GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT OF WINE PRODUCED IN PORTUGAL

Transcription

1 GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT OF WINE PRODUCED IN PORTUGAL Filipa Figueiredo 1, Érica Castanheira 1, António D. Ferreira 2, Henrique Trindade 3 and Fausto Freire 1 1 ADAI-LAETA, Dept of Mech. Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 2 Centro de Estudos dos Recursos Naturais, Ambiente e Sociedade, Departament of Pure and Environmental Sciences, ESAC, Coimbra, Portugal 3 Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os- Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Portugal

2 Outline 1. Introduction Background and Motivation Main goal 2. Life-cycle model and inventory Life-cycle model Inventory 3. Results and discussion 4. Conclusions 2

3 Background and Motivation Wine is one of the most important agroindustrial sectors in Europe and in Portugal Portugal produced 624 million litters of wine and exported 227 million litters in 2013 Environmental life-cycle impacts of wine production have been explored in previous studies however, in Portugal just for the wine region of Vinho Verde 3

4 Main Goal To present a life-cycle (LC) greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment of wine produced in five wine regions of Portugal Make a comparative inventory analysis for the different producers Identify the LC phase of wine production with higher environmental performance Identify the processes with more contributors to the GHG emissions 4

5 Life-cycle model Eleven different LC inventories for grape growing from 5 different regions was analyzed Three wine producers from three different regions was considered Four different types of wine Red, White, Rose and Sparkling 5

6 Life-cycle model Fertilizers Pesticides Diesel Petrol Water Grape Growing Enological Products Energy Water Winemaking System boundaries Wine (FU: 0,75L) Bagasse A cradle-to-gate approach was considered LC model included grape growing (viticulture), grape transportation and wine production, but did not include packaging and distribution; Bagasse was sold, but it represents a very low cash flow ( 1%) and no allocation of GHG emissions was performed 6

7 Inventory (1) Region B D C Producer Area BA 17ha BB 3ha BC 6ha BD 6ha DA 2.5ha DB 6ha CA 14ha Year 2011 and Chemical Fertilizers N (kg) P (kg) K (kg) Calcium Nitrate (kg) CaCO 3 (kg) Boron (g) Magnesium (kg) Magnesium oxide (kg) Organic Fertilizers N (kg) Poultry manure (kg) Pesticides (a.i.) Azoxystrobin (kg) Glyphosate (kg) Folpet (kg) Metalaxyl-M (g) Mandipropamid (g) Copper oxide (g) Mancozeb (kg) Fosetyl-Al (kg) Sulfur (kg) Trifloxystrobin (g) Tebuconazole (g) Cymoxanil (g) Copper (kg) Fungicide unspecified (kg) Pesticide unspecified (g) Penconazole (g) Glufosinate (g) Chlorpyrifos (g) Spiroxamin (g) Metiram (kg) Fenhexamid (g) Methoxyfenozide (g) Copper oxychloride (g) Tetraconazol (kg) Diesel (L) 176 a a a 139 a Grape transportation (km) Productivity (t) CB 7ha Region E F Producer EA EB FA Area 87ha 168ha 193ha 65ha Year Chemical Fertilizers N (kg) P (kg) K (kg) Fito algae (kg) CaCO3 (kg) CaMg(CO 3 ) 2 (kg) Boron (g) Magnesium oxide (g) Organic Fertilizers N (kg) P (kg) K (kg) Pesticides (a.i.) Oxiflurone (g) Glyphosate (kg) Flazasulfuron (g) Kresoxim-Methyl (g) Copper hydroxide (g) Cyazofamid (g) Fluopicolide Fosetyl-Al (g) Spiroxamine (g) Proquinazida (g) Tebuconazole (g) Sulfur (kg) Flufenoxuron (kg) Quizalope-P-ethyl (g) Diflufenican (g) Folpet (kg) Metalaxyl-M (g) Cimoxanyl (g) Copper oxychloride (kg) Metiram (g) Pyraclostrobin (g) Iprovalicarb (g) Chlorantraniliprole (g) Metoxifenocida (g) Trifloxystrobin (g) Mancozeb (kg) Amonium glufosinate (g) Terbuthylazine (g) Myclobutanil (g) ,3 Quinoxyfen (g) Meptyldinocap (g) Boscalid (g) Dimethomorph (g) Chlorantraniliprole (g) Cyprodinil (g) Fludioxonil (g) Metrafenone (g) Glufosinate (g) Thiophanate methyl (kg) - - 2, Water (L) Diesel (include diesel for grape transportation) (L) Petrol (L) Productivity (t)

8 Inventory (2) Inputs Enological Products Energy Producer W_b W_d W_c Red White Rose Red White Rose Red White Rose Sparkling Sulfur dioxide mg Sugar g Yeast mg Ascorbic acid a mg Sorbate a mg Filtrostabil (Arabic gum) a mg Citric acid a mg CMC [stabilizer] mg Nutrients mg Tannins a mg Enzymes a mg Gelatins a mg Bentonite mg Albumin a mg Metatartaric acid a g Tartaric acid a mg Electricity Wh Diesel ml Natural Gas J Water L Grapes kg Outputs Wine L Stalk g Bagasse kg Units Type and quantities of enological products are different to the different considered regions; When we compare the same region, the Enological products applied are the same for wine and rose wine; To each producer, energy and water inputs presented the same quantities per 0,75L of wine, because the production occurs simultaneously mass allocation was considered to distribute this inputs ; 8

9 Red White Rose Red White Rose Red White Rose Sparkling Results 82% - 99% a) Grape growing g CO 2 eq FU BA BB BC BD DA DB CA CB EA EB FA Diesel (production and combustion) * Pesticides production Fertilizers production Fertilization Producer b) Winemaking g CO 2 eq FU W_b W_d W_c Natural Gas Diesel (production and combustion) Electricity Enological Products Type of wine Producer g CO 2 per 0.75 L wine Lower energy and fertilizer use by EB compared to BB 9

10 Red White Rose Red White Rose Red White Rose Sparkling Results a) Grape growing g CO 2 eq FU BA BB BC BD DA DB CA CB EA EB FA Diesel (production and combustion) * Pesticides production Fertilizers production Fertilization Producer 35 g CO 2 eq FU b) Winemaking W_b W_d W_c Natural Gas Diesel (production and combustion) Electricity Enological Products Type of wine Producer Main contributors to the GHG emissions were diesel and pesticides For the remaining producers fertilizers and diesel were the main contributors to GHG emissions W_b GHG emissions to red wine due to sugar use W_c GHG emissions to sparkling wine due to yeast use 10

11 Conclusions There is a significant variation of the GHG intensity of the wine for the various producers, but not for the different types of wine; The total wine GHG intensity varies between 151 g CO 2 eq and 446 g CO 2 eq per 0.75 L of wine; Grape growing is the LC phase with the highest GHG emissions (88% to 92%); Efforts to reduce GHG emissions should be focus on the cultivation Adoption of best agricultural management practices soil analysis land morphology weather conditions 11

12 Conclusions Future work Considered more impact categories (e.g. acidification, marine and freshwater eutrophication) and other impact assessment methods (e.g. Usetox, due to the higher application of pesticides); In addition, due to the high variation on the results, an uncertainty analysis should be included; Different packages must be analyzed; Different export scenarios should be considered. 12

13 Thank You! Questions and Comments GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT OF WINE PRODUCED IN PORTUGAL s: This research was supported by ECODEEP project (Eco-efficiency and Eco-management in the Agro Industrial sector, FCOMP FEDER ) and the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation by the R&D project EMSURE (CENTRO FEDER ) and the project FCOMP FEDER