Tải bản đầy đủ

bài giảng

Biofuels Sustainability in Africa
Alexandros Gasparatos
Associate Professor, IR3S
Vietnam-Japan University, Hanoi
6 December 2017


About myself
2004

BSc Chemistry, University of Patra (Greece)

2005

MSc Environmental Science, Imperial College London

2005

Environmental Consultant, Capita Symonds Ltd.

2006-2008


EPSRC Researcher (SUE-MOT programme), University of Dundee

2008-2009

Canon Foundation Fellow, UNU-IAS

07/2009

PhD in Ecological Economics, University of Dundee
“Sustainability assessment with reductionist tools: Methodological
issues and case studies”.

2009-2011

JSPS-UNU Fellow, UNU-IAS

2011-2013

Marie Curie Fellow and James Martin Fellow, Oxford University

2013-

Associate Professor in Sustainability Science


What are biofuels?
Biofuels are a type of liquid fuel that is derived from
biomass through different chemical processes.
First generation biofuels
- biodiesel and bioethanol from sugar, starch and oil
bearing crops or animal fats that in most cases can also
be used as food and feed

Second generation biofuels
- mainly bioethanol produced from cellulose,
hemicellulose or lignin


Biofuel uses



Transport: biofuel is added or completely substitutes
conventional transport fuel (e.g. E15)
Rural electrification: locally produced biofuel is used to
power small generators
Cooking: biofuel (e.g. ethanol) is used in cooking stoves


First generation bioethanol
Maize (US, China)
Wheat (Europe)
Sugarcane (Brazil)

Sugar beet (Europe)
Molasses (India)
Cassava (Southeast Asia, China)
Sweet sorghum (China)

Stromberg and Gasparatos, 2012


First generation biodiesel
Rapeseed (Europe)
Sunflower seed (Europe)

Soybeans (US, Brazil,
Argentina)
Oil palm (Indonesia,
Malaysia)
Jatropha (China, India,
sub-Saharan Africa)
Stromberg and Gasparatos, 2012


Second-generation biofuels
Short rotation coppice: poplar (Populus spec.), willow (Salix spec.),
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spec.)
Perennial grasses: miscanthus (Miscanthus sinensis), switchgrass
(Panicum vigratum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)

Agricultural by-products: straw, stover, shells, husks, cobs, bagasse,
pulp and fruit bunches from different food crops
Forestry by-products: treetops, branches, woodchips, sawdust, bark


The biofuel lifecycle


Drivers and impacts


Zhou and Thomson, 2009

Gasparatos et al., 2013

Drivers of biofuel production


Gasparatos et al., 2011; 2012

Impacts



Case studies

Illovo-Dwangwa Malawi
BERL Malawi
RSSC-SWADE Swaziland

Niqel Mozambique


[ Video]
https://vimeo.com/67382494


Biofuel Feedstock  Energy security

Biofuel landscapes provide feedstock
This feedstock can be converted to liquid fuels
that can be used to cover multiple human needs
This fuel can enhance local and national energy
security, particularly in remote areas and
landlocked countries of Sub-Sahara Africa


Mode of production and end-use

Local (own) fuel
use at the village
or farm level
National blending
mandates or
export

Market/primary end users

Scale of project
Smallholders and outgrowers
1s – 10s ha

Large industrial farms 100s1000s ha

Type I projects

Type II projects

Small-scale biofuel projects
for rural electrification

Large commercial farmers or
mines producing biofuel for
own use

Type III projects

Type IV projects

Outgrowers linked to
commercial plantations or
smallholders linked to biofuel
processing plants

Large-scale commercial
plantations


Large scale
plantations

Original
landscap
e

Low density
Medium density

Graphic produced by Graham von Maltitz, CSIR

Small scale
plantations

Mode of production and end-use
High density


Landscape transformations

Source: Google Maps

Photo: Alexandros Gasparatos


Energy security

Stromberg and Gasparatos, 2012


E. M e n i c h e t t i a n d M . O t t o
E. M e n i c h e t t i a n d M . O t t o

Energy security

Ta b le 1. Ra ng e of results for 1st g enera tion b io-etha nol from ma ize, whea t, suga r c a ne, a nd sug a r
beet. Rep orted va lues d o not inc lud e GHG emissions a ssoc ia ted with la nd use c ha ng e

Author

Year

Scope

Fossil Energy
Improvement

GHG Improvement

Type

Farrell et al.5

2006

USA

34% ; 16 % 6

13% ; -2% 7

maize

Grood & Heywood

2007

USA

68% 8

20% (-47%, +58%)9

maize

Ta b le 2. Ra ng e o f result s fo r ra p e se ed , so yb e a n, sunflo we r, p a lm o il b a sed o n a se lec t ed
num b e r o f stud ie s (w / o la nd use c ha ng e)
Author

Year

Scope

Fossil Energy
Improvement

GHG
Improvement

Type

de Castro

2007

Brazil/ Africa

Quirin et al.

2004

various

NA

~20 - 40%

rapeseed

~60% (to > 100%)

~20 - 85%

Elsayed et al.

2003

various

65%

rapeseed

53%

rapeseed

Puppan

2001

Belgium/ Germany

Edwards et al.

2007

Europe/ Brazil

55%

45%

rapeseed

56 - 61%

41-47%

rapeseed

Unnasch & Pont

2007

USA

33-64%

-5%, +30% 10

maize

Wang et al.

2007

USA

36% (30-70%)11

19% (-3%, +52%)12

maize

De Oliveira et al.

2005

USA

26%

-4%

maize

Lechon et al.

2006

/ Spain

79%

56%

rapeseed

Shapouri et al.

2002

USA

39%

35%

maize

Ecobilan

2002

France

80%

~80%

rapeseed

Zah et al.

2007

US ,China (util)

37% 13

18%

maize

Choudhury et al.

2002

Europe

43%

~55% (30-85%)

rapeseed

64%

rapeseed

40%

rapeseed

wheat

Zah et al.

2007

various

46-54% 20

64%

wheat

Various (Ecofys,
SenterNovem)

2005

various

57%

42% (22-115%)14

32% 15

wheat

De Castro

2007

Brazil/ Africa

NA

53-78%

soybean

Canada

61%

48%

wheat

Larson

2005

Europe/ N. Amer.

-70%

45-75%

soybean

2005

Spain

42%

78%

wheat

Quirin et al.

2004

various

>100%

68-110%

soybean

Ecobilan

2002

France

57%

60%

wheat

Edwards et al.

2007

Europe/ Brazil

67%

67%

soybean

Various (Ecofys &
SenterNovum)

2005

Europe

40%

32%

wheat

Unnasch and Pont

2007

10%

10%

soybean

Lechon

2006

79%

56%

soybean

De Castro

2007

Brazil, Africa

90%

>100%

cane

Zah et al.

2007

2006

Brazil

>90%

85 - 90%

cane

27% (BR) - ~ 40%
(USA)

-17% (BR) - ~40%
(USA)

soybean

Smeets et al.
Edwards et al.

2007

Europe +

>90-100%+

~87%

cane

Quirin et al.

2004

various

72-139%

35-110%

sunflower

Unnasch & Pont

2007

USA

86%

84%

cane

Edwards et al.

2007

Europe/ Brazil

67%

67%

De Oliveira et al.

2005

Brazil, USA

78%

>70%

cane

sunflower

Macedo et al.

2004

Brazil

91%

86%

cane

Lechon et al.

2006

Spain

76%

66%

sunflower

Zah et al.

2007

Brazil, China

89% 16

85%

cane

Ecobilan

2002

France

83%

83%

Smeets et al.

2006

NA

NA

sunflower

Reinhardt et al.

2007

Average
production

7%

31%

Palm oil

10%

8-12%

Palm oil

Quirin et al.

2004

Various

Elsayed et al.

2003

Variousix

16-85%
61%

Edwards et al.

2007

Europe +

S&T Consultants

2006

Lechon et al

~35 - 55%
17

2007

Europe +

Ecobilan

2002

France

58%

61%

beet

Unnasch and Pont

2007

Elsayed et al.

2003

Various

~58%

51%

beet

Lechin et al.

2006

Thailand/ Spain

64%

40%

Palm oil

Zah et al.

2007

Malaysia/ China

64%

70%

Palm oil

Beer et al.

2007

Indonesia &
Malaysia

NA

~80% (-868% w/
rainforest conversion;
2070% w/ peat forest
conversion

Palm oil

Gnansounou & Dauriat

2007
2004

China
Switzerland

73% 19
85%

48% (32-65%)

beet
18

Edwards et al.

Zah et al.

48% (24-73%)

18-90%

65%
40%

beet

beet
beet

Otto and Menichetti, 2009


Energy security
Some biofuels have relatively high EROIs (4-9) and fossil energy
improvement (>50-70%). These biofuels can enhance energy
security in the short-to-medium term.

Even the highest biofuel EROIs are much lower than the EROIs
of conventional fossil fuels (about 15). What is the long-term
energy security?
The overreliance on fossil fuel–intensive inputs (e.g., fertilizers
and agrochemicals) for feedstock production throws doubt onto
biofuels’ long-term energy viability as long as current
production practices are followed.


Energy security
Large scale successes
Brazil: in 2009 bioethanol constituted 20.4% of the total energy
consumed in the transport sector and 11.1% of total final
energy consumed in the whole economy
Malawi: blending sugarcane ethanol in transport sector since
early 1980s. Blending is consistently 10-20%

Small-scale moderate successes and future potential
Small-scale rural electrification (e.g. FACT Foundation
Mozambique) and ethanol cooking stoves (e.g. GAIA
Foundation Ethiopia)


Food and woodland products
Depending on their involvement in feedstock production (e.g. smallholders,
outgrowers, plantation workers) households divert land, (but also labour and/or
other agricultural inputs) from food crop production

Partial displacement :
food production moves somewhere else in the landscape

Total displacement:
food production totally stops in the landscape


Large scale
plantations

Original
landscap
e

Low density
Medium density

Graphic produced by Graham von Maltitz, CSIR

Small scale
plantations

Mode of production and end-use
High density


Land use change

Romeu-Dalmau et al., submitted


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay

×