergy to offset carbon losses via LUC) have been estimated at decades to centuries [77]. This carbon debt will decrease if crop yields can be increased, biofuel technologies improve, or the emissions related to the fossil fuel replaced change [73]. However, even if major changes in energy and agricultural technology are assumed, the carbon payback time for converting tropical rainforests will still be prohibitive (ca. 30 to 300 years) [73]. In contrast, the conversion of degraded land can lead to increased carbon sequestration, and targeting such lands is recommended in order to reduce dLUC emissions and achieve net gains in carbon stocks [73, 75, 76]. This dual strategy of avoiding LUC and encouraging the restoration of degraded land is implemented in the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) [80] which prohibits the conversion of land with high carbon stocks and high biodiversity values and promotes the conversion of degraded land. The impact of dLUC on the GHG emissions related to the production of biofuels is shown in Fig. 16.5 where life cycle emissions are reported with and without

ϮϱϬ ϮϬϬ

ϭϬϬ ϱϬ

>

Ϭ

нĚ>h

ƌĂƉĞƐĞĞĚ͕h

ǁŚĞĂƚ͕h

ŽŝůƉĂůŵ͕ /ŶĚŽŶĞƐŝĂ

ƐĂǀĂŶŶĂ

ĚĞŐƌĂĚĞĚůĂŶĚ

ĐƌŽƉůĂŶĚ

ƚƌŽƉŝĐĂůĨŽƌĞƐƚ

ĚĞŐƌĂĚĞĚůĂŶĚ

ŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ

ĐƌŽƉůĂŶĚ

ͲϭϬϬ

ŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ

ͲϱϬ ĐƌŽƉůĂŶĚ

','ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐŝŶ΀ŐKϮĞͬD:΁

ϭϱϬ

ƐƵŐĂƌĐĂŶĞ͕ƌĂnjŝů

Fig. 16.5  Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of biofuels derived from different feedstocks and world regions (LCA: life cycle GHG emissions excluding any land use change; +dLUC: life cycle emissions plus GHG emissions from direct land use change for several different previous land uses (cropland and grassland for production in the European Union (EU); degraded land and tropical forest for Indonesia; cropland, degraded land and savanna for Brazil)) (adapted from [62])

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change389

dLUC for several example feedstocks, world regions and pre-conversion land uses. Where biofuels are grown on existing cropland, no dLUC emissions occur; in contrast, if grasslands, tropical forests or savannas are converted to biofuel croplands, dLUC emissions arise and increase the total emissions per MJ of biofuel, in particular for carbon rich habitats such as tropical forests and savannas. The restoration of degraded land leads to the sequestration of carbon rather than an emission so that the overall GHG emission balance can even become negative (i.e. the sequestration of carbon is greater than the life cycle emissions).

16.4.2 Bioenergy and iLUC Most current biofuels are produced from food, feed or fibre crops such as wheat and rapeseed grown on established agricultural land, carrying the risk of inducing iLUC. This can significantly decrease their GHG mitigation potential [75] and reduce the emissions savings achievable under policy instruments such as the EU RED ([79], Table 16.1). [60] found clear evidence for market mediated iLUC induced by the growing demand for biofuel feedstocks. For example, the increased cultivation of maize for biofuel production has been linked to a decrease in soy production in the USA in 2006 which led to an increase in global soy prices. Subsequently, deforestation for soy increased in Brazil and soybeans also expanded into pastures [81, 82]. Table 16.1  Typical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from chosen biofuel and bioliquid pathways: (a) cultivation, processing, transport and distribution (if produced without direct land use change); (b) indirect land use change (iLUC) [78, 83] Typical GHG emissions [g CO2eq/MJ] (a) Cultivation, processing, transport and distribution Wheat ethanol (depending on process fuel and pathway)

26–57

Sugar beet ethanol

33

Sugar cane ethanol

24

Rape seed biodiesel

46

Sunflower biodiesel

35

Soybean biodiesel

50

Palm oil biodiesel

32–54

(b) Provisional iLUC emissions Cereals and other starch rich crops

12 (range: 8–16)

Sugars

13 (range: 4–17)

Oil crops

55 (range: 33–66)

390

K. Plassmann

Based on forecasts of biofuel demand and estimates of GHG emissions related to iLUC, the EU concludes that iLUC can negate some or all GHG emissions savings of individual biofuels as the majority of biofuels up to 2020 will be derived from land that could also be used to provide food or feed crops [83]. Most of this iLUC is expected to take place outside of Europe. Advanced biofuels produced from wastes or algae are expected to carry a low risk of causing iLUC because they do not compete directly for land with food and feed crops [75]. Similarly, feedstocks grown on marginal or restored degraded land do not induce iLUC [69, 75].

16.4.3 Example of a Policy Mechanism The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) is an example of a mandatory regulatory mechanism that takes a life cycle perspective and accounts for GHG emissions at the product level [78]. It sets minimum GHG reduction targets for biofuels compared with fossil fuels of 35 % which will rise to 60 % from 2018 onwards for existing installations; installations starting operation after October 2015 have to save at least 60 %. It also excludes bioenergy from feedstock produced on biodiverse land or land with high carbon stocks that was converted after January 2008. Emissions from dLUC are included in the calculation of the GHG emissions savings compared to a fossil fuel reference. Due to concerns about the GHG impacts of iLUC and the possibility that iLUC may significantly decrease or even negate any GHG emissions savings of renewable energy sources, the EC reviewed the available evidence and evaluated policy options to minimize iLUC impacts. The review concluded that iLUC has the potential to undermine the aims of the EU RED, acknowledged the limitations of iLUC modelling and considered the pros and cons of different policy options [84]. It was recommended to limit the amount of conventional biofuels to current production levels so as to disincentive the further expansion of feedstocks that carry a high risk of inducing iLUC. This change was implemented in the EU RED in 2015 [83]. In addition, provisional estimates of iLUC emissions from biofuel and bioliquid feedstocks are listed in EC [83] and need to be reported. These figures are available for three groups of feedstock: cereals and other starch rich crops, sugars, and oil crops. Table 16.1 shows the total default values for cultivation, processing, transport and distribution of some chosen feedstocks as well as the provisional iLUC emissions to put iLUC emissions into perspective.

16.5 Efforts to Reduce LUC There is widespread consensus on the urgent need to prevent further losses of natural and semi-natural habitats to agriculture in order to prevent the associated loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services as well as the emission of significant

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change391

amounts of GHGs [85, 86]. Good quality agricultural land is a limited resource, and competition of different land uses is increasing [82]. This is due to a variety of factors, including the increasing demand of the growing world population for food, feed and fuel; changing diets towards more land intensive commodities (e.g. meat and dairy); urbanization; the need for protected areas to safeguard ecosystem services and biodiversity; and the increasing cultivation of bioenergy feedstocks [19]. The global demand for bioenergy and hence agricultural land is forecast to increase significantly, making the sustainable production of feedstocks, preventing dLUC and iLUC, and reducing negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and food prices ever more important [75, 87]. There are two ways for meeting this increased demand: increasing yields on existing agricultural land or agricultural expansion and LUC. The concept of “sustainable intensification” has been introduced as an approach to increasing yields and global agricultural production while at the same time meeting the challenges of preventing further LUC, reducing negative environmental impacts, maintaining ecosystem services and increasing the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change, water shortages and other environmental stresses [88, 89]. Preventing future agricultural expansion and reducing global agricultural GHG emissions will also require a reduction in demand [19, 90]. Public and private, mandatory and voluntary initiatives have been developed in order to increase the sustainability of land use, agriculture and forestry. Examples of measures implemented to reduce LUC include regulation, public procurement policies, emissions trading schemes, voluntary bilateral agreements, private sector multi-stakeholder roundtables, voluntary certification and disclosure schemes, moratoria, and consumer campaigns [91]. Some initiatives target the conservation of existing carbon stocks, mainly in forests and organic soils, while others focus more on agriculture as the main driver of LUC. However, the strong link between agriculture and forest protection and the need to address both at the same time are increasingly recognized [92]. It is also important to consider the risk of leakage associated with policies and other mitigation initiatives. In general, the risk of leakage declines the more countries or actors cooperate [93]. Policy interventions aimed at reducing tropical deforestation need to address both direct and underlying drivers at local scales [15] and should be tailored to specific actors (e.g. large estates vs. smallholders) [94]. Both forest and non-forest ecosystems should be considered in order to reduce leakage effects of (global) forest conservation schemes to non-forest ecosystems [95]. Moreover, policies addressing the underlying drivers of LUC (e.g. changing diets) can also help reduce land use competition [96]. Positive land use trends are already emerging, e.g. global deforestation rates are declining [5], global afforestation has increased between 1990 and 2015 [97], and the global coverage of terrestrial protected areas is increasing [98]. Brazil has been a leader in climate change mitigation by achieving a reduction in deforestation rates by 70 % between 2005 and 2013 while at the same time increasing agricultural production [99]. This success was due to a combination of factors, including regulation and law enforcement, supply chain interventions in the soy and beef sectors, restricted access to credits for land owners in the counties with the highest deforestation rates,

392

K. Plassmann

and a decline in the demand for further deforestation [99]. However, recent increases in deforestation due to inter alia an increased profitability of agricultural exports, infrastructure development and reduced efforts to designate further protected areas show that ongoing efforts are needed to ensure the protection of Amazonian forests [100]. Another challenge is that the implementation of sustainable forest management schemes in low income and tropical countries with the greatest forests remains relatively low [97]. The next two sections give some examples of the policy measures and private voluntary initiatives that include measures to reduce deforestation and other LUC.

16.5.1 Policy Mechanisms and Public Initiatives Policy initiatives to reduce LUC include the mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in developing non-Annex I countries of the UNFCCC. REDD+ creates a financial value for carbon stored in forests and incentivizes low carbon development paths. It considers deforestation and forest degradation, forest conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The introduction of REDD+ has led to increasing efforts to monitor changes in forest areas and associated carbon stock changes at national levels, understand the underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and design policy interventions to effectively address these drivers [12, 17]. The focus of REDD+ is on climate change mitigation, and there is some debate about potential trade-offs, co-benefits and synergies between this aims and other sustainability goals such as the protection of biodiversity or improving rural livelihoods [101]. The Indonesian moratorium on new licenses granting the conversion of primary forests and peat lands is an example of a national policy under REDD+ that has the potential to significantly reduce deforestation rates [102]. Various parties to the UNFCCC have included LUC mitigation measures in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). These INDCs communicated their GHG emissions reductions commitment in preparation of a new global climate agreement negotiated at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in December 2015 [103]. For example, Brazil pledged to achieve zero illegal deforestation in the Amazon region by 2030 and to reforest and/or restore 12 and 15 million ha of forests and degraded pastures by 2030, respectively. The New York Declaration on Forests is a non-legally binding political declaration endorsed in 2014 by a large number of governments, companies and civil society organizations. Its aim is to cut natural forest loss in half by 2020 and strive to end it by 2030. Other public initiatives include LCA-based approaches that consider LUC, for example the voluntary EU Product Environmental Footprinting scheme which is undergoing a pilot phase at the time of writing [47]. Various national and supra-national policies exist that set mandatory targets for the share of renewable energy in the overall energy consumption and/or transportation sector. They prescribe sustainability criteria that need to be met in order

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change393

for bioenergy products to count towards these targets, and these criteria typically include provisions regarding LUC [104]. For example, the EU RED [78, 83] prohibits the conversion of certain habitats and provides disincentives to further dLUC by including it in the calculation of GHG emissions savings achieved by energy from renewable sources. Indirect LUC emissions are not included in the calculation but iLUC is being discouraged via other mechanisms (Section 16.4). Other policies already include iLUC emissions in the calculation of GHG reductions (e.g. the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard) [104]. The restoration of degraded land which leads to increases in carbon stocks earns a bonus under EC [78] because it does not carry a risk of iLUC and contributes to climate mitigation. A more detailed overview of initiatives related to bioenergy in Europe, the USA and other countries is available in [104] and [105].

16.5.2 Private Voluntary Initiatives Recent years have seen an increasing uptake of private voluntary initiatives to mitigate GHG emissions and increase the overall sustainability of our consumption in response to climate change and other equally pressing environmental concerns. These include the PCF schemes described above as well as voluntary sustainability initiatives such as the Rainforest Alliance, Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Agriculture Network or Bird Friendly Coffee. Most of these sustainability initiatives consider social conditions and economic factors alongside environmental criteria, where the main focus can differ between initiatives. The number of sustainability initiatives and their market shares has increased rapidly in recent years, and certified products show growth rates exceeding conventional products for some important commodities (e.g. palm oil, sugar, cocoa and cotton) [106]. Agricultural commodity roundtables develop voluntary standards by bringing together stakeholders from the entire supply chain, aiming to involve a significant share of supply chain actors and thus creating acceptance and buy-in within the sector. Existing initiatives include the Roundtables on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Responsible Soy (RTRS), the Bonsucro standards for sugar cane and sugar cane ethanol and the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). These sustainability initiatives recognize LUC as an important issue and aim to reduce it. For example, RSPO and RTRS prohibit the destruction of primary forest, natural ecosystems or other areas of high nature conservation value; the 4C Association Code of Conduct for sustainable coffee production prohibits the conversion of primary forests and areas designated under national or international law [107]. The metric RSB and Bonsucro standards include dLUC in the calculation of GHG emissions to provide a disincentive to individual growers; RSB also provides guidance on how to reduce iLUC risks and for the certification of “low iLUC risk” biofuels [109]. In conclusion, voluntary sustainability initiatives differ in their requirements regarding LUC but discourage it either by including its effects in quantitative GHG profiles or by prohibiting the conversion of certain habitats.

394

K. Plassmann

In response to growing consumer demand and reputational risks, various companies, commodity traders or retailers have made pledges to avoid products from deforested land (e.g. the Consumer Goods Forum’s pledge to achieve zero net deforestation by 2020 [110].). The voluntary soy and beef moratoria in Brazil are examples of zero deforestation pledges within individual sectors. These voluntary supply chain interventions have been shown to contribute to reducing deforestation rates; however, scaling up such successes and avoiding leakage of LUC to other non-forest ecosystems or suppliers not covered by the agreements proves difficult, and achieving large scale success will depend on the inclusion of entire supply chains and increasing numbers of stakeholders and sectors joining the schemes [111].

16.5.3 Opportunities for Reducing LUC Strategies for avoiding LUC in general and related to biofuels in particular include the following aspects [62, 63, 76, 83, 91, 96, 105, 106, 112, 113]. Managing Land Use • Sustainably improving agricultural management and increasing yields and production efficiencies for food, feed and bioenergy feedstocks in order to reduce the overall need for land. • Improving the governance of land use (including land use restrictions, zoning and protected areas) and combining national and local measures to prevent LUC with strong international agreements. • Harmonizing deforestation regulations between regions and across commodities to reduce the risk of leakage. • Regulating global trade and consumption (e.g. via policies and sustainability certification schemes). • Monitoring LUC through remote sensing to better understand patterns and drivers and implement control measures. • Reducing food loss and waste and changing diets because decreasing overall demand will be essential in preventing future agricultural expansion. • Considering iLUC effects and sustainability criteria as well as incentivizing sustainable and efficient land management for all agricultural commodities. Bioenergy • Increasing the use of marginal or degraded land and land without provisioning services for the production of bioenergy. • Incentivizing bioenergy feedstocks that carry a low risk of iLUC, (e.g. currently unused wastes and crop residues (but only in excess of what is needed to sustain soil fertility), algae or advanced biofuels that do not compete with food crops). • Integrating the production of biofuel feedstocks and non-bioenergy production within the same system to increase the overall land productivity. • Using bioenergy co-products as animal feed to reduce the need for cultivating feed crops.

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change395

• Aligning international approaches to ensure the sustainability of bioenergy. • Increasing the end use efficiency of bioenergy and biofuels.

16.6 Final Considerations Land use change is a significant source of GHG emissions. Preventing the conversion of forests, peat lands and other ecosystems as well as afforestation and the restoration of degraded lands represent significant mitigation opportunities. At the same time, avoiding LUC will also protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Efforts to reduce LUC are ongoing via various public and private, voluntary and regulatory approaches at local to national and global scales. Agriculture and forestry are in a unique position because they both are sources and sinks of GHGs, and they will also be increasingly affected by a changing climate. Both dLUC and iLUC can result in significant GHG emissions that reduce or even negate the climate mitigation potential of bioenergy. So far, iLUC is mainly being discussed in relation to biofuels but may be increasingly considered for non-biofuel biomass production in the future. It can only be modelled and therefore is associated with a large uncertainty. However, the recognition of iLUC impacts is relevant for policy analyses, and policies can promote low iLUC risk bioenergy even without attempting to provide quantitative iLUC GHG emission factors [114]. Further international discussions and the alignment of modelling methodologies, databases and assumptions used for calculating iLUC emissions can help make results more comparable between different analyses [62]. The impact of bioenergy production on global land use competition can be reduced by promoting feedstocks that do not compete with food or feed crops for land [75]. Although positive trends are evident, including a slowing of global deforestation rates, further efforts are needed to reduce LUC and safeguard (semi-)natural habitats against a background of growing land scarcity and land use competition. However, trade-offs exist between food security, development and environmental targets. For example, a trade-off may arise between achieving food security and efforts to reduce global GHG emissions if the restoration of wetlands for climate mitigation and/or nature conservation reduces local food availability [115]. Any measures taken therefore need to consider local and global effects, direct and indirect impacts, leakage effects, and environmental and socioeconomic consequences.

References [1] [2]

MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan

396 [3]

[4]

[5] [6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

[17]

K. Plassmann Nkonya E, Anderson W, Kato E, Koo J, Mirzabaev A, von Braun J, Meyer S (2016) Global cost of degradation. In: Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A, von Braun J (eds) Economics of land degradation and improvement – a global assessment for sustainable development. Springer International, Switzerland Smith P, House JI, Bustamante M, Sobocka J, Harper R, Pan G, West P, Clark J, Adhya T, Rumpel C, Paustian K, Kuikman P, Cotrufo MF, Elliott JA, McDowell R, Griffiths RI, Asakawa S, Bondeau A, Jain AK, Meersmans J, Pugh TAM (2016) Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob Change Biol 22:1008–1028 Keenan RJ, Reams RA, Achard F, de Freitas JV, Grainger A, Lindquist E (2015) Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecol Manag 352:9–20 Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, Haberl H, Harper R, House J, Jafari M, Masera O, Mbow C, Ravindranath NH, Rice CW, Robledo Abad C, Romanovskaya A, Sperling F, Tubiello F (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall D (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774 de Chazal J, Rounsevell MDA (2009) Land-use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: a review. Global Environ Chang 19:306–315 Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Ferrara AF, House J, Federici S, Rossi S, Biancalani R, Condor Golec RD, Jacobs H, Flammini A, Prosperi P, Cardenas-Galindo P, Schmidhuber J, Sanz Sanchez MJ, Srivastava N, Smith P (2015) The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob Change Biol 21:2655–2660 Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – a review. J Environ Manage 91:22–46 Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith P (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos T Roy Soc B 363:789–813 Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V, De Fries RS, Brockhaus M, Verchot L, Angelsen A, Romijn E (2012) An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ Res Lett 7:044009 Kissinger G, Herold M, De Sy V (2012) Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: a synthesis report for REDD+ policymakers. Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2010) Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 107:16732–16737 Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52:143–150 Mayaux P, Pekel J-F, Desclée B, Donnay F, Lupi A, Achard F, Clerici M, Bodart C, Brink A, Nasi R, Belward A (2013) State and evolution of the African rainforests between 1990 and 2010. Philos T Roy Soc B 368:20120300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0300. Accessed March 2016 Salvini G, Herold M, De Sy V, Kissinger G, Brockhaus M, Skutsch M (2014) How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for monitoring systems. Environ Res Lett 9:074004

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change397 [18] Henders S, Persson UM, Kastner T (2015) Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environ Res Lett 10:125012 [19] Alexander P, Rounsevell MDA, Dislich C, Dodson JR, Engström K, Moran D (2015) Drivers for global agricultural land use change: the nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Global Environ Chang 35:138–147 [20] Federici S, Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Jacobs H, Schmidhuber J (2015) New estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990–2015. Forest Ecol Manag 352:89–98 [21] Houghton RA, House JI, Pongratz J, van der Werf GR, DeFries RS, Hansen MC, Le Quéré C, Ramankutty N (2012) Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9:5125–5142 [22] Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Condor Golec RD, Ferrara A, Rossi S, Biancalani R, Federici S, Jacobs H, Flammini A (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks. 1990–2011 analysis. FAO Statistics Division, Working Paper Series ESS/14-02. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome [23] Beuchle R, Grecchi RC, Shimabukuro YE, Seliger R, Eva HD, Sano E, Achard F (2015) Land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado and Caatinga biomes from 1990 to 2010 based on a systematic remote sensing sampling approach. Appl Geophys 58:116–127 [24] Lapola DM, Martinelli LA, Peres CA, Ometto JPHB, Ferreira ME, Nobre CA, Aguiar APD, Bustamente MMC, Cardoso MF, Costa MH, Joly CA, Leite CC, Moutinho P, Sampaio G, Strassburg BBN, Vieira ICG (2014) pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat Clim Change 4:27–35 [25] Birdsey R, Pan Y, Houghton R (2013) Sustainable landscapes in a world of change: tropical forests, land use and implementation of REDD+: part I. Carbon Manage 4:465–468 [26] TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. TEEB, Geneva [27] Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice C, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574 [28] TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture, Food: an interim report. United Nations Environment Programme. TEEB, Geneva [29] Sloan S, Jenkins CN, Joppa LN, Gaveau DLA, Laurance WF (2014) Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspots. Biol Conserv 177:12–24 [30] Immerzeel DJ, Verweij PA, van der Hilst F, Faaij APC (2014) Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy 6:183–209 [31] Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600 [32] Bradshaw CJA, Sodhi NS, Peh KS-H, Brook BW (2007) Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob Change Biol 13:2379–2395 [33] Warren M, Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B (2012) Introduction. In: Murdiyarso D, Kauffman JB, Warren M, Pramova E, Hergoualc’h K (eds) Tropical wetlands for climate change adaptation and mitigation: science and policy imperatives with special reference to Indonesia. Working Paper 91. CIFOR, Bogor [34] Ferreira ME, Ferreira LG, Miziara F, Soares-Filho BS (2013) Modeling landscape dynamics in the central Brazilian savanna biome: future scenarios and perspectives for conservation. J Land Use Sci 8: 403–421 [35] EC (May 2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Commission, Brussels [36] Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ Chang 26:152–158

398

K. Plassmann

[37] Food SCP RT (2013) ENVIFOOD Protocol, Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink Protocol, European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table (SCP RT), Working Group 1, Brussels [38] Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Saad R, de Souza DM, Müller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202 [39] de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230 [40] ISO (2006a) ISO14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva [41] ISO (2006b) ISO 14044. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva [42] BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards, London [43] ISO (2013) ISO/TS 14067:2013. Greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. Technical Specification. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva [44] WRI & WBCSD (2011) Greenhouse Gas Protocol product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-standard. Accessed August 2015 [45] BSI (2012) PAS 2050-1:2012. Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products. Supplementary requirements for the cradle to gate stages of GHG assessments of horticultural products undertaken in accordance with PAS 2050. BSI Standards, London. [46] Environdec (2013) PCR on UN CPC 01610 green coffee 2013:21, Version 1.01 [47] EU (2013) Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/EU). Official Journal of the European Union, 4 May 2013. [48] International Dairy Federation (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy. The IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445/2010 [49] LEAP (2015) Environmental performance of animal feed supply chains: guidelines for assessment. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome [50] Garnett T (2009) Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environ Sci Policy 12:491–503 [51] de Vries M, de Boer I (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128:1–11 [52] Cederberg C, Persson UM, Neovius K, Molander S, Clift R (2011) Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Envir Sci Tech 45:1773–1779 [53] van Middelaar CE, Cederberg C, Vellinga TV, van der Werf HMG, de Boer I (2013) Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:768–782 [54] Vellinga TV, Blonk H, Marinussen M, van Zeist WJ, de Boer I, Starmans D (2013) Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wageningen UR Livestock research Lelystad report 674 [55] Williams A, Dominguez H, Leinonen I (2014) A simple approach to land use change emissions for global crop commodities reflecting demand. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA Food 2014), 8–10 October 2014, San Francisco. ACLCA, Vashon [56] Audsley E, Brander M, Chatterton J, Murphy-Bokern D, Webster C, Williams A (2009) How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for to reduction them by 2050. How low can we go? WWF-UK, Woking

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change399 [57] Plassmann K, Norton A, Attarzadeh N, Jensen MF, Brenton P, Edwards-Jones G (2010) Methodological complexities of carbon footprinting: a sensitivity analysis of key variables in a developing country context. Environ Sci Policy 13:393–404 [58] Brenton P, Edwards-Jones G, Jensen MF, Attarzadeh N, Norton A, Plassmann K (2010) Carbon footprints and food systems: Do current accounting methodologies disadvantage developing countries? The World Bank, Washington DC, USA. ISBN 978-0-8213-8539-5 [59] Jawjit W, Kroeze C, Rattanapan S (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from rubber industry in Thailand. J Clean Prod 18:403–411 [60] OECD (2014) Green growth indicators 2014. OECD green growth studies. OECD, Paris [61] Allwood JM, Bosetti V, Dubash NK, Gómez-Echeverri L, von Stechow C (2014) Glossary. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [62] Wicke B, Verweij P, van Meijl H, van Vuuren DP, Faaij APC (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3:87–100 [63] Fritsche UR, Hennenberg K, Hünecke K (2010) The “iLUC Factor” as a means to hedge risks of GHG emissions from indirect land use change – Working Paper. Öko-Institut, Darmstadt [64] Graham-Rowe D (2011) Beyond food versus fuel. Nature 474:S6–S8 [65] Sylvester-Bradley R, Thorman RE, Kindred DR, Wynn SC, Smith KE, Rees RM, Topp CFE, Pappa VA, Mortimer ND, Misselbrook TH, Gilhespy S, Cardenas LM, Chauhan M, Bennett G, Malkin S, Munro DG (2015) Minimising nitrous oxide intensities of arable crop products (MIN-NO). Project Report No. 548. AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds [66] Ostwald M, Henders S (2014) Making two parallel land use sector debates meet: carbon leakage and indirect land use change. Land Use Policy 36:533–542 [67] Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2010) Are models suitable for determining iLUC factors? Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven [68] EC-JRC-IES (2010) European Commission-Joint Research Centre-Institute for Environment and Sustainability: international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook – general guide for life cycle assessment – detailed guidance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg [69] Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technol 102:437–451 [70] Kløverpris JH, Mueller S (2013) Baseline time accounting: considering global land use dynamics when estimating the climate impact of indirect land use change caused by biofuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:319–330 [71] Finkbeiner M (2014) Indirect land use change – help beyond the hype? Biomass Bioenerg 62:218–221 [72] Muñoz I, Schmidt JH, Brandão M, Weidema BP (2015) Rebuttal to “Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) – scientific robustness and consistency with international standards”. GCB Bioenergy 7:565–566 [73] Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Zaks D (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3:034001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034001 [74] Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A (2010) Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:1661–1694 [75] Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, Gabrielle B, Goss Eng A, Lucht W, Mapako M, Masera Cerutti O, McIntyre T, Minowa T, Pingoud K (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlomer G, von Stechow C (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

400

K. Plassmann

[76] Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M, Faaij A (2008) Different palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1322–1337 [77] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238 [78] EC (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. European Commission, Brussels [79] Malins C (2012) A model-based quantitative assessment of the carbon benefits of introducing iLUC factors in the European Renewable Energy Directive. GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01207.x [80] Hertel TW, Tyner WE (2013) Market-mediated environmental impacts of biofuels. Glob Food Sec 2:131–137 [81] Laurance WF (2007) Switch to corn promotes Amazon deforestation. Science 318:1721 [82] Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS 108:3465–3472 [83] EC (2015) Directive (EU) 2015/1513 to reduce iLUC for biofuels and bioliquids, amending Directive 98/70/EC and Directive 2009/28/EC. European Commission, Brussels [84] EC (2012) Commission staff working document. Impact Assessment on indirect land use change related to biofuels and bioliquids. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC and Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. European Commission, Brussels [85] Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Benton TG, Bloomer P, Burlingame B, Dawkins M, Dolan L, Fraser D, Herrero M, Hoffman I, Smith P, Thornton PK, Toulmin C, Vermeulen S, Godfray HCJ (2013) Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341:33–34 [86] Kuyper TW, Struik PC (2014) Epilogue: global food security, rhetoric, and the sustainable intensification debate. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:71–79 [87] Bindraban P, Bulte E, Conijn S, Eickhout B, Hoogwijk M, Londo M (2009) Can biofuels be sustainable by 2020? Assessment for an obligatory blending target of 10% in the Netherlands. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague [88] Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society, London [89] Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agr Sustain 9:5–24 [90] Bajželj B, Richards KS, Allwood JM, Smith P, Dennis JS, Curmi E, Gilligan CA (2014) Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat Clim Change 4:924–929 [91] Walker N, Patel S, Davies F, Milledge S, Hulse J (2013) Demand-side interventions to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. IIED, London [92] Carter S, Herold M, Rufino MC, Neumann K, Kooistra L, Verchot L (2015) Mitigation of agricultural emissions in the tropics: comparing forest land-sparing options at the national level. Biogeosciences 12:4809–4825 [93] Gan J, McCarl BA (2007) Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol Econ 64:423–432 [94] Godar J, Gardner TA, Tizado EJ, Pacheco P (2014) Actor-specific contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 111:15591–15596 [95] Popp A, Humpenöder F, Weindl I, Bodirsky BL, Bonsch M, Lotze-Campen H, Müller C, Biewald A, Rolinski S, Stevanovic M, Dietrich JP (2014) Land-use protection from climate mitigation. Nat Clim Change 4:1095–1098 [96] Smith P, Gregory PJ, van Vuuren D, Obersteiner M, Havlík P, Rounsevell M, Woods J, Stehfest E, Bellarby J (2010) Competition for land. Philos T Roy Soc B 365:2941–2957

16  Direct and Indirect Land Use Change401 [97] Sloan S, Sayer JA (2015) Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecol Manag 352:134–145 [98] Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS, de Lima MG, Deguignet M, Bertzky B, Milam AN, Martinez-Lopez J, Lewis E, Eassom A, Wicander S, Geldmann J, van Soesbergen A, Arnell AP, O’Connor B, Park S, Shi YN, Danks FS, MacSharry B, Kingston N (2014) Protected planet report 2014. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge [99] Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C, Alencar A, Azevedo A, Swette B, Bezerra T, DiGiano M, Shimada J, Seroa da Motta R, Armijo E, Castello L, Brando P, Hansen MC, McGrathHorn M, Carvalho O, Hess L (2014) Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344:1118–1123 [100] Fearnside PM (2015) Deforestation soars in the Amazon. Nature 521:423. doi: 10.1038/521423b [101] Visseren-Hamakers IJ, McDermott C, Vijge MJ, Cashore B (2012) Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:646–653 [102] Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K, Engelmann J, Wright M, Austin KG, Stolle F, Turubanova S, Potapov PV, Margono B, Hansen MC, Baccini A (2015) Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. PNAS 112:1328–1333 [103] UNFCCC (2015) Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf. Accessed March 2016 [104] van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij APC (2010) From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:2445–2472 [105] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: a global overview. Energ Policy 39:1630–1646 [106] Potts J, Lynch M, Wilkings A, Huppé G, Cunningham M, Voora V (2014) The state of sustainability initiatives review. Standards and the green economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Manitoba and London [107] 4C Association (2012) 4C unacceptable practices: background, criteria and indicators, v2.1. www.4c-coffeeassociation.org/assets/files/Documents/CodeVerification-EN/4CDoc_036_ Indicators_Unacceptable-Practices_v2.1_en.pdf. Accessed Mar 2016 [108] http://www.rsb.org/pdfs/standards/RSB-STD-03-001%20-%20ver%200.1%20RSB%20 Low%20iLUC%20Criteria%20&%20Indicators.pdf [109] h t t p : / / w w w. t h e c o n s u m e rg o o d s f o r u m . c o m / s u s t a i n a b i l i t y - s t r a t eg i c - f o c u s / sustainabilityresolutions/deforestation-resolution [110] Gibbs HK, Munger J, L’Roe J, Barreto P, Pereira R, Christie M, Amaral T, Walker NF (2016) Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conserv Lett 9:32–42 [111] Berndes G, Ahlgren S, Börjesson P, Cowie AL (2012) Bioenergy and land use change – state of the art. WIREs Energy Environ doi:10.1002/wene.41 [112] le Polain de Waroux Y, Garrett RD, Heilmayr R, Lambin EF (2016) Land use policies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602646113 [113] Creutzig F, Ravindranath NH, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Bright R, Cherubini F, Chum H, Corbera E, Delucchi M, Faaij A, Fargione J, Haberl H, Heath G, Lucon O, Plevin R, Popp A, Robledo-Abad C, Rose S, Smith P, Stromman A, Suh S, Masera O (2015) Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy 7:916–944 [114] Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P (2016) Climate smart soils. Nature 532:49–57

402

K. Plassmann

Dr. Katharina Plassmann  is a senior scientist at Yara International ASA’s Research Centre for Crop Nutrition Hanninghof in Germany. She works on the assessment of environmental impacts related to agricultural production and has a special interest in carbon footprinting, climate smart agriculture and agricultural sustainability. She is an ecologist by training and holds a PhD from the University of Wales, Bangor, UK.

Chapter 17

Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry Andreas Feige and Lydia Pforte

Abstract  In the first part of the chapter, existing regulatory framework conditions, initiatives as well as voluntary certification schemes with relevance for the aviation industry were determined. Therefore 18 sustainability certification schemes, which are recognized by the European Commission (EC) and have a relevance for biofuels used in the aviation industry, were compared with respect to their geographic and certification scope, transparency, market coverage, traceability and their sustainability performance in covering legal requirements and beyond. A more in-depth benchmark was performed for the five multi-stakeholder schemes Bonsucro EU, ISCC EU, RSB EU RED, RSPO RED and RTRS EU RED based on the ITC tool Standards Map. The benchmark included requirements in the field of environmental, social and economic sustainability. The second part of the chapter provides insights into the certification system ISCC, a globally leading certification system covering the entire supply chain and all kinds of bio based feedstocks and renewables. Independent third party certification ensures zero deforestation, no compensation and compliance with high ecological and social sustainability requirements, greenhouse gas emissions savings and traceability throughout the supply chain. ISCC can be applied in various markets including the bioenergy sector, the food and feed market and the chemical market. Since its start of operation in 2010, more than 13,000 certificates in more than 100 countries have been issued.

A. Feige (*) ISCC System GmbH, Köln, Germany e-mail: [email protected] L. Pforte Meo Carbon Solutions GmbH, Köln, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_17

403

404

A. Feige and L. Pforte

17.1 Introduction - Framework for Sustainability Certification In aviation, numerous initiatives exist at international, supranational and national level, dealing with sustainability issues of aviation. Only a few of them are binding. In the USA, the Regulation of Fuels and Fuels Additives 2 (RFS2) sets the legal framework for fuels used in rail, road and shipping transport. The 2005 established RFS program, has different blending mandates for first generation biofuels, “progressive” fuels like advanced biofuels and cellulose-based fuels as well as land-related requirements for biofuels. The land-related requirements refer to prohibition of converting areas to produce biomass for biofuels from 19 December 2007 on. In 2007, California also enacted the Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS). It is similar to an emission trading system. By 2020, the system aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of energy production to the 1990 level. Participants of the emission trading system can either receive credits or deficits for a transport fuel, depending if its greenhouse gas emission is lower or higher than the underlying standard. Furthermore, the LCFS currently develops sustainability criteria for biofuels. In the European Union (EU), aviation has to participate in the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) since 2012. For aviation this system plans a 5 % emission reduction by 2020 compared to average emissions of 2004 till 2006. It was planned that all flights from or to the European economic zone with a maximum take-off weight of 5.7 t had to participate in emission trading. Since 2013, only inner-European flights are subject to the emission trading system. In the ETS system an alternative to purchasing emission certificates is to use biofuels. If they are certified against one of the sustainability certification schemes recognized by the European Commission (EC) under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED, 2009/28/EC), their CO2 emissions are set to zero. The EU Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources requires that by 2020, 20 % of the European Community’s gross final consumption of energy should come from renewable sources. Biofuels will play a key role in meeting these targets. Under the RED biofuels must fulfill certain sustainability requirements including the restriction of land use change after 1 January 2008 and greenhouse gas emission savings. In order to show the compliance with these RED requirements, producers in the biofuel supply chain must be certified against one of the voluntary certifications schemes, which have been recognized by the European Commission. In addition to the RED, the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD, 2009/30/EC) applies in the EU. It prescribes a de-carbonization of the fuel industry. Until 2020 blenders and fossil fuel providers must show a greenhouse gas emission reduction of at least 6 % for each unit of energy sold. Until 2020, sustainable biofuels will play an important role in meeting this target. Both, the ETS and the FQD refer to the EU RED sustainability requirements. As ETS is the only binding instrument at the present time in aviation, the further assessment will focus on all EU RED recognized sustainability certification schemes.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry405

17.2 Existing Sustainability Certification Schemes By September 2015, the European Commission (EC) had recognized 18 sustainability certification schemes under the RED. Five of them are multi-stakeholder systems or roundtable systems, which include not only producers, processors and other market participants but also non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutes and other organizations that focus on sustainability issues of agricultural production. All other recognized systems are closed initiatives of the industry or even company-based. In the following sections, all systems are shortly introduced. These sections contain excerpts from an aireg research project [1] and have been updated and as well as further certification schemes have been included that were not subject of the research project. Bonsucro was founded in 2010 by producers, investors and traders of the sugar and ethanol industry as well as NGOs. The system integrates ecological, social and economic criteria for the production of sugar cane. “Bonsucro EU” was developed with the aim of adapting the Bonsucro standard to cover the minimum requirements of RED and FQD. By September 2015, a total of 47 certificates (mills, chain of custody) had been issued [2]. The biofuel plant Ensus, which is located in Great Britain, developed the Ensus Voluntary Scheme (Ensus) to be able to produce RED-sustainable ethanol from grain. Ensus integrates only chain of custody requirements. Farmers, who deliver to Ensus cannot be certified under this system, but have to use one of the other RED systems [3]. The Gafta Trade Assurance Scheme (GTAS) was recognized by the European Commission in June 2014. It is an industry initiative of the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). Originally, GTAS was set up as a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) based scheme but was extended by the EU RED sustainability requirements for formal recognition by the EC. GTAS only covers the supply chain between the farmer and the first processor [4]. Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol (Greenergy) was designed for the certification of sugar cane for bioethanol production in Brazil. Greenergy International Ltd, a producer and trader in fuels and biofuels developed the scheme for the UK transport sector. It is based on the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) of the British government and with the introduction of RED, it was adapted step-by-step to fit in with this regulation [5]. The HVO Renewable Diesel Scheme for Verification of Compliance with the RED sustainability criteria for biofuels (Neste scheme) is a scheme, which was set up in 2012 by the HVO producer Neste Oil. It is a scheme, which can be used by any economic operator in the value chain aiming at producing HVO-type renewable diesel. The scheme was recognized in January 2014. International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) has developed an international standard for all types of biomass. The multi-stakeholder system

406

A. Feige and L. Pforte

involves stakeholders from the production, processing and trading of biofuels as well as NGOs and research institutions. Beyond the RED minimum requirements, ISCC also implements other environmental and social requirements as well as good management criteria for biomass production and processing. By September 2015, a total of more than 9,600 certificates had been issued by ISCC [6]. The KZR INiG System (KZR scheme) was developed and is administrated by the Oil and Gas Institute of Poland in 2011. Next to the minimum requirements of the RED it also includes further environmental requirements. The KZR scheme was set up for economic operators particularly those in Poland. The scheme was recognized in June 2014. By September 2015, a total of more than 310 certificates had been issued [7]. NTA 8080 is a certification system, which emerged from the Dutch Cramer Initiative to define sustainability criteria for the bioenergy sector. The system covers all types of biomass used to produce bioenergy and integrates other ecological, social and economic criteria. In the initial certification, certification accounts to the NTA RED version – which only implements the minimum requirements of RED – is also possible. By September 2015, a total of 43 companies were NTA-certified [8]. The RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance Scheme (RBSA) is a certification system of the biofuel producer Abengoa Bioenergia. The system can be used not only by Abengoa, but also by other market participants. RBSA implements exclusively the sustainability criteria of RED. It can be used for all biomass applications. Around 58 companies were RBSA-certified by September 2015 [9]. The Renewable Energy Directive Certification System (REDcert) was established by eleven stakeholders from German industrial associations from the agricultural, trading, fuel, biofuel and biogas sectors. REDcert can be used for all types of biomass. According to the EC, the area of application covers the EU, the Ukraine and Belarus. The system contains further ecological requirements that are already covered in the EU by cross-compliance and several recommendations on social criteria, but these are not subject to verification. By September 2015, more than 8,160 certificates had been issued [10]. The RED Tractor Farm Assurance Standard for Crops and Sugar Beet (RED Tractor) is an industry initiative that is part of the Assured Food Standard (AFS) for the quality management of foodstuffs. It is designed solely for certifying farmers in Britain. Other companies in the biofuels chain cannot be certified under this system. On the basis of quality requirements for foodstuffs, the standard integrates other requirements over and above RED, mainly with respect to hygiene, non-genetically-modified organisms and the use, storage and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides [11]. The Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) is a multi-stakeholder initiative, which aims to develop a worldwide applicable standard for the sustainable production and processing of biofuels and their raw materials. It applies to all agricultural raw materials. For the regulated biofuels market in the EU, this international standard with ecological, social and economic criteria was expanded by adding the minimum requirements of RED (RSB EU RED). By September 2015, a total of 19 certificates had been issued [12].

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry407

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is an initiative that was founded in 2004 by companies in the palm oil sector, the food related consumer goods industry, traders as well as environmental and social organizations. For the sustainable production and processing of palm oil, the RSPO passed a standard in November 2005 with environmental, social and economic requirements. The RSPO-RED was recognized for the EU biofuels market. By September 2015, 56 growers, 286 palm oil mills and 1598 supply chain operators hold valid certificates [13]. The Roundtable for Responsible Soy (RTRS) is an initiative that was set up in Switzerland in 2006 to promote the responsible cultivation of soy. It is a multi-stakeholder approach with representatives from the soy industry, trade, financial institutes and NGOs. In the year 2010, this standard with ecological, economic and social requirements started operation for soy cultivation. By September 2015, around 90 certificates had been issued. The RTRS EU RED scheme is approved under the RED [14]. The Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Voluntary Scheme (SQC) is similar to RED Tractor. It was set up in 1994 for grains. Its members are from the Scottish industry for the cultivation and processing of grains. SQC covers winter wheat, corn and oil seeds and is limited to the north of Britain. Only farmers can be certified under SQC. In addition to the RED minimum requirements, this system also contains requirements from HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) concerning seed storage, hygiene and transport [15]. The Agricultural Industries Confederation has developed both UK schemes Trade Assurance Scheme for Combinable Crops (TASCC) and Universal Feed Assurance Scheme (UFAS). Both schemes are mass balance schemes, which purely cover the supply chain of trading, transport and storage of agricultural feedstocks. Similar to GTAS, TASCC and UFAS only cover the supply chain between the farmer and the first processor. Biomass Biofuels voluntary scheme (2BSvs) was developed in 2011 by a consortium of producers from the French biofuel industry together with the certification office Bureau Veritas. The certification system implements some of the minimum requirements but, apart from this, does not define any further binding requirements. 2BSvs is recognized for all types of biomass. By September 2015, 596 certificates were issued [16]. The following Table 17.1 give an overview on the 18 sustainability certification schemes based on the status quo September 2015. The main outcomes of the comparison are: Only five, namely the Neste Scheme, ISCC, NTA 8080, RBSA, RSB and 2BSvs can be applied on a global scale. The others’ application is either restricted by the European Commission to Europe (REDcert, KZR system, Ensus) or a certain member state/region (SQC to North Great Britain, TASCC and UFAS to UK and Greenergy to Brazil) or is limited due to geographic restrictions of the biomass covered (Bonsucro to sugar cane regions, RSPO to oil palm regions and RTRS to soybean regions). Not all certification systems publish information on certified sites or the certificates of economic operators. No information is available for the company schemes

Yes

Sugar cane – ethanol

Sugar cane regions

Total: 47

Without Art. 17(3)(c),b no actual GHG emission calculation

Covered raw materials and biofuels

Geographic coverage

Certificates issued so far

EU RED legal requirements covered

Multistakeholder scheme

Type of certification system

Transparencya

2010

Year of development

General information

Bonsucro

Yes

n.s.

Europe

Wheat – ethanol

–

Company scheme

n.s.

Ensus

No actual GHG emission calculation

n.s.

Global

Mainly grain and feed raw materials, all biofuels

–

Industry initiative scheme

n.s.

GTAS

Without Art. 17(3)(c),c No actual GHG emission calculation

n.s.

Brazil

Sugar cane

–

Company scheme

n.s.

Greenergy

Table 17.1  Overview of all EU RED recognized schemes (status September 2015)

Yes

n.s.

Global

Oilseed feedstocks

–

Company scheme

n.s.

Neste scheme

Yes

Total: 9650

Global

All

Yes

Multistakeholder scheme

2006

ISCC EU

Yes

311

Europe

All

Yes

Company scheme

2011

KZR system

Without Art. 17(3)(c)c

43

Global

All

–

n.s.

n.s.

NTA 8080

Yes

58

Global

All

–

Company scheme

n.s.

RBSA

Bonsucro

Ensus

Principles 3, 5

Economic issues

Type of CoC

Coverage supply chain

Mass balance, Book&Claimd

Full supply chain

Chain of Custody (CoC)

Principle 2

Principles 4, 5

Environmental issues

Social issues

Principle 1

Compliance with laws

Mass balance

Farms, Ensus

–

–

–

–

Sustainability requirements beyond legal requirements

Table 17.1  (Continued)

Mass balance

Supply chain between farm and first processor

–

–

–

–

GTAS

Mass balance

Farms, Mill

Principles 6, 7

–

Principles 3, 4, 5

Principle 2

Greenergy

Mass balance

Full supply chain

–

–

–

–

Neste scheme

Mass balance, Segregation

Full supply chain

Principles 3, 4

Principle 6

Principles 1, 2, 5

Principle 5

ISCC EU

Mass balance

Full supply chain

–

–

Doc. 6 cor 3

Doc. 3 cor 3

KZR system

Segregation, Mass balance, B&Cd

Full supply chain

Principle 5.7

Principles 5.6

Principles 5.4, 5.5

Principle 5.1.2

NTA 8080

Mass balance

Full supply chain

–

–

–

–

RBSA

Yes

All

Europe

8167

Yes

Covered raw materials and biofuels

Geographic coverage

Certificates issued so far

EU RED legal requirements covered

Industry initiative scheme

Type of certification system

Transparencye

2010

REDcert

Year of development

General information

Table 17.1  (Continued)

No actual GHG emission calculation

n.s.

UK

Cereals, oil seeds, sugar beets, all biofuels

–

Industry initiative scheme

n.s.

RED Tractor

Yes

Total: 19

Global

All

Yes

Multistakeholder scheme

2007

RSB EU RED

No actual GHG emission calculation

Total: 1940

Palm regions

Palm oil for biodiesel, HVO

Yes

Multistakeholder scheme

2004

RSPO RED

No actual GHG emission calculation for production, processing

Total: 93

Soybean regions

Soy for biodiesel, HVO

Yes

Multistakeholder scheme

2006

RTRS EU RED

No actual GHG emission calculation

n.s.

North Great Britain

Wheat, corn, rapeseed for all biofuels

–

Industry initiative scheme

1994

SQC

Yes

n.s.

UK

Combinable crops

–

Industry initiative scheme

n.s.

TASCC

Yes

n.s.

UK

Feed ingredients, combinable crops

–

Industry initiative scheme

n.s.

UFAS

Without Art. 17(3) (c),f No actual GHG emission calculation

596

Global

All

Yes

Industry initiative scheme

2011

2BSvs

REDcert

RED Tractor

Principle 3.5

–

–

Environmental issues

Economic issues

Social issues

Segregation, mass balance

Type of CoC

–

Only farms

–

–

Principles E, S

Introduction

Segregation, mass balance

Full supply chain

Principles 4, 5, 6, 12

Principles 2, 5, 11

Principles 7, 8, 9, 10

Principle 1

RSB EU RED

Segregation, mass balance, B&Cd

Full supply chain

Principles 6, 7

Principle 3

Principles 4, 5, 7

Principle 2

RSPO RED

Segregation, Mass balance, B&Cd

Full supply chain

Principles 1, 2, 3, 4

Principles 3, 4

Principles 2, 4, 5

Principle 1

RTRS EU RED

–

Only farms

–

–

Principles 1, 3, 4

SQC standard

SQC

Mass balance

Supply chain between farm and first processor

–

–

–

–

TASCC

b

a

The rating of transparency includes criteria of accessibility of documents as well as free accessible databases to certified companies Scheme does not fulfill requirement of protecting highly biodiverse grassland c Scheme does not fulfill requirement of protecting highly biodiverse grassland d Book & Claim (B&C) is not allowed under the EU RED (2009/28/EC) e The rating of transparency includes criteria of accessibility of documents as well as free accessible databases to certified companies f Scheme does not fulfill requirement of protecting highly biodiverse grassland

Full supply chain

Coverage supply chain

Chain of Custody (CoC)

Principle 3.8.1

Compliance with laws

Sustainability requirements beyond legal requirements

Table 17.1  (Continued)

Mass balance

Supply chain between farm and first processor

–

–

–

–

UFAS

Mass balance

Complete supply chain

–

–

–

–

2BSvs

412

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Ensus, Greenergy and the Neste scheme and the industry schemes GTAS, SQC, TASCC and UFAS. Thus, their market relevance cannot be estimated. From the certification systems, which provide certification information, ISCC and REDcert seem to have the highest market relevance. Under ISCC a total of more than 9,600 certificates have been issued by third quarter 2015, while under REDcert more than 8,100 certificates have been issued. They are followed by RSPO with a total of 1,900 certificates, 2BSvs with 596 issued certificates and the KZR System, which issued 311 certificates. The remaining systems have a low market impact. RTRS has issued 93 certificates, Bonsucro 47 and RSB in total 19 certificates. The schemes are either fully or partially recognized by the European Commission under the RED. If a scheme has not yet implemented any regulation concerning the ban on the conversion of highly biodiverse grasslands pursuant to Section 17 (3) (c) of RED, it is considered as partly recognized. If biomasses and bioenergy are certified based on this system, no statement can be issued concerning compliance with the ban on grassland conversion in line with the RED requirements. Eleven schemes include requirements that go beyond the minimum requirements of the EU RED. The multi-stakeholder systems Bonsucro, ISCC EU, RSB EU RED, RSPO RED and RTRS EU RED and the system NTA 8080 have included profound criteria on environmental, social and economic issues. The industry schemes Greenergy, KZR, REDcert, RED Tractor and SQC also implemented further criteria mostly referring to environmental issues. Greenergy is the only, non multi-stakeholder system, which included further social criteria.

17.3 Detailed Criteria on Environmental, Economic and Social Issues A more detailed analysis of environmental, economical and social criteria is conducted for all multi-stakeholder systems, which cover more than the EU RED minimum requirements. These are Bonsucro EU, ISCC EU, RSB EU RED, RSPO RED and RTRS EU RED.1 In order to provide a free-judgmental position and transparency, the ITC (International Trade Center) tool Standards Map has been used [17]. Standards Map is a system that counts and contrasts the number of standard`s indicators in different sustainability sections. Based on the results of this tool, criteria of different topics in the fields of environment, social issues as well as management/economy were compared. For Bonsucro, RSB, RSPO and RTRS the comparison is done for the global standards, which all apply under the EU RED.

1 The scope of schemes in terms of products is different, thus some requirements might apply for one standard and might not apply for another.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry413

17.3.1 Environmental Criteria Environmental criteria for good agricultural practices concern the issues deforestation and protection of important areas (like primary forests, biodiverse areas and areas of high carbon stock), soil conservation, correct handling of chemicals and natural organic inputs, biodiversity protection, water treatment and waste handling. Deforestation and the protection of important areas are covered by the EU RED minimum requirements. After 1 January 2008, a status change of primary forests and other natural areas, areas designated by law, areas for the protection of rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems or species, highly biodiverse grassland and land with high carbon stock (including wetlands, forested areas and peatland) is prohibited. The analyzed certification systems do all cover those criteria. An exception poses Bonsucro, which implemented all legal requirements beside the one on highly biodiverse grasslands pursuant to Section 17 (3) (c) of RED. Therefore, Bonsucro is only partially recognized. If biomass and bioenergy are certified against this standard, no statement can be issued concerning compliance with the ban on grassland conversion in line with the RED requirements. All detailed analyzed schemes have implemented further environmental criteria. The following Fig. 17.1 provides an overview on the existing number of environmental criteria.2 In total most environmental areas are covered by the two global standards ISCC and RSB (including critical issues, short-term/medium-term, major/minor musts, and recommendations). The reason might be that both are globally applicable for all kind of feedstocks and thus must deal with all kind of environmental issues. In the field of soil protection, all certification systems include requirements on erosion control and soil health (including fertility, nutrients and productivity of soils). ISCC and RSB further cover soil contamination and soil compaction. Chemicals and natural organic inputs include topics in the field of handling, application, storage and disposal of pesticides and fertilizers. Training, the correct equipment and the regular re-calibration prevent spillages and contamination of workers and adjacent sites. All analyzed systems do have detailed requirements on pesticideand fertilizer application, handling, storage and disposal. Further on, record keeping of agrochemical application is relevant in all standards. While Bonsucro only covers four of the available areas, RSB covers 15 and ISCC 19 areas. Except for Bonsucro, the standards also include requirements on the implementation of integrated pest management. RSB, RTRS and ISCC include further requirements with respect to correct labelling, storage of agrochemicals and the protection of non-targeted areas from agrochemical use. Regular recalibration of application equipment is required

2 Please note that the following figures only indicate the numbers of available criteria and indicators but say nothing about the level of coverage of the criteria (e.g. short-term/medium-term, major/minor musts, Tier 1 or 2 implementation) or strictness in implementation (e.g. verified in third-party audit, recommendation).

414

A. Feige and L. Pforte

 

1RRIFULWHULD

      

%RQVXFUR 6RLO

,6&&

56%

&KHPLFDOV1DWXUDORUJDQLFLQSXWV

5632 %LRGLYHUVLW\

5756 :DWHU

:DVWH

Fig. 17.1  Environmental areas covered in standards requirements [18]

by ISCC. RSB and ISCC do also have requirements on organic fertilizers including precautions to avoid runoff and contamination of waters and soil. Training, which is an essential part of correct pesticide and fertilizer handling is required by RTRS, ISCC and RSB. Biodiversity criteria and indicators should cover both, the protection high conservation value areas and other important biodiverse ecosystems and the improvement of biodiversity on agricultural sites. This includes the protection or even creation of set aside areas, ecological niches, buffer zones and also wildlife corridors. Furthermore, issues of invasive species and genetically modified crops should be handled. With respect to biodiversity RSB covers 27 biodiversity areas, followed by ISCC, covering 22 areas, RTRS (16), RSPO (13) and Bonscuro (7). All assessed certification schemes do include impact assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services and a high conservation value area assessment for new production areas. RSPO, RTRS, RSB and ISCC do also require an impact assessment for existing production areas. Within ISCC, RSB and RSPO furthermore ecological niches, corridors and set aside areas are protected and even created. They also include criteria on invasive species. RSB and RTRS include also criteria on the handling of genetically modified organisms. Within ISCC, the voluntary add-on “Non GMO” can be chosen to ban genetically modified feedstocks. With respect to water protection, sustainability standards should at one hand include criteria to reduce water contamination of adjacent areas and on the other hand reduce (ground- and surface-) water consumption. All certification systems have requirements on wastewater treatment, sustainable water extraction and irrigation, contamination of water and water quality. In order to address issues, all, except Bonsucro,

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry415

require a water management plan. RTRS, RSB and ISCC include criteria on water dependencies and water use rights and the promotion of water re-use and recycling. The correct treatment of wastes as well as the emphasis to reduce and re-use wastes should be of importance in sustainability certification. Important waste issues, like promoting recycling and re-using of waste streams in order to minimize disposal and pollution are covered by all assessed standards. Specific requirements on the runoff of waste chemicals, minerals and organic substances are included in ISCC, RSB and RTRS. ISCC and RSB do further cover air quality, including requirements on noise and odor.

17.3.2 Social Issues Social issues of biomass production refer to human rights and local communities, conditions of work, employment and employment relationships and human development and social dialogue. All five standards assessed include requirements to address social issues. The following Fig. 17.2 shows the scope of social areas covered in the standards requirements (including critical issues, short-term/medium-term, major/minor musts, and recommendations). Human rights and local communities cover elements of indigenous people rights, minority rights and women’s rights. Local communities should be supported by securing food availability, promoting education and medical care services as well as



1RRIFULWHULD

     

%RQVFXUR

,6&&

56%

5632

+XPDQGHYHORSPHQWDQGVRFLDOGLDORJXH (PSOR\PHQWDQGHPSOR\PHQWUHODWLRQVKLS &RQGLWLRQVRIZRUNDQGVRFLDOSURWHFWLRQV +XPDQULJKWVDQGORFDOFRPPXQLWLHV

Fig. 17.2  Social areas covered in standards requirements [19]

5756

416

A. Feige and L. Pforte

by providing housing and sanitary facilities. For local communities also the access to cultural or historical important properties and sites is important and should be covered in the sustainability standards. All standards have included basic human rights for local communities, including land use rights, consultation with local communities and grievance mechanisms. RSB and ISCC cover 27 areas of human rights and local communities. RSPO has covered 19 of the standards map areas and RTRS 12. ISCC, RSB, RSPO and RTRS have also set up criteria to promote hiring of local workers and the purchasing of local materials. RSB and ISCC furthermore address benefits for local communities like women’s access to health and safety services, enhancing or promoting education of local communities, protecting social, cultural, historical or spiritual important sites and ensuring food security in the region. While the first segment covers requirements set for local communities, the next two segments address conditions of work. Conditions of work and social protections address especially the safety at work including emergency procedures, workplace conditions and access of workers to e.g. medical checks, drinking water or sanitary facilities. The segment employment and employment relationship addresses hiring practices, employment conditions as for example terms of contracts, overtime, subcontracting, part-time labor or maternity/paternity and special leave. It also addresses basic requirements like forced labor or child labor. Good working conditions are covered in all assessed standards. Most cover the relevant ILO (International Labour Organization) criteria, like ILO 184 on safety at work. ILO 182 on worst forms of child labor is covered by all standards except RSPO. Furthermore, issues of emergency exists, first aid kits, evacuation, workplace safety, machinery equipment and handling chemicals are included in all assessed standards. Of the available criteria for employment and employment relationships, ISCC covers with 32 most of the areas, followed by RSB with 26 covered areas, RSPO with 24 and RTRS with 17. All systems exclude forced labor and do include requirements for terms of labor contracts, overtime (voluntary, compensation), deduction of fees, minimum wage, fair and timely payment and hiring policies. Except RSPO all systems also handle maximum working hours. RSB, RTRS, ISCC and RSPO have further requirements on maternity leave. ISCC, RTRS and RSB include specific criteria for rest days (1 rest day off in 7-days period or more stringent), pensions, and equal remuneration. Human development and social dialogue includes criteria on freedom of association and collective bargaining, discrimination, gender policies at work as well as programs for participation. ILO 87, 98 and 111 cover the freedom of association, the right of collective bargaining and the prohibition of discrimination. All assessed certification schemes cover those basic rights. They also include criteria on trade unions and labor associations and workers access to training programs. RSPO, RSB and ISCC furthermore cover issues on gender policies such as family-friendly policies or incentives for the inclusion of women’s labor force and women’s career. In total RSB covers 14 points in the area of human development and social dialogue, followed by ISCC with 12, RSPO with 10 and RTRS with 7 areas covered.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry417

17.3.3 Economic Issues In the ITC standards map, economic issues refer to management requirements. Three fields of action have been identified for a sustainable management: Economic viability, sustainability management criteria and supply chain responsibilities. The following figure shows the availability of criteria in the segment of social topics. Figure 17.3 is based on ITC data [20]. While ISCC, RSB and RSPO have set up criteria in all three segments, Bonsucro and RTRS only cover requirements of economic viability and sustainability management. Economic viability addresses issues of fair competition, production efficiencies, long-term sustainability management and continuous improvement. RSB covers all identified issues. ISCC does not include a criterion on a general business plan, but covers all other areas through different sustainability measures. For example, long-term sustainability management and continuous improvement is covered in the different management plans requiring an efficient and sustainable handling of fertilizers or water and thus, increasing productivity and sustainability of the field management. Sustainability management criteria are criteria on procedures to assess environmental risks and impacts and measures to monitor the effectiveness of different implemented criteria. All standards do include procedures to assess soil condition, water usage as well as environmental risks. They also include requirements on monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of environmental and social management



1RRIFULWHULD







 %RQVXFUR

,6&&

6XSSO\FKDLQ5HVSRQVLELOLWLHV

56%

5632

6XVWDLQDELOLW\0DQDJHPHQW

5756 (FRQRPLF9LDELOLW\

Fig. 17.3  Economic and management areas covered in the standards requirements (based on ITC Standards Map tool [17])

418

A. Feige and L. Pforte

systems and the compliance with local social and environmental laws and regulations. RSB and ISCC cover most of the areas with 17, respectively 16 covered issues. Additionally to the issues covered in the other system both further installed assessment procedures for biodiversity risks and appropriate principles for local construction and local zoning. Supply chain responsibilities are criteria relating on the one hand to market access, including market analysis, stakeholder mapping, access to financial services and criteria for setting up contracts with traders. On the other hand this segment covers issues on the access to certification, including requirements for smallholders, e.g. group organization and local micro businesses. RSB, RSPO and ISCC have included criteria on supply chain responsibilities. While RSPO has included criteria for market access, RSB also included criteria on group organization or the traceability of inputs. All multi-stakeholder schemes require an independent third party audit for verifying the compliance with the standards. ISCC and RSB additionally require a self-assessment prior to a third-party audit. RSB and RTRS have set up an entry level for certification. RSB includes minimum requirements, which must be met in the first certification audit and progress requirements to be met within 3 years. RTRS has a progressive three-phase entry level during the first 3 years until full compliance must be reached. It includes “immediate”, “short-term” and “medium term” requirements. In the first year of certification, all immediate requirements and 20 % of the short-term requirements must be fulfilled; in the second year, in addition to the immediate requirements, all short-term requirements also have to be fulfilled and, in the fourth year, 100 % of all requirements must have been fulfilled. The other standards request a full compliance with their sustainability requirements immediately. However, there are also differences in terms of the type of implementation. ISCC has defined some requirements as major and minor must criteria. For a successful certification, all major musts and 60 % of the minor musts must be fulfilled for successful certification. Non-conformities of Principle 1 lead to an exclusion from certification. Non-conformities with the remaining major musts and 60 % of the minor musts must be corrected within 40 days before the certificate can be issued. RSPO has defined in its standard 69 major indicators. These account to around 50 % of the total indicators. No certificate is issued until all non-conformities with the major indicators are solved. Non-conformities with the minor indicators must be solved until the next surveillance assessment. The RSPO also includes guidance, which have a recommendation character. Bonsucro defines 16 core requirements. Major musts are all 16core requirements, Principle 6 and 80 % of the remaining requirements from Principle 1 to 5. Within Bonsucro all criteria of Principle 6 and all 16 core-requirements must be fulfilled before a certificate can be issued. A scoring exists for the remaining requirements. Within RTRS and RSB, the auditor decides during the audit whether the non-conformity is major or minor. Within RSB, non-conformities are major if they have the

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry419

potential to compromise RSB, RSB standard or certification system, trademark or good name. They must be solved until a certificate can be issued. Minor non-conformities shall be solved until the surveillance audit. Within RTRS major non-conformities must be solved within 30 days to 3 months before a certificate can be issued. Non-conformities are minor, if they are for example unusual, non-systematic, do not result in fundamental failure or their impacts are limited to temporal and spatial scale. They need to be addressed in a timely manner.

17.4 The Sustainability Scheme International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) ISCC is the world’s first state-recognized certification system for sustainability and greenhouse gas savings that can be applied for all kinds of biomass, waste and residues related biofuels and bio jet fuels. The ISCC certification system went operational in 2010 and has been developed with the involvement of more than 250 stakeholders from Europe, the Americas and Southeast Asia. The ISCC headquarter is located in Cologne, Germany. ISCC is used by 3,000 system users in 100 countries worldwide (Fig. 17.4) and more than 10,000 certificates have been issued. The ISCC seal documents that biomass was produced in compliance with high environmental and social standards, providing reliability and credibility for system users. Compliance with ISCC requirements can be audited by 32 certification bodies with more than 600 trained ISCC auditors worldwide.

Fig. 17.4  Global footprint of ISCC system users

420

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Historically ISCC evolved from a consulting project of Meo Carbon Solutions3 for FNR4 and BMEL.5 The overall goal of this project was to find a solution for economic operators proving compliance with sustainability requirements for biofuels. As part of the project a 2 year proof of concept phase was conducted in Europe, the Americas and Southeast Asia. During this study it was proven that a certification system can cover all kinds of biomass on a worldwide basis. ISCC was officially recognized for biofuels by the German authorities under the German Biofuels Sustainability Ordinance6 in 2010 and by the EC under the RED7 in mid 2011. In addition to the system for biofuels ISCC PLUS was launched in 2012 and offers market participants and producers from the food, feed, chemical and pharmaceutical industry the opportunity to achieve sustainability certification for all types of bio based products. From 2010 until 2012 ISCC was financially supported by FNR and BMEL. Since then ISCC is self-sustainable based on membership fees and charges for certificates and sold quantities of sustainable products. Biofuels which are brought to market within in the European Union need to comply with the requirements of the RED. The RED requirements embrace protection of environmentally valuable areas, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings and traceability and mass balance within the supply chain. Within ISCC the entire physical supply chain from agricultural level down to the “quota obligated party” needs to be certified (Fig. 17.5). Every ISCC system user is audited by an auditor from an independent certification body. Positive audit results of the individual element of the supply chain qualify for an ISCC certificate which is valid for 12 month and company and site specific. This enables the certificate holder to participate in a sustainable supply chain and to take in and to pass on sustainable products and issue respective sustainability declarations. The advantage of site and company specific certificates is their flexibility. Instead of auditing entire supply chains each player can source sustainable products from any other certificate holder. Transportation is not subject to certification. This applies also to pipelines and other networks which are interconnected. Generally ISCC distinguishes between two types of audits. One is the sustainability audit on farms or plantations level which includes a wide range of environmental, economic and social sustainability criteria and the farm related GHG emissions. The chain of custody audit covers traceability of the product, GHG emissions and

3 Meo Carbon Solutions GmbH supports on a worldwide basis companies, governments and authorities in implementing sustainability improvement actions (www.meo-carbon.com). 4 Fachagentur für nachwachsende Rohstoffe (FNR). The German FNR is the central coordinating institution for research, development and demonstration projects in the field of renewable resources (international.fnr.de). 5 BMEL: German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (www.bmel.de). 6 The Biokraftstoff-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung (Biokraft-NachV) is the transposition of the RED into German law and defines the specific requirements for the transfer of credits counting towards the biofuels quota. 7 The Renewable Energy Directive of the European Commission (RED, 2009/28/EU) defines requirements for cultivation, processing and distribution of sustainable biofuels in Europe.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry421

Fig. 17.5  ISCC supply chain with site-specific certificates

the mass balance calculation for the operational unit (e.g. hydrogenation plant in the example above). Mass balance under the RED requires that the outgoing sustainable product does not exceed the equivalent amount of the incoming product within a timeframe of 3 months (i.e. within these 3 months it is possible to go short). ISCC audits are on-site audits. For conversion units like oil mills, hydrogenation plants, biodiesel plants or refineries every unit needs to be audited and receives an individual certificate. Farms and plantations can be audited on sample basis. The sample size is defined by the square root of the number of farms or plantations, delivering sustainable material to a so called first gathering point. However, it is also possible for farms or plantations to get audited individually on voluntary basis. Interested economic operators can get certified in a straight forward 4 step process. The first step is to make arrangements with an appropriate independent certification body cooperating with ISCC and sign a contract for the conduction of an audit. The second step is to register with ISCC and fill in the ISCC registration form. Based on this ISCC will confirm the registration by email and provide a registration number. After registration the third step is to prepare for the upcoming audit within the respective company. Guidance material and relevant checklists can be downloaded from the ISCC website. Specific questions will be answered by the ISCC helpdesk or the certification body chosen in step one. Step four is the audit itself which will take place on-site. In case of positive results the certification body will issue an ISCC certificate which will be sent to ISCC together with the audit report and published on the ISCC webpage (Fig. 17.6). The user-friendly database of certificates provides all relevant information about the certificate holder, address and location, scope of certification, input and output material as well as the validity of the certificate and the certification body. Users may also download a copy of the certificate and the audit report. The database has no restrictions and is accessible for every person. Further on users can find the list of expired as well as withdrawn certificates and a so-called blacklist with companies listed where the possibility of getting certified under ISCC has been suspended for a certain period of time which can last up to 5 years.

422

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Fig. 17.6  The ISCC website provides high transparency regarding certificates

ISCC audit requirements do not differ for bioethanol, biodiesel, HVO or bio jet fuel. The audit process, criteria and procedures are generally the same. ISCC is also recognized for the certification of waste and residues based biofuels. Here the same principles are applied, with the difference that the originator of waste is not subject to an audit and the waste or residue material has zero GHG emissions. ISCC system users have the choice whether they would like to perform an individual GHG calculation or use a default value as listed in the RED. Up to 2017 the default GHG values of some conventional biofuels will be sufficient to meet the GHG emissions saving targets of the RED. However, already today the default values will not be sufficient palm based biofuels without methane capturing technology, soy bean based biofuel and ethanol production technology using coal or lignite as process energy source. In these cases individual GHG calculations are required. For individual GHG emission calculations ISCC provides a consistent GHG calculation methodology and support to ensure the integrity of the calculation. ISCC audit requirements follow a modular approach which takes care of the continuous improvement of system users and specific sustainability requirements of customer groups. First gathering points and conversion units already certified under ISCC EU can normally easily extend their certification scope towards ISCC PLUS. System users certified under ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS are enabled to deliver into all market segments from food to biofuels as ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS do have the same basic sustainability requirements which are much ahead of the RED requirements. With choosing modules like classified chemicals, environmental and biodiversity management plan, consumables and non-GMO system users are able to adapt to more or less all the heterogeneous sustainability requirements of different customer groups or segments (Fig. 17.7). This modular approach reduces significantly costs and management capacity for system users as they do neither need to handle different certification systems for different crops and applications nor to pay for multiple audits. A processor of vegetable oil or waste having mainly supplied biofuel markets under ISCC EU can easily get access to the chemical, feed or food market by extending the certificate scope to ISCC PLUS.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry423

Fig. 17.7  One ISCC certificate for complying with important market standards – example soy

In order to stay updated ISCC is constantly screening the regulated market segments under the RED/FQD and the requirements of important sustainability initiatives such as SAI8 or FEFAC.9 The ISCC modular approach enables compliance with different standards from different market segments so that system users do not have to bother about the interpretations and specific standard requirements. Beside monitoring sustainability market requirements ISCC is also investigating innovative technologies and new materials and uses (Fig. 17.8). Especially innovative technologies and new raw materials may require adaptations of ISCC system requirements. Further on new technologies and raw materials may currently not be eligible under established regulative framework conditions. In order to provide always updated and practical solutions and eligibility under the respective regulation, ISCC is constantly conducting pilot projects with economic operators. Within these pilot projects several certification options and system requirements will be tested, evaluated and finally the most appropriate ones in terms of cost implication, complexity and benefit selected. Any new system requirements or adaptations will then be published on the ISCC website for public consultation. Pilot projects also serve the purpose of detecting improvement areas within the certification system. A prominent example is the co-processing of materials (simultaneous processing of bio-based and fossil material). Under a mass balance regime it is possible that credits for sustainable bio-based material are assigned to a physical product which may not

8 The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform is the primary global food industry initiative for sustainable agriculture. ISCC is a third party supporter of SAI and has achieved SAI Silver Level. 9 European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC) (www.fefac.eu).

424

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Fig. 17.8  ISCC process for innovative technologies and new materials and uses

contain any bio at all. Although for this product the equivalent quantity of sustainable bio-based material has been sourced, calling it a sustainable bio product would not be correct and may be accused of greenwashing. ISCC has developed guidelines for correct labelling and claims. Further outcome of the improvement process was a specific on product claim and label for bio-based materials used for co-processing. Within the regulated biofuels market new technologies and materials (such as end of life tires and renewables of non-biological origin) require in most cases intensive discussions with the European Commission and regulators from the EU Member States. Once agreement with the authorities regarding the eligibility of materials and processes is achieved ISCC will transfer findings into the system documents. The ISCC organizational setup consists of the ISCC association (ISCC e. V.) and the ISCC Systems GmbH (Fig. 17.9). Currently the ISCC e. V. has more than 80 members. ISCC stakeholders from the three areas agriculture/conversion, trade/ logistics/users and NGOs/social and research organizations form the General Assembly which elects the ISCC board and provides guidance and orientation for the ISCC System GmbH. The ISCC Board facilitates the regional stakeholder dialog by setting up Technical Committees (TCs) which may work on adaptations of ISCC system requirements to specific regional needs and also develop requirements for new materials, innovative technologies. Currently five TCs have been set up for Europe, North America, South America, South East Asia and solid biomass (wood). The TCs are also a platform where certification bodies provide valuable feedback from the field (certification bodies are not allowed to become ISCC members in order to avoid conflicts of interest). ISCC membership is voluntary and operators which apply for ISCC certification do not need to become an ISCC member. This enables ISCC to work together with

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry425

6WDNHKROGHU

$JULFXOWXUH &RQYHUVLRQ

7UDGH/RJLVWLFV 8VHUV

1*2V6RFLDO 5HVHDUFK2WKHUV

*HQHUDO$VVHPEO\

%RDUG

7HFKQLFDO 7HFKQLVFKH 7HFKQLVFKH &RPPLWWHHV 7HFKQLVFKH $UEHLWVJUXSSH $UEHLWVJUXSSH $UEHLWVJUXSSH

,6&&$VVRFLDWLRQH9

,6&&6\VWHP*PE+

2SHUDWLRQV ƒ 5HJLVWU\ ƒ 4XDOLILFDWLRQ ƒ 4XDOLW\&RQWURO ƒ 0DUNHWLQJ ƒ 'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFWV

Fig. 17.9  ISCC organization and stakeholder involvement

fully committed members. However, as a result of this practice ISCC has a much smaller member base compared to certification systems where every system user has to become a member. The ISCC System GmbH is responsible for the day to day business operation. Tasks include registration of new system users, verification of certificates and audit reports, training of auditors, bookkeeping, quality management and system improvement. The ISCC management is also responsible for the ISCC integrity audits. Within integrity audits the performance of the independent certification body is evaluated (watching the watchmen). ISCC cooperates with more than 30 certification bodies and more than 1,000 auditors and professionals have been trained during the last years. Beside compliance with general requirements each auditor must participate in a 3  day basic training course before participating in any ISCC audits. Further on ISCC provides in depth trainings for advanced and lead auditor level regarding GHG calculation, ISCC PLUS, waste and residues, remote sensing tools and plantation audits and land use assessment. As mentioned before ISCC also operates an integrity assessment program with auditors only working for ISCC. They perform surveillance audits of already certified system users and by this contribute significantly to the integrity of the ISCC certification system. The independent certification body which has issued the certificate of the selected system user is also invited to participate. The selection of candidates takes either place on a random basis or when evidence was provided that ISCC requirements might have been violated by users or certification bodies. In 2015 ISCC has performed seventy integrity assessments (Fig. 17.10). This number exceeds significantly the square root of the number of active ISCC system users. It is also worth mentioning that the ISCC integrity program runs on top of surveillance and office audits performed by Member State authorities and national accreditation

426

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Fig. 17.10  Development of ISCC Integrity Audits

bodies. ISCC also offers ANSI10 accreditation. The accreditation verifies that the certification bodies comply with international standards as well as with the ISCC system requirements. The accreditation program fosters the continuous improvement of ISCC and furthermore creates a valuable attribute for certification bodies. A similar program with DAkkS11 is under way. Integrity audits are also a valuable source for the continuous improvement of the ISCC system. During the years of operation the above described governance structure and related measures and sanctions have also strengthened the ISCC brand significantly in terms of credibility and reliability. Further performance improvement approaches are related to the introduction of IT tools. Good examples are three tools with the name GRAS, TYC and APS. These tools are briefly presented below. GRAS12 can be used by auditors and companies to identify land-use change and analysis of social and environmental risks associated with agricultural land. ISCC requires that a risk analysis of all relevant areas must be carried out before each audit. The risk analysis includes indicators such as the proximity to high-risk areas

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) have signed an agreement to cooperate in an independent third-party program to accredit certification bodies that will be conducting ISCC certification.

10

11 DAkkS is the national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany and acts in the public interest and as the sole provider of accreditations in Germany.

GRAS (Global Risk Assessment Services) has been developed by Meo Carbon Solutions on behalf of the Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR) and the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) (www.gras-system.org). 12

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry427

(e.g. forested areas, peat bogs, wetlands, grasslands with high biodiversity), probability of land use change beyond 2007, corruption risks, etc. If the auditors conclude that high risks exist, the scope of the audit must be significantly increased. For farms this means for example, that in comparison to a regular risk twice as many farms need to be examined on site. The risk assessment, in particular of a farm, is an activity that requires a lot of experience and regional knowledge. It is no wonder that different auditors and certification bodies come to different conclusions. This is of course not within the intention of a certification system, which endeavors to reproducible results. With GRAS, a tool is now provided, which allows a standardized and indexed risk analysis for farms. By applying GRAS different certification bodies will always yield the same result. Beside reproducible results a further advantage is that certification bodies by this have the same base for calculating their audit budgets and are not tempted to modify the risk assessment. Reducing the risk factor would also reduce the audit scope and budget which may become an issue within a completive bid for performing an audit for large system users. GRAS also provides a proprietary technology based on remote sensing data which is able to detect land use change from the year 2000 until today (Fig. 17.11). In Fig. 17.11 the EVI (Enhanced Vegetation Index) analysis of the remote sensing data gives evidence of a significant drop of the signal July 2012. This is the indication that land use change (LUC) took place. If further information is needed by users they can (by now knowing the exact date of the land use change) pick high resolution satellite data from this date and do further investigations. TYC13 is a database where transactions of sustainable products from one system to the other can be carried out similar to online banking. Advantages over “manual” transactions are improved safety, traceability and above all, a drastic reduction in the error rate when issuing sustainability declarations. With TYC missing or incorrect data and incorrect quantities and product details will be history. All raw materials have to be entered into the system at the point of origin, which is the so called first gathering point. Here the TYC system already detects missing or incorrect information. All subsequent transactions do not change the sustainability characteristics. Batches can be merged or split and converted. The TYC system will automatically carry out all calculation operations (e.g. change of quantities due to conversion or calculation of the GHG emissions and emission savings). By this the database fulfills the requirements of NGOs, businesses and governments for more security and transparency. Access to individual data is restricted to system users. However, the system also provides the ability to perform online audits if access is also granted to the auditor. Beside data security and reliability the TYC system reduces significantly the admin burden of system users. Due to the increasing number of sustainability characteristics (e.g. country of origin, GHG value, double counting) each

13 The TYC (Trace Your Claim) database is designed to increase data security, avoid multiple sales of the same batch of sustainable bio-based products and tracing raw materials back to the point of origin, e.g. farm/plantation (www.trace-your-claim.com).

428

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Fig. 17.11  Land use change detected by applying the GRAS tool EVI analysis

batch of biofuel today requires to issue several individual sustainability declarations once sustainability characteristics are different (e.g. 1,000 tons of biodiesel may require 50 sustainability declarations). A database however, does not care whether 1 or 50 declarations are needed as long as the information is transferred from one user to the other within the database. With the APS14 tool ISCC has set a goal to reduce sources of errors within the entire audit process from registration to recertification and minimize the administrative burden for auditors. Any system user will receive individually tailored checklists and audit reports. APS also offers the possibility to analyze performance parameters of system users and certification bodies and by this demonstrate the effectiveness of sustainability certification and motivating system users to increase improvement activities further. APS also eases live for auditors when system users change the certification body as user data is not lost, but can be transferred to the successor. APS can also be instrumental when it comes to joint audits or combi-audits where the requirements of different certification systems are audited at the same time. This saves a lot of effort, money and time for the system user.

14 APS (Automated Processing System) is an ISCC database which supports the audit process and generation of customized audit procedures.

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry429

To sum up, the ISCC certification system is a globally leading sustainability certification which is predestined for the use within the aviation industry for six reasons: • • • • • •

zero deforestation, no compensation, applicable for all kinds of biomass, waste and residues, strong governance and credibility, high level of sustainability requirements, provision of innovative tools and approaches, established supply chains in more than 100 countries.

ISCC system users can be certified for all kinds of biomass, waste and residues which are eligible under the RED and FQD. The portfolio of materials is constantly updated in discussions with the European Commission and EU Member States and covers conventional biomass as well as renewable electric energy as input for electrolysis or waste oils used in co-processing installations. This requires also ongoing evaluation of innovative technologies in terms of certification requirements and eligibility under the RED. Beside strong governance criteria for both system user and third party auditors ISCC is monitoring their performance constantly under the ISCC Integrity Program. This program covers nearly twice the square root of number of active system users. ISCC Integrity Auditors are working exclusively for ISCC in order to avoid any conflict of interest. As result of the ISCC Integrity Audits certificates have been withdrawn, system users suspended and several stages of warnings issued towards system users and certification bodies. Further on findings from integrity audits and feedback from Integrity Auditors contributed significantly to the improvement of ISCC governance structure. Looking into the benchmarking results from Section 17.3 (Figs. 3.1 to 3.3) or the ITC standards map ISCC achieves ratings equal or better than other sustainability certification systems. What is less known among stakeholders is that ISCC does not allow any deforestation of areas with high conservation value and carbon stock. ISCC prohibits any kind of compensation for e.g. deforestation of natural forests. By this ISCC will be the ideal certification system for system users promoting a zero deforestation policy (versus a zero net deforestation policy which does not prohibit compensation). ISCC is providing innovative tools like GRAS, TYC or APS which will further increase the credibility of the sustainability claim and reduce the admin burden for system users. These tools also have the potential to provide building blocks for a new era of certification. Features will be standardized risk management tools, requirements individually customized to the needs of system users and reduced audit costs and efforts. Last but not least ISCC system users do not need to build up their supply from scratch. They can source their raw material from more than 100 countries and 3,000 system users. In case of supply chain gaps ISCC will always be instrumental to close the gap or provide individual solutions.

430

A. Feige and L. Pforte

17.5 Final Considerations Currently, the European Emission Trading Scheme has the highest impact on biofuels used in the aviation industry and their sustainability. As it is legally binding and refers to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) with respect to biofuels, some legally binding sustainability requirements exist for biofuels used in the aviation industry. Under the RED, currently 18 sustainability certification schemes are recognized. Five of these schemes are so-called multi-stakeholder schemes which include not only producers, processors and other market participants but also non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutes and other organizations focusing on sustainability issues agricultural production. These five schemes Bonsucro, ISCC EU, RSB EU RED, RSPO EU RED and RTRS EU RED as well as the Dutch scheme NTA 8080 are the only schemes, which include environmental, economic and social requirements that go beyond the RED requirements. Based on comprehensive benchmarking of the multi-stakeholder schemes, RSB and ISCC are the schemes covering the widest range of environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria. Both schemes are actively supporting new and innovative technologies and provide approaches for low iLUC and low carbon fuels. ISCC is the scheme with currently the highest market relevance providing global supply chains.

References [1]

Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e. V. (aireg): Assessment of a possible contribution from Germany to reduce CO2 emissions in aviation by using biofuels. Research project No. 50.0354/2012. 2012 [2] European Commission: Assessment of Bonsucro, 11 Mar 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2013. Brussels 2015a. Bonsucro website: http://bonsucro.com/site/in-numbers/. 07 Sept 2013 [3] European Commission: Ensus Voluntary Scheme, 21 Nov 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015b [4] European Commission: Gafta Trade Assurance Scheme, 03 June 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/ energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes.Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015c [5] European Commission: Greenergy, 19 July 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015d [6] European Commission: International Sustainability and Carbon Certification, 19 July 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015e. ISCC website: http://www.iscc-system.org/en/certificate-holders/all-certificates/. Accessed 07 Sept 2013 [7] European Commission: KZR INiG System, 03 June 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/ topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015f. KZR IniG website: http://www.kzr.inig.eu/en/menu2/issued-certificates/#. Accessed 07. Sept 2015

17  Sustainability Certification in the Aviation Industry431 [8] European Commission: NTA 8080, 31 July 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015g. Website NTA 8080: http://www.betterbiomass.com/en/certificate-holders/. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [9] European Commission: Abengoa RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance (RBSA), 19 July 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015h RBSA website: http://www.abengoabioenergy. com/web/en/rbsa/certificate_holders/. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [10] European Commission: Renewable Energy Directive Certification System, 24 July 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015i [11] REDcert: Zertifikate. https://redcert.eu/ZertifikateDatenAnzeige.aspx. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [12] European Commission: Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), 19 July 2011. http:// ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015j. RSB website: http://rsb.org/certification/participating-operators/. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [13] European Commission: Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), 22 Nov 2012. http://ec. europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015k. RSPO website: http://www.rspo.org/certification/certifiedgrowers. http://www.rspo.org/certification/supply-chain-certificate-holders/page/2?keywords=Cargill&country=. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [14] European Commission: Roundtable for Responsible Soy (RTRS), 19 July 2011. http:// ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015l. RTRS website: http://www.responsiblesoy.org/en/mercado/ empresas-certificadas-en-cadena-de-custodia/. http://www.responsiblesoy.org/en/publicaudit-reports/. Accessed 08 Sept 2015 [15] European Commission: Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops Voluntary Scheme (SQC), 24 July 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 07 Sept 2015. Brussels 2015m [16] European Commission: Biomass Biofuels Voluntary Scheme (2BSvs), 24 July 2012. http:// ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes. Accessed 19 July 2011. Brussels 2015n. 2BSvs website: http://en.2bsvs.org/economic-operators.html. Accessed 07 Sept 2015 [17] ITC Standards Map Tool (2015a) http://www.standardsmap.org/. Accessed 08 Sept 2015 [18] ITC Standards Map Tool (2015b) Comparison of environmental areas covered in Bonsucro, ISCC EU, RSB, RTRS and RSPO. http://www.standardsmap.org/. Accessed 08 Sept 2015 [19] ITC Standards Map Tool (2015c) Comparison of social areas covered in Bonsucro, ISCC EU, RSB, RTRS and RSPO. http://www.standardsmap.org/. Accessed 08 Sept 2015 [20] ITC Standards Map Tool (2015d) Comparison of numbers in the economic and management area of Bonsucro, ISCC EU, RSB, RTRS and RSPO. http://www.standardsmap.org/. Accessed 08 Sept 2015

432

A. Feige and L. Pforte

Andreas Feige  spent 10 years in several industry positions at Krupp and Porsche. Before he became partner and vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton he was partner and director of Arthur D. Little and supported clients in implementing their growth and innovation strategies. Since more than 12 years Andreas Feige is working in the area of sustainability and is managing director of Meo Carbon Solutions. He is intensively involved in developing solutions for safeguarding sustainability within renewable supply chains and is experienced in balancing regulative requirements and market aspirations. His scope of work also includes comparative studies on bio fuels, due diligence activities in the area of project finance for green technologies and the development of sustainability standards for biomass in feed, food, technical and chemical applications. Since 2010 Andreas Feige has also taken over the role of the managing director of the ISCC certification system, a leading standard for sustainable biomass, renewables and bio based materials. Lydia Pforte  holds a degree in Geoecology (Environmental Sciences) from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. She joined Meo Carbon Solutions GmbH in 2010, where she is a senior project manager in standard development and sustainability certification. Among other things, she is responsible for identifying, evaluating and comparing relevant ecological, social and economic criteria and indicators for different feedstocks and markets.

Part III

Conversion Routes

Chapter 18

Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene Ulf Neuling and Martin Kaltschmitt

Abstract  The goal of this paper is to give an overview of the current possibilities to produce biokerosene from different types of biomass. Therefore different existing processes are characterized in relation to the useable feedstock (i.e. vegetable oil, starch, sugar, lignocellulose) and the type of conversion process (i.e. mechanical, biochemical, thermo-chemical or physico-chemical). In this context possible intermediate products as well as the final products are defined. Afterwards the six most advanced conversion pathways are described in more detail. This includes the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) route, the direct sugar to hydrocarbons (DSHC) route, the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) route, the biogas-to-liquid (Bio-GtL) route, the biomass-to-liquid (BtL) route as well as the hydrotreated depolymerized cellulosic jet (HDCJ) route. For each route the possible feedstock and the technical specifications are addressed. Finally a short outlook for the described processes as well as a brief assessment is given.

18.1 Introduction Recent projections suggest that the global population as well as standards of living for most of the people will increase rapidly in the years to come [1]. If this happens also the global fuel demand is likely to rise accordingly or even over-proportional due to increasing welfare and an increasingly mobile society [2]. Considering that fossil fuels predominantly used so far on a global scale within the transportation

U. Neuling (*) · M. Kaltschmitt Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] M. Kaltschmitt e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_18

435

436

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

sector are limited resources characterized by very strong price fluctuations and their use is necessarily connected with a significant impact on the local/regional environment as well as the global climate, the question about the future role of biofuels within our global economy resp. our global society is still not answered yet. Aviation fuels so far basically fully depend on Jet A-1 (kerosene) produced from crude oil. While for land transportation various alternatives to fossil fuels are possible from a technical point of view (i.e. biofuels, electro mobility, hydrogen) beside the fact that a switch between road, rail and water transport is an additional option this is not the case for aviation (in a large scale) yet. Here research has just recently started to develop alternatives. These activities focus mainly on the development of the provision of Jet A-1 (“drop-in” fuel) or – with a much lower intensity and with a very long term perspective – a fuel similar to Jet A-1 (near “drop-in” fuel) based on biogenic feedstock. The reason for this is that air-planes in commercial use today are usually operated with Jet A-1 kerosene and the average technical lifetime of an airplane is approximately 20 years and even longer. Additionally, fuels used within airplanes need • • • • •

to show a high energy density, to have a good combustion quality, to allow for a widespread or even better global availability, to fulfill numerous safety requirements, and to be transported, stored and pumped easily.

Kerosene resp. Jet A-1 fulfills these requirements. Thus it is most likely that this fuel will stay in place also in the years to come especially due to the fact that the fuel characteristics of kerosene are well adapted to the demands of an airplane turbine as well as the harsh conditions during a long distance flight roughly 10,000 m above ground. So far, biofuels contribute to a minor extend within the global mobility sector due to economic reasons. This is especially true for the aviation sector. Therefore the share of biofuels within a specific region/area/nation is defined typically by policy driven measures (e.g. subsidies, tax exemption) implemented by several countries/ groups of countries. Based on such administrative control tools pushing the use of biofuels a whole bundle of goals should be reached. • Security of energy supply. The globally available and easily accessible crude oil resources are located mainly within a geographically clearly defined region characterized by severe political uncertainties (e.g. Arabian spring, civil war in various countries, dictatorships, unstable monarchies). Thus the security of energy supply from fossil sources has been and still is a strong driver for biofuels because so far they are produced from locally available domestic biomass as well as from biomass imported from a broad variety of countries [3, 4]. • Sustainable energy provision. Globally society is pushing on very different levels towards continuously improving sustainability standards. This trend pushes on the one hand the use of renewables in general even in time periods of low oil prices. On the other hand this development might limit the increased market

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene437

•

•

•

•

introduction of biofuels because yields of primary production from agricultural and forestry might be affected by strengthened sustainability standards especially within the agricultural crop production [5, 6]. Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is necessary (with regard to climate change concerns) to keep the CO2eq concentrations within the global atmosphere in the 21. century of about 450 ppm or lower and thus to avoid an increase of the global temperature level of more than 2 °C; in consequence this goal means a reduction of about 50 % of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and in fact a reduction of more than 80 % in OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD) [7]. Thus at national level in many nations/regions/ areas of the world specific reduction targets for greenhouse gases are addressed for (i) the country as a whole and/or (ii) individual sectors of the economy. A reduction of GHG emissions can be accomplished within the transportation sector by shifts in both supply and demand structures (e.g. (i) switch to low-carbon fuels (i.e. biofuels), (ii) efficiency improvements of engines, vehicles and additional appliances, (iii) modal shift (e.g. a shift in the transportation system, higher occupancy rates), (iv) advanced freight logistics). Thus GHG reduction has been and still is a strong driver for biofuels, especially with in the aviation sector, since this sector has even stricter goals adopted by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Technology development. Most of the technologies for the production of biofuels from biomass are already available for decades (e.g. pyrolysis). But to make them interesting for today’s highly efficient biofuel production fulfilling the given fuel standards as well as the demanding environmental and economic standards some limitations in biofuel quality need to be overcome. Thus globally technology development is ongoing to allow for the provision of cheap high quality fuels based on a highly efficient conversion of various types of (cheap) organic matter. Some countries push such research activities because they do see huge markets for innovative processes offered globally by their domestic industry. These activities might push an increased use of biofuels because technology development without technology use is often not that much successful. Job creation. The creation of jobs in general and “green” jobs in particular is on the global political agenda with a very high priority; this is especially true for countries with a comparable high unemployment rate. Additionally green growth and job creation have become an important part of the ongoing development towards a more sustainable society. The use of biofuels could be one component within such a development. Increased acceptance. The pros and cons of biofuels are very controversially discussed within our society throughout the last decade. Thus this ongoing societal discussion process might support an increased use of biofuels in some cases and in other cases the opposite could occur. Nevertheless, due to the fact that this topic is discussed very emotionally severe consequences influencing the further development of the biofuel markets are most likely. As a result the biomass resources used for biofuel production – and thus also the respective provision chain – might become more diverse in the years to come.

438

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

• Food vs. fuel debate. Also the food vs. fuel debate is still ongoing on a global scale. This debate currently pushes new developments within the biofuel market in direction of the use of organic wastes as well as lignocellulosic biomass and agricultural crops not usable within the food and fodder markets so far. On the opposite to this, for food security reasons, always and necessarily an overproduction of agricultural commodities is needed on a global scale and therefore the energy market could be a sink for the surplus production due to an easy substitution of fossil fuels by biofuels. To sum up on the one hand side there are strong drivers pushing for biofuels. On the other side there are also considerable developments and trends hindering an increased use of such fuels based on organic matter. So far no clear tendency can be identified either in Europe or globally; thus the use of biofuels has been more or less stable in recent years. Against this background the overall goal of this paper is it to present possible options for biokerosene provision related to the available biomass feedstock and the possible conversion routes. Thus, firstly, the available biomass resources are discussed below. Secondly, details concerning individual biofuel provision pathways are presented; this includes mainly the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) route, the direct sugar to hydrocarbons (DSHC) route, the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) route, the biogas-to-liquid (Bio-GtL) route, the biomass-to-liquid (BtL) route and the hydrotreated depolymerized cellulosic jet (HDCJ) route. The presented different pathways will then be assessed based on the same evaluation criteria taking mainly technological aspects into consideration. In the end some final considerations concerning the future development and use of biofuels for aviation are given.

18.2 Resources for Biokerosene Production Biokerosene can be derived from multiple biomass sources including by-products from forestry (e.g. forest and wood processing residues, short rotation forests), agriculture (e.g. crop residues, especially grown energy crops, animal wastes), municipal waste (e.g. organic municipal solid waste (i.e. waste from households excluding plastics and non-organic components), garden residues) as well as industrial waste (e.g. food processing wastes, scrap wood). Depending on climate, agricultural and forestry practices, accessible technologies, as well as the availability of land and its quality, the local/regional population density, the degree of industrialization and the available waste management system(s) the significance and availability of these various biomass sources varies substantially on a global level [8]. The processes to convert biomass into biokerosene can roughly be categorized by the type of biomass used. Therefore the biomass considered here is divided into biomass from forestry (i.e. mainly wood and industrial waste wood), biomass from agriculture (i.e. crops containing sugar, starch or oil as well as agricultural residues like straw) and organic waste streams (i.e. wet and dry organic waste products).

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene439

All over, the estimated global biomass potential of these organic materials for the period between 2010 and 2020 has been assessed to be around 160 EJ/a excluding energy crops. If energy crops are taken into consideration, the total potential sums up to an order of magnitude between 245 and 363 EJ/a (ensuring food security) depending on the used energy crops. Compared to this the estimated global biomass use currently varies from 75 to 77 EJ/a (2014) [9].

























































 





Fig. 18.1  Total production of roundwood between 1961 and 2013 (data according to [10])

7RWDO3URGXFWLRQLQ>3-D@

7RWDO3URGXFWLRQLQ>WD@

Biomass from Forestry.  Different types of biomass from forestry can be used for the production of biofuels; this biomass can be provided in different ways resp. can be retrieved from various steps within the overall provision chain for wood as a raw material for industry within our highly industrialized society. According to Fig. 18.1 forestry provides a significant amount of organic material on a global scale. For example, 2,565 million t (2013) of roundwood have been harvested without taken informal markets into consideration (i.e. local markets where wood is removed by the final user directly from the forest are not included into global market statistics) [10]. Roughly around one third of this globally produced roundwood has been used as fuel wood. Assessed with the lower heating value this represents an energy potential of approx. 51 EJ/a. Under certain conditions a share of this wood mass might be available as a feedstock for biofuel provision. In addition to the increasing amount of harvested roundwood Fig. 18.2 gives an overview of the development of the global forest area as an indicator of the amount of wood to be expected. Following this figure, the forest area has declined from approx. 4,130 million ha in 1990 to 4,000 million ha in 2013. This represents a global deforestation of approx. 3 %, which again may vary extremely in different regions of the world. Whereas the cumulated forest area in Africa and America showed the highest rate of deforestation (11 and 5 %, respectively) the European forest area stayed mainly constant and the Asian forest area has even increased by

440

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

       

















































 

)RUHVW$UHDLQ>PLOOLRQKD@



Fig. 18.2  Global forest areas between 1990 and 2013 (data according to [10])

approx. 7 % according to the accessible statistics [10]. By interpreting these values one has to keep in mind that the data base is partly poor for some countries. This might lead to misinterpretations of these figures. Another wood source could be energy wood from short rotation forestry (SRF). Willow and poplar which can be used for SRF show average yields of 10 t/(ha a) on a dry matter basis. In contrast, the amount of forest residues which can be utilized for energy purpose is usually estimated around 1 t/(ha a) on a dry matter basis [9]. In addition, the overall available biomass from forestry could be improved by an additional logging of e.g. low value wood components if this is possible on the background of a sustainable forestry management. Another possible feedstock is industrial waste wood, which for example can be available in form of e.g. saw dust, offcuts or bark [11]. The amount of industrial waste wood which could be used for biofuel production is hard to predict, since most of these industrial waste wood streams are used already as an energy carrier within the energy sector and/or as a raw material in the wood processing industry for e.g. particle board production [12]. Beside this, lignocellulosic biomass (primarily: wood) can be used as a feedstock for biofuel provision after the use as a raw material (i.e. after the life time of the provided wood product has been expired). This is true for example for demolition wood and/or for wood waste from residential areas (e.g. old furniture). Wood from demolished houses adds up to this. Biomass from Agriculture.  Biomass from agriculture can be subdivided related to different types of agricultural crops as well as the various components of plants. This includes e.g. energy crops containing sugar, starch or vegetable oil as well as agricultural residues like straw. Thus, the overall plant (i.e. the lignocelluloses) as well as certain parts of the plant (e.g. vegetable oil from oil containing plants (e.g.

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene441

$JULFXOWXUDODUHD LQ>RIRYHUDOOODQGDUHD@

oil palms, rape, soy), sugar from plants containing sugar (e.g. sugarcane or sugar beet) or starch (e.g. wheat, corn)) can be used for biofuel production [13]. To show possible yields, e.g. in Brazil with average sugarcane yields of approx. 80 t/(ha a) about 11 t/(ha a) of sugar can be harvested [14]. In Germany with an average wheat yield of 8 t/(ha a) approx. 1.3 t/(ha a) of sugar can be produced via starch liquefaction and saccharification. Additionally, straw can be used in theory. Exemplarily under German conditions wheat straw shows typical yields of 8.6 t/(ha a) on a dry matter basis. Approx. 75 % of this organic matter consists of the biopolymers cellulose and hemicellulose. With an acidic pretreatment and a subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis 76 % of the cellulose and hemicellulose can be converted into sugar in theory; thus sugar yields of 4.9 t/(ha a) are possible [15]. Also the vegetable oil yield varies significantly due to regionally different cultivation conditions as well as varying types of seeds grown locally. For example, typical oil plants such as oil palms, soy plants or rape plants are characterized by oil yields between 0.5 and 5.5 t/(ha a) [16]. At present, the use of non-food vegetable oil (for instance derived from Jatropha curcas L.) for biofuel production is politically driven in comparison to other feedstocks. Jatropha curcas L., if cultivated under optimal conditions, can achieve seed yields of about 4 t/(ha a) [17] with an oil content of about 35 % [18]. Based on this an average oil yield of 1.1 t/(ha a) can be achieved (pressing and pretreatment losses of approx. 25 %) for small scale rural oil production. In largescale plants a combination of mechanical and chemical extraction (e.g. with hexane as organic solvent) is possible allowing for significantly lower losses in the order of magnitude of roughly 1 %. But even then the area specific yield is much lower compared to commonly grown oil crops. Beside this, other non-food oil crops (e.g. camelina) characterized by certain pros and cons are currently under investigation [19]. Many different projections of how much biomass resources are theoretically available for biofuel provision exist. The only consistency in these studies is that any projection comprises one single element: the consumption of land. Thus in Fig. 18.3 the share of agricultural land in percent of the total land area per region is

        $IULFD

$PHULFDV



$VLD

(XURSH



2FHQDQLD

 :RUOG

Fig. 18.3  Agricultural area relativ to the overall land area per region (data according to [10])

442

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

displayed. For example, related to the year 2011 large variances between the regions become obvious in this graphic. In Oceania about 21 % of the total land is used as agricultural area, whereas in Asia about 53 % is utilized as agricultural land [10]. The fundamental aspects regarding the availability of agricultural land have to be underlined in order to fully understand the land use aspect as a key issue in the production of biofuel. Based on the fact that fertile agricultural land is a priori limited on this planet and cannot be extended significantly there is necessarily a competition for agricultural goods produced on this limited land between the markets for food, the markets as a raw material and the energy markets [20]. The consequence is that the use of land for biomass provision for energy resp. biofuel production leaves necessarily less land available for the growth of food and/or raw material characterized usually by higher market prices. To avoid any problems resulting from this situation e.g. with a shortage of food and the resulting hunger in certain areas it is essential to ensure sufficient cropland for food production especially taking into account the global increase in population as well as in settlement areas developed on fertile land before enhancing the production of energy crops for e.g. biofuel provision. In many countries worldwide such conflicts are prevented by policies and regulations to avoid a serious competition between bioenergy producers to seek for high quality land (e.g. high crop yields), and thus, compete directly with food production [21]. Nevertheless, this issue is still controversially discussed on various scales and no general solution has been developed in recent years. Land availability, climatic conditions and water restrictions directly correspond to cultivation statistics and projections worldwide. Figure 18.4 displays exemplarily agricultural areas for selected biomass resources. The total area harvested amounted to 438 million ha in 1961 and increased up to 614 million ha in 2013 for the selected agricultural feedstocks.

$UHDKDUYHVWHGLQ>PLOOLRQKD@

 

0DL]H

3DOPRLOIUXLW

6XJDUFDQH

:KHDW

5LFH

    

                          



Fig. 18.4  Development of the agricultural area per type of selected biomass resource between 1961 and 2013 (data according to [10])

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene443

0DL]H



3DOPRLOIUXLW

6XJDUFDQH

:KHDW

5LFH

                                 

6SHFLILF\LHOGLQ>WKDD @



Fig. 18.5  Specific yield for different agricultural feedstocks (data according to [10])

Figure 18.5 additionally shows the area specific yields for selected agricultural crops. Thus, between 1961 and 2013 the specific yields of agricultural feedstock increased constantly on a global level. For example, the specific yields of sugar cane raised from 50 to 71 t/(ha a) and of palm oil fruit from 4 to 15 t/(ha a). Nevertheless, between neighboring years there might be significant differences between the area specific yields due to flooding or drought, due to insect infestation and other environmental impacts. Thus, both, the area harvested and the specific yields, increased considerably between 1961 and 2013. The consequence is that the total agricultural crop production also grew significantly. Thus Fig. 18.6 displays exemplarily the total production of selected types of biomass between 1961 and 2013.

7RWDO3URGXFWLRQLQ>PLOOLRQWD@

 

0DL]H

3DOPRLOIUXLW

6XJDUFDQH

:KHDW

5LFH5HVLGXHV

                                  



Fig. 18.6  Total production of selected types of biomass between 1961 and 2013 (data according to [10])

444

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

Different shares of biomass produced in agriculture (i.e. cereals as the most widely consumed agricultural good including wheat, coarse grains and rice) used as feed, food, for the production of biofuels or other purposes. The amount of cereals produced between 2012 and 2014 sums up to approx. 2,400 million t whereof 35 % were used as feed, 45.5 % as food, 6.25 % for biofuel production and 13.25 % for other purposes [22]. Organic Waste.  Biomass referred to as “organic waste” includes a broad variety of very different substances. It covers organic household waste, the biomass-fraction of the municipal solid waste as well as wastes from the food processing industry amongst others. Green waste from public parks or cemeteries as well as garden waste adds up to this. For example, in 2010 a total amount of 108.5 million t of organic waste was produced within the European Union (EU). This includes household yard clippings (19.7 million t), household food waste (4.8 million t) waste from the services industry (12.1 million t) as well as agriculture, forestry and fishing waste (38.8 million t) [23]. Due to this broad variety and a wide range of additional reasons, for most types of organic waste the overall amount which could be utilized in theory for biofuel production is very hard to predict. This is related to a whole bunch of different factors. At first the potential is hard to compile since the biomass precipitates decentral and is partly gathered by sanitation departments, private companies or it is simply left on the field. The next problem lies in the provision logistics, which mainly refers to the same points stated before [24]. Therefore, to sum up, the organic waste might show a considerable potential which is mostly untapped, but which is hard to predict as well as hard to exploit due to numerous restrictions.

18.3 Biokerosene Production Pathways During recent years a variety of different options for the provision of biokerosene have been discussed. Basically all of these options under investigation/development at the moment try to realize a chemical modification of the molecules of the organic raw material among others with the help of heat and/or chemically resp. biologically working catalysts. Figure 18.7 shows an overview of the most important conversion routes visible on the market for the time being. Following this scheme, firstly depending on the utilized organic material (i.e. biomass) different pre-treatment steps are necessary to obtain the desired feedstock (i.e. vegetable oil, starch, sugar, lignocellulose) for the subsequent processing. In most of the shown processes this feedstock produced/ extracted from the utilized biomass is then converted into intermediate products (e.g. alcohol, synthesis-gas, bio-crude oil, other types of hydrocarbons) via a first main conversion step based on a heat or biochemical induced conversion. These intermediates are then converted into biokerosene by a second main conversion step.

Fig. 18.7  Possible main conversion routes for biokerosene production (AtJ: Alcohol-to-Jet, BtL: Biomass-to-Liquid, DSHC: Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbons, FT: Fischer-Tropsch, GtL: Gas-to-Liquid, HEFA: Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids, HDCJ: Hydrotreated Depolymerized Cellulosic Jet, LC: Lignocellulose, SIP: Synthesized Iso-Paraffins, SKA: Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene with Aromatics, SPK: Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene)

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene445

446

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

Depending on the conversion route the final products are usually classified into • synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK), • synthetic paraffinic kerosene with aromatics (SKA) and • synthesized iso-paraffins (SIP). According to the ASTM D7566 standard for SPK and SIP fuels the aromatic content should not exceed 0.5 Vol.-% to guarantee a certain purity of the fuel; thus, a low concentration of aromatics should cause no significant problems [25]. But the lack of aromatics might lead to lower seal swelling and lubricity characteristics [26]. This is the reason why some of the conversion routes aim to provide a biokerosene rich in aromatics, if the target is to produce a complete “drop-in” fuel. Thus so far there is no general opinion if synthetic paraffinic kerosene or synthetic paraffinic kerosene with aromatics should be provided; both routes are developed in parallel. But until now mainly synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) fuels achieved ASTM certification. This is especially true due the fact that biokerosene will be used most likely as a blend with a share of less than 50 % (currently up to 50 % for FT- and HEFA-SPK, 30 % for AtJ-SPK and 10 % for SIP according to ASTM D7566). Under these circumstances the fuel characteristics of the fuel mixture between Jet A-1 from crude oil and from biomass are strongly influenced by kerosene from crude oil. Due to the huge variety of the different approaches under discussion and development (Fig. 18.7) only a selected amount of conversion routes to biokerosene are assessed below. But the analyzed pathways cover a broad variety of mechanical, biological, thermal and chemical process steps and reflect the main development routes visible so far. This is true for the following six provision pathways, i.e.: • • • • • •

Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) Direct sugar to hydrocarbons (DSHC) Alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) Biogas-to-liquid (Bio-GtL) Biomass-to-liquid (BtL) Hydrotreated depolymerized cellulosic jet (HDCJ)

These biokerosene provision routes are described in detail and assessed based on the same criteria to allow for a fair comparison. The definition of these assessment criteria take care of the considerable lack of technically detailed and public available data. Thus, only the following assessment criteria are defined. They are rated with (+) meaning positive, (o) meaning neutral and (−) meaning negative in tendency. • Required feedstock. Different conversion processes can be based on different feedstock types. And biomass is characterized by a huge variety (i.e. “biomass is not biomass”); organic waste for disposal has another “value” compared to biomass containing starch or sugar suitable for the high-end food market. Therefore the assessment criterion is defined as follows:

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene447

–– Organic waste/wood waste/residues are rated with (+) since usually there is no competition with food production and typically no problems like land use change occur. –– Virgin lignocellulosic biomass is rated with (o). This type of biomass is widely available and it cannot be used within the food market. But within the market as a raw material for industry like e.g. within the pulp and paper industry an increased energetic use might also lead to more competition. –– Biomass containing sugar, starch and/or oil is assessed with a (−) because of obvious food competition and possible land use change issues. • Additives. Beside biogenic feedstock often additional input substances are needed (e.g. biocatalysts, hydrogen). Such additives might influence the conversion route as well as the costs significantly. Therefore they are assessed here. As one typical indicator for such substances hydrogen is chosen because basically all processes investigated here need hydrogen to certain extend (i.e. the biofuel molecule contains typically more hydrogen compared to the biomass molecule). The amount of hydrogen consumed is rated as follows: –– If only little hydrogen is needed for hydrogenation of unsaturated double bonds (e.g. conversion of alkenes to alkanes) this criterion is rated as positive (+). –– For higher hydrogen consumption rates (e.g. hydrocracking of product fractions) this criterion is rated with (o). –– When multiple hydrogen consuming process steps (e.g. hydrogenation and isomerization) occur (i.e. high hydrogen consumption), this criterion is rated with (−). • Process complexity. Usually simple conversion routes with a low complexity are preferred due to technical and economic reasons; thus the more complex a provision chain is (i.e. the more steps it has resp. the more intermediate products) the less profitable it is in most cases especially for the production of a commodity. But the process complexity is a relative assessment criterion. Thus here the HEFA process as the only conversion route for biokerosene production available on a commercial scale so far is used as a kind of reference process. This reference process is rated with a (o) and all other conversion routes will be rated in comparison to the HEFA complexity (i.e. a lower complexity is rated with a (+) and a higher process complexity with a (−)). • Kerosene production efficiency. As the various conversion routes are based on a variety of different types of feedstock and diverse technical approaches for biomass conversion to a liquid fuel, the overall product spectrum associated with the kerosene provision due to technical reasons varies strongly. Therefore the kerosene efficiency of the overall process will be discussed; i.e. how much of the energy from the biogenic feedstock and the energy of the additionally needed input materials is transferred to straight-run biokerosene (because with processes usually implemented within a crude oil refinery basically all hydrocarbons can be converted into the kerosene fraction). Therefore here within or this assessment only the straight-run kerosene efficiencies of processes optimized for the production of kerosene are assessed. If a share of less than 30 % of the product fractions is found in the straight-run kerosene the process is rated with a (−), a share between 30 and 50 % with a (o) and above 50 % with a (+).

448

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt

• Overall efficiency. Since the kerosene efficiency of the processes doesn’t allow any conclusions regarding the overall conversion performance of a conversion process, additionally the overall efficiency will be analyzed; this efficiency describes the share of biomass energy and the energy of the additionally needed input materials to be found in all products provided by the respective process (i.e. including liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons as well as electricity; waste heat is not assessed). If a share of less than 30 % of the input energy is found in the provided product spectrum the process is rated with a (−), a share between 30 and 60 % with a (o) and above 60 % with a (+). • Kerosene production costs. For a valid comparison of the expected kerosene provision costs of all investigated routes not enough basic data is available so far. Thus such a cost assessment is characterized by very high uncertainties. But as a rule of thumb the investment costs usually correlate directly with the process complexity. Together with the investment costs, feedstock costs and the needed additional input substances as well as the kerosene resp. the overall efficiency a statement can be made if low (rated with (+)), moderate (o) or high (−) kerosene costs can be expected. • Market maturity. This criterion rates the status of technical realization and market implementation of the production process. If the process is still in the research and development process and far away from large scale market introduction it is rated with (−). Processes near to market application are rated with (o) and processes already realized in large scale operations are rated with (+). • Development potential. The development potential of a conversion pathway allows to make statements if the kerosene provision costs can be expected to be reduced in the future. Within this key figure the already available production capacities as well as the status of industrialization/commercialization is assessed. Thus processes available on a large scale usually show the lowest development potential and thus the lowest reduction potential of the kerosene provision cost. These processes will therefore be rated with (−). Processes characterized by large improvement potentials and thus significant cost reduction potentials are assessed with (+). The remaining conversion options are assessed in between (o).

18.4 HEFA Within the HEFA process vegetable oil is hydrogenated and isomerized to fulfill the given standards. Feedstock.  As a feedstock for the HEFA process basically any sort of native oils from plants and/or animals can be used. This is also true for non-food-oils like Jatropha as well as for “new” native oils provided e.g. based on algae or other micro-organism [27, 28]. Additionally also used cooking oil as well as animal fat waste can be used – if available.

18  Conversion Routes from Biomass to Biokerosene449

Nevertheless, today usually “classical” vegetable oil is used due to the large scale availability. This vegetable oil is produced from oil seeds provided with agricultural methods by mechanical processes (like pressing) and/or physical/chemical processes (e.g. extraction). With existing technology used since decades within the commercial operated oil mills more than 98 % of the oil contained within the biomass can be extracted. After a refining process this oil is ready for the conversion to biokerosene. Technical Process. Vegetable oil mainly consists of triglycerides (i.e. esters of three fatty acids bound via glycerol). To convert these triglycerides to fulfill the Jet A-1 specification, the esters and double bonds have to be saturated with hydrogen (i.e. removal of the double bonds and the oxygen from the molecule). This catalyst controlled process is called hydrogenation; usually metal catalysts used within “classical” oil refining processes like NiMo or Al2O3 are used [29]. According to hydrogen availability, used catalyst material and process conditions, three oxygen removing reactions can take place [30]: • Hydrodeoxygenation. Oxygen is removed as water when enough hydrogen is available (Fig. 18.8a). • Decarbonylation. Carbon monoxide is formed when hydrogen deficit occurs (Fig. 18.8b). • Decarboxylation. Carbon dioxide is formed when the hydrogen amount is even lower (Fig. 18.8c). As decarbonylation and decarboxylation consume carbon atoms to remove oxygen (i.e. carbon loss), hydrodeoxygenation is the favorable reaction pathway. This exothermal hydrogenation process takes place at approx. 280 to 340 °C and 50 to 100 bar [31] producing propane and linear alkanes in the range of C8 to C20 according to the used crude vegetable oil. Thus, the vegetable oil is transformed via this chemical process into fully saturated n-alkanes. To fulfill the ASTM D7566 specification a further processing step, the so-called isomerization, is needed. The goal of this treatment is to provide branched alkanes to lower the freeze point. Thus, within a catalyst-controlled cracking process the long-chain hydrocarbons (n-alkanes) are broken into shorter fragments and in parallel the provided open bounds are saturated with hydrogen and partially recombined within a complex branched molecule. The highest isomerization yield occurs at temperatures between 280 and 400 °C and a pressure between 30 and 100 bar, depending on the catalyst [31]; catalysts for cracking and isomerization reactions 2 2

2

+

2 2 2

D +2 &+&+&+  SURSDQH

P 

QDONDQH



E &2 F &2

WULJO\FHULGH

Fig. 18.8  Schematic diagram of the hydrogenation of triglycerides via hydrodeoxygenation (a), decarbonylation (b) and decarboxylation (c)

450

U. Neuling and M. Kaltschmitt KϮ

KϮ ,LJĚƌŽŐĞŶ WƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ

'ĂƐZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ &ƵĞůŐĂƐ

,LJĚƌŽŐĞŶ sĞŐ͘Kŝů

WƌĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ

,LJĚƌŽŐĞŶĂƟŽŶ

/ƐŽŵĞƌŝnjĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚĂƚ͘ ƌĂĐŬĞƌ ,ϮK ;ŽŝůĞƌ&ĞĞĚtĂƚĞƌͿ

EĂƉŚƚŚĂ ^ĞƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ ,ϮK ;ŽŽůŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌͿ

ŝŐŚƚŽdžLJŐĞŶĂƚĞƐ͗ ĂĐĞƟĐĂĐŝĚ͕ĂĐĞƚŽů͕ ĂĐĞƚĂůĚĞŚLJĚĞƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌ

ŝŐŶŝŶĚĞƌŝǀĞĚĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚƐ͗ƉŚĞŶŽůŝĐƐ dŚĞƌŵĂů Žƌ ĐĂƚĂůLJƟĐ ƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐ

^ƵŐĂƌĚĞƌŝǀĞĚ ĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚƐ͗ĨƵƌĨƵƌĂůƐ

ůĚŽů ĐŽŶĚĞŶƐĂƟŽŶ

ϴͲϭϯKdžLJŐĞŶĂƚĞƐ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐĂĐŝĚƐ

ƐƚĞƌŝĮĐĂƟŽŶ

ƐƚĞƌƐ

&ƌĂĐƟŽŶĂƟŽŶ 'ĂƐŽůŝŶĞ͕ ĚŝĞƐĞů͕ ďŝŽŬĞƌŽƐĞŶĞ͕ ĞƚĐ͘

dZΠ

Fig. 22.9  Strategies of cascade stabilization and upgrading options (TCR® = thermo-catalytic reforming [74])

22  Fuels from Pyrolysis591

Zϭ

K нZϮ

K

K,

K,

K Zϭ

н,ϮKнKϮ ZϮ

Fig. 22.10  Exemplary ketonization reaction scheme

converted and the chemical effect expected (oxygen removal, C-C coupling, etc.). The most promising ones are the following: (i) intermediate deoxygenation processes (ketonization, aldol condensation and acid-catalysed esterification) [51, 93, 94], (ii) thermo-catalytic reforming [74] and (iii) hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) [44, 95–97]. These processes are described below. Intermediate Deoxygenation Processes. Stabilization of pyrolysis oil can be accomplished by oxygen removal from compounds present in the oil including acids, aldehydes, esters, phenolics, furanics and oxygenated oligomers [75]. Technical options are among others the catalytic treatments: ketonization, aldol condensation and acid-catalyzed esterification. These approaches are based on the occurrence of condensation reactions between oxygen-polar groups present in pyrolysis oil components. The degree of oxygen-removal reflects the achievements of the respective technique applied as well as its decrease in water-affinity [51]. Ketonization.  Ketonization is typically defined as the reaction between two equivalents of carboxylic acid to yield symmetric ketones, with expulsion of one equivalent of water and carbon dioxide (Fig. 22.10). Additionally, molecules such as aldehydes and esters can participate in ketonization. Ketonization is gaining attention for bio-oil upgrading as it allows increasing the carbon length of small acids (by C-C coupling) at the same time as the oxygen content of the bio-oils is decreased via removal of CO2 and H2O [98, 99]. The process is promising for removing acetic and propanoic acids typically present in bio-oils. Among other compounds, these fractions are responsible for the low stability and corrosion features [75, 100]. Ketonization of carboxylic acids can be performed either in vapor or liquid phase. In the former case, occurring at higher temperatures (250 to 300 °C), the vapors treated come directly from the pyrolysis (thermal or catalytic) system after char separation. That has advantages for the heat and energy circles of the system. On the other hand, ketonization in liquid phase takes place at lower temperatures in the presence of water [51]. Catalysts suitable for bio-oil ketonization are based on weakly acid solids, such as TiO2 and ZrO2, which can be modified with metals (Ru, Au, Fe) [94]. Nevertheless, since compounds having carbonyl groups, including ketones, represent one of the most reactive fractions in bio-oil causing bio-oil instability [92], subsequent upgrading steps (e.g. HDO) are needed.

592

L. Thormann and P. Pizarro de Oro

,K

K

K н Zϭ ,ϯ

,K

K,

K

Zϭ

K,

н ,ϮK

Fig. 22.11  Exemplary aldol condensation reaction scheme

Aldol Condensation.  Aldol condensation has been applied aiming to take advantage of the significant amounts of aldehydes and ketones in bio-oils. It is defined as the reaction between two carbonyl compounds (aldehydes or ketones) to yield unsaturated ketones and water. It is, therefore, another chemical route to produce carbon-carbon bonds and, hence, create molecules with chain lengths closer to those in traditional transport fuels, and in particular kerosene. An exemplary reaction is shown in Fig. 22.11. The interest of aldol condensation as intermediate upgrading of bio-oil is not only due to the creation of larger molecules accompanied with oxygen removal, but also because aromatization reactions are promoted by this route. Aromatic compounds may be formed through repeatedly condensation and dehydration reactions of aldehydes and ketones as starting molecules. Therefore, abundant small-molecule oxygenates and olefins may be converted into valuable aromatics. Additional information can be found in literature [6, 101]. Pyrolysis oil upgrading by aldol condensation can equally occur in both vapor and liquid phase. It is principally catalyzed by acid, base and acid-base bi-functional catalysts (i.e. zeolitic-based catalysts [102]). The reaction is typically carried out under mild conditions (50 to 120 °C, 10 bar). From the point of view of biofuels, and in particular biokerosene production, aldol condensation is typically integrated in a cascade process followed by hydrotreatment [75]. Acid-Catalysed Esterification.  Another approach to improve the quality of pyrolysis oil is converting the organic acids into esters by reaction with organic alcohols [103–105]. These alcohols may be externally added, as in the case of methanol and ethanol, but it is desirable to promote the reaction with internal alcohols and other compounds having OH groups (i.e. phenols, levoglucosan, etc.). The chemical reaction in Fig. 22.12 demonstrates an esterification reaction. Catalysts commonly used for esterification reactions are sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and potassium hydroxide (KOH) due to their low cost and mild

Zϭ

K н K,

Zϯ

K

Zϯ

K,

K K

K

K

K ZϮ

Fig. 22.12  Exemplary acid catalysed esterification reaction scheme

Zϭ н ,ϮK ZϮ

22  Fuels from Pyrolysis593

temperature requirements [104]. However, they are corrosive and non-reusable, so their replacement by heterogeneous catalysts is currently being investigated [103, 105]. Esterification is characterized as an equilibrium reaction. Accumulations of esters, acetals and water will accordingly tend to shift back towards the original reactants. This challenge might be overcome by removing the reaction products once they are formed (e.g. azeotropic or reactive distillation) [49, 106]. Thermo-Catalytic Reforming .  The thermo-catalytic reforming (TCR®) process comprises two steps: intermediate pyrolysis and reforming [74]. Intermediate pyrolysis involves mild temperatures (between 350 and 450 °C) with biomass residence times from 5 to 10  min. The intermediate pyrolysis vapors are then introduced to the reforming section where they are catalytically converted at high temperatures (maximum 750 °C). Feedstocks like wastes with low heating values and water contents below 20 % are admitted. The product obtained is formed by hydrogen rich synthesis gas and condensable organic vapors, which later leads to the bio-oil. An advantage of this process is that O/C and H/C ratios of TCR® bio-oils are similar to those coming from fast pyrolysis after hydrodeoxygenation upgrading. Thus, HDO-treated TCR® bio-oil has remarkable quality, achieving in several parameters comparable values to those of standard fossil transportation fuels [74]. Hydrodeoxygenation.  The objective of upgrading via hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) is to remove oxygen groups of the bio-oil compounds by reaction with hydrogen, producing water as a co-product (Fig. 22.13). This reaction occurs at moderate to high hydrogen pressure between 70 and 200 bar [110], moderate temperatures in the range of 300 to 600 °C and in presence of a suitable catalyst [6, 97]. The advantage of these conditions is that polymerization of the compounds present in the bio-oils and coking of catalysts is significantly reduced. One key limiting factor is the high hydrogen consumption as it may strongly influence the costs of the process. This high consumption occurs because hydrogen reacts not only through the hydrodeoxygenation pathway, but it also saturates double bonds and aromatic rings. Taking into account that crude pyrolysis oil contains over 40 wt-% of oxygen, it seems reasonable to apply, prior to hydrodeoxygenation, other upgrading processes leading to partial deoxygenation by different pathways which do not involve hydrogen, such as catalytic pyrolysis and intermediate deoxygenation reactions aforementioned. Thus, hydrodeoxygenation should be an ultimate treatment for completing the bio-oil deoxygenation and generating an upgraded biofuel with

Z

K,н ,Ϯ

Z

, н ,ϮK

Fig. 22.13  Exemplary hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) reaction scheme

594

L. Thormann and P. Pizarro de Oro

Fig. 22.14  Van Krevelen diagram of the H/C and O/C ratios for selected energy carriers (the small dots indicate pyrolysis oil after HDO; arrows indicate upgrading and stabilization options; [1] TCR® + HDO, NiMo-Al2O3 [74], [2] HDO, Ru + CoMo [107], [3] HDO, CoMo [107], [4] 2nd HDO, Ru, [108], [5] HDO, Pt [109], [6] mild HDO, Ru [108], [7] HDO, Ru [109], [8] HDO, Pd [109]; data from [45–50])

composition and properties very similar to those of petroleum-derived fuels (after fractionation). Figure 22.14 displays H/C and O/C ratios for selected pyrolysis oils after hydrodeoxygenation. A wide variety of catalysts has been considered for hydrodeoxygenation processes including for instance sulfide/oxide catalysts (Co-MoS2, Ni-MoS2) and transition metals (Ru, Pt, and Pd) supported on Al2O3 and SiO2 [111]. Catalyst deactivation mechanisms might appear, mainly caused by coke formation, sintering and loss of sulfide from catalyst (i.e. catalyst poisoning such as polymerization and polycondensation reactions). The extent of deactivation of catalysts depends on the types of coke-formation, the nature of the catalyst (i.e. acidity) and process and operation conditions [44, 72, 95, 112–114]. Extensive scientific studies and findings regarding HDO are available at present [115–118].

22.3.3 Co-Processing, Refining and Blending Two main scenarios are possible for the large scale production of biokerosene from pyrolysis of solid biomass.

WLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐ Žŝů

ZĞĨŝŶĞƌLJƐƚĞƉ;ƐͿ

ƌƵĚĞŽŝůͬƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵƌĞĨŝŶĞƌLJ

ZĂǁŝŶƐĞƌƚŝŽŶ

,LJĚƌŽĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ

ƚŵŽƐƉŚĞƌŝĐ ƌĞƐŝĚƵĞ

,LJĚƌŽƚƌĞĂƚŝŶŐн ƌĞĨŽƌŵŝŶŐ

,LJĚƌŽƚƌĞĂƚŝŶŐ

&ƵĞůƐƚŽĐŬďůĞŶĚŝŶŐ

&ůƵŝĚĐĂƚĂůLJƚŝĐ ĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ

ŽͲƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ

hƉŐƌĂĚĞĚ ƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐŽŝů

ϯƌĚĚƌŽƉͲŝŶƉŽŝŶƚ ;ĨƵĞůƐ͕ďůĞŶĚƐƚŽĐŬͿ

ŚĞŵŝĐĂů ƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ ƵƉŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƐƚĞƉ;ƐͿ

'ĂƐŽŝů

EĂƉŚƚŚĂ

hƉŐƌĂĚĞĚ ƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐ Žŝů

ϮŶĚĚƌŽƉͲŝŶƉŽŝŶƚ ;ƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐŽŝůͿ

WŚLJƐŝĐĂůƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚƵƉŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ ƐƚĞƉ;ƐͿ

ϭƐƚĚƌŽƉͲŝŶƉŽŝŶƚ ;ĐƌƵĚĞƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐŽŝůͿ

&ĂƐƚƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐƐƚĞƉ

&ƌĂĐƚŝŽͲ ŶĂƚŝŽŶ

Fig. 22.15  Strategy of fast pyrolysis and partial upgrading combined with the integration of upgraded oils into blending and existing refinery units

ƌƵĚĞŽŝůͬ ƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵ

ŝŽŵĂƐƐ ĨĞĞĚƐƚŽĐŬ

&ĂƐƚƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ

ŝŽͲ ŬĞƌŽƐĞŶĞͬ :ĞƚĨƵĞů ƉŽŽů

,>W' ƉŽŽů

,ĞĂǀLJ ĨƵĞůŽŝů ƉŽŽů

'ĂƐŽůŝŶĞ ƉŽŽů

ŝĞƐĞů ƉŽŽů

ŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐ

ŚĂƌĐŽĂů

22  Fuels from Pyrolysis595

596

L. Thormann and P. Pizarro de Oro

• The first scenario is based on an independent process comprising a cascade of stabilization and upgrading steps. In such a case, the optimal location of the biomass conversion plant would be close to the feedstock supply. But the integration of pyrolysis oil based products into conventional engines can be limited without modifications of these systems. Not only pyrolysis based products face this issue, but also other oils, e.g. vegetable oils or animal wastes [119]. One alternative to overcome these limitations is to form blends with other fractions. In line with forming blends, the US patents from Brandvold and McCall describe a process for producing deoxygenated and fractionated pyrolysis oil blended with paraffin rich oil from plant or animal triglycerides and free fatty acids (FFA) [120]. Depending on the portions of each oil which is blended, it is possible to obtain fuels meeting the targets of an aviation fuel. Nevertheless, various additives may be needed in order to meet the required specifications (e.g. ASTM D7566). Ajam et al. [121] reported that pyrolysis oil, after stabilization and catalytic hydrotreatment, is a high-density fraction rich in aromatics and cycloparaffins, with excellent cold flow properties, and therefore, a perfect blending component with lower density kerosene components from Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffines (FT-SPK) as well as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA). Likewise, Krutof and Hawboldt [119] provide an overview of published studies of pyrolysis oil blends, including (i) paraffin rich oil derived from plant or animal triglycerides and FFA [120], (ii) blends with biodiesel [122–125], (iii) emulsions with biodiesel [126], (iv) emulsions with petroleum diesel [127–129], (v) blends with petroleum diesel and co-solvents [130]. • The second scenario for the large scale production of biokerosene from biomass pyrolysis is to integrate the process into the fossil fuel based infrastructure. Figure 22.15 compares the process chain of crude oil processing to that based on pyrolysis oil and illustrates elective drop-in points where such integration could be addressed. The path for conversion of biomass into crude oil/petroleum-compatible products can be divided into a series of steps. Depending on the research approach, several aspects of the processing routes may vary. Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that some elements (i.e. physical and chemical upgrading) are necessary in order to produce a commercially utilizable pyrolysis fuel and thus, kerosene. These elements may be carried out in (i) a single unit operation, (ii) spread over multiple unit operations, (iii) occurring as part of the pyrolysis oil production technology, or (iv) occur in analogous phases when the product enters the petroleum conversion chain [48].

22.4

Industrial Applications

A comparison of the proximity to the commercialization level of each type of pyrolysis oil upgrading technology referred to in this chapter is displayed in Fig. 22.16. The conversion, stabilization and upgrading pathways described are at different stages of commercial development defined by Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). TRL is a

22  Fuels from Pyrolysis597

sE/K&h>^

KEsEd/KE>ZKWͲ/E/K&h>^

Z^Z,Θ s>KWDEd^>

WŚLJƐŝĐĂů ƵƉŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ

&ĂƐƚƉLJƌŽůLJƐŝƐ

ϭͲϯ

W/>Kd^>

>ŝŐŶŝŶĂ

&ŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĐ

DKE^dZd/KE^>

ϰ

ϱ

ϲ

ϳ

Zd//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů͕ ϭϬŬŐ&WKͬŚď

&ŽƌƚƵŵ͕ϲϯϭϯŬŐ &WKͬŚď

ůŽǁĂ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ͕ ϳŬŐ&WKͬŚď

d'͕ŶŽŶͲĨŽŽĚďŝŽŵĂƐƐ͕ ϭϱϬŬŐ&WKͬŚď

KDDZ/>^> ϴ

ϵ

ŶƐLJŶƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĞƐ͕ ϭϳϮϬŬŐ&WKͬŚď

ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŽůǀĞŶƚƐĞ

&ƌĂĐƚŝŽŶĂƚŝŽŶĚ

ŚĞŵŝĐĂůƵƉŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ

ůĚŽůĐŽŶĚĞŶƐĂƚŝŽŶĨ ƐƚĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨ ,LJĚƌŽĚĞŽdžLJŐĞŶĂƚŝŽŶ ;,KͿŐ 700 hetero-citations, 2 chapters in books, 2 patents and over 70 presentations in national and international conferences. Lisa Thormann, M.Sc.  is a PhD candidate in the Institute of Environmental Engineering and Energy Economics (IUE) at the Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH) specializing in transportation fuels. Her dissertation tackles the development of processes for the production of second-generation biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass using nanostructured catalysts. She holds a Master of Science in Engineering from the Technical University of Denmark (Copenhagen). She has worked on several EU, national and international research projects related to sustainable energies.

Chapter 23

Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel Patrick Biller and Arne Roth

Abstract  Conversion of wet biomass and waste products via hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) has been evolving as an alternative thermochemical technology for the production of liquid biofuels. Processing of biomass slurries with approximately 20 % solids content under high temperature and pressure mimics the natural formation of fossil crude on earth. With reaction times of around 10 to 30 minutes, temperatures of 350 °C and pressures of around 200 bar, HTL converts any biomass feedstock to a liquid bio-crude. This raw product roughly resembles petroleum, but exhibits higher oxygen contents (~10 %) and has a higher viscosity. Therefore, development of the hydrothermal liquefaction technology has concentrated on the upgrading of bio-crude via hydrotreatment to reduce its heteroatom content, viscosity, boiling point and density. Upgraded bio-crude can then be further refined via distillation or other established processes into renewable gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The upgraded fuel’s chemical composition, with a high concentration of aliphatic hydrocarbons showing carbon numbers in the range of C8 to C18, appears promising for application as renewable jet fuel. The specific composition of the refined fuel products (as well as of the bio-crude) is, however, affected to a significant extent by the type of feedstock applied. For example, using lignocellulosic feedstock results in increased concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in the final product. The versatility of the HTL technology in terms of feedstocks and products represents a major advantage over other thermochemical conversion processes. Future developments should address tailoring the process to meet specific fuel

P. Biller (*) Aarhus University, Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Aarhus, Denmark Aarhus University, Department of Chemistry, Aarhus, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] A. Roth Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Taufkirchen (bei München), Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 M. Kaltschmitt, U. Neuling (eds.), Biokerosene, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_23

607

608

P. Biller and A. Roth

requirements, e.g. those of renewable aviation fuels. Recent HTL reactor developments have led to proven continuous operation on a variety of feedstocks, but current reactor capacities of about ~1 bbl/d of bio-crude are still limited. Initial environmental and economic assessments of the hydrothermal liquefaction technology are promising, but in-depth studies covering a representative range of feedstock have not yet been published, rendering estimations of minimum fuel selling prices and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of HTL derived liquid fuels difficult. To advance the technological maturity of hydrothermal liquefaction towards industrial implementation, development efforts should focus on process integration along the entire production chain encompassing pre-treatment, HTL processing, hydrotreatment, distillation and utilization of process water.

23.1 Introduction Hydrothermal processing has evolved as an alternative processing technology for biomass and waste materials in recent years. Using hot-compressed water as a reaction medium at temperature of 200 to 500 °C, products with increased energy density can be obtained. Hydrothermal processing is divided in three separate areas depending on reaction severity: hydrothermal carbonization (HTC, 180 to 280 °C), hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL, 280 to 375 °C) and hydrothermal gasification (HTG, >375 °C). Figure 23.1 shows the respective areas for each processing technology in a water phase diagram, with the critical point of water at 374 °C and 220 bar. Each of these hydrothermal routes results in energy densification by removal of oxygen to produce hydro-char (HTC), bio-crude (HTL) or combustible gas (HTG), either rich in CH4 or H2. While in principle all three hydrothermal processes can be applied as initial steps in the production of liquid fuels, only hydrothermal liquefaction offers the advantage of directly yielding a liquid raw product (bio-crude). This

ϰϬϬ

ϯϬϬ ;ůŝƋƵŝĚͿ

ϮϱϬ

ĂƌďŽŶŝƐĂƟŽŶ

ϮϬϬ ϭϱϬ ϭϬϬ

>ŝƋƵĞĨĂĐƟŽŶ

ϯϱϬ

WƌĞƐƐƵƌĞŝŶ΀ďĂƌ΁

Fig. 23.1  Hydrothermal processing of biomass in different pressure/temperature regimes of the phase diagram of water

^ƵƉĞƌĐƌŝƟĐĂů 'ĂƐŝĮĐĂƟŽŶ

ƌŝƟĐĂůƉŽŝŶƚ ;ǀĂƉŽƵƌͿ

ϱϬ Ϭ

Ϭ

ϭϬϬ

ϮϬϬ

ϯϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ dĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞŝŶ΀Σ΁

ϲϬϬ

ϳϬϬ

23  Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel609

pathway enables straight-forward production of valuable liquid fuel products, such as jet fuel or diesel, without the requirement of additional severe conversion steps. For this reason, HTL represents the most promising hydrothermal technology for the production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels from biomass feedstocks. Therefore, the present article is dedicated to the discussion of potentials and perspectives of HTL with respect to the provision of renewable jet fuel. One of the main advantages of hydrothermal liquefaction, as opposed to other thermochemical processes, is that it is able to process wet feed. The feedstock does not require drying as the technology typically can handle slurries of biomass and waste with total solids of 10 to 30 %. This is one reason why considerable attention has focused on hydrothermal processing of microalgae for which traditional biofuel production pathways, such as lipid extraction for transesterification to bio-diesel or hydroprocessing to renewable hydrocarbons, require a drying step. However, hydrothermal liquefaction is not restricted to algal biomass feedstock, and essentially all types of biogenic material can be utilized. In particular feedstocks with high moisture content are suitable for hydrothermal processing, including waste streams such as anaerobic digestate (AD), manures, sewage sludge, dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), food wastes and municipal wastes. However, the focus of R&D has broadened recently to also include lignocellulosic feedstock (e.g. from dedicated energy crops or forestry and agricultural wastes) due to their high availability, comparably low cost and established cultivation procedures. During hydrothermal liquefaction, the biomass is decomposed to smaller reactive molecules that re-polymerize into oily hydrophobic compounds [1]. The main reaction steps can be summarized as follows [2]: 1. hydrolytic decomposition of macromolecules, 2. activation by dehydration and decarboxylation reactions, 3. rearrangement via condensation, cyclisation, and polymerization yielding a range of hydrophobic macromolecules. The products from hydrothermal liquefaction consist of a bio-crude fraction, an aqueous fraction, a gaseous fraction and a solid residue fraction. The majority of the inorganic material is concentrated in the solid residue and the aqueous fraction (process water). The product distribution is largely affected by the biochemical composition of the feedstock. Lipids for example are almost entirely fractionated to the bio-crude as fatty acids and alkanes. Carbohydrates on the other hand tend to form char. This undesired formation of solids at the expense of liquid products can be avoided by maintaining an alkaline pH value of the reaction medium through addition of basic catalysts, thus resulting in increased bio-crude yields. The processing of lignocellulosics generally requires an alkali catalyst to achieve satisfactory conversion to bio-crude and to avoid excessive char formation. In the final step of hydrothermal liquefaction conversion the bio-crude is typically upgraded via hydrotreatment to a suitable feedstock for conventional refineries where it can be processed into renewable drop-in replacements fuels for fossil gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuels.

610

P. Biller and A. Roth

The potential advantages of the HTL technology have led to a growing interest in its development to enable future industrial application. However, most of the reported R&D efforts on HTL so far have been dedicated to small-scale experiments in batch reactors. While such work provides valuable insight into parametric operating conditions and allows the investigation of reaction pathways as well as product yields and qualities, studies on continuous reactor systems under industrially more relevant conditions are required to improve the economics of the process and to support further development towards higher technical maturity.

23.2 Hydrothermal Liquefaction: Process, Feedstock and Products The general steps anticipated in an integrated stand-alone hydrothermal liquefaction facility are summarized in Fig. 23.2a for lignocellulosic feedstock. Such integrated stand-alone plants do not exist yet and the individual process steps have only been investigated separately to date. The processing and pumping of feed slurries of low particle size may require pre-treatment for certain feedstock. For woody biomass this typically includes size reduction to obtain a pumpable slurry. Recent work has investigated the influence of various pre-treatment approaches on the pumpability of biomass slurries [3, 4]. The feedstock is then processed via HTL at temperatures of around 350 °C and pressures of ~200 bar for approximately 15 to 30 minutes. Phase separation occurs spontaneously after the reaction resulting in a gaseous phase rich in CO2, solid residue, the desired bio-crude fraction and an aqueous phase. The process water can be recycled, reducing the overall water consumption of the process. Water phase recycling is achieved after separation of bio-crude and solids. The recycling of the water phase leads to concentration of water soluble organics. However, there is always a surplus of water produced which cannot be recycled due to the high initial water content of the feedstock [5]. This surplus water after recycling needs to be treated before it can be returned into the environment. The options for water treatment investigated to date include anaerobic digestion and catalytic or non-catalytic hydrothermal gasification. Anaerobic digestion is used to produce a biogas rich in methane, while hydrothermal gasification (~500 °C) and catalytic hydrothermal gasification (~350 °C) produce a hydrogen rich and methane rich product gas, respectively [6, 7]. There is potential for the recovery of nitrogen and phosphorous compounds following treatment of the water by either anaerobic digestion or hydrothermal gasification. There is still some uncertainty about the most effective, cheap and energy efficient methods for bio-crude recovery. The bio-crude generally separates from the water phase spontaneously and floats on top, due to its lower density. Nevertheless, due to its high viscosity and sticky nature, complete recovery of bio-crude without the use of solvents could pose a problem at large scale.

23  Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel611

Fig. 23.2 (a, b)  Schematic layout of the hydrothermal liquefaction process for lignocellulosics (a) and microalgae (b) as feedstock

Finally, the recovered bio-crude requires upgrading via hydrotreatment to produce final fuel products or refinery-ready feedstock. A conceptual scheme for the production of biofuel from microalgae by hydrothermal liquefaction is shown in Fig. 23.2b. A benefit of processing algae by hydrothermal liquefaction is the potential for recycling of nutrients back to cultivation. This is also the case for terrestrial biomass but has not been assessed experimentally. Microalgae require no pre-treatment due to their small particle size and are pumped more easily as slurry. The processing of other aquatic biomass such as seaweed may require grinding or maceration. Algae still require dewatering during harvesting to produce slurry containing approximately 20 % solids. Feedstock such as sewage sludge would operate similarly to algae but still require dewatering and thickening before processing. Research has shown that it is possible to recycle the process water directly to algal cultivation and algae can utilize the organic carbon by heterotrophic growth although this has not been demonstrated at scale [8]. One of the main advantages of hydrothermal processing is its feedstock flexibility. It allows the use of feedstocks which are usually problematic to treat such as difficulties associated with high moisture content, non-homogeneity, bio-activity and high ash content. Due to the versatile nature of the process, the feedstock can

612

P. Biller and A. Roth

vary in composition and quality throughout operation without major implications on the process layout, although some consideration has to be given to the ease of pre-treatment/pumping of the feedstock and quality of the products. Many types of wet biomass such as sewage sludge, anaerobic digestion press cakes, animal manures, food waste and grasses are available in large quantities. Sewage sludge is a promising feedstock for hydrothermal processes although a significant effort has been directed at the utilization of future feedstocks such as algae which may become available in large quantities if this technology is favored for future oil production. Low moisture feedstocks such as lignocellulosics are also promising as they can be grown in large quantities (e.g. short-rotation coppice, energy grasses). When using low moisture feedstocks, water needs to be added to the feed; this makes the recovery and reuse of the water for slurry preparation imperative. Nevertheless, such a procedure will reduce the overall water consumption and the amount of water for treatment. Water phase re-use has been demonstrated to have beneficial effects on bio-crude generation in hydrothermal liquefaction [5, 9–12]. During HTL parts of the organics are fractionated to the water phase. This phase becomes more and more saturated with organic carbon when water phase recycling is employed. The small polar organic compounds in the water phase are subsequently available for the next HTL round and contribute to additional bio-crude formation via condensation reactions [5]. This results in increased energy recoveries in the bio-crude as the losses to the water phase are minimized. For high-moisture biomass such as algae, consideration must be given to avoid costs of processing excessive amounts of water. Algae typically grow to a maximum of 1 g/L and, water removal to at least 100 g/L is necessary. It can be argued that microalgae mass cultivation for bioenergy is still at the research and development stage and no industrial scale cultivation facilities are currently in place. Therefore in the short to medium term, hydrothermal processing of lignocellulosics, biowastes/sewage sludge and other wet biomass appears to be more likely compared to microalgae. During hydrothermal liquefaction around 50 to 75 % of the carbon is fractionated into the bio-crude which is a hydrophobic mixture of many organic compounds, the composition of which is dependent on the type and biochemical composition of the feedstock. Bio-crude is a highly viscous, black, heavy oil like material at room temperature. There has been limited research into the direct utilization of bio-crude either as a heavy fuel or a blending feedstock with other liquid fuels. Attention has concentrated on upgrading the bio-crude catalytically, thermally in a hydrogen atmosphere, or hydrothermally to hydro-deoxygenate and crack the heavy fuel fractions. Bio-crude differs significantly from pyrolysis oil in that it has a much lower water and oxygen content. Water content is typically 1 to 5 % and oxygen content around 7 to 20 % compared to water contents in pyrolysis oils of 20 to 40 % and oxygen of 25 to 45 %. Bio-crude is more viscous than pyrolysis oil but of lower density. It contains a large number of different molecular compounds, covering a broad range of molecular weights (average molecular weight ~1,000). The chemical composition of biocrude is largely influenced by the type of applied feedstock and operating conditions.

23  Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel613

Although named bio-crude, it is not a petroleum analogue due to its higher oxygen and nitrogen content. Particularly when processing protein-rich feedstocks the nitrogen content is found to be undesirably high. This has been shown to be an issue in the liquefaction of microalgae due to their high protein content of up to 70 %. This issue is not present for the liquefaction of lignocellulosics. However, their liquefaction results in lower yields and higher viscosities of bio-crude. There have been several types of feedstock under investigation for the production of biocrude, as exemplified in Table 23.1. Microalgae have been shown to result in the highest yields and higher heating values particularly when high lipid containing algae are utilized. The liquefaction of lignocellulosics generally results in lower yields, but carbon efficiencies of >50 % are still achieved. Manures and sludges appear to be a promising feedstock for hydrothermal liquefaction with good energy recoveries but their investigation has been limited to date. They have however been tested continuously on the SCF Technologies pilot plant in 2012 but overall yields were not reported [13]. More recently waste water treatment plant sludges were processed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and published in a techno-economic analysis [14]. Continuous HTL has additionally been described on corn stover, DDGS, forest residue, soft wood, poplar, macroalgae and microalgae. PNNL published a carbon balance on the liquefaction of lignocellulosics on their continuous bench scale system. Overall carbon yield, including hydrotreatment of the bio-crude product, was nearly 50 % [15]. More recently PNNL investigated the use of high lipid and standard lipid containing microalgae strains; it was found that the high lipid containing algae strain achieved an overall carbon recovery in the upgraded fuel product of 85 % compared to the lower lipid containing strain which achieved 54 % [16]. Researchers have published increasing number of reports on the continuous operation of hydrothermal liquefaction. The first continuous HTL facilities were

Table 23.1  Reported results of converting different types of feedstock under hydrothermal liquefaction conditions Bio-crude

Lignocellulosics

Macroalgae

Microalgae

Manures

Sewage sludge

DDGSb

Yield [% dafa]

27–50

9–28

38–64

30

40

39

HHVc [MJ/kg]

34–36

32–34

–

35

32–38

35

N [%]

0.3

3–4

4–8

2–4

4–8

5

O [%]

12–15

6–8

5–18

6–16

9–18

15

[12, 17]

[18, 19]

[6, 20]

[21]

[22, 14]

[23]

Reference

Dry ash-free basis. bDried distillers grains with solubles. cHigher heating value.

a

614

P. Biller and A. Roth

constructed in the 1970/1980s during the development of Shell’s Hydrothermal Upgrading (HTU) process, the PERC Albany Research Facility and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Process with significant capacities of 10 to 18 kg/h (dry solids) [17]. Table 23.2 presents a summary of continuous reactor systems. It can be seen that the capacities are still relatively low. The development of continuous HTL reactors are still in the early stages and further research needs to be performed to evaluate the best reactor designs, construction material and fluid dynamics. Elliott et al. [15] describe the development of continuous hydrothermal liquefaction systems in detail [15]. To advance the technical maturity of HTL, PNNL identified specific challenges including reducing the risk of large-scale pumpability, reducing capital costs by moving away from a continuous stirred-tank reactor configuration to a scalable plug-flow reactor configuration, and understanding appropriate materials of construction for process design. At the University of Sydney a continuous flow pilot-scale hydrothermal processing unit became operational in 2012. The design of the unit is based on coiled stainless

Table 23.2  Overview of currently operational hydrothermal liquefaction reactors capable of continuous processing Institution

Feedstock

Reactora

Conditions

Capacity

Ref.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Micro-, macro-algae, lignocellulosics, sewage sludge

CSTR/PFR

350 °C; 24–40 min

36 L/d; (5–35 wt.% slurry)

[6, 14, 16]

Aarhus University

DDGS

PFR

350 °C; 15 min

13 L/d; (20 wt.% slurry)

[23]

University of Sydney

microalgae

PFR

250–350 °C; 3–8 min

700 L/d; (10 wt.% slurry)

[20]

University of Leeds

microalgae

PFR

350 °C; 1–5 min

60 L/d; (10 wt.% slurry)

[24]

University of Illinois

Swine manure

CSTR

305 °C; 40–80 min

48 kg slurry/d

[25]

Aarhus University (Foulum)

DDGS, Miscanthus

PFR

250–450 °C; 20 min

120–1,200 L/d; (20 wt.% slurry)

[26]

Aalborg University with Steeper Energy

Aspen wood

PFR

400 °C; 40–60 min

336 L/d; (20–30 wt.% slurry)

[12]

PFR = continuous plug flow, CSTR = continuous stirred tank reactor.

a

23  Hydrothermal Liquefaction: A Promising Pathway Towards Renewable Jet Fuel615

steel tubes submerged into a fluidized sand bath in a plug flow reactor type set-up [20]. Some noticeable outcomes of the Sydney study include the following facts. (i) More severe reaction conditions led to highest yields, lowest oxygen but increased nitrogen contents in the bio-crude. (ii) Higher solid loadings increase bio-crude yields and reduce carbon losses within the system. (iii) The “inverse scaling” effect of pumping and pressure control led to the conclusion that scaling up of the Sydney design should result in better controllability and reduced potential of formation of agglomerates and deposits, which can lead to blockages. With the emergence of increasing numbers of academic publications on continuous hydrothermal liquefaction systems such as the work from PNNL, Aarhus, Aalborg and Sydney it is becoming apparent that continuous processing is technically feasible. No major complications were reported in any of the studies concerning pumping of the feedstocks, clogging of reactors or product recovery. The main area of research which lacks information in the literature is the upgrading of the bio-crude to a refinery ready fuel or complete refining towards an aviation fuel. A “finished” product is anticipated to be an aviation, gasoline or diesel fuel but currently it appears more likely that bio-crude upgrading will lead to a refinery feedstock which can then be refined in conventional refineries or dedicated bio-refineries to a finished product either on its own or co-processed with petroleum. It is not quite clear if or how much upgrading of the bio-crude is necessary to be able to co-process or process bio-crude in existing petrochemical refineries. This will depend on a variety of factors. Fortunately the bio-crude is quite stable after HTL production, especially compared to pyrolysis bio-oils. This means it could be transported directly to refineries without upgrading. However, the oxygen content in particular is most likely too high to process in conventional refineries [27, 28]. Therefore partial upgrading of the bio-crude on-site appears to be the most likely option. This would entail hydro-deoxygenation of the bio-crude to reduce the oxygen content below 5 % and improve its flow properties, physical and energy density. Several studies have looked at batch hydrothermal liquefaction and batch upgrading of bio-crudes. This has been performed in small autoclaves (5 to 50 mL) and relatively big ones ~1 L [29]. A large range of catalysts have been investigated, usually in a hydrogen atmosphere. Table 23.3 shows a selection of upgrading experiments reported in the literature. Unfortunately, there are only two studies investigating the upgrading of HTL bio-crude from a feedstock other than microalgae and only one in a continuous trickle bed reactor. This is unfortunate as the trickle bed reactor shows by far the best performance in terms of yields, nitrogen and oxygen removal. Table 23.3 shows that HTL bio-crude’s oxygen content is generally around 10 %. The nitrogen contents are high for the microalgae feedstocks but low for wood (as expected due to the high protein content of algae). The upgraded oil yields are around 50 to 80 %. De-nitrogenation in all the batch studies has been relatively poor; only around half is removed. The only study which was

616

P. Biller and A. Roth

Table 23.3  Summarized results of selected studies on hydrotreating of bio-crude HTL-derived biocrude

Upgraded bio-crude

Feedstock

Yield [wt%]

O [%]

N [%]

Yield [wt%]

Catalyst

O [%]

N [%]

HHVa [MJ/ kg]

Ref

Microalgae

38–63

10

4–5

80–85

CoMo

0.8– 1.8