Woody biomass from apple orchards in South Tyrol

Woody biomass from apple orchards in South Tyrol:
quantification, quality assessment and
environmental sustainability
Martina Boschiero, Stefan Zerbe
Faculty of Science and Technology
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
Sustainable use of biomass in South Tyrol: from production to technology
Project financed by the Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano
Bolzano, 11.11.2014
Sustainable use of biomass in South Tyrol:
from production to technology
Workpackages:
i) quantification and characterization of available local agricultural woody
biomasses and assessment of the environmental impacts derived from
their utilization
(Prof. Stefan Zerbe, Martina Boschiero)
ii) detailed analysis (quantification, ecological and socio-economical aspects)
of the riparian woody biomass available for bioenergy production
(Prof. Francesco Comiti, Dr. Daniela Campana)
iii) study of the biomass energy conversion processes
(Prof. Marco Baratieri, Dario Prando)
Outline
 Introduction: why apple woody residues (AWRs)?
 Quantification and harvesting trial
 Chemical characterization and comparison with other
biomass
 General conclusions
 Environmental sustainability assessment
 General conclusions
Why apple orchards woody residues (AWRs)?
In the Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano, the wood from local forest
and industry sector plays a key role as biofuels, especially for thermal energy.
Share of thermal energy production
in South Tyrol
fuelwood
23.7%
solar heating
2.1%
biogas
0.4%
non-renewable
energy
73.7%
geothermal
heating
0.1%
(from: Reichhalter et al., 2010)
(from: CORINE land-cover,
Autonomous Province of Bolzano )
However it does not fully satisfy the provincial biofuel demand.
There is the need to increase the biomass share and promote local biomass
use.
Alternative biomasses
Why AWRs?
A common suggestion is to use existing biomass resources, such as
residues from agricultural and forest industries, from animal husbandry
and from urban wastes, instead of cultivating dedicated energy crops.
(Rosillo-Calle et al. 2008; Cowie et al., 2009; Schubert et al., 2010)
Cultivated surface: 24,000 ha
76% apple orchards
apple orchards
Photo: Google maps
Quantification: materials and methods
Pruning residues weighing
(winter 2012-2013)
Whole plant weighing
(November 2013)
• 4 varieties (Gala, Golden D., Red D.,
Braueburn)
• 3 locations (Laimburg, Lasa, Sluderno)
• 2 class age (<10, >10)
• 24 orchards investigated
• 96 plots harvested
• Gala, Golden D., Braueburn → 20
years old
• Red D. → 10 years old
• Trunks, brunches, rootstocks
• 40 trees
Kelderer M. and Casera C.
Photos: Boschiero M.
Quantification: results
Dry biomass of apple pruning residues
1.03 tdw/ha
Dry biomass of cut trees
Cultivar
b
a
a
a
BR
GA
GD
RD
Average
tdw/ha
Cultivar
Average
(tdw/ha)
Braeburn
Gala
1.69
0.79
Golden D.
1.20
Red D.
0.69
Different letters means that the data are significantly different
(according to Pairwise Wilcoxon test, p<0,01)
BR
GA
GD
RD
Average
tdw/ha
Weigh (kgdw/tree)
trunk
brunches
4.77±0.21
1.67±0.07
3.80±0.09
1.95±0.04
6.48±0.13
2.58±0.04
1.26±0.04
0.87±0.02
14.28
6.20
Weigh (kgdw/tree)
rootstock
roots
1.67±0.06
0.83±0.04
2.73±0.06
1.65±0.06
3.62±0.11
2.08±0.11
1.52±0.06
0.85±0.05
8.35
4.74
Harvesting trial: materials and methods, results
Nati C., Picchi G. and Mastrolonardo G.
Kelderer M. and Casera C.
20 ha have been harvested
-traditional shredder
Diesel consumption:
6.64±0.3 l/ha
-comminuter coupled with a dump bin
(Cippattila, DaRos green)
Diesel consumption
chipping and harvesting: 9.6±0.5 l/ha
forwarding: 3.06±0.3 l/ha
Harvest losses quantified
from 33% to 49%
Harvested material: 0.86±0.1 t/ha
Photos: Boschiero M.
Quantification and harvesting trial: results
Per hectar
Provincial
productivity
Prunings
tdw/ha
1.03
tdw/yr
10,401
Trunks
24.13
18,050
Rootstocks
4.87
-
total
30.03
28,450
AWRs
(from: Gallo et al. 2008)
Potential productivity: 37,310ty-1
18,700ha cultivated
10% not reachable by mechanization
40% losses during prunings harvesting
748 ha renewed
Chemical characterization and energy characterization
Chemical and energy analysis
 Energy biomass characteristics
Moisture: CEN/TS 14774
Ash: UNI CEN/TS 14775-1:2005
HHV and LHV: UNI EN 14918:2010
 Structural elements and macronutrients
N: DIN EN ISO 16634-1:2008
P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, S: EPA 3052 + EPA 6010C
 Heavy metals:
Mn, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb: EPA 3052 + EPA 6010C
Apple prunings
Apple trunks
Riparial wood
 Pesticides residues
Multimethod S19 – comprised in EN12393-1,-2 and -3
Forest wood
Energy characterization: results on chips energy characteristics
Ash content
Moinsture
60%
6
b
b
5
40%
30%
a
Ash (%dw)
moisture (%w.b.)
50%
a
20%
ab
4
Class B1-B2
3
2
10%
ab
a
1
0%
0
FW
RW
A-Logs
A-Prunings
FW
Heating values
a
20
b
ab
ab b
a
RW
A-Logs
A-Prunings
Different letters means that the data are significantly different
(Pairwise Wilcoxon test, p<0,05)
ab
ab
b
forest woodchips (FW)
15
riparian woodchips (RW)
10
apple trunks (A-Logs)
5
apple prunings (A-Prunings)
0
A1 class, Commercial specification
of the UNI EN 14961-4:2011
HHVdry (MJ/kgdw) LHVdry (MJ/kgdw)
LHVar (MJ/kgwb)
Chemical characterization: results on chips heavy metal
Nitrogen content
b
1,2
1
ab
B classes, Commercial specification of
the UNI EN 14961-4:2011
ab
N (%dw)
0,8
0,6
a
0,4
0,2
0
FW
RW
A-Logs
A-Prunings
Sulphur content
0,1
Chlorine content <0.02 %dw
for all the woodchips
S (%dw)
0,08
b
0,06
ab
ab
RW
A-Logs
0,04
0,02
a
0
FW
Different letters means that the data are significantly different
(Pairwise Wilcoxon test, p<0,05)
A-Prunings
Chemical characterization: results on chips heavy metal
12
b
10
ab
6
4
2
Different letters means that the data are significantly differen
(Pairwise Wilcoxon test, p<0,05)
ab
a
0
Cu
Cr
Pb
Ni
0,4
b
0,35
0,3
forest woodchips
riparian woodchips
apple trunks
apple prunings
Commercial specification of the
UNI EN 14961-4:2011
mgKg-1dw
mgKg-1dw
8
0,25
ab
0,2
0,15
a
ab
a
ab
0,1
ab
0,05
b
0
As
Cd
Hg
Chemical characterization: results on pesticides residues
Pesticides on pruning residues
• 43 pesticides investigated (Multimethod S19 – comprised in EN123931,-2 and -3)
• 12 samples analyzed
• 75% of the samples resulted contaminated
Compound
Boscalid
Clorpirfiros-etile
Iprodione
Penconazolo
Pyraclostrobin
Pyriproxyfen
Spirodiclofen
Tetraconazolo
n° of samples
2
3
5
1
6
2
1
1
Legal limit* Average value Max value
(mg/kgfw)
2
0.022
0.022
0.5
0.017
0.018
5
0.118
0.208
0.2
0.010
0.010
0.3
0.048
0.087
0.2
0.011
0.014
0.1
0.018
0.018
0.02
0.010
0.010
* For fresh fruit consumption, EU regulation CE149/2008
General conclusions
 Apple woody resides represents an important source of biomass
in the Province (about 30,000tdw per year)
 All the woodchips assessed respect the limits of the commercial
specification UNI EN 14961-4:2011, excepting:
- apple pruning residues: higher ash content, higher N and Cu
level
- apple trunks and riparian woodchips: higher ash content
 The chemical and energetic characterization of the apple
woodchips showed similarities with woodchips from forest and
riparian areas.
Statistical differences have been found only comparing pruning
residues and forest (Picea abies) woodchips.
Environmenatl sustainability assessment: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
LCA is a method to analyse the environmental impacts of a
system/product/service considering its whole life cycle
(from the cradle to the grave)
LCA is a useful tool to evaluate environmental burdens associated
with biofuels production, by identifying materials and energy used
as well as wastes and emissions released to the environment
(Cherubini et al., 2009)
LCA case study: goal and scope definition
Goal:
• assess the environmental performance of energy production in a
gasification CHP plant, using wood from apple orchards(AWRs) as
feedstock, cultivated in South Tyrol
• compare this hypothetical bioenergy chain with the customary
situation (pruning residues left on the field, apple tress burned in
house-stoves, electricity from the grid, etc...) at provincial level
 LCA performed according to the
ISO standards 14040:2006
 Software SimaPro7.3 developed
by PRé Consultants
(PRé Consultants bv, Amersfoort,
The Netherlands)
Photo: Elisabetta Tomé
LCA case study: systems description
Bioenergy system
System boundary
Additional fertilizers
Inputs
Pruning
residues
Harvesting
& chipping
Transport
Removed
plants
Rootstocks
Drying
gasificationCHP
Sawing &
chipping
Electricity
(26 GWhely-1)
Heat
(41 GWhthy-1)
Ashes disposal
(sanitary landfill)
Sanitary landfill
Outputs
Reference systems
Inputs
System boundary
Pruning
residues
Removed
plants
Comminution
Cutting
as logs
Transport
Ashes disposal
(sanitary landfill)
House stove
Heat
(63.9%)
Heat from natural gas burning
Heat
(36.1%)
Electricity from Italian grid-mix
Electricity
(100%)
Outputs
LCA: results
10^6
kgCO2eq
AWRs_CHP
10^4
10^4 kgPM10e 10^6
q
kgSO2eq
kgoileq
AWRs_CHP
10^3
kgPeq
AWRs_CHP
- 81%
3.63
AWRs cust. manag.
19.9
Ref
0.83
- 87%
Electricity mix/IT
Ref
6.67
1.54
AWRs_CHP
- 75%
Electricity Hydro
Ref
6.26
AWRs_CHP
Heat, natural gas
- 36%
5.30
8.35
Ref
0.99
CTs house stoves
- 73%
3.72
10^4
kg1,4DBeq
AWRs_CHP
10^4
kg1,4DBeq
Ref
AWRs_CHP
10^7
kg1,4DBeq
HTP
FWE
TE
FWEu
TA
PMF
FDep
GWP
Comparison between the bioenergy system and the reference one
AWRs_CHP
1.23
Rootstocks landfill
- 15%
1.45
Ref
AWRs alt. manag.
12.78
+ 67%
7.46
Ref
1.79
0.63
Ref
0%
20%
40%
+ 187%
60%
80%
Additional
fertilization
CHP
100%
General conclusions
 AWRs are a suitable source of biomass for energy production,
guaranteeing a considerable reduction of GHG emissions (19.9kt
CO2eq per year in the whole province) and non-renewable energy
consumption (5.84kt oileq per year in the whole province).
 Moreover, gasifying AWRs in CHP plants instead of burning them
in low-efficient house-stoves, leads to a decrease in particulate
matter formation.
 However, some trade-offs exist: the hypothetical AWRs
bioenergy chain seems to cause higher impacts for toxicity
potentials than the reference system
General conclusions
 The current discussion about sustainability of bioenergy focuses
mainly on GHG accounting. However other impacts should be
considered too.
 It should be stressed that sustainability implies economic and social
issues, besides environmental aspects. Policymakers should not
ignore these aspects when sustainable criteria are proposed.
 The research should proceed in assessing these aspects too.
A special thanks to
Casera Claudio
Kelderer Markus
Cassar Anna
Matteazzi Aldo
Spitaler Arnold
Nati Carla
Picchi Gianni
Mastrolonardo Giovanni
(IVALSA-CNR)
(Laimburg Research Center)
Cherubini Francesco
Bertoni Paolo
(NTNU-Norwegian University of
Science and Technology)
(TIS Innovation Park)
Schmitt Armin O.
Prando Dario
Faculty of Science and Technology, FUB
Paolo Neri
(LCA-lab, spinoff UTVALAMBENEA)
Photo: Martina Boschiero
Thank you for your attention
Photo: Martina Boschiero
References
References
•
A. Cowie, N. Bird and S. Woess-Gallasch, “Sustainability of bioenergy. A statement resulting from a joint IEA
bioenergy meeting” (2009).
•
F. Cherubini, N.D. Bird, A. Cowie, G. Jungmeier, B. Schlamadinger & S. Woess-Gallasch, “Energy- and greenhouse gasbases LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations”, Resour. Conserv. Recy., 53
(2009) 434-447.
•
F. Rosillo-Calle, P. de Goort, S.L. Hemstock & J. Woods, The biomass assessment handbook. Bioenergy for a
sustainable environment, (Earthscan, London, 2008).
•
GBEP (Global Bioenergy Partnership). The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy.
(2011). First ed., FAO/GBEP.
•
H. Reichhalter, A. Bozzo, S. Dal Savio, S. Waldar, and M. Sparer, “Energie rinnovabili in Alto Adige”, TIS innovation park
– Area Energia & Ambiente e Eurac Research – Istituto per le Energie Rinnovabili (2010).
•
L. Milá i Canals, G.M. Burnip & S.J. Cowell, “Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple cultivation using Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA): case study in New Zeland”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 114 (2006) 226-238.
•
M. Boschiero, R. Gallo, P. Neri, M. Kelderer, S. Zerbe. “Apple woody residues in the autonomous province of Bolzano:
a sustainable alternative bioenergy source?”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Exergy, Life Cycle Assessment and
Sustainability workshop and Symposium, 7-9 July 2013, Nysiros, Greece.
•
N. Bird, A. Cowie, F. Cherubini & G. Jungmeier, “Using a Life Cycle Assessment approach to estimate the net
greenhouse gas emissions of bioenergy”, IEA Bioenergy (2011).
•
N. Magagnotti, L. Pari, G. Picchi & R. Spinelli, “Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource”,
Bioresources Technol., 128 (2013) 697-702.
•
R. Schubert, H.J. Schellnhuber, N. Buchmann, A. Epiney, R. Grießhammer, M. Kulessa, D. Messner, S. Rahmstorf & J.
Schmid, Future bioenergy and sustainable land use, (German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Earthscan,
London, 2010).
•
T. Buchholz, V.A. Luzadis and T.A. Volk, “Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey”.
Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009): 86-98.
Further research is needed to:
- analyze in details the emissions during the combustion
(pesticides, PAH, dioxines, heavy metals, etc.)
- assess the influence of harvesting pruning residues on soil
organic matter and on pests attacks
LCA: methodology
Key steps
1. goal and scope definition
2. life cycle inventory (LCI)
3. life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA)
4. interpretation of results
purpose, functional unit and system
boundary are defined
data collection phase:
energy, raw material inputs and
environmental releases are assessed
and quantified
the environmental impacts of the
systems are quantified and
categorized in different impact categories
(different methods could be adopted, i.e:
IMPACT2002+, CML, ReCiPe, etc.)
results are analysed, sensitivity analyses are
carried out and the conclusion are drawn
(Bird et al., 2009)
LCA: results
Impacts of the production of 1 MJ of useful energy (electricity+heat)
GWP (gCO2eq)
15.2
FDep (goileq)
3.47
PMF (mgPM10eq)
64
TA (gSO2eq)
0.22
FWEu (mgPeq)
4.17
PRs harvesting and
chipping
CTs sawing and chipping
Biomass transportation
CHP operation
5.12
TE (mg1,4-DBeq)
CHP capital
Ash wood disposal
FWE (g1,4-DBeq)
0.53
HTP (g1,4-DBeq)
75.0
Rootstocks disposal
Additional fertilization
GWP bio
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%