Carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder
description
Transcript of Carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder
Carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder
Tommie Ponsioen / Geert van der Velden24 November 2011
Outline
1. What is a product carbon footprint?2. Goal, scope & methods3. Production chain of haemoglobin and plasma
powder4. Carbon footprint assessment results5. Comparison with carbon footprints of
alternative products6. Conclusions
1. Methods and protocols
• Basics of product carbon footprints• System boundaries• Allocation• Standards and specifications
1.1 Definition of product carbon footprint
• footprint is a metaphor for the total impact of a product
• carbon is all the different greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming
• In short, a product carbon footprint is the full climate change impact of a product
1.2 Introduction CF. What is it about?• CF aims to systematically study the environmental impacts of
a system (product/service/etc)
Raw materialsRaw materials TransportTransport Product
ProcessingProductProcessing TransportTransport Product useProduct use
Example impact calculationkg CO2eq
CO2fossil 1 CO2biogenic 0CH4 25N2O 298
Example impact calculationkg CO2eq
CO2fossil 1 CO2biogenic 0CH4 25N2O 298
1.3 Included GHG emissions
• Carbon dioxide (fossil):– Fuel combustion for heat, electricity, transport– Fuel combustion for fuel production!
• Methane (25 kg CO2eq per kg CH4):– Enteric fermentation & manure– Methane slip from CHP systems
• Nitrous oxide (298 kg CO2eq per kg N2O):– N fertilizer production and application– N in crop residues
1.4 Carbon footprint is a type of environmental lifecycle assessment
• Environmental impact categories:– Global warming (carbon footprint)– Fossil energy depletion– Land occupation– Eutrophication– Acidification– Freshwater depletion– Et cetera
• Normalized and weighted single endpoint scores: – Ecological footprint, Eco-indicator99, ReCiPe, CML-IA, etc.
1.6 Carbon Footprint of animal fat
CO2
Manure storage
Manure application
Crop growing
CropCrop
Agro-industry
Feed materialsFeed materialsCo-products(e.g. edible oils)Co-products(e.g. edible oils)
Animal husbandry
AnimalAnimal
Slaughtering
Co-products a.o fatsCo-products a.o fats
Meat productsMeat products
Fat processing / refining
Cat 3 & foodgrade productsCat 3 & foodgrade products
1.7 Lifecycle of meatCrop cultivation
Processing
Feed formulation
Animal husbandry
Slaughtering
Rendering
Fresh meat
Retail
Consumption
Input production (seed, fertilizer, diesel, pesticides)
Fuels, electricity production
By-products
Packing, distribution
Waste treatment
Fuels, electricity production
Feed formulation
1.8 Allocation
• System expanison (difficult in food chains)• Physical criteria (mass, protein, caloric value)• Other (economic most applied and most
meaningfull in food chains )
1.9 Example Mass based allocation
Soybean meal (0.8 ton) Soybean oil (0.2 ton)
Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)
The allocation fraction is : 80%
The allocation fraction is : 20%
Soybeans (1 ton)
1.10 Example Energy content based allocation
Soybean meal (0.8 ton)LHV: 20 MJ/ton soybean meal =
16.1/ton soybeans
Soybean oil (0.2 ton) LHV: 37 MJ/ton soybean oil = 7.4/ton soybeans
Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)
The allocation fraction is : 69% (16.1/23.5)
The allocation fraction is : 31% (7.4/23.5)
Soybeans (1 ton) Total LHV: 16.1 + 7.4 = 23.5 MJ
1.11 Example Economic allocation
Soybean meal (0.8 ton)Value: €300/ton soybean
meal = €240/ton soybeans
Soybean oil (0.2 ton) Value: €800/ton soybean oil = €160/ton soybeans
Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)
The allocation fraction is : 60% (240/400)
The allocation fraction is : 40% (160/400)
Soybeans (1 ton) revenue: € 240+160=400
1.13 Relevant standards EU scope
Standards for lifecycle assessments
Specifications for carbon footprint assessments
Carbon footprint assessment product and sectorspecifications
ISO 14040 - 14044
PAS2050BRX…..
ISO 14067, WRI/WBSCD
Horticulture (in development)
Animal feed (to be expected)
Fats and oils for foodAnd feed (n.a.)
RED
IPCC GuidelinesIPCC GWP
2.1 Goal, scope & methods
• The goal of the study was to give insight in: – the carbon footprints of haemoglobin and
plasma powder from an EAPA production site– the contributions of different sources to the
carbon footprints
2.2 Goal, scope & methods
• The scope includes all greenhouse gas emissions in the complete production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powder and alternative products:– Fish meal (alternative for haemoglobin powder)– Soy protein concentrate, skimmed milk powder,
whey protein concentrate (80% protein) and casein (alternative for plasma powder)
2.3 Goal, scope & methods
• Following the ISO standards for lifecycle assessments (ISO14040/44: 2006)
• In line with:– British carbon footprint specification (PAS2050)– French carbon footprint specification (BP X30-323)– Draft ISO standard for product carbon footprints
(ISO14067: expected early 2012)
3.1 Production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powder
Included in the carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder
Transport
Separation process and wastewater treatment
Haemoglobin powder Plasma powder
Animal husbandry (incl. feed supply chain, transport, and manure management)
Slaughter by-products
Fresh meat
Electricity (general)
Diesel
Blood
Plasma production
Haemoglobin production
Electricity (specific)
Natural gas
Electricity (specific)
Natural gas
Slaughtering process
Electricity from grid
Natural gas
Economicalallocations
31% 69%
4.1 Carbon footprint assessment results: Haemoglobin powder
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Haemoglobin powder (porcine blood)
Carb
on fo
otpr
int
(kg
CO2e
q pe
r to
nne)
Natural gas
Electricity (specific)
Electricity (general)
Transport
Slaughtering
Pig husbandry
870
- Porcine versus Bovine- Bovine (meat) versus Bovine (milk)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Plasma powder (porcine blood)
Carb
on fo
otpr
int
(kg
CO2e
q pe
r to
nne)
Natural gas
Electricity (specific)
Electricity (general)
Transport
Slaughtering
Pig husbandry
4.2 Carbon footprint assessment results: Plasma powder
3200
5.1 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)• Fish meal is made from complete fish or from fish by-products
resulting in a large difference between best and worst case carbon footprints
• Carbon footprint of fish meal is larger
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Haemoglobin powder (pig)
Fish meal
Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of product)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of product)
Calculated (upstream)
Calculated (transport & processing)
Best case
Worst case
- Fish meal: excluding CFP freight South America to Europe!
5.2 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)• Even more so when the carbon footprint is expressed
per kg of protein
0 1 2 3 4
Haemoglobin powder (pig)
Fish meal
Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)
0 1 2 3 4
Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)
Calculated (upstream)
Calculated (transport & processing)
Best case
Worst case
5.3 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)
• Soy protein concentrate has smaller carbon footprint, but much larger land use change footprint
• CF of whey protein concentrate depends on applied method: can be smaller and can be much larger
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Plasma powder (pig)
Skimmed milk powder
Acid casein
Whey protein concentate
Soy protein concentrate
Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of product)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of product)
Calculated (upstream)
Calculated (transport & processing)
Best case
Worst case
!
5.4 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)
• The CF of acid casein and skimmed milk powder are much larger (even more when expressed per kg of protein)
• Raw milk has an extremely large CF (8 - 12 kg CO2eq/kg DM) mainly due to methane emissions from enteric fermentation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Plasma powder (pig)
Skimmed milk powder
Acid casein
Whey protein concentate
Soy protein concentrate
Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)
Calculated (upstream)
Calculated (transport & processing)
Best case
Worst case
6. Conclusions
• It is very likely that haemoglobin powder has less impact on global warming than fish meal
• It is very likely that plasma powder has less impact than the evaluated alternative dairy products (except for WPC)
• Given that:– quality aspects of the protein (digestibility and amino acid
profile) are not considered– CF of SPC depends on applied methods and data (nitrous
oxide emissions from the soil and land use change)– CF of WPC depends on allocation method
2. Goal, scope & methods (additional information)
• Economic allocation (dividing upstream emissions between co-products based on their economic value)
• Emissions from production and combustion of fuels (at production plant and electricity supplier)
• Methane emissions from animal husbandry and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers in the supply chain included
• Production of other inputs (e.g. chemicals) only included when expected significant contribution
• Production of capital goods not included• Land use change for crop production included