Camelina-Derived Jet Fuel and Diesel: Sustainable Advanced Biofuels

David R. Shonnard,a Larry Williams,b and Tom N. Kalnesc a Department of Chemical Engineering and Sustainable Futures Institute, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI; drshonna@mtu.edu (for correspondence) b Targeted Growth, Inc., 2815 Eastlake Ave E # 300, Seattle, WA c UOP LLC, a Honeywell Company, 25 E. Algonquin Rd, Des Plaines, IL 60017-5017
Published online 10 June 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.10461

Recently, an isoparafn-rich jet fuel derived from camelina, a low-input nonfood oilseed crop, was ight-tested by a commercial airline. To date, all test results indicate that this hydrotreated renewable jet fuel (HRJ) not only meets stringent engine fuel and performance specications but also reduces environmental emissions. Several scenarios are now being considered for camelina as a sustainable feedstock for advanced biofuel production. For example, growth of camelina in the Northern Plains of the United States on either marginal lands or as a rotation crop during fallow periods on existing lands already in food crop production can avoid the conict with food cultivation and concerns with indirect land use change impacts. Updated estimates of camelina cultivation requirements and commercial scale oil recovery and rening were used to calculate life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy demand for both HRJ and renewable diesel (green diesel, GD). GHG life cycle emissions for GD and HRJ are 18.0 and 22.4 g CO2 equiv/MJ fuel, which represent savings relative to petroleum counterparts of 80% and 75%, respectively. Scenario analyses were conducted to determine response to model assumptions and data uncertainty, including allocation methodology, N fertilizer application rate, N2O emission factor, source of H2, and farm diesel consumption. 2010
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 29: 382392, 2010

INTRODUCTION

Keywords: life cycle renewable jet fuel

assessment,

hydrotreated

2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

The commercial airline industry has started evaluating the use of biofuels as a means of reducing the carbon footprint of air travel. In 2009, both Japan Airlines (JAL) and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines successfully ight-tested a 50% blend of hydrotreated renewable jet fuel (HRJ) derived from the cultivation of camelina (http://uop.com/pr/8050.html). Prior to commercial implementation, the production of new biofuels such as camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel must be evaluated from both a technical and a sustainability perspective. Biomass-derived substitutes for transportation fuel that primarily comprise isoparafns have material and chemical advantages compared to oxygenated biofuels. Material compatibility issues, engine design, fuel economy, and fuel quality requirements strongly favor alternative bio-based fuels that more closely mimic current ultra low sulfur hydrocarbon fuels [1]. The process for converting fats and oils into high-quality transportation hydrocarbon fuel has been demonstrated to be technically feasible [2]. Furthermore, isoparafn rich fuels have been shown to reduce exhaust emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides [3]. Additional details of the renewable oils rening process, rened oil product qualities, production costs, and life cycle assessment results can be found in another publication [4]. Several scenarios are now being considered for camelina as an energy crop for advanced biofuel production. For example, growth of camelina in the Northern Plains of the United States on either marginal lands or as a rotation crop on fallow land can avoid the conict with food cultivation and concerns

382 October 2010

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

with indirect land use change (LUC) impacts. The goal of this article is to introduce camelina as a sustainable energy crop and to summarize the estimated life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for HRJ and green diesel (GD) produced by the UOP process when using camelina oil as feedstock. These results will be compared to conventional petroleum-derived jet fuel and diesel. Introduction to Sustainable Camelina Cultivation Camelina has been cultivated in Europe since the Bronze Age [5]. For the past 60 yrs, camelina has not been important commercially as Europe and the United States provided subsidies for higher yielding major commodity grains and oilseed crops. It is still a relatively common weed in much of Europe and in dryland regions of North America with more than 120 different varieties found in Montana alone. Camelina, also known as false ax, is a member of the Brassicas family. Recent interest in camelina arises mainly from the need for low-input oilseed crops with the potential for nonfood use within a sustainable agricultural system [6]. Camelina is a short-season crop (85100 days) well adapted to cultivation in the temperate climate zone. It germinates at low temperatures and is very frost tolerant. Camelina is relatively easy to grow, needing fewer inputs than most other crops. It grows on marginal land and responds well under drought stress conditions. Thus, it is better suited to low rainfall regions on marginal agricultural land than other oilseed crops [7]. Agronomic and crop production improvements are just beginning to be applied to camelina cultivation. Important yield improvements have already been realized from modern plant breeding and agricultural techniques. Field tests beginning in 2006, at over 85 locations in the United States and Canada have resulted in yield improvements of approximately 33%. In addition, the application of yield improving genes (via mutation breeding, a recent non-GMO innovation) is expected to improve yields more rapidly than those produced by traditional plant-breeding approaches. For sustainable camelina cultivation, it is important to understand that these yield improvements are being developed in the context of dryland farming techniques using low applications of fertilizer and other inputs. The fallow-cropping system and the use of marginal agricultural lands for camelina cultivation contribute to a decreased concern about the food versus fuel issue. The choice of fallow-cropping versus continuous cropping of wheat is determined by the economic returns to the farmer. The fallow-cropping approach is currently favored by dry-land farmers because the extra soil moisture and nutrients provide a signicant boost to wheat yields (and farmer revenue) following a fallow year. Camelina ts into the fallow-cropping approach because of its low moisture and nutrient requirements. Thus, current agricultural practice favors the growing of camelina as a rotation crop with wheat during fallow periods because it maximizes farmer revenue. Most of near term markets

for growing camelina are in Montana. Therefore, we will focus on the specics of how this practice in Montana would result in the production of large amounts of camelina with no reduction in the amount of land devoted to food production. The same basic logic would apply as camelina cultivation spreads to other states. According to a recent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) census [8], there are approximately 2600 farm owners in Montana who classify themselves as wheat producers. These farmers report that the average size of their operation is 2540 acres (72% of the farms acreage) is planted to wheat annually. The other 28% of their land is fallowed or rotated to other crops. Allowing the ground to be rotated to camelina during a fallow year provides several key benets for the subsequent wheat crop, as shown in Figure 1. First, soil moisture increases providing a signicant boost to crop yields the following year. Second, breaking a crop cycle and not growing the same crop every year reduces pest problems and disease potential. Third, the nutrient prole changes positively through complex soil biochemical mechanisms not fully understood. The soil moisture factor is very important to Montana farmers (and dryland farmers in other areas) because the 1015 inches of annual rainfall is not sufcient for maximum crop yields. Thus, a fallow-cropping system increases farmer revenue over a continuous cropping approach. Growing camelina during the fallow year provides the same yield improvements to subsequent wheat crops and provides additional revenue that year as well. There are approximately 1,800,000 acres in the operations of these Montana farmers that need to be fallow or rotate annually. Plant breeders from Targeted Growth Inc. using modern agronomic techniques have selected and bred camelina to allow farmers an opportunity to grow a rotation crop on this fallow land. Because camelina has shallow roots with drought resistant characteristics, the land can be returned to wheat cultivation the following year with moisture and soil nutrients intact quantitatively similar to a fallow year. Because the economics of camelina cultivation favors this dryland crop rotation practice, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no food producing land lost as a result of cultivating camelina. Beyond the wheat farmers of Montana and other states, there is additional camelina acreage potential in other states and beyond those farmers who identify themselves primarily as wheat farmers. Some farms have a primary focus on other cash sources such as livestock, and engage in dryland cereals cultivation (wheat, oats, and barley) to diversify their farms and to produce feed. Other farms may be growing peas, lentils, alfalfa, or several other crops and would nd benets in rotation to camelina to restore soil characteristics. Altogether more than 5 million U.S. acres have the potential to grow camelina in a sustainable manner with no impact on food supply. Thus, with expected future gains in yields/ acre, camelina could be providing 800 million gallons
October 2010 383

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 1. Benets of camelina as a rotation energy crop with wheat or other dryland crops.

of oil per year for use as a secure and climate friendly biofuel feedstock. With 20 million acres of dry-land cereals (wheat, oats, and barley) and fallowing every 3 or 4 yrs there would be 57 million acres available for camelina cultivation annually as a rotation crop. Planned yield improvements are expected to produce 3000 lbs of seed per acre by 2016. The seeds are 36% oil with the remainder meal. Thus, the oil potential is between 750 and 1000 million gallons/year. Discussion of Land Use Change Impacts Direct LUC (e.g. conversion of forest into agricultural land) is a large source of GHGs and thus contributes to climate change. Indirect land use change (iLUC) is an implied change, outside the production boundary of a feedstock, due to economic market forces initiated by energy crop production on existing agricultural lands. Displaced demand for food is likely to produce LUC in places not directly associated with biofuel production. In early 2008, two studies appeared in Science [9, 10] indicating that biofuel production may emit more GHGs than the fossilbased fuels displaced as a result of direct LUC and iLUC. In the Fargione paper, GHG release from LUC was termed a carbon debt and was identied as a potentially signicant contributor to the life cycle analyses of biofuels. The time required to overcome the carbon debt was termed the payback period. The original paper estimated payback periods in the range of 1001000 yrs. A more recent paper arrived at payback periods between 3 and 14 yrs, a difference of several orders of magnitude [11] and an
384 October 2010

indication that this topic is still an active area of research. Regulators in Europe and California have reacted to the LUC and iLUC research differently. In December 2008, the European Parliament declared that the iLUC of a biofuel is not currently expressed in a form that is immediately usable by economic operators. On April 23, 2009, the California Air Resources Board passed the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). The LCFS requires the states transportation system to reach 90% of present carbon intensity by 2020. The LCSF encompasses multiple actions. The one affecting biofuels will be the requirement on its producers to use a Life Cycle Analysis that includes iLUC to certify their reductions. The California regulatory action on biofuels has impacted federal action. The U.S. EPA followed the California lead on iLUC while developing the second version of the federal Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2) mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA issued the nal rule implementing RFS2 on February 3, 2010. RFS2 assigns various combinations of feedstock, fuel type, and production process to one of four categories of fuels eligible for compliance. For the purposes of GHG LCAs camelina, HRJ and GD would be considered the same as soybeanbased biodiesel. According to lifecycle analysis carried out by the EPA biodiesel produced from domestic soybean oil reduces GHG emissions by 57% compared to petroleum diesel fuel and thus qualies for the biomass-based diesel program. Accordingly, camelina HRJ and GD also qualify for the program. The EPA uncertainty analysis indicates that GHG reductions could be as high as 85%. The EPA lifecycle cal-

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 2. Life cycle product diagrams for petroleum diesel and jet, GD, and HRJ. [Color gure can be viewed in

the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

culations implemented in the nal rule include iLUC but differ considerably from calculations published with the draft RFS2 regulations issued in May 2009. The EPA indicated that signicant new scientic data was available to the agency. This is another indication that biofuel lifecycle analysis remains an active research area.
METHODOLOGY OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR CAMELINA-DERIVED JET AND DIESEL

Fuel Pathways The life cycle diagrams for petroleum diesel, petroleum jet, GD, and HRJ are shown in Figure 2 with important inputs and co-product outputs indicated. HRJ and GD life cycles originate with the growing

and harvesting of the camelina crop. Inputs of seed, fuel, fertilizer, and chemical pesticides are all used for cultivation of the camelina plant for oil production. After harvesting, the camelina seeds are transported to a processing facility, where the oils can be extracted. A crusher and solvent-based process extracts the oil and recovers the co-product seed meal. The oil is processed to remove oil impurities, and then transported by rail (from Culberston, Montana to Seattle, WA) to a site for GD or HRJ production. The UOP conversion process requires hydrogen to produce HRJ and GD. This hydrogen can come from the steam reforming of natural gas or from a naphtha-to-gasoline reformer in an existing renery, or a combination of these inputs. In this study, it is assumed that hydrogen is obtained 60% from a gasoOctober 2010 385

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 1. Cultivation inputs for camelina seed harvested (per kg seed).

Camelina seed yield (kg/ha) Resources Energy content of seed (MJ) Potassium chloride, as K2O (kg) Thomas meal, as P2O5 (kg) Urea, as N (kg) Diesel, low-sulfur (kg) Emissions to air Methane (g) Dinitrogen monoxide (g) Carbon dioxide (diesel) (kg) Carbon dioxide (urea) (kg)

Farmer 2007 (664) 30.4 0.0169 0.0253 0.0169 0.0402 0.0024 0.352 0.125 0.0265

Farmer 2008 (1123) 30.4 0.010 0.015 0.0370 0.0238 0.0024 0.77 0.0738 0.0581

Forward 3000 (3368) 30.4 0.0033 0.0050 0.0249 0.0079 0.0024 0.518 .0245 .0391

line reformer and 40% from steam reforming of methane. Renewable fuel co-products such as naphtha, fuel gas and propane/butane (renewable LPG) are also produced from camelina oil as shown in Figure 2. A portion of the environmental burdens of the fuel production processes are allocated to these co-products, and a similar allocation occurs at the stage of camelina oil extraction. Petroleum-based jet fuel and diesel were the reference fuels for comparison. The GHG prole for petroleum fuel is derived from a composite mix of U.S. production, which is likewise dependent on feedstocks from different regions of the world. This composite mix includes both domestic and foreign production of crude oil and tar sands oil. Transportation of crude oil to domestic reners includes transoceanic tanker and pipeline modes and from reneries jet fuel or diesel is transported by barge, pipeline, rail, and semi truck. Impacts of rening are also derived from a mix of domestic and foreign facilities. GHG emissions/MJ jet fuel and diesel were obtained from a recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study [12]. Goal and Scope The goal of this LCA is to determine the GHG emissions, cumulative energy demand, and fossil energy demand of camelina-derived HRJ and GD over the entire life cycle and compute the GHG savings per MJ of fuel compared to petroleum-based diesel and jet fuel. A second goal is to evaluate impacts of fertilizer application rates and fossil fuel use in farm equipment employing data provided by Montana farmers and predict impacts of crop yield improvements expected in the future. A nal goal is to explore the impacts of model parameter uncertainty in the calculation of GHG emissions. The scope of this study encompasses the entire life cycle from acquisition of raw materials from the environment through the production and use of the fuels in vehicle and aircraft operations. Functional Unit and Energy Allocation The functional unit chosen in this analysis is 1 MJ of energy content in the fuel. This choice is appropri386 October 2010

ate because energy content is a fundamental characteristic for all transportation fuels. Inventory data for camelina cultivation, transportation, and oil extraction were provided by Targeted Growth, Inc. for all camelina cultivation inputs and oil extraction requirements. Data for conversion of oil feedstock to HRJ and GD were obtained from basic engineering design data, and was supplied by UOP. Energy allocation was applied to distribute GHG impacts among the various products and co-products along the fuels life cycle. Energy allocation was selected because a recent guidance report recommends this form of allocation for fuel products [13]. At the camelina oil extraction stage, inventory data from camelina cultivation up to and including oil extraction were allocated to camelina oil and co-product seed meal using an energy balance. Allocation to oil 5 (A 3 LHVA)/ (A 3 LHVA 1 B 3 LHVB), where A is the mass ow rate of output oil from the seed extraction step, B is mass ow rate of meal, LHV is lower heating value, and subscripts A and B are camelina oil and seed, respectively. A similar calculation was performed at the GD and HRJ production stages considering the co-products produced at that stage. Energy allocation factors are presented in the next section. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis This section covers the input data and assumptions used for procuring the camelina seed, extraction of crude camelina oil, and production of degummed (rened) camelina oil. Tables 13 show key inputs to the camelina biofuel life cycle for these stages and for feedstock transportation. Cultivation inputs were based on actual eld application rates as in the Farmer 2007 and 2008 data, where increased N fertilizer application rates for 2008 were designed to boost camelina yields. The values reported as Forward 3000 represent projected gains from crop improvement research. These gains increased per acre seed productivity (3000 lb/ac; 3360 kg/ha) and decreased per acre N application rates (75 lb N in fertilizer/ac; 84 kg/ha; rate is equivalent to 55% of N content in seed, which is 0.045 kg N/kg seed) and diesel consumption (33.3 L/ha) on the farm. Seed oil extraction inputs were also

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 2. Processing inputs for camelina seed

Table 3. Processing Inputs for of camelina rened oil,

processed to degummed oil (per kg seed). Resources Camelina seed input per kg oil output Electricity, medium voltage, average U.S. mix Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100 kWh Diesel, low-sulfur, at regional storage (seed transport) Hexane (oil extraction solvent) Rail transport of crude camelina oil 84.5 MJ 0.0083 kWh 0.421 MJ 0.0064 L 0.00125 L 2 tkm

per MJ. Resources Camelina crude oil per MJ rened oil Steam Electricity, medium voltage, average U.S. mix 1.0417 MJ 0.00282 kg 0.0006 MJ

elina. GHG results for petroleum kerosene-based jet fuel was obtained from a recent DOE study [12]. Impact Assessment and Comprehensive Assumptions The software used for this LCA was SimaPro 7.1 [16], which contains a large database of inventory data for material, chemical, and energy inputs. Inventory data is from the Ecoinvent database, which is comprised of mostly European data that has close technology relevance to U.S. production, but whenever possible, these ecoproles were adjusted for U.S. conditions; for example for electricity generation was modeled as an average U.S. mix. The GHG impact assessment method used in SimaPro was IPCC 2007 GWP 100a V1.01 method whose output is in CO2 equivalents for all of the GHG emissions. The three primary gases that make up the CO2 equivalence are CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), but the minor contributions from solvents and refrigerants were also included. In the IPCC 2007 GWP 100a V1.01 method, each of these gases has different GHG potentials; for example, N2O has the GHG potential of 298 compared to CO2, and methane has a GHG potential of 25. For the end use of the fuels, notably combustion in a vehicle, it was assumed that the fuels would completely combust, forming maximum yields of water and CO2. This assumption is very close to reality in terms of the carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore stoichiometric emission factors were utilized based on the carbon content of each fuel (e.g. 3.17 kg CO2/kg petroleum diesel and jet). Emission of CO2 from combustion of biofuels does not count toward the GHG calculation because biogenic carbon is sequestered during camelina growth, and combustion simply returns this carbon to the atmosphere in a closed cycle. Not included within the scope of this study are the construction impacts of farming equipment and processing facilities, which are typically neglected in LCA studies of biofuels, as they constitute a relatively small fraction of life cycle impacts. It is important to note here that no wastewater treatment or solid waste disposal was factored into the study, which typically constitute less than 1% to the total. Biomass feedstock transportation was included in this study for a camelina seed to oil processing facility based in Montana. In all cases, transport of the nal fuel product to market was included over a distance of 150 km. This is a reasonable and representative value for a U.S. facility serving a local market.
October 2010 387

provided by TGI. Emission of CO2 from atmospheric oxidation of emitted oil extraction solvent hexane was also included. Crude camelina oil rening inputs were obtained from a recent study [14]. Energy allocation factors for assigning impacts to the product crude camelina oil extraction were calculated using energy balances around the process, as described above. Energy allocation factor for the crude camelina oil extraction processes as listed in Table 2 is 0.445, and for rened camelina oil conversion to biofuel, energy allocation were calculated from data provided by UOP LLC. While included in the LCA modeling, the UOP data describing the detailed hydroprocessing inputs are not included in these inventory tables. However, key inputs to the GD and HRJ conversion process include not only hydrogen, as shown in Figure 2, but also electricity, steam, and water for boiler feed and process cooling as well as input rates of hydrogen compared to camelina oil and renewable co-product production rates (CO2, H2O, fuel gas, LPG, and naphtha) are similar to those listed in a recent publication [4]. Steam is also generated as a result of biofuel production through hydroprocessing, and steam was generated in sufcient amount to credit 4.2 g CO2 equiv/ MJ GD and 2.3 g CO2 equiv/MJ HRJ. Emissions of N2O from nitrogen fertilizers applied to soils during plant cultivation was estimated using both direct and indirect emission factors from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [15] in which 1.325% of applied N in fertilizer is emitted as N2O nitrogen. No accounting for N in camelina residue left on farm is included in this N2O emission analysis due to lack of data on residues. CO2 emission from urea mineralization in the soil was estimated to be 1.57 kg CO2/kg N fertilizer based on the fraction of carbon and nitrogen in urea. No effects of LUC on possible GHG emissions were included in this analysis, although the anticipated cultivation as a rotation energy crop with wheat that displaces fallow weeds suggests negligible adverse direct and indirect LUC impacts, since no food production is displaced by camelina seed cultivation. The geographic context for the production of green jet is the U.S., with cultivation occurring in the U.S. Northern Plains for cam-

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 3. Cumulative energy demand by fuel type for each camelina biofuel product.

Figure 4. GHG emissions for all fuels in this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: GHG EMISSIONS FOR CAMELINA-DERIVED JET AND DIESEL

Energy consumption for each product over the life cycle is another important characteristic to judge the comparative advantages of camelina biofuels. Figure 3 shows the cumulative energy demand for each biofuel and cultivation method combination. Total energy consumption for each camelina biofuel product is comparable to petroleum fuels, but most energy is renewable biomass as opposed to non renewable fossil, and consumption of petroleum over the life cycle for each biofuel product is <0.15 MJ (data not shown in Figure 3). Except for the use of diesel on the farm and during transportation steps, petroleum resources are nearly absent from the camelina biofuel life cycles.
388 October 2010

The emission of GHG over the life cycle for each transportation fuel alternative is shown in Figure 4 for the three camelina cultivation scenarios. The largest contribution to HRJ and GD GHG emissions is, in roughly descending order: feedstock production > biofuel production > feedstock chemicals  feedstock transport. Emissions from fuel product transportation are negligible and combustion emissions of CO2 do not contribute to climate warming because biofuels such as HRJ and GD contain no fossil carbons, only carbon atoms sequestered from the atmosphere as CO2 during plant growth. Feedstock production involves all unit processes in camelina seed cultivation, including emissions of urea-related N2O and CO2 (high majority) as well as CO2 released from diesel use on the farm. Fuel production emissions are

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 5. Contributions of GHG gases to total emissions.

Table 4. Effect of change in nitrogen fertilization rate, IPCC N2O emission factor, hydrogen production

method, and farm diesel input rate. GD Base case Energy Energy Energy Energy allocation, allocation, allocation, allocation, 13 N fertilizer IPCC EF H2 40% SRM 13 farm diesel

(g CO2 eq./MJ) 18.04 Energy Energy Energy Energy

GD Scenarios allocation, allocation, allocation, allocation, 23 N fertilizer 23 IPCC EF H2 100% SRM 23 farm diesel

(g CO2 eq./MJ) 26.99 23.06 23.40 18.98

EF, emission factor for N2O released from soil; SRM, steam reforming of methane.

dominated by generation of hydrogen, the use of process heat and power, and solvent use for camelina oil extraction. Feedstock transportation is a notable contributor to GHG emissions, mostly from long distance rail transport of rened camelina oil from Montana to Washington state. Emissions of GHGs are largest for Farmer 08 cultivation because of the elevated N fertilizer application to boost yield. The GHG emissions for camelina GD and HRJ exhibit savings compared to petroleum diesel and jet of 80% and 75%, respectively, for the Forward 3000 case. GHG savings are always greater than 67% for the Farmer 2007 and 2008 cases for GD and HRJ. Figure 5 shows the contributions of each GHG to the total GHG prole for all fuel alternatives. In general, the highest contribution to total GHGs is from CO2, followed by N2O and the least is from CH4. The total contribution of refrigerants and solvents having global warming potentials were negligible and so are not shown in this gure. A portion of the GHG emissions from plant cultivation are from emission of N2O from soils as a result of application of nitrogen fertilizer. The importance of soil emissions of N2O on the GHG proles for both biofuels is evident from this gure.

Table 5. Effect of N fertilizer choice.

Fertilizer scenarios (GD) Energy allocation, 13 urea Energy allocation, 13 NH3 (liq) Energy allocation, 13 NH4NO3

(g CO2 eq./MJ) 18.04 16.17 21.02

The emission of N2O is subject to environmental conditions and farm practices, and is dependent on soil moisture, soil type, climatic conditions and cultivation method. As a result, there is signicant uncertainty as to the actual emission rate of N2O from cultivated lands. The application rate of N fertilizer and diesel use on farm for camelina cultivation and harvesting are also sources of uncertainty given that long-term eld trials are just underway. Other sources of uncertainty are the selection of N fertilizer (the choice has fertilizer production GHG implications) and the source of hydrogen used in the UOP process for production of GD and HRJ. All of these sources of uncertainty, as well as effects of allocation method, are explored in the next section (Tables 46).
October 2010 389

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 6. Effect of allocation method.

GHG emissions (g CO2 eq./MJ) Scenarios Energy allocation base case Mass allocation Displacement allocation GD 18.04 15.80 4.23 HRJ 22.36 20.18 217.03

Scenario Analyses: Inventory Uncertainty and Effect of Allocation Method (Table 4) Nitrogen fertilizer application rate and the emission of N2O from the farm soil are both critical factors in this biofuels GHG analysis. The application rate of N fertilizer was doubled from the value given in Table 1 for the Forward 3000 case to 150 lb/ac, a value slightly higher than the N requirement for camelina seeds, and the resulting GHG impacts increased from 18.0 to 27.0 g CO2 equiv/MJ GD. This increased value has a GHG savings compared to petroleum diesel of 70% compared to 80% for original case. When the emission factor for N2O release from farm soil is doubled from 1.325% of applied fertilizer N to 2.65% and using the same application rate as in Table 1 for the Forward 3000 case, the GHG emissions for GD are increased from 18.0 to 23.1 g CO2 equiv/MJ GD (GHG savings of 74% compared to 80% for original case). The effect of hydrogen source was tested by assuming that all hydrogen was generated from steam reforming of methane. The result of this sensitivity analysis increased GHG emissions from 18.0 to 23.4 g CO2 equiv/MJ GD (GHG savings of 74% compared to 80% for original case). Diesel fuel use on the farm for camelina seed cultivation and harvesting was doubled from the value in Table 1 (from 33.3 to 66.6 liters diesel/ha) and this change increased GHG emissions from 18.0 to 19.0 g CO2 equiv/MJ GD (GHG savings of 79% compared to 80% for original case). These uncertainty analyses conrm the importance of N fertilizer rate, N2O emissions from soil, source of fuel for H2 product, and farm diesel requirements; however, savings of GHG compared to petroleum diesel did not change very much. The most commonly applied N fertilizers in the United States are urea, ammonium nitrate, and ammonia [17]. The effect of choice of N fertilizer is shown in Table 5. Anhydrous ammonia exhibits the lowest GHG impacts, whereas ammonium nitrate causes the highest GHG emissions. The differences in GHG impacts shown in Table 5 are due to both the manufacturing of these fertilizers and their emissions of N2O and CO2 in the eld. Allocation method can have a signicant effect on results of life cycle assessments. The results presented previously were generated using energy allocation. When mass allocation is used, mass allocation factor for the stages of camelina seed oil extraction is 0.36 (versus 0.447 for energy allocation), and for biofuel production essentially the same as energy allocation. GHG emissions for GD and HRJ for mass allocation
390 October 2010

are shown in Table 6. These results are slightly lower than for the energy allocation case. A second allocation scenario was analyzed assuming that all environmental burdens of camelina biofuel production are allocated to the biofuel, and that co-products substitute for and avoid the production and use of products in the market. Camelina seed meal is assumed to substitute for soybean meal as an animal feed, whose GHG emissions were estimated to be 405 g CO2 equiv/kg soybean meal produced using inventory inputs from U.S. average cultivation of soybeans [18] and for soybean transportation and oil processing from a DOE study [19], and using mass allocation for the meal impacts. Ecoproles in SimaPro7.1 were utilized to convert inventory inputs into GHG impacts using the IPCC GWP 100a method. For renewable coproducts produced at the GD and HRJ production stage (fuel gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), and naphtha), GHG credits were estimated using ecoproles in SimaPro7.1 and avoided combustion emissions were estimated to be 3.0 kg CO2 equiv/kg fuel gas, 2.75 kg CO2 equiv /kg LPG, and 3.17 kg CO2 equiv/kg naphtha, assuming stoichiometric conversion of each fuel to CO2. GHG emissions for GD and HRJ for displacement allocation are 4.23 and 217.03 g CO2 equiv/MJ, respectively (Table 6). The reason for the relatively low and even negative GHG impact values for displacement allocation is that relatively GHG intensive fuels are replaced by fuels (GD, HRJ, and co-product fuels) that exhibit much low GHG impacts to produce and use. The HRJ impacts are negative for displacement allocation (meaning an improvement compared to production and use of fossil fuels) because of a larger fuel co-product production than for GD. Land Use Change Discussion How might camelina logically t into the LUC framework? Referring back to the earlier discussion in Section Discussion of Land Use Change Impacts about the actual cultivation practices under which camelina is grown today and will be grown in the future it seems logical that light footprint and rotation crop cultivation practices will result in negligible additional GHG emissions due to indirect and direct LUC.
CONCLUSIONS

Synthetic isoparafn-rich fuels produced by hydroprocessing camelina oil in the UOP conversion process show great promise as drop-in alternatives to petroleum jet and diesel fuel. Recent evaluations of HRJ fuel derived from camelina oil indicate the fuel performed just as well as petroleum based fuel but with lower exhaust and GHG emissions. Using updated estimates of camelina cultivation and commercial scale estimates of oil recovery and rening requirements a life cycle GHG savings of 75 and 80.0% was estimated for camelina-derived HRJ and GD relative to their petroleum counterparts for the future scenario, Forward 3000.Using data from recent eld trials (Farmer 2007 and 2008), GHG savings of >67% are achieved. Although the impacts of LUC

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

were not included in this analysis, the authors expect these impacts to be negligible for cultivation on marginal agricultural land and rotation with grain crops during fallow periods (where no food production is displaced by camelina seed cultivation). Several scenarios are now being considered for camelina as an energy crop for advanced biofuel production. For example, growth of camelina in the Northern Plains of the United States on either marginal lands or as a rotation crop on existing lands already in food crop production can avoid the conict with food crops and concerns with indirect LUC impacts. UOP is currently in the nal stages of designing the rening process that will enable the exible conversion of camelina oil to isoparafn-rich HRJ and GD. It is expected that HRJ will be certied for use by commercial jet engines and that commercial volumes will be available by 2012. With expected future gains in yields/acre, camelina oil production and hydroprocessing has the potential to provide the United States an estimated 800 million gallons per year of high quality, climate friendly renewable fuel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

We appreciate the contributions of Scott Johnson, Fernando Guillen-Portal, Lew Rubin, and Christine Shewmaker for their expertise and assistance in assembling the agricultural inputs for this paper. 8. Abbreviations
ACES DOE EF GD GHG GMO GWP HRJ iLUC IPCC LCA LCFS LHV LPG LUC RFS SRM USDA

American Clean Energy Security Act U.S. Department of Energy emission factor for N2O released from soil green diesel greenhouse gas genetically modied organism global warming potential hydrotreated renewable jet indirect land use change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change life cycle assessment low carbon fuel standard (California) lower heating value liquid petroleum gas land use change renewable fuel standard (United States) steam reforming of methane United States Department of Agriculture

9.

10. 11.

12.

LITERATURE CITED

13.

1. NSF. (2008). Breaking the chemical and engineering barriers to lignocellulosic biofuels: Next generation hydrocarbon bioreneries (180 p), Washington D.C.: University of Massachusetts Amherst, National Science Foundation, Chemical-Bioengineering-Environmental and Transport Systems Division. 2. Rahmes, T., Kinder, J.D., Henry, T.M., Crenfeldt, G., LeDuc, G.F., Zombanakis, G.P., Abe, Y., Lambert, D.M., Lewis, C., Juenger, J.A., Andac, M.G., Reilly, K.R., Holmgren, J.R., McCall, M.J., & Bozzano, A.G. (2009). Sustainable bio-derived synthetic parafnic kerosene (Bio-SPK) jet fuel ights and engine tests

14.

program results, In 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO) (p 19), Hilton Head, South Carolina: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Hileman, J., Wong, H.M., Donohoo, P., Stratton, R.W., Weiss, M., & Waitz, I. (2009). Environmental feasibility of alternative jet fuels, In UC Davis Symposium on Aviation Noise & Air Quality, Palm springs, CA. Koers, K.P., Kalnes, T.N., Marker, T., & Shonnard, D.R. (2009). Green diesel: A technoeconomic and environmental life cycle comparison to biodiesel and syndiesel, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28, 11120. Schultze-Motel, J. (1979). Die anbaugeschichte des leindotters, Camelina sativa (L.), Crantz Archaeo-Physika, 8, 267281. Putnam, D.H., Budin, J.T., Field, L.A., & Breene, W.M. (1993). Camelina: A promising low-input oilseed. In J. Janick & J.E. Simon (Eds.), New Crops: Exploration, Research, Commercialization. Proc. New Crops, Oct. 69, 1991, Indianapolis, IN (pp. 314322), New York, USA: Wiley. Vollmann, J., Damboeck, A., Eckl, A., Schrems, H., & Ruckenbauer, P. (1996). Improvement of Camelina sativa, an underexploited oilseed. In J. Janick (Ed.), Progress in new crops (pp. 357 362), Alexandria, VA, USA: ASHA Press. NASS. (2009). 2007 Census publication, Vol. 1, Chapter1: State level data, Montana, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., & Yu, T.-H. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change, Science, 319, 12381240. Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthome, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel debt, Science, 319, 12351238. Kim, H., Kim, S., & Dale, B.E. (2009). Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: Some unexplored variables, Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 961967. NETL. (2008). Development of baseline data and analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Allen, D.T., Allport, C., Atkins, K., Cooper, J.S., Dilmore, R.M., Draucker, L.C., Eickmann, K.E., Gillen, J.C., Gillette, W., Grifn, W.M., Harrison III, W. E., Hileman, J.I., Ingham, J.R., Kimler III, F.A., Levy, A., Murphy, C.F., ODonnell, M.J., Pamplin, D., Schivley, G., Skone, T.J., Strank, S.M., Stratton, R.W., Taylor, P.H., Thomas, V.M., Wang, M., & Zidow, T. (2009). Framework and guidance for estimating greenhouse gas footprints for aviation fuels (108 p), U.S. Air Force. Edwards, R., Larive, J.-F., Mahieu, V., & Rouveirolles, P. (2007). Well-to-wheels analysis of future automobile fuels and powertrains in a European context: Well-to-tank report version 2c, WTT ApOctober 2010 391

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

pendix 1 (p. 80), CONCAWE, EUCAR, European Commission Joint Research Council. 15. De Klein, C., Novoam, R., Ogle, S., Smith, K.A., Rochette, P., Wirth, T.C., McConkey, B.G., Mosier, A., Rypdal, K., Walsh, M., & Williams, S.A. (2006). N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In S. Eggelston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe (Eds.), IPCC guidlines for national greenhouse gas inventories Volume 4, Agriculture, Foresty, and Other Land Use (Chapter 11, p. 54), Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), UN and WMO.

16. PRe, C., SimaPro version 7.1.2008. 17. USDA. (2009). US fertilizer use and price. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/. 18. NASS. (2007). Agricultural chemical usage 2006 eld crops summary, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 19. Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Dufeld, J., Graboski, M., & Shapouri, H. (1998). A life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

392 October 2010

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.29, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep