Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks

  • LCA FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Bio-based products are often considered sustainable due to their renewable nature. However, the environmental performance of products needs to be assessed considering a life cycle perspective to get a complete picture of potential benefits and trade-offs. We present a life cycle assessment of the global commodity ethanol, produced from different feedstock and geographical origin. The aim is to understand the main drivers for environmental impacts in the production of bio-based ethanol as well as its relative performance compared to a fossil-based alternative.

Methods

Ethanol production is assessed from cradle to gate; furthermore, end-of-life emissions are also included in order to allow a full comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, assuming degradation of ethanol once emitted to air from household and personal care products. The functional unit is 1 kg ethanol, produced from maize grain in USA, maize stover in USA, sugarcane in North-East of Brazil and Centre-South of Brazil, and sugar beet and wheat in France. As a reference, ethanol produced from fossil ethylene in Western Europe is used. Six impact categories from the ReCiPe assessment method are considered, along with seven novel impact categories on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES).

Results and discussion

GHG emissions per kilogram bio-based ethanol range from 0.7 to 1.5 kg CO2 eq per kg ethanol and from 1.3 to 2 kg per kg if emissions at end-of-life are included. Fossil-based ethanol involves GHG emissions of 1.3 kg CO2 eq per kg from cradle-to-gate and 3.7 kg CO2 eq per kg if end-of-life is included. Maize stover in USA and sugar beet in France have the lowest impact from a GHG perspective, although when other impact categories are considered trade-offs are encountered. BES impact indicators show a clear preference for fossil-based ethanol. The sensitivity analyses showed how certain methodological choices (allocation rules, land use change accounting, land use biomes), as well as some scenario choices (sugarcane harvest method, maize drying) affect the environmental performance of bio-based ethanol. Also, the uncertainty assessment showed that results for the bio-based alternatives often overlap, making it difficult to tell whether they are significantly different.

Conclusions

Bio-based ethanol appears as a preferable option from a GHG perspective, but when other impacts are considered, especially those related to land use, fossil-based ethanol is preferable. A key methodological aspect that remains to be harmonised is the quantification of land use change, which has an outstanding influence in the results, especially on GHG emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The GHG factors in the original source are given per MJ ethanol. They are transformed on a per kilogram basis using a calorific low value of 29.96 MJ/kg ethanol (Kosaric et al. 2001).

References

  • Adami M, Rudorff BFT, Freitas RM, Aguiar DA, Sugawara LM, Mello MP (2012) Remote sensing time series to evaluate land use change of recent expanded sugar cane crop in Brazil. Sustainability, 4(4):574–585

    Google Scholar 

  • ADEME (2010) Analyses de Cycle de Vie appliquées aux biocarburants de première génération consommés en France. Direction Production et Energies Durables (DEPD), France

  • Ardente F, Cellura M (2011) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment. The state of the art and discussion of examples. J Ind Ecol 16(3):387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biofuels Platform (2010) Production of biofuels in the world in 2009. Geographic distribution of bioethanol and biodiesel production in the world. http://www.biofuels-platform.ch/en/infos/production.php?id=bioethanol. Accessed 08 June 2012

  • BSI (2012) PAS 2050–1: 2012 assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products. Supplementary requirements for the cradle to gate stages of GHG assessments of horticultural products undertaken in accordance with PAS 2050. British Standards Institution, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2012) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0381-3

    Google Scholar 

  • California EPA (2009) Proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard, volume I. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2012) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0412-0

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong E, Higson A, Walsh P, Wellisch M (2012) Bio-based chemicals, value added products from biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy, Task42 Biorefinery

  • De Klein C, Novoa RSA, Ogle S, Smith KA, Rochette P, Wirth TC, McConkey BG, Mosier A, Rypdal K, Walsh M, Williams SA (2006) N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. (eds.) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES, Japan. Vol 4, chapter 11

  • FAO (2010) Bioenergy environmental impact analysis (BIAS). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2011a) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor. Accessed 13 June 2012

  • FAO (2011b) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor. Accessed 13 June 2012

  • Flury K, Jungbluth N (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions and water footprint of ethanol from maize, sugar cane, wheat and sugar beet. ESU-services, Uster, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Flury K, Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Muñoz I (2012) Recommendation for life cycle inventory analysis for water use and consumption. Working paper, ESU Services. http://www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/flury-2012-water-LCI-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2013

  • Flynn HC, Milà iCanals L, Keller E, King H, Sim S, Hastings A, Wang S, Smith P (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Change Biol 18(5):1622–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2010) Overview and methodology. Final report ecoinvent data v2.2, No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu ZG, Chan AW, Minns DE (2003) Lyfe cycle assessment of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):137–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I: characterisation. Ministry of housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM), The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Faist Emmenegger M, Gnansounou E, Kljun N, Schleiss K, Spielmann M, Stettler C, Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. ecoinvent report no. 17, v2.0. ESU-services, Uster

  • Kim S, Dale BE (2009) Regional variations in greenhouse gas emissions of biobased products in the United States—corn-based ethanol and soybean oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:540–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Civit B, Margni M, Saad R, Maia de Souza D, Beck T, Müller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0579-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosaric N, Duvnjak Z, Farkas A, Sahm H, Binger-Meyer S, Goebel O, Mayer D et al (2001) Ethanol. In: Arpe (ed) Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry: electronic release, 6th edn. Wiley, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Laborde D (2011) Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies, final report. Prepared by the International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI) for the European Commission. Specific Contract No SI2. 580403, implementing Framework Contract No TRADE/07/A2

  • Linak E, Janshekar H, Inoguchi Y (2009) Ethanol. Chemical economics handbook research report. SRI Consulting, Houston

  • Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR (2008) Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenerg 32:582–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers R (1986) Handbook of chemical production processes. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • MilàiCanals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0380-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SA, Landis AE, Theis TL (2007) Environmental trade-offs of biobased production. Environ Sci Technol 41(15):5176–5182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:172–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz I, Rigarlsford G, Milà i Canals L, King H (2013) Accounting for greenhouse-gas emissions from the degradation of chemicals in the environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Heil A, Huguenin O, Meier S, Erzinger S, Blaser S, Dux D, Zimmermann A (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Ecoinvent report no. 15, v2.0. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz and FAT Taenikon, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Weiler K, Plassmann K, Schnetzer J, Gaillard G, Jefferies D, García–Suárez T, King H, Milà i Canals L (2012) Estimation of the variability in global warming potential of global crop production using a modular extrapolation approach (MEXALCA). J Clean Prod 31:106–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen TT, Gheewala SH (2008a) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):147–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen TT, Gheewala SH (2008b) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):301–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ometto AR, Hauschild MZ, Lopes Roma WN (2009) Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:236–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pré Consultants (2012) Simapro software. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/content/simapro-lca-software. Accessed 08 June 2012

  • Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK (2008) An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1144–1155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roches A, Nemecek T, Gaillard G, Plassmann K, Sim S, King H, Milà i Canals L (2010) MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(8):842–854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Röös E, Sundberg C, Hansson P-A (2010) Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of food products: a case study on table potatoes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:478–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0577-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2011) Long-term bioethanol system and its implications on GHG emissions: a case study of Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 45:4920–4928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart LK, Charlesworth PB, Bristow KL (2003) Estimating nitrate leaching under a sugarcane crop using APSIM-SWIM. Proceedings from: MODSIM 2003 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, July 2003

  • Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of petrochemical solvents. ecoinvent report No. 22, v2.0. ETH Zürich. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsao CC, Campbell JE, Mena-Carrasco M, Spak SN, Carmichael GR, Chen Y (2011) Increased estimates of air-pollution emissions from Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol. Nat Clim Chang 2:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2010) Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, MK44 1LQ, UK

    Ivan Muñoz, Giles Rigarlsford, Llorenç Milà i Canals & Henry King

  2. ESU-services Ltd, Margrit Rainer-Strasse 11c, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Karin Flury & Niels Jungbluth

  3. 2.-0 LCA Consultants, Skibbrogade 5, 1, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark

    Ivan Muñoz

Authors
  1. Ivan Muñoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Flury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Niels Jungbluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giles Rigarlsford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Llorenç Milà i Canals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henry King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giles Rigarlsford.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Sangwon Suh

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 480 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muñoz, I., Flury, K., Jungbluth, N. et al. Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 109–119 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0613-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0613-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation