Advertisement

Comparative life cycle assessment of first- and second-generation ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil

  • Daniel Maga
  • Nils Thonemann
  • Markus Hiebel
  • Diogo Sebastião
  • Tiago F. Lopes
  • César Fonseca
  • Francisco Gírio
LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

The use of bagasse and trash from sugarcane fields in ethanol production is supposed to increase the ethanol yield per hectare, to reduce the energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental impacts. In this article, different technological options of ethanol production are investigated and quantified looking at potential environmental impacts. The first-generation ethanol from sugarcane is compared to stand-alone second-generation ethanol as well as an integrated first- and second-generation ethanol production.

Methods

The method applied for this life cycle assessment follows the ISO standards 14040/44. The data used in this life cycle assessment is mainly derived from process simulation, literature, and primary data collection. Background data was taken from databases such as GaBi and ecoinvent. The life cycle impact assessment follows the default methods at midpoint level recommended by the International Reference Life Cycle Data System. The calculations were performed using the GaBi 7 life cycle assessment software. It is assumed that 50% of sugarcane trash is recovered and used for second-generation ethanol production, whereas the other 50% remain in the field to maintain soil fertility and to prevent soil erosion. In the case of first-generation ethanol, the same amount of trash is used for energy generation.

Results and discussion

The results of the life cycle impact assessment show that, compared to first-generation ethanol, second-generation ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil allows significant reductions in all investigated impact categories except resource depletion. Resource depletion, however, is strongly influenced by the demand for ammonium phosphate which is needed for inoculum preparation. Integrated first- and second-generation ethanol production also allows reductions in most of the environmental impacts except for global warming, photochemical ozone depletion, and resource depletion. The yield of ethanol per hectare increases since bagasse and trash are used for the production of second-generation ethanol. Consequently, the results show that agricultural land occupation is reduced for integrated first- and second-generation ethanol by approximately 11%, whereas second-generation ethanol allows reduction of land use by approximately a factor of 30.

Conclusions

The use of bagasse and trash for ethanol production allows both the reduction of several environmental impacts and land use, in particular, because impacts caused by sugarcane cultivation are avoided. For the integrated first- and second-generation ethanol scenario, it is important to further reduce the total energy demand in order to achieve self-sufficiency for the plant energy and to avoid additional emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Keywords

Advanced biofuels Bagasse Brazil Ethanol LCA Life cycle assessment Second-generation ethanol Sugarcane 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian colleagues Antonio Bonomi, Edvaldo Rodrigues, and Otavio Cavallet for their support and providing primary data for agricultural activities of sugarcane in Brazil that were generated by the CanaSoft model which had been developed by those researchers at CTBE, Campinas - São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding information

This work was funded by the European Commission under the FP7 Programme (Proethanol2G grant #251151).

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1505_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3602 kb)

References

  1. Aul E, Cordova R (1993) AP-42: compilation of air emission factors, chapter 1: external combustion sources. Emission factor documentation for AP-42 section, 1.8 bagasse combustion in sugar millsGoogle Scholar
  2. Barta Z, Kovacs K, Reczey K, Zacchi G (2010) Process design and economics of on-site cellulase production on various carbon sources in a softwood-based ethanol plant. J Enzym Res 2010(1–3):1–8Google Scholar
  3. Basso LC, Basso TO, Nitsche Rocha S (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. In: Dos Santos B, Aurelio M (eds) Biofuel production-recent developments and prospects. InTechGoogle Scholar
  4. Braunbeck OA, Magalhães PSG (2010) Avaliação tecnológica da mecanização da cana-de-açúcar. In: Cortez LAB (ed) Bioetanol de cana-de-açúcar. P&D para produtividade e sustentabilidade, Blucher, São Paulo, pp 451–475Google Scholar
  5. Cardoso TDF, Chagas MF, de Morais ER, Carvalho JLN, Franco HCJ, Galdos MV, Scarpare FV, Braunbeck OA, Cortez LAB, Bonomi A (2013) Technical and economic assessment of trash recovery in the sugarcane bioenergy production system. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz) 70(5):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Cardoso TDF, Franco HCJ, Junqueira TL, Pavanello LG, Jesus CDF, Moraes BS, Bonomi A (2013) Development of an agricultural model for biorefineries sustainability optimization. In: 21st European Biomass Conference. Setting the course for a biobased economy. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Florence, pp 1826–1834Google Scholar
  7. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Junqueira TL, Watanabe MDB, Bonomi A (2017) Environmental impacts of technology learning curve for cellulosic ethanol in Brazil. Ind Crop Prod 106:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Magalhães PSG, Carvalho JLN, Cardoso TDF, Franco HJ, Braunbeck OA, Bonomi A (2016) The agricultural production model. In: Bonomi A, Cavalett O, Pereira da Cunha M, Lima MAP (eds) Virtual biorefinery. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 13–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A (2012) Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:647–658.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0465-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar (1987) Apostila do curso de Engenharia açucareira: Processo de Fabricação de Açúcar. Parte I, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
  11. Chagas MF, Bordonal RO, Cavalett O, Carvalho JLN, Bonomi A, La Scala N (2016) Environmental and economic impacts of different sugarcane production systems in the ethanol biorefinery. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 10(1):89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chagas MF, Rosa Erguy N, Toshio Sugawara E (2012) Sugarcane life cycle inventory, Campinas, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandel AK, da Silva SS, Junqueira TL, Morais ER, Gouveia VLR, Cavalett O, Rivera EC, Geraldo VC, Bonomi A (2014) Chapter 1: Techno-economic analysis of second-generation ethanol in Brazil: competitive, complementary aspects with first-generation ethanol. In: da Silva SS, Chandel AK (eds) Biofuels in Brazil. Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunha MP, Chagas MF, Junqueira TL, Dias MOS, Pavanello LG, Leal MRLV, Rossell CEV, Bonomi A (2013) An exploratory economic analysis of sugarcane harvest extension using sweet sorghum in the Brazilian sugarcane industry. In: Hogarth DM (ed) International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. Proceedings of the XXVIIIth Congress. Scribe Consulting, Brisbane, pp 1411–1415Google Scholar
  15. Dasari RK, Dunaway K, Berson RE (2009) A scraped surface bioreactor for enzymatic saccharification of pretreated corn stover slurries. Energy Fuel 23(1):492–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Camargo CA, Ushima AH (1990) Conservação de energia na indústria do açúcar e do álcool. In: Manual de recomendações. Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  17. de Souza Paraiso ML, Gouveia N (2015) Health risks due to pre-harvesting sugarcane burning in São Paulo State, Brazil. Rev Bras Epidemiol 18(3):691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias MOS (2008) Simulation of ethanol production processes from sugar and sugarcane bagasse, aiming process integration and maximization of energy and bagasse surplus [Simulação do processo de produção de etanol a partir do açúcar e do bagaço, visando à integração do processo e a maximização da produção de energia e excedentes do bagaço] (in Portuguese). MSc Dissertation (Chemical Engineering), University of CampinasGoogle Scholar
  19. Dias MOS, Cunha MP, Jesus CDF, Scandiffio MIG, Rossell CEV, Filho RM, Bonomi A (2010) Simulation of ethanol production from sugarcane in Brazil: economic study of an autonomous distillery. In: Pierucci S, Buzzi Ferraris G (ed) Computer aided chemical engineering: 20th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, vol 28. Elsevier, pp 733–738Google Scholar
  20. Dias MOS, Junqueira TL, Cunha MP, Jesus CDF, Rossell CEV, Maciel Filho R, Bonomi A (2012) Integrated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresour Technol 103(1):152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Du C, Kulay L, Cavalett O, Dias L, Freire F (2018) Life cycle assessment addressing health effects of particulate matter of mechanical versus manual sugarcane harvesting in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(4):787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. EU (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ECGoogle Scholar
  23. Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (2016) FAOSTAT. Sugar cane productionGoogle Scholar
  24. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database. Overview and methodological framework (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gírio F, Fonseca C (2015) Final report summary - PROETHANOL2G (integration of biology and engineering into an economical and energy-efficient 2G bioethanol biorefinery). EU-Brazil Collaborative project funded by the EU Commission EU: (FP7-ENERGY-2009-BRAZIL, Contract No 251151) and Brazilian government (BRAZIL: Edital n° 006/2009 - CNPq/MCT). http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/169193_en.html. Accessed 11 May 2017
  26. Gírio F, Marques S, Pinto F, Oliveira AC, Costa P, Reis A, Moura P (2017) Biorefineries in the world. In: Rabaçal M, Ferreira AF, Silva CAM, Costa M (eds) Biorefineries: targeting energy, high value products and waste valorisation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 227–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gírio F, Sebastião D, Fonseca C, Marques S, Maga D, Hiebel M (2015) 2G bioethanol biorefinery using sugarcane lignocellulosic biomass residues. In: Berg A, Parra C, Castro E, Gírio F, Rodríguez J, Villar JC, Area MC, Peresin MS, Navia R (eds) Biorefineries. Science, technology and innovation for the bioeconomy, pp 34–35Google Scholar
  28. Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L (2009) Life cycle assessment of biofuels. Energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresour Technol 100(21):4919–4930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gnansounou E, Vaskan P, Pachon ER (2015) Comparative techno-economic assessment and LCA of selected integrated sugarcane-based biorefineries. Bioresour Technol 196:364–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, Schoen P, Lukas J, Olthof B, Worley M, Sexton D, Dugdeon D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover NREL Report TP5100–47764Google Scholar
  32. IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4 – agriculture, forestry and other land useGoogle Scholar
  33. ISO (2006) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044)Google Scholar
  34. JRC (2011) ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context - based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. Kartha S, Larson ED (2000) Bioenergy primer. Modernised biomass energy for sustainable development. UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Larsen J (2013) Inbicon, a flexible cellulosic ethanol process. 3rd International Conference in Lignocellulosic Ethanol, MadridGoogle Scholar
  37. Larsen J, Haven MØ, Thirup L (2012) Inbicon makes lignocellulosic ethanol a commercial reality. Biomass Bioenergy 46:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leal MRLV (2010) Evolução tecnológica do processamento da cana-de-açúcar para etanol e energia eléctrica. In: Cortez LAB (ed) Bioetanol de cana-de-açúcar. P&D para produtividade e sustentabilidade, Blucher, São Paulo, pp 561–575Google Scholar
  39. Leal MRLV, Galdos MV, Scarpare FV, Seabra JEA, Walter AS, de Oliveira COF (2013) Sugarcane straw availability, quality, recovery and energy use. A literature review. Biomass Bioenergy 53:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(6–7):1613–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magalhães PSG, Nogueira LAH, Cantarella H, Rossetto R, Franco HCJ, Braunbeck OA (2012) Agro-industrial technological paths. In: Poppe MK, Cortez LAB (eds) Sustainability of sugarcane bioenergy. CGEE, Brasília, pp 27–69Google Scholar
  42. Milanez AY, Nyko D, Valente MS, Bonomi A, Jesus CDF, Watanabe MDB, Chagas MF, Junqueira TL, Gouvêia VLRD (2015) De promessa a realidade. como o etanol celulósico pode revolucionar a indústria da cana-de-açúcar: uma avaliação do potencial competitivo e sugestões de política pública. BNDES Setorial 41:237–294Google Scholar
  43. Nassar AM, Rudorff BFT, Barcellos Antoniazzi L, Alves de Aguiar D, Rumenos Piedade Bacchi M, Adami M (2008) Prospects of the sugarcane expansion in Brazil: impacts on direct and indirect land use changes. In: Zuurbier P, van de Vooren J (eds) Sugarcane ethanol. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  44. Nogueira LAH, Seabra JEA, Best G, Leal MRLV, Poppe MK (2008a) Sugarcane based bioethanol: energy for sustainable development. Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e SocialGoogle Scholar
  45. Nogueira LAH, Seabra JEA, Best G, Leal MRLV, Poppe MK (2008b) Sugarcane-based bioethanol. Energy for sustainable development. BNDES and CGEEGoogle Scholar
  46. Ometto AR, Hauschild MZ, Lopes Roma WN (2009) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petersen MØ, Larsen J, Thomsen MH (2009) Optimization of hydrothermal pretreatment of wheat straw for production of bioethanol at low water consumption without addition of chemicals. Biomass Bioenergy 33(5):834–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reijnders L (2006) Conditions for the sustainability of biomass based fuel use. Energy Policy 34(7):863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rein P (2017) Cane sugar engineering, 2nd edn. Verlag Dr. Albert Bartens KG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Rezende MCAF, Silva RJ, Klein BC, Junqueira TL, Chagas MF, Cavalett O, Filho RM, Bonomi A (2016) Technical, economic and environmental assessment of ethanol production using a biochemical- thermochemicaln hybrid route. Chem Eng Trans 2016(50):145–150.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1650025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ribeiro PR (2003) A Usina de Açúcar e sua Automação, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  52. Roy P, Tokuyasu K, Orikasa T, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2012) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. JARQ 46(1):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Solomon S, Singh P (2015) Chapter 3: Sugarcane as an alternative source of sustainable energy. In: Bhardwaj AK, Chen J, Zenone T (eds) Sustainable biofuels. An ecological assessment of future energy. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 21–58Google Scholar
  54. thinkstep (2017) Database for life cycle engineering, Leinfelden-EchterdingenGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsiropoulos I, Faaij APC, Seabra JEA, Lundquist L, Schenker U, Briois J-F, Patel MK (2014) Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(5):1049–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walter AS, Dolzan P, Quilodrán O, Garcia J, da Silva C, Piacente F, Segerstedt A (2008) A sustainability analysis of the Brazilian ethanol, CampinasGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiloso EI, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR (2012) LCA of second generation bioethanol: a review and some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(7):5295–5308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Unit Sustainability and Resources ManagementFraunhofer Institute for Environmental-, Safety- and Energy Technology UMSICHTOberhausenGermany
  2. 2.Unit of BioenergyLaboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia (LNEG)LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations