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

Hennecke, Anna; Faist, Mireille; Reinhardt, Juergen; Junquera, Victoria; Neeft, John; Fehrenbach, Henry

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.020

Cited by 72 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Calculation tools can make quite complicated LCA calculations assessable to those with less expertise in GHG reporting (Figure 1). They can also help harmonise calculations to enable more reliable comparisons between products (Hennecke et al 2012). The main aim of a GHG accounting tool is to act as a user friendly interface to bridge input data with a GHG emission impact score.…”

Section: Ghg Accounting In the Agricultural Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RED specifies a GHG reporting methodology by which calculations must be performed, however there are some ambiguous aspects of the methodology such as the definition of co-products and residues (Whittaker et al 2011). In the calculations the RED does not specify which 'standard conversion values' or emission factors should be used when performing GHG calculations, which may lead to differences in results between tools (Hennecke et al 2012). …”

Section: Commission's Renewable Energy Directive (Red Ec 2009) Has mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may also be a result of the goal and scope of the two types of tools: farm-based tools are more likely to be used by non-LCA practitioners, whereas bioenergy-based tools are designed to be used by those with expertise in LCA. A recently published study compared the GHG emissions calculated by the Biograce and RSB Tools for a number of biofuel supply chains and showed that they produce different results despite them both complying with the RED methodology (Hennecke et al 2012). The differences are due to different emission factors used for fertiliser manufacture and N 2 O emissions from soil, and estimates for LUC differ across tools, particularly for conversion of forestland (Hennecke et al 2012).…”

Section: Transparency and Emission Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…methodological gap that should be addressed in future tools and methodologies (Hennecke et al 2012). …”

Section: Source Of Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison of carbon accounting tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom

Whittaker

McManus

Smith

2013

Environmental Modelling & Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Modelling & Software. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environmental Modelling & Software, vol 46, 2013, DOI 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013 Opus: University of Bath Online Publication Store http://opus.bath.ac.uk/ This version is made available in accordance with publisher policies.Please cite only the published version using the reference above.See http://opus.bath.ac.uk/ for usage policies.Please scroll down to view the document. Abstract2 In light of concerns over climate change and the need for national inventories for greenhouse gas reporting, there has been a recent increase in interest in the 'carbon foot printing' of products. A number of LCA-based carbon reporting tools have been developed in both the agricultural and renewable energy sectors, both of which follow calculation methodologies to account for GHG emissions from arable cropping. A review was performed to compare 11 existing greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools produced in order to calculate emissions from arable crops, either for food or bioenergy production in the UK, and a multi-criteria-analysis was performed to test their relative strengths and weaknesses. Tools designed for farm-based accounting achieved a higher 'userfriendliness' score, however bioenergy-based tools performed better in the overall level of information provided in the results, transparency and the comprehensiveness of emission sources included in the calculations. A model dataset for UK feed wheat was used to test the GHG emissions calculated by each tool. The results showed large differences, mainly due to how greenhouse gas emissions from fertiliser manufacture and application are accounted for. Overall, the Cool Farm Tool (Hillier et al. 2011) was identified as the highest ranking tool that is currently available in the public domain. The differences in the results between the tools appear to be due to the goal and scope, the system boundaries and underlying emission factor data.Keywords: Carbon accounting; agriculture; Life cycle analysis; Greenhouse gas reporting Introduction Climate change and everyday productsConcern over world-wide climate change has led to an increased interest in identifying major sources and sinks of carbon and greenhouse gases (GHG (Whittaker et al. 2011). The RED introduces sustainability criteria that specify that areas of high carbon and biodiversity must be preserved and requires that any changes in land use due to biofuel production are accounted for. The RED states that the GHG savings from biofuels should be at least 35% before January 2017, 50% after, and 60% after January 2018 for installations that start on or after 1 January 2017. The RED specifies a GHG re...

show abstract

Section: Ghg Accounting In the Agricultural Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commission's Renewable Energy Directive (Red Ec 2009) Has mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Transparency and Emission Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…methodological gap that should be addressed in future tools and methodologies (Hennecke et al 2012). …”

Section: Source Of Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of carbon accounting tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom

Whittaker

McManus

Smith

2013

Environmental Modelling & Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baseline data needed to conduct life cycle analyses [17], required to verify greenhouse gas reductions under current biofuel mandates is lacking [28,29]. In this study, we determined the effect of soil type and cultivar on the carbon and nitrogen accumulation and storage across the 24 month sugarcane growth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks of Different Hawaiian Sugarcane Cultivars

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstracts: Sugarcane has been widely used as a biofuel crop due to its high biological productivity, ease of conversion to ethanol, and its relatively high potential for greenhouse gas reduction and lower environmental impacts relative to other derived biofuels from traditional agronomic crops. In this investigation, we studied four sugarcane cultivars (H-65-7052, H-78-3567, H-86-3792 and H-87-4319) grown on a Hawaiian commercial sugarcane plantation to determine their ability to store and accumulate soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) across a 24-month growth cycle on contrasting soil types. The main study objective establish baseline parameters for biofuel production life cycle analyses; sub-objectives included (1) determining which of four main sugarcane cultivars sequestered the most soil C and (2) assessing how soil C sequestration varies among two common Hawaiian soil series (Pulehu-sandy clay loam and Molokai-clay). Soil samples were collected at 20 cm increments to depths of up to 120 cm using hand augers at the three main growth stages (tillering, grand growth, and maturity) from two experimental plots at to observe total carbon (TC), total nitrogen (TN), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrates (NO and H-87-4319 (20 kg·m −2 ) appeared to produce more accumulated carbon in both soil types.

show abstract

Greenhouse gas abatement from sugarcane bioenergy, biofuels, and biomaterials

Renouf

2016

Sugarcane‐Based Biofuels and Bioproducts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 72 publications

References 7 publications

A comparison of carbon accounting tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom

A comparison of carbon accounting tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks of Different Hawaiian Sugarcane Cultivars

Greenhouse gas abatement from sugarcane bioenergy, biofuels, and biomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About