Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring ecological impact of water consumption by bioethanol using life cycle impact assessment

  • WATER USE IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Though the development of biofuel has attracted numerous studies for quantifying potential water demand applying life cycle thinking, the impacts of biofuel water consumption still remain unknown. In this study, we aimed to quantify ecological impact associated with corn-based bioethanol water consumption in Minnesota in responding to different refinery expansion scenarios by applying a life cycle impact assessment method.

Methods

This ecological damage assessment method for quantifying water consumption impacts was proposed by Pfister et al. in 2009 (Environ Sci Technol 43: 4098–4104, 2009) using an impact characterization factor integrating terrestrial net primary production and precipitation. In this study, we derived the spatially explicit eco-damage characterization factors for 81 watersheds in Minnesota and compiled location-specific water consumption data for all current and planned bioethanol production facilities and feedstock production. The ecological damage caused by bioethanol production (ΔEQEtOH in m2⋅yr) was then calculated on both watershed and refinery-plant levels. Additional refinery expansion scenarios were established for testing the effectiveness in changing ΔEQEtOH.

Results and discussion

The results show that ecological impact ΔEQEtOH varied by more than a factor of 3 between watersheds. Minnesota consumed 40 billion liters of water to produce 2.3 billion liters of ethanol as of 2007 (17 L water per liter of ethanol). The geographical distribution of ΔEQEtOH was shown to be uneven with a cluster of high-impact regions around the center of the state. The planned refinery expansion is expected to increase the state’s corn ethanol production capacity by 75% and ΔEQEtOH by 65%. However, strategically locating the planned expansion in the low-impact areas is expected to minimize the increases in ΔEQEtOH down to 19% from 65%.

Conclusions

The scenario analysis shows that strategically sourcing corn from low-impact regions can result in significantly less water use impact compared to a baseline scenario. The results indicate that employing the water consumption impact assessment can provide additional insights in policy making. The environmental impacts related to the change of plant infrastructure and agricultural practices associated with the development of the renewable energy industry should be considered as well for identifying the most sustainable alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayart JB, Bulle C, Deschenes L, Margni M, Pfister S, Vince F, Koehler A (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bringezu S, Schütz H, O’Brien M, Kauppi L, Howarth R, McNeely J (2009) Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels. International Panel for Sustainable Resources Management, UNEP, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu YW, Walseth B, Suh S (2009) Water embodied in bioethanol in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 43(8):2688–2692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Fraiture C, Giordano M, Liao Y (2008) Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10(S1):67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2008a) Federal register: Renewable Fuel Standard for 2009, issued pursuant to section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, vol 73. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2008b) Federal register: revised Renewable Fuel Standard for 2008, issued pursuant to section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, vol 73. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing B, Reed A, Galli A, Kitzes J, Wackernagel M (2010) Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts: 2010 edition. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 10(5867):1235–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R (2005) Ecoinvent data v1.1 (2004) From heterogenous databases to unified and transparent lci data. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAO (2009) Energy-water nexus: many uncertainties remain about national and regional effects of increased biofuel production on water resources. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives. GAO, Washington, DC

  • Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy. P Natl A Sci 106(25):10219–10223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The Eco-Indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment (methodology report). Pré Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Schöpp W, Verkuijlen E, Heijungs R, Reijnders L (2000) Spatially explicit characterization of acidifying and eutrophying air pollution in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(3):75–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenerg 29(6):426–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King CW, Webber ME (2008) Water intensity of transportation. Environ Sci Technol 42(21):7866–7872

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler A (2008) Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(6):451–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Climatology Working Group (2010) Interactively retrieve climate data. Minnesota Climatology Working Group, MN DNR. http://climate.umn.edu/. Accessed 15 Jan 2009

  • Minnesota Department of Agriculture (2010) Minnesota ethanol industry. MNDA. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/renewable/ethanol/plantsreport.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2010

  • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2007) Planning and constructing an ethanol plant in Minnesota: a guidance document. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra GS, Yeh S (2011) Life cycle water consumption and withdrawal requirements of ethanol from corn grain and residues. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4563–4569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2008a) Minnesota’s watershed basins. MN DNR. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watersheds/map.html. Accessed 11 Feb 2010

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2008b) Water appropriations permit program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/wateruse.html. Accessed 01 Sept 2009

  • Mohamed Y, Van Den Hurk B, Savenije H, Bastiaanssen W (2005) Hydroclimatology of the Nile: results from a regional climate model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 2(1):319–7364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mubako S, Lant C (2008) Water resource requirements of corn-based ethanol. Water Resour Res 44:W00A02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2008) Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebraska Energy Office (2011) Energy statistic. Nebraska Energy Office. http://www.neo.ne.gov/. Accessed 10 Jan 2011

  • Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hashimoto H, Jolly WM, Piper SC, Tucker CJ, Myneni RB, Running SW (2003) Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300(5625):1560–1563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patzek TW (2006) A statistical analysis of the theoretical yield of ethanol from corn starch. Nat Resour Res 15(3):205–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington DW, Margni M, Ammann C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):1119–1128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ Sci Technol 45(13):5761–5768

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D (2003) Ethanol fuels: energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts are negative. Nat Resour Res 12(2):127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14(1):65–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998) Site-dependent life-cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2(2):63–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Hertel O, Schöpp W, Bastrup-Birk A (2006) Spatial differentiation in the characterisation of photochemical ozone formation: the EDIP2003 methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renewable Fuels Association (2008) Ethanol biorefinery statistics. Renewable Fuels Association. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics. Accessed 10 Jan 2010

  • Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environ Chang 20(1):113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanow S (2007) Biofuels production in U.S. impacts water resources. Hydrocarb Process 86(12):23–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Scown CD, Horvath A, McKone TE (2011) Water footprint of U.S. transportation fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(7):2541–2553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapouri H, Duffield JA, Wang M (2003) The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited. T ASABE 46(4):959–968

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solley W, Pierce R, Perlman H (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. US Geological Survey, Denver, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2004) 2003 farm and ranch irrigation (2002) Census of Agriculture. USDA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2010) National agricultural statistics service. USDA. http://www.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed 20 Apr 2010

  • Varghese S (2007) Biofuels and global water challenges. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu M, Mintz M, Wang M, Arora S (2009) Consumptive water use in the production of ethanol and petroleum gasoline. Center for Transportation Research Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Brian Walseth of the Industrial Ecology Lab, University of Minnesota for his assistance in corn field and irrigation data acquisition. We thank Mr. Eric Fournier for his helpful comments. This research was supported in part by USDA/CSREES and US DOE under grant number 68-3A75-7-614 and by the Legislative Citizen’s Commission on Minnesota Resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Resources Science, University of Minnesota, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Building 362, Lemont, IL, 60439, USA

    Yi-Wen Chiu

  2. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 3422 Bren Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Sangwon Suh

  3. ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland

    Stephan Pfister, Stefanie Hellweg & Annette Koehler

Authors
  1. Yi-Wen Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sangwon Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefanie Hellweg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annette Koehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangwon Suh.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 568 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chiu, YW., Suh, S., Pfister, S. et al. Measuring ecological impact of water consumption by bioethanol using life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 16–24 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0328-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0328-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation