Advertisement

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

  • Ivan Muñoz
  • Karin Flury
  • Niels Jungbluth
  • Giles Rigarlsford
  • Llorenç Milà i Canals
  • Henry King
LCA FOR RENEWABLE RESOURCES

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.

Keywords

Bioethanol Bio-based Biogenic feedstock LCA Maize Sugarcane Sugar beet Wheat 

Supplementary material

11367_2013_613_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 480 mb)

References

  1. 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):574–585Google Scholar
  2. ADEME (2010) Analyses de Cycle de Vie appliquées aux biocarburants de première génération consommés en France. Direction Production et Energies Durables (DEPD), FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. de Jong E, Higson A, Walsh P, Wellisch M (2012) Bio-based chemicals, value added products from biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy, Task42 BiorefineryGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 11Google Scholar
  11. FAO (2010) Bioenergy environmental impact analysis (BIAS). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2011a) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor. Accessed 13 June 2012
  13. FAO (2011b) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor. Accessed 13 June 2012
  14. Flury K, Jungbluth N (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions and water footprint of ethanol from maize, sugar cane, wheat and sugar beet. ESU-services, Uster, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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):1622–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  18. Fu ZG, Chan AW, Minns DE (2003) Lyfe cycle assessment of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(3):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, UsterGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 14:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  24. 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/A2Google Scholar
  25. Linak E, Janshekar H, Inoguchi Y (2009) Ethanol. Chemical economics handbook research report. SRI Consulting, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 32:582–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyers R (1986) Handbook of chemical production processes. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Miller SA, Landis AE, Theis TL (2007) Environmental trade-offs of biobased production. Environ Sci Technol 41(15):5176–5182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 15:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 31:106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen TT, Gheewala SH (2008a) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nguyen TT, Gheewala SH (2008b) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ometto AR, Hauschild MZ, Lopes Roma WN (2009) Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pré Consultants (2012) Simapro software. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/content/simapro-lca-software. Accessed 08 June 2012
  38. 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 32:1144–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):842–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 15:478–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2011) Long-term bioethanol system and its implications on GHG emissions: a case study of Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 45:4920–4928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 2003Google Scholar
  44. Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of petrochemical solvents. ecoinvent report No. 22, v2.0. ETH Zürich. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 2:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. USEPA (2010) Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Muñoz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Karin Flury
    • 2
  • Niels Jungbluth
    • 2
  • Giles Rigarlsford
    • 1
  • Llorenç Milà i Canals
    • 1
  • Henry King
    • 1
  1. 1.Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, UnileverSharnbrookUK
  2. 2.ESU-services LtdZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.2.-0 LCA ConsultantsAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations