Biofuel production in Thailand: The climate, environment, and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Biofuel production in Thailand: The climate, environment, and food/income/energy security nexus

IGES, Hayama, 3 April 2014

• Dr. Jintana Kawasaki

Natural Resources and Ecosystem Service Area (NRE), Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) E‐mail: jkawasaki@iges.or.jp

• Under the Alternative Energy Development Plan, the Government of

Thailand has set a target of increasing biofuels production. By 2021, Thailand aims to produce 9 million litre/day of bioethanol.

• Agricultural areas under rice cultivation have been converted to

biofuel feedstocks, due to the increased demand for bioethanol.

• Biofuels can contribute to climate change mitigation by providing a

substitute for fossil fuels, but biofuel production also impacts the livelihoods of farmers, in terms of both the financial benefits and the

• pportunity costs of alternative land uses.
• Biofuels production can also impact the local environment through the

chemical inputs required to achieve high crop yields.

• A multidimensional framework for understanding the impacts
• f biofuels production in Thailand is required.

Impacts of biofuels production in Thailand

Goal: To develop and apply a comprehensive evaluation framework for sugarcane, cassava and wood biomass for bioenergy production covering GHG mitigation, environmental and socio‐economic issues, and contribute to the discussion on MRV for biofuels. Objectives:

• 1. Analyse the scale and location of land use changes associated with

biofuels production;

• 2. Assess advantages and disadvantages of each biofuel crop against

alternative land uses in terms of environmental and socio‐economic factors, and mitigation potential;

• 3. Contribute to the development of methodologies for estimating biofuel

GHG mitigation potential by integrating analysis of land use change into life cycle assessment. Project duration: 10 months from May 2013~February 2014 Researchers: Jintana Kawasaki1, Thapat Silalertruksa2, Henry Scheyvens1, Makino Yamanoshita1, Taiji Fujisaki1

1Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Service Area 2King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment

GHG mitigation potential and sustainability of biofuel production

Feedstock cultivation & harvesting

Land use change Feedstock processing Biofuel conversion Fuel Fuel, Electricity, Chemicals, water Fuel, Electricity, Chemicals, water C‐stock loss, Food competition GHG emissions (e.g. fuel & chemical used, N‐fertilizer application) Emissions and wastes By‐ products, Emissions and wastes Biofuel

CO2

GHG mitigation potential

Global warming problem

Fossil fuel Food security Environmental Impacts Socio‐economic welfare

Sustainability of biofuel production

Fuel, Fertilizers, Agro‐chemicals, water

Conceptual Framework

The methodology proposed and tested for evaluating biofuels production in Thailand included: 1) Land use and land use change associated with biofuels production 2) Life cycle GHG emission calculation 3) Environmental impact assessment 4) Socio‐economic sustainability assessment

Data for Assessment

• Five questionnaires were

designed to collect primary data

• A total of 91 biofuel crop

farmers cultivating sugarcane, cassava and eucalyptus were interviewed

• The secondary data from

statistical data and published institute sources

E = Eec + El + Ep + Etd + Eu ‐ Esca ‐ Ecrd Life Cycle Emissions of Biofuel Production

Eec = Extraction or cultivation of input materials El = Carbon stock changes caused by land‐ use change and management Ep = The process for producing the biofuel Etd = Transport and distribution Eu = The use of biofuel Esca = Emissions saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural practice Ecrd= emission savings from the biofuel production system such as savings associated with biogas recovery and excess electricity from co‐generation Net GHG reduction per unit fuel is determined by comparing GHG emissions related to biofuels production and utilization with conventional diesel and gasoline production

• I. Land Use and Land Use Change Associated

with Biofuels Production

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

has been used to assess land use change

• ver the past decade
• The two major land use changes are:

(i) cropland remaining crop land, but change in crop type, and (ii) conversion of unused land to eucalyptus

• There were ten major classes of land
• use. The land use and land use change

in three districts in Khon Kaen Province were presented

• Change in crop types can impacts the

carbon stocks. Carbon stocks for the four main types of agricultural land use (rice, sugarcane, cassava and eucalyptus) were examined.

• The carbon content of Eucalyptus camaldulenis

Dehnh at age 1, 2, and 3 years eucalyptus was estimated from data generated from 10 mx10 m sample plots in the study sites, and applying allometric equation.

Land Use Change and Carbon Stocks Under Different Land Use Pattern in Kranuan District

Legends

<all other values> Abandoned field crop Other perennial Para rubber Rice paddy Sugarcane Cassava Eucalyptus Other field crops Orchard and horticulture Natural forest Forest plantation Water bodies Others including urban and built-up land, pasture and farm house, aquaculture land, and miscellaneous land

E = Eec + El + Ep + Etd + Eu ‐ Esca ‐ Ecrd

• II. Lifecycle Emissions of Ethanol Production from Molasses

‐ ISCC (2010) presents the reference GHG emissions from emissions of fossil fuel production compared to emission of biofuel production was 83.8 g CO2eq/MJ fossil fuel for transportation ‐ The use of molasses ethanol for transportation had the potential in GHG reduction

• ver 14%

The net GHG emissions of molasses ethanol production

• III. Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental aspects of biofuel feedstock farming

‐The environmental impacts of agricultural practices were studied on the basis of farmers’ experiences over the past decade in the study sites in Khon Kaen. Through an interview survey of 91 farmers, farmers’ behaviour in applying synthetic chemical materials and farming practices were examined.

• The economic benefits of growing biofuel

feedstocks are examined through the profitability of crop production, farm income, and production efficiency of agricultural raw materials and land uses.

• IV. Socio‐Economic Sustainability Assessment

Average annual income per household reported by the province in 2012 was 5,178 US

Note: ***Denotes significance at 1% level ** Denotes significance at 5% level * Denotes significance at 10% level

Regression coefficient t value Constant 2.367 *** 5.864 Area (ha) 0.907 *** 16.629 Cost of fertilizers and pest control 0.146 ** 2.169 Sugarcane buds (US) 0.235 *** 4.078 R square 0.869 F value 170.226 Durbin‐watson value 2.421 N 81

Conclusions:

• The study shows that increasing biofuel crop demand reduced the land available for

rice and other field crop cultivation in the study sites over the last decade. The expansion of the growing area of sugarcane, cassava, eucalyptus,

and para rubber has been especially significant.

• The study analysed the amount of carbon stocks stored by the major biofuel crops in the study sites. The total carbon stock of

sugarcane was found to be the highest.

• In terms of GHG emissions during cultivation, harvesting, transportation of raw materials to mill, and biofuel processing and transportation,

biofuel processing was found to be the largest source for ethanol production using cassava, and the conversion of rice land to sugarcane was the largest source for ethanol production from molasses.

• This study showed that production of biofuels in Thailand can produce net GHG

emissions reductions, and so can be considered as part of an offsetting strategy. Of the biofuel processes studied, it appears that mitigation potential is highest for ethanol produced from molasses, followed by

ethanol from cassava.

• Most of the surveyed farmers participate in farmer organizations, which provide production inputs and credit for

their farm activities.

• Economic analysis of biofuel crop farming revealed that the average cost of sugarcane farming was higher than

cassava and eucalyptus because of increased use of chemical inputs for improvement in yield and production efficiency. As a result of the chemical inputs, sugarcane cultivation has the highest negative impacts on the environment.

Recommendations:

The following recommendations are based on these results:

• Biofuel crop cultivation is contributing to rural livelihoods and to meeting Thailand’s energy needs; however, the Thai Government should encourage

agricultural zoning to avoid deforestation and ensure that its policy on biofuels does not undermine its food security;

• To increase the mitigation potential of biofuel production, ethanol processing plants should

substitute imported coal used in their operations with energy generated from biomass and/or biogas;

• The Thai Government should provide capacity to Thai farmers to use improved agricultural practices that increase yields,

reduce reliance on chemicals, and make use of cane trash and by‐ products.

Thank you very much for your attention