LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass

  • Francesco CherubiniEmail author
  • Gerfried Jungmeier


Background, aim, and scope

The availability of fossil resources is predicted to decrease in the near future: they are a non-renewable source, they cause environmental concerns, and they are subjected to price instability. Utilization of biomass as raw material in a biorefinery is a promising alternative to fossil resources for production of energy carriers and chemicals, as well as for mitigating climate change and enhancing energy security. This paper focuses on a biorefinery concept which produces bioethanol, bioenergy, and biochemicals from switchgrass, a lignocellulosic crop. Results are compared with a fossil reference system producing the same products/services from fossil sources.

Materials and methods

The biorefinery system is investigated using a Life Cycle Assessment approach, which takes into account all the input and output flows occurring along the production chain. This paper elaborates on methodological key issues like land use change effects and soil N2O emissions, whose influence on final outcomes is weighted in a sensitivity analysis. Since climate change mitigation and energy security are the two most important driving forces for biorefinery development, the assessment has a focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cumulative primary energy demand (distinguished into fossil and renewable), but other environmental impact categories (e.g., abiotic depletion, eutrophication, etc.) are assessed as well.


The use of switchgrass in a biorefinery offsets GHG emissions and reduces fossil energy demand: GHG emissions are decreased by 79% and about 80% of non-renewable energy is saved. Soil C sequestration is responsible for a large GHG benefit (65 kt CO2-eq/a, for the first 20 years), while switchgrass production is the most important contributor to total GHG emissions of the system. If compared with the fossil reference system, the biorefinery system releases more N2O emissions, while both CO2 and CH4 emissions are reduced. The investigation of the other impact categories revealed that the biorefinery has higher impacts in two categories: acidification and eutrophication.


Results are mainly affected by raw material (i.e., switchgrass) production and land use change effects. Steps which mainly influence the production of switchgrass are soil N2O emissions, manufacture of fertilizers (especially those nitrogen-based), processing (i.e., pelletizing and drying), and transport. Even if the biorefinery chain has higher primary energy demand than the fossil reference system, it is mainly based on renewable energy (i.e., the energy content of the feedstock): the provision of biomass with sustainable practices is then a crucial point to ensure a renewable energy supply to biorefineries.


This biorefinery system is an effective option for mitigating climate change, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, and enhancing cleaner production chains based on local and renewable resources. However, this assessment evidences that determination of the real GHG and energy balance (and all other environmental impacts in general) is complex, and a certain degree of uncertainty is always present in final results. Ranges in final results can be even more widened by applying different combinations of biomass feedstocks, conversion routes, fuels, end-use applications, and methodological assumptions.

Recommendations and perspectives

This study demonstrated that the perennial grass switchgrass enhances carbon sequestration in soils if established on set-aside land, thus, considerably increasing the GHG savings of the system for the first 20 years after crop establishment. Given constraints in land resources and competition with food, feed, and fiber production, high biomass yields are extremely important in achieving high GHG emission savings, although use of chemical fertilizers to enhance plant growth can reduce the savings. Some strategies, aiming at simultaneously maintaining crop yield and reduce N fertilization application through alternative management, can be adopted. However, even if a reduction in GHG emissions is achieved, it should not be disregarded that additional environmental impacts (like acidification and eutrophication) may be caused. This aspect cannot be ignored by policy makers, even if they have climate change mitigation objectives as main goal.


Biorefinery Bioenergy Biochemicals Switchgrass 


  1. Alzate CAC, Toro OJS (2006) Energy consumption analysis of integrated flowsheets for production of fuel ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Energy 31:2447–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balat M, Balat H (2009) Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Appl Energ 11:2273–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berglund M, Börjesson P (2006) Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass Bioenerg 30(2006):254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 Cleaner Prod 15:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullard M, Metcalfe P (2001) Estimating the energy requirements and CO2 emissions from production of the perennial grasses miscanthus, switchgrass and reed canary grass. ETSU Report Number B/U1/00645/REP. DTI/Pub URN 01/797, Contractor ADAS Consulting LtdGoogle Scholar
  6. CAST—Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2004) Climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation: challenges and opportunities for agriculture. CAST, Ames, IA, p 120Google Scholar
  7. Cherubini F, Ulgiati S (2009) Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems - A LCA case study. Appl Energy 53(8):434–447Google Scholar
  8. Cherubini F, Bird N, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009a) Energy and GHG-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendation. Resourc Conserv Recy 53:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherubini F, Jungmeier G, Mandl M, Philips C, Wellisch M, Jørgensen H, Skiadas I, Boniface L, Dohy M, Pouet JC, Willke T, Walsh P, van Ree R, de Jong E (2009b) IEA Bioenergy Task 42: Report on Participating Countries. Document of IEA Bioenergy Task 42 ‘Biorefineries’,
  10. Cherubini F, Jungmeier G, Wellisch M, Willke T, Skiadas I, van Ree R, de Jong E (2009c) Towards a classification approach for biorefinery systems. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 3(5):534–546Google Scholar
  11. Conant RT, Paustian K, Elliot ET (2001) Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecol Appl 11:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W (2007) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 7:11191–11205Google Scholar
  13. De Feber MAPC, Gielen DJ (2000) Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction, Task 7: Energy Technology Characterization. ECN-C-99-078Google Scholar
  14. Delucchi MA, Lipman T (2003) A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials. Appendix C: emissions related to cultivation and fertilizer use. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Downing M, Walsh M, McLaughlin S (1995) Perennial grasses for energy and conservation: evaluating some ecological, agriculture and economic issues. Environmental Enhancement Through Agriculture, Conference Proceedings, Boston MassacusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. EERE (2009) Biomass Feedstock Composition and Property Database (biomass sample type: Switchgrass Alamo Whole Plant #94). Biomass Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (Accessed 07 June 2009)
  17. Elsayed MA, Matthews R, Mortimer ND (2003) Carbon and energy balances for a range of biofuels options. Sheffield Hallam University/Resources Research Unit, Sheffield UKGoogle Scholar
  18. EU (2006) Biofuels in the European Union—a vision for 2030 and beyond. Final report of the Biofuels Research Advisory Council, June 2006Google Scholar
  19. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franck AB, Berdahl JD, Hanson JD, Liebig MA, Johnson HA (2004) Biomass and carbon partitioning in switchgrass. Crop Sci 44:1391–1396Google Scholar
  21. Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG et al (2004) Nitrogen cycles, past, present and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gani A, Naruse I (2007) Effect of cellulose and lignin content on pyrolysis and combustion characteristics for several types of biomass. Renew Energ 32(4):649–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garten CT, Wullschleger SD (2000) Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J Environ Qual 29:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gebhart DL, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS, Polley HW (1994) The CRP increases soil organic carbon. J Soil Water Conserv 49:488–492Google Scholar
  25. Gemis (2009) Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems, Version 4.5. Data set on bioenergy for heat, electricity and transportation biofuel systems, Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria 2008. LCA software tool website:
  26. 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):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamelinck NC, van Hooijdonk G, Faaij APC (2005) Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass Bioenerg 28:384–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammerschlag R (2006) Ethanol energy return on investment: a survey of the literature 1990-present. Environ Sci Technol 40(6):1744–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heijungs R et al (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products, Guide. October 1992 CML. Leiden, The Netherlands NOH report 9266Google Scholar
  30. IEA (2008) IEA (International Energy Agency) Bioenergy Task 42 on Biorefineries. Minutes of the third Task meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25 and 26 March 2008 (\IEABioenergy-Task42)
  31. IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land useGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Jungmeier G, Lingitz A, Spitzer J, Hofbauer H and Fürnsinn S (2007) Wood to biofuels: feasibility study for a biofuel plant in the Austrian province of Styria. Proceedings of the 15th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition—From Research to Market Deployment, Berlin, 7–11 May 2007Google Scholar
  34. Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenerg 29:426–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lal R, Kimble LM, Follet RF, Cole CV (1998) The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MIGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson E (2005) A review of LCA studies on liquid biofuels for the transport sector. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility (STAP) workshop on Liquid Biofuels, 29 August to 1 September 2005. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Lynd LR (1996) Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from celllulosic bomass: technology, economics, the environment, and policy. Ann Rev Energy Environ 21:403–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLaughlin SB, de la Torre Ugarte DG, JrCT C, Lynd LR, Sanderson MA, Tolbert VR, Wolf DD (2002) High value renewable energy from prairie grasses. Environ Sci Technol 36:2122–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meister JJ (2002) Modification of lignin. J Macromol Sci-Pol R 42(2):235–289Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell R, Vogel KP, Sarath G (2008) Managing and enhancing switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels Bioprod Bior 2(6):530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulkey VR, Owens VN, Lee DK (2006) Management of switchgrass-dominated Conservation Reserve Program lands for biomass production in South Dakota. Crop Sci 46:712–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Narodoslawsky M, Niederl-Schmidinger A, Halasz L (2008) Utilising renewable resources economically: new challenges and chances for process development. J Cleaner Prod 16(2):164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. North Energy (2008) Report to AEA for the RFA review of indirect effects of biofuels. Published on RFA website, Renewable Fuels Agency
  44. Ojima DS, Valentine DW, Mosier AR, Parton WJ, Schimel DS (1993) Effect of land use change on methane oxidation in temperate forest and grassland soils. Chemosphere 26(1–4):675–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B (2000) Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. I: inhibition and detoxification and II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Bioresource Technol 74(1):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paustian K, Antle JM, Sheehan J, Paul EA (2006) Agriculture's role in greenhouse gas mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington (VA) Canada, September 2006Google Scholar
  47. Pimentel D, Patzek T (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14(1):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prather M, Ehhalt D et al (2001) Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2001. The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 239–287Google Scholar
  49. Punter G, Rickeard D, Larivé JF, Edwards R, Mortimer N, Horne R, Bauen A, Woods J (2004) Well-to-wheel evaluation for production of ethanol from wheat. A report by the LowCVP fuels working group, WTW sub-group, FWG-P-04-024, October 2004Google Scholar
  50. RFA—Renewable Fuels Agency (2008) The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Published on RFA website (July, 2008):
  51. Romano RT, Zhang R (2008) Co-digestion of onion juice and wastewater sludge using an anaerobic mixed biofilm reactor. Bioresource Technol 99(3):631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Samson R, Mani S, Boddey R, Sokhansanj S, Quesada D, Urquiaga S, Reis V, Lem CH (2005) The potential of C4 perennial grasses for developing a global BIO-HEAT industry. Critical Rev Plant Sci 24:461–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanderson MA, Jones RM, McFarland MJ, Stroup J, Reed RL, Muir JP (2001) Nutrient movement and removal in a switchgrass biomass-filter strip system treated with dairy manure. J Environ Qual 30:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scholze B (2002) Long-term stability, catalytic upgrading, and application of pyrolysis Ioils—improving the properties of a potential substitute for fossil fuels. Hamburg University, PhD DissertationGoogle Scholar
  55. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Senneca O (2007) Kinetics of pyrolysis, combustion and gasification of three biomass fuels. Fuel Process Technol 88(1):87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smeets EMW, Lewandowski IM, Faij APC (2009) The economical and environmental performance of miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(6–7):1230–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Turhollow A, Kumar A, Bransby D, Lynd L, Laser M (2009) Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)—current technology and envisioning a mature technology. Biofuels Bioproducts Biore 3(2):124–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stehfest E, Bouwman L (2006) N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data modelling of global annual emissions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 74:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stoeglehner G, Narodoslawsky M (2009) How sustainable are biofuels? Answers and further questions arising from an ecological footprint perspective. Bioresource Technol 16:3825–3830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Suh YJ, Rousseaux P (2001) Considerations in Life Cycle Inventory analysis of municipal wastewater treatment systems. Oral presentation at COST 624 WG Meeting, Bologna, Italy.
  62. Sun Y, Cheng J (2002) Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresource Technol 83(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thustos P, Willison TW, Baker JC, Murphy DV, Pavlikova D, Goulding KWT, Powlson DS (1998) Short-term effects of nitrogen on methane oxidation in soils. Biol Fert Soils 28:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Uihlein A, Schebeck L (2009) Environmental impacts of a lignocellulose feedstock biorefinery system: an assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 33(5):793–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P (2007) Life Cycle Assessment of energy products: Environmental assessment of biofuels. Final Report, EMPA—Technology and society Lab, Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Energie, des Bundesamtes für Umwelt und des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft, Bern, 2007Google Scholar
  66. Zan CS, Fyles JW, Girouard P, Samson RA (2001) Carbon sequestration in perennial bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems in Soothern Quebec. Agr Ecosys Eviron 86:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang Q, Chang J, Wang T, Xu Y (2007) Review of biomass pyrolysis oil properties and upgrading research. Energ Convers Manage 48:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Energy and Process EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Joanneum ResearchInstitute of Energy ResearchGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations