Fehrenbach 15-03-04 Thünen RapeGHG crop rotation

18
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH GHG balancing crop-by-crop vs. crop rotation cycles how figures can differ Horst Fehrenbach International Workshop Greenhouse Gas Emission from Oilseed Rape Cropping and Mitigation Options 4 March 2015 Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig

Transcript of Fehrenbach 15-03-04 Thünen RapeGHG crop rotation

1 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

GHG balancing crop-by-crop

vs. crop rotation cycles

how figures can differ

Horst Fehrenbach International Workshop

Greenhouse Gas Emission from Oilseed Rape Cropping and

Mitigation Options

4 March 2015

Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig

2 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Content

0. Introduction

1. Issue

2. Proposal for solution

3. Impact on the GHG balance

4. Pros / Cons

5. Outlook

3 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

.

Who‘s IFEU?

Introduction

Presently there are approximately 70 people from several

fields of study, working on current environmental topics.

IFEU is an independent ecological research, without any party

political and economical influence,

Financing solely through project-bounded means

approx. orders 2/3 from public sector 1/3 from private

enterprises.

4 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

.

Fields of work

Introduction

Waste Management and Resource Conservation

Environmental Education

Energy (and Renewable Energies)

Industry and Products

Nutrition and Biomass

Sustainability

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Risk Assessment

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) & Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Traffic and Transport

a.o.

5 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

.

Key activity in the field of

Introduction

LCA, GHG and sustainability assessment for bioenergy

With special regard on the European legislation

Renewable Energy Directive RED

Developing of recognized GHG calculation tools, such as:

BioGrace spreadsheet

(version 4c recognized by the

EU Commission, version 5 in work)

ENZO2

developed by IFEU Germany

recognized by the BLE

6 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Usual approach in LCAs:

• Temporal system boundary for crops in crop rotation

systems:

start: after harvesting the previous crop

end: after harvesting the assessed crop.

(“harvest - harvest“).

Attribution of fertilizer input does not match with the

effective uptake of nutrients by the single crops within the

crop rotation cycle.

Issue

Issue 1

7 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

• No real field data applied but theoretical crop-specific uptake ratios (see German Düngeverordnung Annex 1).

several further problems:

1. Nutrient losses due to More or less unavoidable mechanisms (small scale)

Excessive application of fertilizers (over-fertilization no good agricural practice)

Poor seasonal situations (low yield despite sufficient fertilization)

2. The actuality of the results

Usual approach in LCAs

Issue 1

8 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Standard solution „harvest-harvest balance“

Proposed solution 2

rapeseed wheat barley

harvest harvest harvest harvest fertilizer

barley

BioGrace calculation rule

3.5 Actual input data for use of fertilisers

„If a GHG calculation is made using actual input data

for mineral and/or organic fertilisers, then all

mineral and organic fertiliser shall be taken into

account that were used between the harvest of the

previous crop and the harvest of the crop that is

input for the calculation“ Rapeseed

biodiesel

Wheat

ethanol

9 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Proposed solution

Proposed solution 2

fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer

Rape

seed

wheat

barl

ey

rapeseed wheat barley

harvest harvest harvest harvest

barley

10 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

barl

ey

Proposed solution

Proposed solution 2

wheat

Düngemittel Düngemittel fertilizer

Rape

seed

Re-allocation of total fertilizer application (whole cycle)

proportional with standard nutrient uptake ratios

fertilizer

fertilizer

12 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Proposed solution

2

Proposed solution (numerical example)

Rape

seed wheat barley

Harvest (dt/ha) 47 95 85

N-fertilizing (kg/ha) 200 196 158 554

(kg N/dt) 4,26 2,06 1,86

N-uptake (kg N/dt) 3,35 2,11 1,65

Demanduptake (kg/ha) 157 200 140 498

Allocation in relation to

uptake (kg N/ha) 175 223 156 554

SUM

13 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Proposed solution

2

157,5

200

175,1

0

50

100

150

200

250

Entzug "Ernte-Ernte" "Fruchtfolge IFEU"

Ferr

tiliz

er

inp

ut

in k

g N

/ha

Proposed solution (numerical example)

Standard

uptake

Actual value

„harvest-havest“

Actual value

„rotation cycle“

14 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

How results might change

Impact on the GHG balance 3

Cultivation of rapeseed

Yield

Rapeseed 4.700 kg ha-1

year-1

Moisture content 10,0%

Co-product Straw n/a kg ha-1

year-1

Energy consumption

Diesel 2.963 MJ ha-1

year-1

Agro chemicals

N-fertiliser (kg N) 175,0 kg N ha-1

year-1

Manure 0,0 kg N ha-1

year-1

CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha-1

year-1

K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 49,5 kg K2O ha-1

year-1

P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 33,7 kg P2O5 ha-1

year-1

Pesticides 1,2 kg ha-1

year-1

Seeding material

Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha-1

year-1

Field N2O emissions 4,38 kg ha-1

year-1

Field N2O emissions can be calculated in the sheet

N2O emissions IPCC

Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler)

Overview Results

All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Totalg CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results

Cultivation eec 24,6

Cultivation of rapeseed 41,32 58,6% 24,21

Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42

Processing ep 21,6

Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81

Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01

Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75

Transport etd 1,4

Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17

Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47

Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80

Land use change el 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0

Bonus or esca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0

eccr + eccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0

Totals 68,7 47,6

Default values

RED Annex V.D

29

28,51

0,42

22

3,82

1

0,17

0,82

0,44

0

0

0

52

17,88

Cultivation of rapeseed

Yield

Rapeseed 4.700 kg ha-1

year-1

Moisture content 10,0%

Co-product Straw n/a kg ha-1

year-1

Energy consumption

Diesel 2.963 MJ ha-1

year-1

Agro chemicals

N-fertiliser (kg N) 200,0 kg N ha-1

year-1

Manure 0,0 kg N ha-1

year-1

CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha-1

year-1

K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 49,5 kg K2O ha-1

year-1

P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 33,7 kg P2O5 ha-1

year-1

Pesticides 1,2 kg ha-1

year-1

Seeding material

Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha-1

year-1

Field N2O emissions 4,78 kg ha-1

year-1

Field N2O emissions can be calculated in the sheet

N2O emissions IPCC

Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler)

Overview Results

All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Totalg CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results

Cultivation eec 27,0

Cultivation of rapeseed 45,40 58,6% 26,60

Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42

Processing ep 21,6

Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81

Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01

Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75

Transport etd 1,4

Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17

Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47

Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80

Land use change el 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0

Bonus or esca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0

eccr + eccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0

Totals 72,7 50,0

15 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Impact on the GHG balance 3

Results numerical example

29 27 24,6

22 22

22

1 1

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Standardwert "Ernte-Ernte" "FruchtfolgeIFEU"

g C

O2e

/MJ

Transport

Verarbeitung

Anbau

RED

Standard

value

Actual value

„harvest-havest“

Actual value

„rotation cycle“

Transport

Processing

cultivation

16 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Increasing eveness of the GHG results

Farms usually operate long-term viewed

methods are rarely changed.

broadening the time frame of the balance more adequately

reflects the characater of agricultural practice

than a strict focus on season and plot.

Viceverse the focussed approach invites to allocate liberately

„GHG friendly“ management activities to bioenrgy crops and the

less positive ones to the other crops

e.g.: organic manure selectively applied for rapeseed (if

Biodiesel), synthetic fertilizer for common wheat, barley etc.

Pathway to further expansion to balance at farm level

Advantages of the proposal

Pros / Cons 4

17 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

Risk of „greening the figures“ ?

The really applied amount of fertilizer within the crop season for

e.g. rapeseed might be decreased systemically inadequatly.

No general consensus under cropping system experts.

Systematically high preceding crop effect might be responsible for

overrall higher losses?

Application of method shall not be optional.

„cherry-picking“ shall be prohibited!

Technical issue: how deal with N2O emissions?

E.g. how to combine with the GNOC model?

Possible drawback

Pros / Cons 4

18 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

The proposed approach should provide food for discussion

within the community of GHG experts in the agricultural area;

the proposal is open for further useful developments and

refinements.

We intent to test the proposed approach at farm-level under

real conditions

In case the approach turns out to be useful and sound:

Intention to introduce it as an officially recognized rule for

GHG in line with the RED

Integration into recognized tools like BioGrace and ENZO2

Outlook

Outlook 5

19 4 March 2015

ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH

Horst Fehrenbach

The ifeu BioGrace/ENZO2 team BioGrace is supported by the IEE programme of the EU

ENZO2 is supported by the German Government (project number: 03MAP243)

Thank you