The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 529–539 | Cite as

Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol

  • Lin Luo
  • Ester van der Voet
  • Gjalt Huppes
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes


Background, aim, and scope

Facing the threat of oil depletion and climate change, a shift from fossil resources to renewables is ongoing to secure long-term low carbon energy supplies. In view of the carbon dioxide reduction targets agreed upon in the Kyoto protocol, bioethanol has become an attractive option for one energy application, as transport fuel. Many studies on the LCA of fuel ethanol have been conducted, and the results vary to a large extent. In most of these studies, only one type of allocation is applied. However, the effect of allocation on outcomes is of crucial importance to LCA as a decision supporting tool. This is only addressed in a few studies to a limited extent. Moreover, most of the studies mainly focus on fossil energy use and GHG emissions. In this paper, a case study is presented wherein a more complete set of impact categories is used. Land use has been left out of account as only hectare data would be given which is obviously dominated by agriculture. Moreover, different allocation methods are applied to assess the sensitivity of the outcomes for allocation choices.

Materials and methods

This study focuses on the comparison of LCA results from the application of different allocation methods by presenting an LCA of gasoline and ethanol as fuels and with two types of blends of gasoline with ethanol, all used in a midsize car. As a main second-generation application growing fast in the USA, corn stover-based ethanol is chosen as a case study. The life cycles of the fuels include gasoline production, corn and stover agriculture, cellulosic ethanol production, blending ethanol with gasoline to produce E10 (10% of ethanol) and E85 (85% of ethanol), and finally the use of gasoline, E10, E85, and ethanol. In this study, a substantially broader set of eight environmental impacts is covered.


LCA results appear to be largely dependent on the allocation methods rendered. The level of abiotic depletion and ozone layer depletion decrease when replacing gasoline by ethanol fuels, irrespective of the allocation method applied, while the rest of the impacts except global warming potential are larger. The results show a reduction of global warming potential when mass/energy allocation is applied; in the case of economic allocation, it gives contrary results. In the expanded systems, global warming potential is significantly reduced comparing to the ones from the allocated systems. A contribution analysis shows that car driving, electricity use for cellulase enzyme production, and ethanol conversion contribute largely to global warming potential from the life cycle of ethanol fuels.


The reason why the results of global warming potential show a reverse trend is that the corn/stover allocation ratio shifts from 7.5 to 1.7 when shifting from economic allocation to mass/energy allocation. When mass/energy allocation is applied, both more credits (CO2 uptake) and more penalties (N2O emission) in agriculture are allocated to stover compared to the case of economic allocation. However, more CO2 is taken up than N2O (in CO2 eq.) emitted. Hence, the smaller the allocation ratio is between corn and stover, the lower the share of the overall global warming emissions being allocated to ethanol will be. In the system expansion approach, global warming potentials are significantly reduced, resulting in the negative values in all cases. This implies that the system expansion results are comparable to one another because they make the same cutoffs but not really to the results related to mass, energy, and economic value-based allocated systems.


The choice of the allocation methods is essential for the outcomes, especially for global warming potential in this case. The application of economic allocation leads to increased GWP when replacing gasoline by ethanol fuels, while reduction of GWP is achieved when mass/energy allocation is used as well as in the system where biogenic CO2 is excluded. Ethanol fuels are better options than gasoline when abiotic depletion and ozone layer depletion are concerned. In terms of other environmental impacts, gasoline is a better option, mainly due to the emissions of nutrients and toxic substances connected with agriculture. A clear shift of problems can be detected: saving fossil fuels at the expense of emissions related to agriculture, with GHG benefits depending on allocation choices. The overall evaluation of these fuel options, therefore, depends very much on the importance attached to each impact category.

Recommendations and perspectives

This study focuses only on corn stover-based ethanol as one case. Further studies may include other types of cellulosic feedstocks (i.e., switchgrass or wood), which require less intensive agricultural practice and may lead to better environmental performance of fuel ethanol. Furthermore, this study shows that widely used but different allocation methods determine outcomes of LCA studies on biofuels. This is an unacceptable situation from a societal point of view and a challenge from a scientific point of view. The results from applying just one allocation method are not sufficient for decision making. Comparison of different allocation methods is certainly of crucial importance. A broader approach beyond LCA for the analysis of biorefinery systems with regard to energy conservation, environmental impact, and cost–benefit will provide general indications on the sustainability of bio-based productions.


E10 E85 Allocation Corn stover Environmental impact Fuel ethanol Gasoline System expansion 



This project is financially supported by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs and the B-Basic partner organizations ( through B-Basic, a public–private NWO-ACTS program (ACTS = Advanced Chemical Technologies for Sustainability).


  1. Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheenhan J, Wallace B, Montague L, Slayton A, Lukas J (2002) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. NREL/TP-510-32438Google Scholar
  2. Beer T, Grant T (2007) Life-cycle analysis of emissions from fuel ethanol and blends in Australian heavy and light vehicles. J Clean Prod 15:33–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ethanol Market (2007) Accessed January 2009
  4. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 27:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fu GZ, Chan AW, Minns DE (2003) Life cycle assessment of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Panichelli L, Villegas J (2008) Energy and greenhouse gas balances of biofuels: biases induced by LCA modeling choices. J Sci Ind Res 67:885–897Google Scholar
  7. González-García S, Luo L, Moreira MT, Feijoo G, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment of flax shives derived second generation ethanol fueled automobiles in Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev . doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.02.003 Google Scholar
  8. Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guinée JB et al. (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment–Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. ISBN 1-4020-0228-9, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  10. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation—examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halleux H, Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Germain A (2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of two biofuels ethanol from sugar beet and rapeseed methyl ester. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Homewood B (1993) Will Brazil’s cars go on the Wagon? New Sci 137:22–24Google Scholar
  13. ISO Norm 14040 (2006) Life cycle assessment–principles and framework.. Environ managementGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO Norm 14044 (2006) Life cycle assessment–requirement and guidelines. Environ managementGoogle Scholar
  15. Jungbluth N, Bauer C, Dones R, Frischknecht R (2005) Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller JL (1984) Ethanol and Methanol as Fuel. In: Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. 4th edn., New York, Dekker M, 20:11-39Google Scholar
  17. Kelly KJ, Bailey BK, Coburn TC, Clark W, Lissiuk P (1996) Federal test procedure emissions test results from ethanol variable-fuel vehicle chevrolet luminas. society for automotive engineers. International Spring Fuels and Lubricants MeetinGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemppainen AJ, Schonnard DR (2005) Comparative life-cycle assessments for biomass-to-ethanol production from different regional feedstocks. Biotechnol Prog 21:1075–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim S, Dale DE (2002) Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from corn grain I. system expansion. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):237-243Google Scholar
  20. Kim S, Dale DE (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26:361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim S, Dale DE (2005a) Environmental aspects of ethanol derived from no-tilled corn grain: nonrenewable energy consumption and green house gas emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 28:475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim S, Dale DE (2005b) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels—bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenergy 29:426–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leng R, Wang C, Zhang C, Dai D, Pu G (2008) Life cycle inventory and energy analysis of cassava-based fuel ethanol in China. J Clean Prod 16:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, Cassman KG (2009) Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol. J Ind Ecol 13(1):58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G (2008) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev . doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.024 Google Scholar
  26. Macedo IC (1998) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances in bio-ethanol production and utilization in Brazil (1996). Biomass Bioenergy 14(1):77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macedo IC (2008) Greenhouse gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil—the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 32:582–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malça J, Freire F (2006) Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of allocation. Energy 31:3362–3380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH (2008) Fossil energy, environmental and cost performance of ethanol in Thailand. J Clean Prod 16:1814–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pordesimo LO, Hames BR, Sokhansanj S, Edens WC (2005) Variation in corn stover composition and energy content with crop maturity. Biomass Bioenergy 28:366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reading AH, Norris JOW, Feest EA, Payne EL (2002) Ethanol Emissions Testing. AEAT Unclassified, E&E/DDSE/02/021, Issue 3Google Scholar
  32. Searcy E, Flynn P (2008) Processing of straw/corn stover: comparison of life cycle emissions. Int J Green Energy 5:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sheehan J, Aden A, Riley C, Paustian K, Brenner J, Lightle D, Nelson R, Walsh M, Cushman J (2002) Is ethanol from corn stover sustainable? Adventures in cyber-farming: a life cycle assessment of the production of ethanol from corn stover for use in a flex fuel vehicle. Draft report for peer review, Colorado, NRELGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheehan J, Aden A, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M, Nelson R (2004) Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol 7(4):117–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spatari S, Zhang Y, Maclean HL (2005) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 39:9750–9758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S, Geerken T, van Holderbeke M, Jansen B, Nielsen P (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) –analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25Google Scholar
  37. von Blottnitz H, Curran MA (2007) A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 15:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zah R, Böni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wäger P (2007) Life cycle assessment of energy products: environmental impact assessment of biofuels. Empa, Technology and Society LabGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin Luo
    • 1
  • Ester van der Voet
    • 1
  • Gjalt Huppes
    • 1
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Ecology, Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Faculty of ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations