Reference and functional unit can change bioenergy pathway choices
- 552 Downloads
This study aims to compare the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of two cellulosic bioenergy pathways (i.e., bioethanol and bioelectricity) using different references and functional units. It also aims to address uncertainties associated with a comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) for the two bioenergy pathways.
We develop a stochastic, comparative life cycle GHG analysis model for a switchgrass-based bioenergy system. Life cycle GHG offsets of the biofuel and bioelectricity pathways for cellulosic bioenergy are compared. The reference system for bioethanol is the equivalent amount of gasoline to provide the same transportation utility (e.g., vehicle driving for certain distance) as bioethanol does. We use multiple reference systems for bioelectricity, including the average US grid, regional grid in the USA according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and average coal-fired power generation, on the basis of providing the same transportation utility. The functional unit is one unit of energy content (MJ). GHG offsets of bioethanol and bioelectricity relative to reference systems are compared in both grams carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare of land per year (g CO2-eq/ha-yr) and grams carbon dioxide equivalents per vehicle kilometer traveled (g CO2-eq/km). For the latter, we include vehicle cycle to make the comparison meaningful. To address uncertainty and variability, we derive life cycle GHG emissions based on probability distributions of individual parameters representing various unit processes in the life cycle of bioenergy pathways.
Results and discussion
Our results show the choice of reference system and functional unit significantly changes the competition between switchgrass-based bioethanol and bioelectricity. In particular, our results show that the bioethanol pathway produces more life cycle GHG emissions than the bioelectricity pathway on a per unit energy content or a per unit area of crop land basis. However, the bioethanol pathway can offer more GHG offsets than the bioelectricity pathway on a per vehicle kilometer traveled basis when using bioethanol and bioelectricity for vehicle operation. Given the current energy mix of regional grids, bioethanol can potentially offset more GHG emissions than bioelectricity in all grid regions of the USA.
The reference and functional unit can change bioenergy pathway choices. The comparative LCA of bioenergy systems is most useful for decision support only when it is spatially explicit to address regional specifics and differences. The difference of GHG offsets from bioethanol and bioelectricity will change as the grid evolves. When the grids get cleaner over time, the favorability of bioethanol for GHG offsets increases.
KeywordsBioelectricity Bioethanol Functional unit Life cycle Reference system Switchgrass
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1132581. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. S.C. also thanks the support provided by the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. S.L. thanks the support from the Dow Sustainability Fellows Program.
- ANL (2012) The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model. Transportation Technology Research and Development Center, Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. http://greet.es.anl.gov. Accessed August 2012
- Brander M, Tipper R, Hutchison C, Davis G (2008) Consequential and Attributional Approaches to LCA: a Guide to Policy Makers with Specific Reference to Greenhouse Gas LCA of Biofuels. ecometrica pressGoogle Scholar
- Brinkman N, Wang M, Weber T, Darlington T (2005) Well-to-wheels analysis of advanced fuel/vehicle systems — a north American study of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria pollutant emissions. Argonne National Laboratory, ArgonneGoogle Scholar
- Davis EB, Jager HI, West TO, Perlack RD, Brandt CC, Wullschleger SD, Baskaran LM, Wilkerson EG, Downing ME, Gunderson CA (2008) Exploring Potential U.S. Switchgrass Production for Lignocellulosic Ethanol. U.S. Department of Energy Publications. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub/16. Accessed August 2012
- DOE (2012) Fuel Economy Guide. U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
- DSIRE (2012) Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & EfficiencyGoogle Scholar
- EIA (2012) Annual Energy Outlook 2012. U.S. Energy Information AdministrationGoogle Scholar
- EPA (2012) Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
- Groode TA (2008) Biomass to ethanol: potential production and environmental impacts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, Schoen P, Lukas J, Olthof B, Worley M, Sexton D, Dudgeon D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol, vol NREL/TP-5100–47764. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
- Kløverpris J, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH (2010) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Part 2: example of wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):90–103Google Scholar
- Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen PH (2008) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):13–21Google Scholar
- Mann MK, Spath PL (1997) Life cycle assessment of a biomass gasification combined-cycle power system. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
- McKone TE, Nazaroff WW, Berck P, Auffhammer M, Lipman T, Torn MS, Masanet E, Lobscheid A, Santero N, Mishra U, Barrett A, Bomberg M, Fingerman K, Scown C, Strogen B, Horvath A (2011) Grand challenges for life-cycle assessment of biofuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(5):1751–1756. doi: 10.1021/es103579c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pike-Research (2010) Biomass markets and technologies. Pike Research, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (2012) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Vázquez-Rowe I, Rege S, Marvuglia A, Thénie J, Haurie A, Benetto E (2013) Application of three independent consequential LCA approaches to the agricultural sector in Luxembourg. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1593–1604Google Scholar
- West BH, López AJ, Theiss TJ, Graves RL, Storey JM, Lewis SA (2007) Fuel Economy and Emissions of the Ethanol-Optimized Saab 9–5 Biopower. SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar