(LCA) of Biofuels and Land Use Change with the GREET® Model

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of Biofuels and Land Use Change with the GREET® Model

drhgfdjhngngfmhgmghmghjmghfmf

Hoyoung Kwon and Uisung Lee

Systems Assessment Center Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory

The GREET Introduction Workshop Argonne National Laboratory, October 15, 2019 Biofuel Pathways in GREET and Land Use Change and Land Management Effects in CCLUB GREET includes various biomass feedstocks, conversion technologies, and fuels for biofuel LCA

Grains, sugars, and Fermentation, Indirect Gasification Ethanol, butanol cellulosics Fermentation Hydrothermal Liquefaction Renewable diesel or jet Pyrolysis Waste plastics

Waste CO2 Alcohol to Jet Waste CO2

Organic waste Anaerobic Digestion Natural gas and derivatives feedstock Combustion Electricity Combustion Pyrolysis, Fermentation, Cellulosics Drop-in hydrocarbon fuels Gasification (e.g., FT) Aviation and marine fuels Gasification (e.g., FT), Alcohol to Jet, Sugar to Jet Hydroprocessing Algae and oil crops Transesterification Biodiesel Renewable diesel Hydroprocessing, Hydrothermal Liquefaction The system boundary of biofuel LCA

Well to Wheels

Well to Pump Pump to Wheels Energy and material inputs

Farm input Feedstock Feedstock Conversion to Biofuel Biofuel manufacturing production transport biofuel transport combustion

Considers GHG emissions from LUC for different biofuel pathways

Land Use Change . Carbon Calculator for Land Use change from Biofuels production (CCLUB)

. Feedstock average soil C and soil nitrous oxide (N2O) Land Management Practices Carbon Calculator for Land Use change from Biofuels production (CCLUB) relies on GTAP and emission factors

Biofuel scenarios • An increase in corn ethanol production from its 2004 level Soil C and N2O emission (3.41 billion gallons[BG]) to 15 factors related to LUC BG • International/domestic emission factors are derived from Winrock / Woods Hole database Computable general equilibrium economic • Domestic emission factors can be modeled using US county-level soil model (GTAP) C simulations • Estimate land conversion associated with scenarios Biofuel scenarios include nine different cases (CCLUB manual, 2018)

Case Case Description BG 1 An increase in corn ethanol production from its 2004 level (3.41 BG) to 15 BG (Corn 11.59 Ethanol 2011) 2 An increase of ethanol from corn stover by 9 BG, on top of 15 BG corn ethanol 9 3 An increase of ethanol from Miscanthus by 7 BG, on top of 15 BG corn ethanol 7 4 An increase of ethanol from switchgrass by 7 BG, on top of 15 BG corn ethanol 7 5 An increase in corn ethanol production from its 2004 level (3.41 BG) to 15 BG with GTAP 11.59 recalibrated land transformation parameters (Corn Ethanol 2013)

6 Increase in soy biodiesel production by 0.812 BG (CARB case 8) 0.812 7 Increase in soy biodiesel production by 0.812 BG (CARB average proxy) 0.812 8 Increase in soy biodiesel production by 0.8 BG (GTAP 2004) 0.8 9 Increase in soy biodiesel production by 0.5 BG (GTAP 2011) 0.5 GTAP estimates land use impacts on three land types by agricultural ecological zones (AEZ)

An example of domestic land use impacts of biofuels based on case 1 scenario: An increase in corn ethanol production from its 2004 level (3.41 billion gallons [BG]) to 15 BG

Land Cover (ha) Forest Grasslands Cropland/Pasture AEZ 7 -3,479 -340,320 -224,128 AEZ 8 -16,931 -133,912 -102,281 AEZ 9 -2,022 -10,238 -64,792 AEZ 10 -179,636 -82,626 -403,376 AEZ 11 -93,360 -42,881 -298,278 AEZ 12 -30,064 -14,111 -74,470 Three land types are available for conversion to feedstock production  Forest: primarily private forest land  Grasslands  Cropland/pasture: • USDA: Generally is considered to be in long-term crop rotation. This category includes acres of crops hogged or grazed but not harvested and some land used for pasture that could have been cropped without additional improvement. • CCLUB: Pasture (past) Cropland (past) cropland/pasture (present)  Questions for cropland/pasture • The frequency of switches between cropland and pastureland phases influences soil C levels, but this frequency is not well understood (Emery et al. 2017). • Soil C stock of cropland/pasture - Medium SOC of grasslands (CCLUB prior 2014) - Low SOC for low productivity cropland (CCLUB post 2014) - High SOC for grasslands (Others) • CCLUB domestic emission factors vs. other domestic emission factors Land use history is considered in modeling domestic soil C emission factors (Parameterized CENTURY, Kwon et al. Biomass Bioenergy 2013)

Pristine Early Agriculture Modern Agriculture Land Use Change Scenario (prior to 1880) (1880-1950) (1951-2010) (2011-2040, a 30 yr time-frame)

1 Conventional Tillage 3 Grasslands Croplands Croplands Corn Reduced Tillage 5 No Till 11 Conventional Tillage 13 Grasslands Grasslands Grasslands Corn Reduced Tillage 15 No Till 21 Conventional Tillage 23 Forest Forest Forest Corn Reduced Tillage 25 No Till 31 Conventional Tillage Grasslands(1951-1975) 33 Grasslands Cropland Corn Reduced Tillage /Cropland (1976-2010) 35 No Till Spatiotemporal database along with land use history are key inputs for a process-based soil C modeling

Process-based model Spatiotemporal database (Parameterized CENTURY) Monthly climate data Monthly soil C change Soil characteristics Historical corn yields by county Inputs

Model & Parameters US county-level soil C sequestration rate are employed as domestic soil C emission factors

Qin et al., GCB Bioenergy, 2016 Estimated LUC and life-cycle GHG emissions for corn ethanol are 5.4 (international) and 1.4~4.3 (domestic) g CO2e/MJ, respectively

WTP Biogenic CO₂ in Fuel PTW LUC WTW

150 e/MJ 2 100

50 95 57 32 11 0 8 -4

-50

-100 WTW GHG emissions, g CO g emissions, GHG WTW

-150 With LUC Without LUC With LUC With LUC With LUC Gasoline Corn ethanol Sugarcane Corn stover Switchgrass Miscanthus ethanol ethanol ethanol ethanol

Based on GREET 2018 CCLUB assesses land management impacts on corn stover biofuels’ GHG emissions

Soil C emission factors associated with a 30% corn stover removal Farming Scenarios Corn stover removal with Tillage Cover cropping Animal manure Soil C change upon LMC may dramatically affect corn stover ethanol GREET LCA GHG results

Soil C impacts

SR: Stover removal MN: manure CC: cover crop

The results are based on the marginal allocation approach where all burdens and benefits of the LMC practices are assigned to stover ethanol (Qin et al., GCB Bioenergy 2018) Waste-derived Fuel Production Pathways in GREET

15 Life-cycle GHG emissions of WTE pathways compared to conventional waste management practices

Conventional Waste Management WTE

+ Carbon in waste is partly + Generates fuels sequestered displacing fossil fuel

- Non-collected CH4 + Avoid emissions from emission influences global conventional waste warming significantly management - Carbon in waste is released into atmosphere

16 Avoided emissions are considered for the LCA of WTE pathways . Using waste avoids emissions from conventional waste management practices. – Waste is not intentionally produced. – Waste management is regulated.

GHG emissions (A gCO2e) Current practice

GHG emissions (B gCO2e) WTE Fuel (MJ)

. Fuel production and combustion emissions: B gCO2e/MJ.

. By diverting waste, emissions associated with current waste management A gCO2e can be avoided.

. (B-A) gCO2e/MJ indicates the GHG impact of MJ of fuel produced and used.

17 Consider BAU energy use and emissions GREET renewable natural gas tab avoided due to diversion for fuel production

Consider all associated energy use and emissions for waste-derived fuel production

18 WTE pathways can provide significant WTW GHG reductions due to no upstream emission burdens and avoided BAU emissions

. Diverting waste from current practices with high GHG emissions brings the highest environmental benefits.

Pathways in GREET

Avoided Emissions Feedstocks Conversion Products (BAU) Flared landfill gas Landfill gas Upgrade NG/CNG/LNG emissions

Emissions from Animal waste AD manure treatment Landfill gas MSW Fermentation Ethanol emissions

Sludge AD with Wastewater Hydrocarbon HTL flaring biogas sludge fuel

19 LCA for waste plastic-based fuels and products

Current practice (BAU) No GHG emissions from landfilled plastics

Landfill

Combustion emissions Avoided GHG Waste Electricity emissions incineration Displaced conventional production

Production emissions Avoided GHG emissions Plastics Plastic-to- Fuel Fuels Conventional fuel production fuel counterpart

Production emissions Avoided GHG emissions

Product Plastic-to- counterparts/ Conventional products product Products functional production replacements

20 LCA of CO2 utilization (on-going, FY20)

CO2 source Capture, Compression, and Conversion Use Transportation

Biomass- and waste- derived CO 2 Capture • Ethanol plants • Biomass gasification Plants Clean-up • Waste streams (MSW, residues, waste plastics) Compression / Fuel Fossil-derived CO2 Transportation production • NG SMR plants • NG Ammonia plants • Steel mills • Fossil power plants

. In FY20, Argonne plans to incorporate a CO2 utilization module, converting CO2 from corn ethanol plants into fuels using NREL’s conversion technologies.

. It will further include other CO2 sources and conversion technologies. 21 GREET for ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Fuels Task Group for Sustainable Jet Fuel Pathways

22 UN ICAO’s CORSIA: solutions for sustainable growth of international aviation . Fuel consumption reduction: More efficient aircraft, shorter routing, and optimized management and planning . GHG emissions reduction: Low-carbon bio-based jet fuels, such as hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ), biomass-based Fischer-Tropsch jet (FTJ), Sugar-To-Jet (STJ), Alcohol-To-Jet (ATJ), etc.

. ICAO and international airline operators are committed to have carbon growth neutral from 2020 through Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

23 Argonne supported ICAO to evaluate life-cycle GHG emissions of

Core LCA value various jet fuel production pathways Feedstock [gCO2e/MJ] Agricultural residues 7.7 . Argonne is a member of the ICAO Fuels Task Group (FTG) Forestry residues 8.3 MSW, 0% NBC 5.2

tasked with modeling carbon intensities for CORSIA. Tropsch - MSW, NBC as % of total C NBC*170.5 + 5.2 . Argonne is part of FTG’s core LCA group with MIT, EC Short-rotation woody crops 12.2

JRC, & U of Toronto Fischer Herbaceous energy crops 10.4

& & Tallow 22.5 – developing core LCA values for alternative jet fuels Used cooking oil 13.9 – writing the guidance document for LCA data Palm fatty acid distillate 20.7

submission Esthers Corn oil 17.2 Soybean 40.4 Rapeseed/canola 47.4

Camelina 42 processed Core LCA Group Working Approach - Palm oil - closed pond 37.4 Fatty Acids (HEFA) Acids Fatty Palm oil - open pond 60.0

Initial CI development Hydro Brassica carinata 34.4 Sugarcane 36.6

SIP Sugarbeet 32.4 CI verification Sugarcane 27.8

Agricultural residues 29.3 toJet Forestry residues 23.8 Propose to FTG; Corn grain 55.8 FTG adoption Herbaceous energy crops 43.4

Isobutanol Molasses 27.0 Sugarcane 24.1

Corn grain 65.7

EtOH Jet to Note: NBC – Non-biogenic carbon 24 Bio-aviation fuel pathways by feedstock

Oil Crops Cellulosic Biomass Starch and Algae (e.g,. Herbaceous, Woody, Sugar Crops

Waste Oil Ag. and Forest Residue, etc.) Feedstocks

Oil Extraction Fermentation Hydrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis

Bio-Oil Alcohol Sugar Syngas Pyro-Oil Conversion Fischer-Tropsch Hydroprocessing Oilgomerization STJ Hydroprocessing Synthesis

Hydroprocessed Fischer-Tropsch Pyrolysis Alcohol-To-Jet Sugar-To-Jet

Renewable Jet Jet Renewable Jet Products 25 Co-products in the bio-aviation fuel pathways

Oil Crops Cellulosic Biomass Starch and Algae (e.g,. Herbaceous, Woody, Sugar Crops

Waste Oil Ag. and Forest Residue, etc.) Feedstocks

Oil Extraction Fermentation Hydrolysis Gasification Pyrolysis

Meal DGS Electricity Biochar

Bio-Oil Alcohol Sugar Syngas Pyro-Oil Conversion Fischer-Tropsch Hydroprocessing Oilgomerization STJ Hydroprocessing Synthesis

Other fuels Other fuels Other fuels Other fuels Electricity Other fuels

Hydroprocessed Fischer-Tropsch Pyrolysis Alcohol-To-Jet Sugar-To-Jet

Renewable Jet Jet Renewable Jet Products Note: DGS denotes Distillers’ Grains with Solubles. Other fuels include fuel gas, naphtha and distillates 26 Overview of ‘GREET for CORSIA’

. ICAO approved sustainable aviation fuel production pathways are implemented in GREET 2018. . Using the GREET version for CORSIA, the LCA parameters and results of sustainable aviation fuel pathways can be observed in a transparent way. . Argonne plans to build an upgraded version in GREET 2019.

Input parameters from ICAO FTG GREET for CORSIA Feedstock cultivation GREET1 2018 Embed two Excel tabs Feedstock transportation Fuel production (Excel) CORSIA Inputs Fuel transportation

WTW Results CORSIA Results GHG emissions Energy use

27 GREET for CORSIA inputs tab

Data selection : Datasets can be selected from lookup tables: • ICAO FTG input parameters • or stakeholder own input parameters

Lookup tables

Selected parameters ⁞

⁞ GREET LCA results 28 GREET for CORSIA results tab

Life-cycle GHG emission results for sustainable aviation fuel pathways: Core LCA values are presented for LCA stages. New results would be generated if different datasets are selected in the input tab.

29 Marine Applications of GREET

30 Life-cycle GHG and CAP emissions of conventional and bio-based marine fuels

. Global shipping contributes 13% of human- caused emissions of sulfur oxides (Sofiev 2018) and 2.6% of human-caused carbon dioxide

emissions (Olmer 2017) (EIA 2018) . Global marine fuel consumption is expected to double in the next 20 years. . The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set emission targets to reduce global marine fuel sulfur content from current 3.5% to 0.5% by weight in 2020. . The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other state agencies have established regulations limiting the sulfur content of fuel used in coastal regions to 0.1%.

31 Developed a new marine module including 19 marine fuel production pathways for GREET 2019 . Added new marine fuel production Pathways Note pathways including both fossil and biomass HFO (2.7% sulfur) Residual oil in GREET HFO (0.5% sulfur) Residual oil in GREET + Desulfurization derived marine fuels in Collaboration with HFO (0.1% sulfur) Residual oil in GREET + Desulfurization NREL and PNNL. MGO (1.0% sulfur) Unfinished oil in GREET . Updated combustion emission factors in MGO (0.5 % sulfur) Unfinished oil in GREET+ Desulfurization marine vessels. MGO (0.1 % sulfur) Unfinished oil in GREET+ Desulfurization – Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014 MDO (1.92% sulfur ) Mixture of HFO 2.7%S and MGO 1.0%S (IMO 2015) MDO (0.5% sulfur) Mixture of HFO 0.5%S and MGO 0.5%S – 2014 National Emissions Inventory (EPA MDO (0.1% sulfur) Mixture of HFO 0.1%S and MGO 0.1%S 2018) LNG LNG in GREET – Natural gas as a marine fuel (Thomson FT-Diesel (NG) Newly added; data provided by NREL et al. 2015) FT-Diesel (biomass) Newly added; data provided by NREL FT-Diesel (biomass/NG) Newly added; data provided by NREL FT-Diesel (biomass/coal) Newly added; data provided by NREL . The results can be expressed in terms of Pyrolysis oil (woody biomass) Newly added; data provided by PNNL per energy (MJ of fuel) or per trip (or per Renewable diesel (yellow grease/HFO) Newly added; data provided by PNNL tonne-km). Renewable diesel (yellow grease) Newly added; data provided by PNNL Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Soy oil in GREET Biodiesel Biodiesel in GREET

32 New GREET marine module

33 Marine fuels’ Well-to-Hull (WTH) results

GHG Emissions CAP Emissions

Global warming potential (g CO2e/MJ) CO2 emission (g/MJ) SOx emission (g/MJ) NOx emission (g/MJ) -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 HFO (2.7% sulfur) HFO 0%(2.7% sulfur) (b) 0% HFO (2.7% sulfur) HFO (2.7%0% sulfur) 0% (b) HFO (0.5% sulfur) HFO 2%(0.5% sulfur) 1% (a) HFO (0.5% sulfur) -81% HFO (0.5% sulfur) 0% HFO (0.1% sulfur) HFO 2%(0.1% sulfur) 2% HFO (0.1% sulfur) -95% HFO (0.1% sulfur) 0% MDO (1.92% sulfur ) MDO (1.92%-3% sulfur ) -3% MDO (1.92% sulfur ) -31%MDO (1.92% sulfur ) 1% MDO (0.5% sulfur) MDO- 2%(0.5% sulfur) -2% MDO (0.5% sulfur) -81% MDO (0.5% sulfur) 1% MDO (0.1% sulfur) MDO- 2%(0.1% sulfur) -2% MDO (0.1% sulfur) -95% MDO (0.1% sulfur) 1%

Fossil Fuels Fossil MGO (1.0% sulfur) -65% MGO (1.0% sulfur) -3% MGO (1.0% sulfur) MGO-7% (1.0% sulfur) -7% Fuels Fossil MGO (0.5 % sulfur) MGO-6% (0.5 % sulfur) -7% MGO (0.5 % sulfur) -82% MGO (0.5 % sulfur) -3% MGO (0.1 % sulfur) MGO-6% (0.1 % sulfur) -6% MGO (0.1 % sulfur) -96% MGO (0.1 % sulfur) -3% FT-Diesel (NG) FT-Diesel-8% (NG) -13% FT-Diesel (NG) -99% FT-Diesel (NG) -3% Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefied Natural-2% Gas (LNG) -28% Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -99% Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -25% FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal)-40% -45% FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) -97% FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) -1% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable diesel (Yellow-45% grease&HFO) -46% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable-50% diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) -7% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) FT-Diesel -(Biomass&NG)43% -50% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) -99% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) 4% Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Straight Vegetable-85% Oil (SVO) -93% Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) -98% Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) -4% Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) Pyrolysis oil (Woody-88% biomass) -90% -99% -5% FT-Diesel (Biomass) -100% FT-Diesel (Biomass) -5% FT-Diesel (Biomass) FT-Diesel-93% (Biomass) -94% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease) -100% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease) -8%

Renewable diesel (Yellow grease)Global warming potential (gCO2e/MJ)Renewable diesel (Yellow-83% grease) -85% Biofuels Global warming potential (gCO₂e/MJ) Biofuels Biodiesel -98% Global warmingBiodiesel potential (gCO2e/MJ) -1% Biodiesel -67%Biodiesel -74% -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Feedstock Conversion Combustion Biogenic carbonFeedstock uptake WTHConversion Combustion Biogenic carbon uptake WTH HFO (2.7%Feedstock sulfur) Conversion Combustion BiogenicCH4 emission carbon Feedstock(g/MJ)uptake WTHConversion CombustionGlobal warmingBiogenic potential carbon uptake (g CO2e/MJ)WTH HFO (2.7%PM2.5 sulfur) emission (g/MJ) CO emission (g/MJ) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9HFO (2.7%1 -150 sulfur)-100 -50 0 50 100 150 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 HFO (0.5% sulfur) HFO (0.5% sulfur) HFO (0.5% sulfur) HFO (0.1% sulfur)HFO (2.7% sulfur) 0% HFO (2.7%HFO sulfur) (0.1% sulfur) HFO (2.7% sulfur) HFO (0.1% sulfur) HFO (2.7% 0%sulfur) 0% HFO (0.5% sulfur) -49% HFO (0.5% sulfur) 0% MDO (1.92% sulfurHFO ) (0.5% sulfur) 3% HFO (0.5%MDO sulfur)(1.92% sulfur(d) ) MDO (1.92% sulfur ) HFO (0.1% sulfur) 4% HFO (0.1% sulfur) HFO (0.1% sulfur) -58% HFO (0.1% sulfur) 0% (d) MDO (0.5% sulfur) MDO (0.5% sulfur) (c) MDO (0.5% sulfur) MDO (1.92% sulfur ) MDO (1.92% sulfur ) MDO (1.92% sulfur ) -47% MDO (1.92% sulfur ) 1% MDO (0.1% sulfur) 0% MDO (0.1% sulfur) MDO (0.5% sulfur) 2% MDO (0.5%MDO sulfur) (0.1% sulfur) MDO (0.5% sulfur) -78% MDO (0.5% sulfur) 1% MGO (1.0% sulfur) MGO (1.0% sulfur) MDO (0.1% sulfur) 3% MDO (0.1%MGO sulfur) (1.0% sulfur) MDO (0.1% sulfur) -86% MDO (0.1% sulfur) 1%

MGO (0.5 % sulfur) Fuels Fossil MGO (0.5 % sulfur) Fossil Fuels Fossil MGO (1.0% sulfur) 0% MGO (1.0%MGO sulfur) (0.5 % sulfur) MGO (1.0% sulfur) -68% MGO (1.0% sulfur) -3% MGO (0.1 % sulfur)MGO (0.5 % sulfur) 1% MGO (0.5MGO % sulfur) (0.1 % sulfur) MGO (0.5 % sulfur) MGO -(0.179% % sulfur) MGO (0.5 % sulfur) -3% FT-Diesel (NG)MGO (0.1 % sulfur) 2% MGO (0.1 % FT-Dieselsulfur) (NG) MGO (0.1 % sulfur) -87%FT-Diesel (NG) MGO (0.1 % sulfur) -3% FT-Diesel (NG) FT-Diesel (NG) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)FT-Diesel (NG) 135% LiquefiedFT-Diesel Natural (NG) Gas (LNG) Liquefied -Natural90% Gas (LNG) 3% Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -97% Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 28% FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal)Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefied FT-DieselNatural Gas (Biomass&Coal)813% (LNG) FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) -88% FT-Diesel (Biomass&Coal) -1% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) 99% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) -61% Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) Renewable-59% diesel (Yellow grease&HFO) -5% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) FT-Diesel-90% (Biomass&NG) FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) 16% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) 152% FT-Diesel (Biomass&NG) Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Straight VegetableStraight Oil (SVO) Vegetable Oil (SVO) -85% StraightStraight Vegetable Vegetable Oil (SVO) Oil (SVO) Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) -89% Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) 1% Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) Pyrolysis oil (WoodyPyrolysis biomass) oil (Woody biomass) -83% PyrolysisPyrolysis oil (Woody oil biomass)(Woody biomass) Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) -89% Pyrolysis oil (Woody biomass) -4% FT-Diesel (Biomass) FT-Diesel (Biomass) FT-Diesel (Biomass)FT-Diesel (Biomass) -89% FT-DieselFT-Diesel (Biomass) (Biomass) FT-Diesel-89% (Biomass) -5% Renewable diesel (YellowRenewable grease) diesel-90% (Yellow grease)Renewable diesel (Yellow grease) -6%

Renewable dieselRenewable (Yellow grease) diesel (Yellow grease) -61% RenewableRenewable diesel (Yellow diesel grease)(Yellow grease) Biofuels

Biofuels Biodiesel -89% Biodiesel 3% Biodiesel Biodiesel -64% BiodieselBiodiesel Biodiesel Feedstock Conversion Combustion Biogenic carbonFeedstock uptake WTHConversion Combustion Biogenic carbon uptake WTH Feedstock ConversionFeedstock ConversionCombustion CombustionBiogenic carbonBiogenic uptake carbon uptakeWTH CH4WTHCH4N2O CO2N2O CO2CO2 (biogenicCO2 carbon (biogenic uptake) carbon WTHuptake) WTH Feedstock Conversion Combustion Biogenic carbon uptake WTH . Low-sulfur petroleum fuels can reduce life-cycle SOx emission with minor increase in WTH GHG emissions. . Biomass-derived marine fuels can reduce both WTH GHG and CAP emissions significantly.

. CH4 slip during downstream combustion significantly influences LNG’s WTH GHG emissions. 34 Please visit http://greet.es.anl.gov for:

• GREET models • GREET documents • LCA publications • GREET-based tools and calculators

35 Reference • Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM (2016) Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life- cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol. GCB Bioenergy, 8 (6), 1136-1149. • Emery I, Mueller S, Qin Z, Dunn JB (2017) Evaluating the potential of marginal land for cellulosic feedstock production and carbon sequestration in the United States. Environmental science & technology, 51(1), 733-741. • Qin Z, Canter CE, Dunn J, Mueller S, Kwon H, Han J, Wander M, Wang M. (2018). ‘Land management change greatly impacts biofuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.’ Global Change Bioenergy 10(6) 370-381. • Qin Z, Kwon H, Dunn J, Mueller S, Wander M, Wang M. (2018). Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels Production (CCLUB) Manual. Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL. ANL/ESD/12-5 Rev. 5. • Malins, C, Searle S. (2019). A critique of lifecycle emissions modeling in “The greenhouse gas benefits of corn ethanol—assessing recent evidence”. The International Council on Clean Transportation Working Paper 2019-18. • Mintz, M., Han, J., Wang, M., & Saricks, C. (2010). Well-to-Wheels analysis of landfill gas-based pathways and their addition to the GREET model (No. ANL/ESD/10-3). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). • Han, J., Mintz, M., & Wang, M. (2011). Waste-to-wheel analysis of anaerobic-digestion-based renewable natural gas pathways with the GREET model (No. ANL/ESD/11-6). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). • Lee, U., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2017). Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. Journal of cleaner production, 166, 335-342. • Lee, U., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2016). Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Compressed Natural Gas and Ethanol from Municipal Solid Waste (No. ANL/ESD-16/20). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States). • Benavides, P. T., Sun, P., Han, J., Dunn, J. B., & Wang, M. (2017). Life-cycle analysis of fuels from post-use non-recycled plastics. Fuel, 203, 11- 22. • Benavides, P. T., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., Biddy, M., & Markham, J. (2018). Exploring Comparative Energy and Environmental Benefits of Virgin, Recycled, and Bio-Derived PET Bottles. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 6(8), 9725-9733.