BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 470–480 | Cite as

Global Warming Impact of E85 Fuel Derived from Forest Biomass: A Case Study from Southern USA

  • Puneet Dwivedi
  • Robert Bailis
  • Janaki Alavalapati
  • Tyler Nesbit
Article

Abstract

This study estimates global warming impact (GWI) of E85 fuel needed to run a small passenger car for its average lifetime, i.e., 241,402 km (150,000 miles). The ethanol needed for the production of E85 fuel was derived from an intensively managed slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantation in the southern USA. We assumed that only pulpwood and harvesting residues obtained at the time of harvesting were used for ethanol production. A suitable system boundary was defined and a detailed life-cycle assessment was undertaken to determine GWI of all the steps present within the system boundary. Results indicate that the overall GWI of the E85 fuel was about 76% less than an equivalent amount of gasoline needed to run a small passenger car for its average lifetime. Within the system boundary, the GWI of the ethanol production stage was highest followed by the stage of E85 fuel consumption in a small passenger car. A need exists to evaluate impacts of utilizing forest biomass for E85 fuel production on forest ecology and traditional forest biomass-based industries.

Keywords

Cellulosic ethanol E85 fuel Forest biomass Faustmann analysis Global warming impact (GWI) Life-cycle assessment Southern USA 

References

  1. 1.
    USEIA (2011) US crude oil imports by country of origin. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011
  2. 2.
    USEIA (2011) US product supplied for crude oil and petroleum products. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011
  3. 3.
    USEIA (2011) Crude oil production. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011
  4. 4.
    IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    USEIA (2011) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases: Program fuel and energy source codes and emission coefficients. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Accessed 18 July 2011
  6. 6.
    Energy Independence and Security Act (2007). 7 H.R.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    RFA (2011) Ethanol industry statistics. Renewable Fuels Association. Available from http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics. Accessed 18 July 2011
  8. 8.
    Mitchell D (2008) A note of rising food prices. Policy research working paper # 4682. Development Prospects Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14(1):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(30):11206–11210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perlack R, Wright L, Turholllow A, Graham R, Stokes B, Erbach D (2005) Biomass as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National laboratory, United States Department of Energy/United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsh M, Perlack R, Turhollow A, Ugarte DdlT, Becker D, Graham R et al (2000) Biomass feedstock availability in the United States: 1999 State level analysis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0719/ML071930137.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2011
  13. 13.
    Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007: A technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment, General Technical Report WO-78. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, United States.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vogt KA, Andreu MG, Vogt DJ, Sigurdardottir R, Edmonds RL, Schiess P et al (2005) Societal values and economic return added for forest owners by linking forests to bioenergy production. J For 103(1):21–27Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kluender RA, Walkingstick TL (2000) Rethinking how nonindustrial landowners view their lands. South J Appl For 24(3):150–158Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mengak MT, Guynn DC Jr (2003) Small mammal microhabitat use on young loblolly pine regeneration areas. For Ecol Manag 173(1–3):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Covington WW, Fule PZ, Moore MM, Hart SC, Kolb TE, Mast JN et al (1997) Restoring ecosystem health in Ponderosa Pine forests of the Southwest. J For 95(4):23–29Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles, and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: Implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3170–3176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siry J (2002) Intensive timber management practices. In: Wear D, John J (eds) Southern forest resource assessment, general technical report SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 327–340Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Fox TR (2007) Historical patterns of forest fertilization in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2004. South J Appl For 31(3):129–137Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    NREL (1999) Fact sheet Ford Taurus: Ethanol-fueled sedan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Energy, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR, Lal P (2009) Cellulosic ethanol production in the United States: Conversion technologies, current production status, economics, and emerging developments. Energy Sustain Dev 13(3):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kadam KL (2002) Environmental benefits on a life cycle basis of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in India. Energy Policy 30(5):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kadam K (2000) Environmental life cycle implications of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in Mumbai (Bombay) NREL Report # NREL/TP-580-28705. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Bush T, Marinescu M (2011) Quantifying GWI of wood pellet production in the Southern United States and its subsequent utilization for electricity production in the Netherlands/Florida. Bioenergy Research 4(3):180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quintero JA, Montoya MI, Sánchez OJ, Giraldo OH, Cardona CA (2008) Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: Comparative analysis for a Colombian case. Energy 33(3):385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WSTB (2008) Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. Water Science and Technology Board, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tchobanoglous G, Burton F, Stensel H, Eddy M (2003) Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bessette R, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (2002) Energy efficiency and industrial boiler efficiency: An industry perspective. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jurado F, Cano A, Carpio J (2003) Modelling of combined cycle power plants using biomass. Renewable Energy 28(5):743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yin R, Pienaar LV, Aronow ME (1998) The productivity and profitability of fiber farming. J For 96(11):13–18Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    TMS (2011) Southeastern average stumpage prices—US $/ton Timber Mart South. Available from http://www.timbermart-south.com/prices.html. Accessed 18 July 2011
  35. 35.
    Faustmann M (1995) Calculation of the value which forestland and immature stands possess for forestry (republication of the original article—1849). J For Econ 1(1):7–44Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Franklin Associates (2011) Life Cycle Services. Prairie Village, Kansas.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2002) TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    IPCC (2006) Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In: Eggleston H, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spatari S, Zhang Y, MacLean HL (2005) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9750–9758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(2):464–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Puneet Dwivedi
    • 1
  • Robert Bailis
    • 2
  • Janaki Alavalapati
    • 3
  • Tyler Nesbit
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.The Department of Forest Resources and Environmental ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.The Department of Geography and EnvironmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations