Presentation of Dr Mairi J Black for the "2nd Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle" Apresentação de Dr Mairi J Black realizada no "2nd Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle " Date / Data : Novr 11th - 12th 2009/ 11 e 12 de novembro de 2009 Place / Local: CTBE, Campinas, Brazil Event Website / Website do evento: http://www.bioetanol.org.br/workshop5

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Balances of
Biofuels
Dr Mairi J Black
2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the
Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle.
11th-12th November 2009.
Campinas, Brazil.

2. Presentation Overview
• UK and EU Policy overview
• Methodologies – GHG emission calculations
• Issues in GHG emission calculations
• Porter Alliance, Imperial College London
• GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance
approach to advance technology biofuels

3. UK and EU Policy overview

4. Interest in biofuels
Global interest and initiatives in biofuels have set out to
address:
• Environmental issues such as climate change – biofuels have
potential to provide greenhouse gas savings and improve air
quality
• Energy issues - security of supply/reduce dependence on
fossil fuels (finite resource)
• Social issues - employment, rural development

5. UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
The UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (the RTFO) requires suppliers
of fossil fuels to ensure that a specified % of the road fuel supplied in the UK
is made up of renewable fuels. The RTFO requires companies to submit
reports on carbon emissions and sustainability of biofuels.
(Renewable Fuels Agency 2008)
• Commenced April 2008
• Initial renewable fuel inclusion targets set at:
2008 – 2009
2.5%
2009 – 2010
3.9%
2010 – 2011
5.25%
• Currently no reward for carbon and sustainability reporting (anticipated that carbon
benefit will be rewarded from 2010 and sustainability benefits, from 2011)
• Buy-out option for non-inclusion of renewable fuel
• Reporting framework provides a stepping stone towards a mandatory assurance
scheme
• Administered by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA)

6. UK RTFO – Carbon Reporting
GHG / Carbon calculations
• Current methodologies are supply chain specific
(ethanol from sugarcane, sugar beet, molasses, wheat and corn; FAME from
tallow, used cooking oil, soy, palm, oilseed rape; biomethane from anaerobic
digestion of MSW and manure; ethanol converted to ETBE)
• On-going debate on methodologies used
• Land use change issues unresolved (Gallagher Review)
• Data may available and accessible for large scale commodity crops
• Default values can be extremely broad where data not available
• GHG and lifecycle analysis will improve

7. UK RTFO - Sustainability Reporting
Environmental Principles - Feedstock Production
• will not destroy or damage large above or below ground carbon
stocks
• will not lead to the destruction or damage to high biodiversity areas
• does not lead to soil degradation
• does not lead to the contamination or depletion of water sources
• does not lead to air pollution
Social Principles – Feedstock and Biofuel Production
• does not adversely affect workers rights and working relationships
• does not adversely affect existing land rights and community
relations

8. European Union Policy Snapshot
EU Energy and Climate Change Package agreed December 2008
- 27 EU Member States committed to reduce CO2 emissions by
20% by 2020 and to target a 20% share of renewable energies in
EU energy consumption by 2020: “20-20 in 2020”
• will scale up to as much as 30% CO2 reduction commitment under new global
climate change agreements with other developed countries
• includes a 10% transport fuel target within 20% renewable energy target
• incorporates modifications to the FQD and RED as described in Directive
2009/28/EC and Directive 2009/30/EC.

9. Objectives of EU Biofuel Policies
Objectives addressed by different EU Directorates:
• Directorate-General for Environment (DG-Environment):
The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD)
- reduction of harmful atmospheric emissions (including GHGs) from
transport fuels
• Directorate-General for Transport and Energy (DG-Tren):
The Renewable Energy Directive (RED)
- promotion of renewable energies such as wind, solar, geothermal,
wave, tidal, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment,
plant gas and biogases and including biofuels

10. EU Biofuels Targets (FQD)
• 1998 Fuel Quality Directive (1998/70/EC); revised 2003 (2003/17/EC)
- to establish fuel specifications and reduce pollution from vehicle
emissions for health and environmental benefits
• January 2007 Commission Proposal for Revision of Fuel Quality Directive
- to reflect developments in fuel and engine technology
- to help combat climate change by the promotion and development of
lower carbon fuels (including biofuels)
- to meet air quality objectives set out in the 2005 Clean Air Strategy
and 2008 Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC)
Proposed:
- Mandatory monitoring of ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ from fuels
as of 2009
- Obligation for fuel suppliers to ensure a reduction in greenhouses gases
from fuels throughout the lifecycle (production, transport and use) of
1% per annum between 2011 and 2020 (i.e. 10% by 2020)
- Now Directive 2009/30/EC

11. EU Biofuels Targets (RED)
• 2001 Renewable energy targets for electricity set (Directive 2001/77/EC)
• 2003 Renewable energy targets set for biofuels (Directive 2003/30/EC)
- required member states to set indicative targets for a minimum portion of
biofuels to be set in the market (by energy)
2 % by 2005
5.75% by 2010
• 2007 Biofuels Progress Report for 2005
- biofuels reached only 1% of the market
- Sweden and Germany were the only countries to reach the 2% target
- 2010 target of 5.75% was unlikely to be met
• January 2008 review of 2003 Biofuels Directive (as part of the Proposal for
the Directive for the Promotion of Renewable Energy). Agreed December
2008 and now Directive 2009/28/EC.
- 20% EU energy from renewable sources by 2020
- within this target, 10% transport fuel requirements should be met from
renewable sources

12. Biofuel sustainability in the RED
To address biofuels issues within the RED Proposal, public
consultation (including stakeholders, NGOs and governments
across EU) generally supported the following:
• Land with high carbon stocks should not be converted for biofuel production
(e.g. wetlands, peatlands)
• Land with high biodiversity should not be converted for biofuel production
(e.g. forest, grassland)
• Biofuels should achieve a minimum level of greenhouse gas saving (carbon
stock losses would not be included in the calculation)
• Biofuels and bioliquids which do not fulfil the sustainability credentials will
not be considered as renewable.

13. Biofuel sustainability activities in EU
EU Commission activities for New RED (2009/28/EC)
• Completion of the sustainability criteria for biofuels by end 2009/early 2010
e.g. definitions of degraded lands, biodiverse grasslands, reporting methodologies
• Guide on carbon stocks expected December 2009 - will be annexed to general guidance
on sustainability criteria
• Indirect land use report is expected by 2010 - aims to review the impact of indirect land
use change; address ways to minimise impact and if appropriate, recommend
methodologies for accounting for emissions from carbon stock changes caused by
indirect land use change
Ewout Deurwaarder, European Commission, Feb 2009
Biofuel sustainability activities in RED and FQD
• A specific Committee will be created jointly with the Renewable Energy Directive and
Fuels Quality Directive, to coordinate the energy and environment aspects in future
development of biofuel sustainability criteria

14. Methodologies – GHG emission calculations

15. GHG Calculation Methodologies
Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or “Cradle to Grave”
assessment of the environmental input of a product.
Output: Product and co-products, GHG, Particles, Sulphides,
Crop Disposal of
Crop Harvest
Processing
Utilization
Production
waste
Inputs: Fossil Fuels, Chemicals,
Impact category: Global warming potential
(can also be used to define energy consumption; acidification;
smog; ozone layer depletions; human toxicology; pollutants;
eutrophication and eco-toxicological impacts)

16. GHG Calculation Methodologies
Life Cycle Assessment decisions – goal and scope
• functional unit (final unit of measurement; depends on
perspective and questions being addressed)
• systems boundaries (must be clearly defined; relevant and
consistent)
• reference systems (provides comparison; must be clearly
defined and have the same systems boundaries)
• allocation of co-products (depends on boundary setting;
various methods used – still uncertainty on methodologies)

17. GHG Calculation Methodologies
ALCA – Attributional Life Cycle Analysis
CLCA Boundary Provides information on impacts of all
(direct emissions and processes used to produce (consume and
all indirect effects) dispose of) a product
CLCA – Consequential Life Cycle Analysis
Provides information about consequences of
changes in level of output (consumption and
disposal) of a product, including effects inside
and outside the life cycle of the product
ALCA Boundary
(direct emissions CLCA has wider scope . Approach often used
from life cycle
in policy making, instead of looking at specific
supply chains
From Tipper, R.; Hutchinson, C. and Brander, M. (2009)
“A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from indirect land
use change associated with biofuels” Technical Paper TP-080212-A, Ecometrica Press.

18. Issues in GHG emission calculations

19. Issues in GHG calculations
• The impacts of changing land use
- Direct Land Use Change
Non agricultural land
Non agricultural land
(e.g. forest, grassland or (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
wetland)
Cropland
Cropland
(food)
(food)
biofuel
crop
- Indirect Land Use Change
Non agricultural land
Non agricultural land
(e.g. forest, grassland or (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
wetland)
Cropland
Cropland
(food)
Biofuel
new crop
crop
land
(Bauen and Howes, 2008)

20. Issues in GHG calculations
• Indirect Land Use Change – a methodological issue?
Direct effect of
Indirect effect of
expanded biofuel crop area
expanded biofuel crop area
Cropland
Cropland
(food)
(food)
Biofuel
crop
Biofuel
crop
• GHG emissions from Land Use Change and Indirect Land
Use Change – attribute all to biofuels?

21. Methodological issues in GHG calculations
• e.g. palm oil-based biodiesel
- range of emissions reported in literature1
- using ACLA approach
* 80% positive ghg emission benefit when palm oil is derived from
existing plantations
* 800-2000% negative ghg emissions benefit when palm oil is
produced on cleared rain or peat swamp forest
- using CLCA approach, including indirect land use change
* all palm oil causes 800-2000% negative ghg emissions
1Beer et al., 2007

22. Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops
• Dealing with ILUC within any policy framework is
problematic
- Indirect Land Uses Change (ILUC) relies on understanding Land Use
Change
- Direct Land Use Change (LUC) may occur as the result of several drivers,
is difficult to monitor and attribute specifically to given factors.
- ILUC is even more difficult to define as it may be the result of several
direct factors and “knock-on” effects.
- The only way to deal with LUC and ILUC in policy is using modeling
methodologies.
Several methodologies are being employed in different policy
approaches. A more complete understanding of the
methodologies and their implications is needed.

23. Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops
Some of the current modeling methodologies which are being
reviewed for ILUC modeling in the EU are:
• GTAP-AEZ (Global Trade Analysis Project-Agroecological Zone model)
• GTAP-E (Global Trade Analysis-Energy model)
• LEITAP (an extended land allocation version of GTAP)
In the US, iLUC is being reviewed using:
• LCA models (GREET)
• Economic models such as CARD/FAPRI and FASOM
• Satelite image analysis
• Carbon stocks of lands, based on IPCC/Winrock International consultants
studies

24. Indirect Land Use (ILUC) in the EU
Impact Review - Key considerations
• co-product value and allocation of benefits
• how to allocate carbon lost from deforestation between LUC causes (e.g. timber
extraction; agricultural expansion for food production)?
• how to rationalise the relationship between increased demand for crops for biofuels
and increased agricultural yields?
• how to define directly, the relationship between increased demand in one region
leading to supply in another region?
• how to “decide” which type of land is converted to agriculture?
• how to take into account the use of agricultural land that would otherwise have
been abandoned? How to define the value of regenerating land?
• how to take into account the effect of sustainability criteria?
Ewout Deurwaarder, European Commission, Feb 2009
• how to evaluate technological developments in biofuel production and land use
implications in timeframe for targets

25. The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction
• Recommendations for the RTFO for biofuel inclusion in the transport
fuel mix are now
- 2.5% target should remain for 2008 but thereafter, only increase target by 0.5%
per annum to a maximum of 5% (by volume) in 2013
• EU Renewable Energy Directive is currently going through the
political process to evaluate the 10% renewable transport fuel target
for 2020, including a review of methodologies to define ILUC
• On-going methodological improvements will continue to support the
debate
- GHG calculations (default values)
- Crop co-product value and allocation
- Land use change / land use potential (Agro-ecological zoning work)

26. Porter Alliance, Imperial College London

27. The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction
Advancedtechnologies for liquid biofuel production offer
new opportunities both for feedstock and fuel types.
The Porter Alliance is an association of leading science institutions
in the UK, including Imperial College London, Rothamsted
Research, The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural
Sciences (IBERS), The John Innes Centre and the Universities of
Cambridge, Southampton and York.

28. Porter Alliance
• We consider the whole supply chain for biofuels, from
agronomic considerations through processing to end fuel format
• Rely on LCA methodologies to evaluate and make comparisons
to “prove “ the ghg balance benefits of advanced technologies
• We use quantitative sustainability criteria to manage research and
development
Plants Process Products
Sustainability

29. Crop conversion routes for fuels/chemicals
Dedicated Lignocellulosic Production Systems Conventional Commodity Crops
Spruce Eucalyptus Willow Miscanthus Switchgrass Sugar Maize Wheat Barley Soy Oilseed Rape
cane
Sugar beet Potato Cassava Palm
Co-products/residues
Proteins Sugars Starches Oils
Undifferentiated Lignocellulosics
Biomass Food and
Feed
Energy
Biochemical Conversion
Thermochemical Conversion
Acid Enzymatic Methyl esterification
Hydrolysis Hydrolysis
Pyrolysis Gasification
Lignin
Synoil Syngas
Hexose C6 monomeric
sugars C5 monomeric sugars
Pentose
Biochar
Fischer-Tropsch Fermentation
Platform Chemicals Hydrocarbons Biodiesel Bioethanol Biobutanol Biochemicals

30. Biofuel Technologies - Current
• Bioethanol produced by fermentation of C6 sugars
C6H12O6 → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
+ CO2
• Biodiesel produced by methyl esterification of vegetable oil
triglycerides
catalyst
triglyceride + methanol methyl esters + glycerol
e.g. NaOH

31. Biofuel Technologies - Advanced
• Biochemical conversions of biomass to release sugars for
fermentation (lignocellulosic technologies)
- breakdown and separation of biomass
plant cell wall structural
components i.e.
lignin breakdown and
removal; cellulose
and
hemicellulose breakdown to C6 and
C5 sugars using steam explosion;
acid/alkali treatments and/or enzymatic
hydrolysis (requiring a cocktail of
enzymes depending on the structure of
biomass materials)
Image from Dr Mike Ray, Porter Alliance, Imperial College
• Current technological developments include innovative means
of accessing C6 and C5 sugars and fermentation of C5 sugars

32. Potential pathways to biofuel
Currently over 200 biofuel pathways identified – not
taking into account geographical sources of crop
materials! – we use a modular approach to LCA and
sustainability for making comparisons of biofuel chains using
process chain units
• Crops (breeding improvements; agronomic practices)
• Front End Process (extractions; milling)
• Primary Conversion (accessing sugars)
• Secondary Conversions (fermentation pathways)
• End product (biofuel/bioenergy/chemicals)

33. GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance
approach to advance technology biofuels

34. How do we rationalise this?
Identify commonalities and apply a modular approach to
LCA and sustainability (the Porter Matrix)
• in principle, the LCA and sustainability of a crop to the farm
gate will be the same, regardless of whether it is grown for
bioenergy or biofuel
• in principle, the processing steps to convert a crop material,
will be the same regardless of where the crop is grown (but
variables in input requirements, as the result of biomass
composition can be probed)

35. Porter process chain
Sustainability and life
cycle analysis
Fungi Butanologenic Each module can be
recombinant
Miscanthus
Rumen microbes
bacteria
considered in isolation
Willow
Ionic liquids Long chain alkane /
alkanol producing
and applied to
organisms
Switchgrass
Developmental front
end processes different supply
Poplar
Dilute acid / alkaline
Direct fermentation
of oligosaccharides
chain scenarios
Sugar cane bagasse
Mild thermal
Developmental
Forest residues microbial
Hydrothermal ethanologens
Crop residues
Steam
Proprietary
microbial
Thermochemical ethanologens
ENERGY CROPS FRONT END PRIMARY
PROCESSES CONVERSION
Optimising yield
Optimising Optimising
accessible carbon conversion to
biofuel

36. The Porter Matrix
• How do we integrate technological innovations into this
matrix?
Process Procedures
Fundamental Plant science
Defining “typical” processes
Photosynthesis
Defining scale-up criteria
Radiation Use Efficiency
Genomics
Processibility
Plant Cell Wall Biosynthesis and Composition
Plant material composition
and physical characteristics
Crop Research and Development
New Technologies
Plant breeding
Novel fungal pre-treatment
Increasing yield
Lignocellulosic solubility
Improving agronomic efficiency
Novel enzymes
Existing crop production systems
Fuel Characteristics
Defining “typical” practices for crops
Biodiesel variations
Defining land reference systems
Synfuel compatibility
Vehicle / Engine
Specifications

37. Fundamental Plant Science
• Understanding plant cell wall biosynthesis and external factors,
to improve biomass quality and processability for bioenergy
production
From Dr Thorsten Hamann,
Imperial College London
• Identifying genotypic variation
• Not within LCA scope until reaches “crop status”

38. Raw materials for lignocellulosic technology
• Using less specifically defined biomass materials. Agronomic
targets are increased yield and reduced inputs (e.g. from
fertilizer inputs)
- UK crops e.g. miscanthus; short rotation coppice (SRC) crops such
as willow and poplar; grass from grasslands
- global crops e.g. switchgrass; reed canary grass; eucalyptus; energy
sorghum and sugarcane
- waste such as paper; wood; MSW – even less specific

39. Crop Module LCA
Input activities
cultivation: site preparation; planting crop; harvesting; machinery
maintenance
crop processing: drying; milling; chipping, pelleting, extraction
OUTPUTS
Cultivation
Crop
Storage
Transport
Conversion
Processing
INPUTS
storage: in-field; basic; heated or ventillated
transport: road; rail; marine

40. Crop Module LCA
• Cultivation is often the largest ghg emissions source in the
supply chain
- fertilizer inputs; N2O soil emissions
- machinery use and fuel consumption
• Supported by actual, gathered field data where possible (or
“best available” default values used)
• Attributional approach taken for specific supply chain
calculations to farm gate
• ILUC still to be defined for many supply chains

41. Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Input activities for each process step
*Slides from Ali
Hosseini, PhD student,
Porter Alliance
• Variables to address efficiency
Size Reduction
Alcohol
Hydrolysis
Fermentation
Recovery
Pretreatment

42. Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Process probe – root cause analysis model
Low yield of
fermentation
Low
Low yield of
digestability of
microorganism
entering fiber
Low yield of
Low tolerance to Low tolerance to
Enzymatic
ethanol
inhibitors
Hydrolysis
Low
Inefficient Microorganism Cellulases
digestability of
microorganism
Inhibitors
inhibitors
entering fiber
Inhibitors Inhibitors
generated during Inefficient generated during
pretreatment
pretreatment
pretreatment
*Slides from Ali
Inefficient Inefficient
Hosseini, PhD student,
pretreatment
pretreatment
Porter Alliance

43. Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Crop production models
• Process models – root cause analysis model
supported by
• Field based agronomic data
• Variation in genotypes from crop
• Crop/Plant material - lab based compositional analysis
• Novel pre-processing technologies
- solubility studies of lignocellulosic material
- fungal breakdown of biomass prior to hydrolysis
• Novel enzymes from metabolic engineering
• Enzymatic break-down and compositional analysis

44. Porter Alliance approach
Identifying and evaluating potential biofuel supply chains
• Working with colleagues at Imperial College and other research
institutes to develop technologies
• Drawing on Imperial College collaborative projects such as Quatermas;
COMPETE; TSEC and BEST projects
• Direct involvement with the UK and EU political process for the development
of biofuel and bioenergy policies and methodologies for carbon and
sustainability reporting within the RTFO; RED and FQD
• Activities within global Academic community and “RoundTable” activities for
defining LCA methodologies and sustainability standards

45. Our structure
Porter Alliance Board
Chair – Sir Richard Sykes
Directorate Members – Heads of Partner Institutions
Event Organisation
Administration and Director
Director Development Lead for Business
Ms Alison Parker
Communication
Prof Richard Templer
and Policy
Relations Group
Ms Catherine Oriel
Mr Rafat Malik
Division Director Biology and Division Director Physical
Sustainability
Science and Engineering
Research Dr Angela Karp
Prof Nilay Shah
Life Cycle Energy Crops Cell Walls and Processing and Biorefining
Chemicals and Fuels and Tools and
Analysis and and Biomass
Composition
Bioconversion
Dr Claire Materials
Combustion
Technology
Sustainability
Drs Iain Dr Richard Dr David Leak
Adjiman and Prof Dr Charlotte Prof Alex Taylor
Prof David Klug
Dr Jeremy Wood
Donnison and Murphy
Nilay Shah
Williams
Angela Karp
Research interactions
Life Cycle Analysis and Energy Crops Cell Walls and Composition
Processing and Biorefining
Chemicals and
Sustainability
and Biomass
Dr Richard Murphy (Dept. of Bioconversion
Prof Nilay Shah Materials
Dr Jeremy Woods (CEP, Drs Ian Donnison Biology, Supervisor)
Dr David Leak (Dept. (Dept. of Chemical Prof Tom Welton
Supervisor) )
(IGER) and Angela Dr Mike Ray (Post-Doc)
of Biology, Engineering, (Dept of
Dr Calliope Panoutsou (CEP)
Karp (RRES)
Nick Brereton (PhD)
Supervisor)
Supervisor)
Chemistry,
Dr Rocio Diaz-Chavez (CEP)
Nick Brereton Dr Thorsten Hamann (Dept. of Dr Velusamy Ali Hosseini (PhD)
Supervisor)
Dr Mairi Black (CEP)
(PhD)
Biology, Supervisor)
Senthilkumar
Agnieska Brandt
Raphael Slade (CEP)
Dr Priya Madhou (Post-Doc)
(PhD)
Gareth Brown (CEP)
Dr Lucy Denness (Post-Doc)
Dr Laura Barter
Alfred Gathorne-Hardy (CEP)
Dr Alexandra Wormit (Post-Doc)
(Supervisor)
Lars Kjaer (PhD)

46. Thank you
Contact:
Dr Mairi J Black
Porter Alliance
Centre for Environmental Policy
Imperial College London
London
SW7 2AZ
m.black@imperial.ac.uk
www.porteralliance.org.uk
2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the
Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle.
11th-12th November 2009.
Campinas, Brazil.