Comparative life cycle assessment of first- and second-generation ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsAdvanced biofuels Bagasse Brazil Ethanol LCA Life cycle assessment Second-generation ethanol Sugarcane
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.
This work was funded by the European Commission under the FP7 Programme (Proethanol2G grant #251151).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar (1987) Apostila do curso de Engenharia açucareira: Processo de Fabricação de Açúcar. Parte I, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
- Chagas MF, Rosa Erguy N, Toshio Sugawara E (2012) Sugarcane life cycle inventory, Campinas, BrazilGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (2016) FAOSTAT. Sugar cane productionGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4 – agriculture, forestry and other land useGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044)Google Scholar
- 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
- Kartha S, Larson ED (2000) Bioenergy primer. Modernised biomass energy for sustainable development. UNDP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Larsen J (2013) Inbicon, a flexible cellulosic ethanol process. 3rd International Conference in Lignocellulosic Ethanol, MadridGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Nogueira LAH, Seabra JEA, Best G, Leal MRLV, Poppe MK (2008b) Sugarcane-based bioethanol. Energy for sustainable development. BNDES and CGEEGoogle Scholar
- Rein P (2017) Cane sugar engineering, 2nd edn. Verlag Dr. Albert Bartens KG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Ribeiro PR (2003) A Usina de Açúcar e sua Automação, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
- 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
- thinkstep (2017) Database for life cycle engineering, Leinfelden-EchterdingenGoogle Scholar
- 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