Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar production.

Abstract Cane sugar production by-products can be considered either as waste, affecting the environment, or as a resource when an appropriate valorization technology is implemented. This study is made with the objective of identifying and quantifying the aspects which have the largest environmental impact of four alternatives for using by-products and wastes from the cane sugar process and suggest improvements in the systems. For this analysis a cane sugar mill was chosen in Cuba and four alternatives were designed for the by-product valorization. The first alternative represents the conventional sugar production; its main characteristics are the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, the bagasse combustion and the usage of molasses and agricultural wastes as animal food. Other wastes constitute emissions to the environment. Alternatives II, III and IV incorporate more use of by-products and wastes. Alternative II considers the use of wastewater, filter cake and ashes for the substitution of synthetic fertilizers. In Alternative III, the filter cake and wastewater are used for biogas production and Alternative IV integrates alcohol and biogas production into the sugar production process. The assessment is done by means of Life Cycle Assessment, according to the ISO 14040 series by using the SimaPro 6.0 LCA software, Ecoinvent database and the Eco-indicator 99 methodology. As a functional unit the daily sugar production of the mill was defined (216 t/d). The sugar was selected as main product and all the by-products were assumed to substitute other products on the market, avoided products. For the four alternatives, the agricultural stage shows the greatest impact due to land use, fuel and agrochemicals consumption. In the industrial stage, the electricity cogeneration with bagasse has the highest impact as to respiratory effects due to the emission of tiny particle material into the atmosphere. The major difference between the alternatives is found in the resource impact category. The advantage of producing alcohol, biogas, animal food and fertilizers from the by-products is made obvious through the comparative study for resource savings.

[1]  Zhiyuan Hu,et al.  Economics, environment, and energy life cycle assessment of automobiles fueled by bio-ethanol blends in China , 2004 .

[2]  J. Rieradevall,et al.  LCA application to integrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain) , 2004 .

[3]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Life cycle assessment , 1997, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[4]  K. Paustian,et al.  Energy and Environmental Aspects of Using Corn Stover for Fuel Ethanol , 2003 .

[5]  S. Ryding.  ISO 14042 Environmental management • Life cycle assessment • life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .

[6]  Joan Rieradevall,et al.  Life cycle assessment of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. , 2006, The Science of the total environment.

[7]  Seungdo Kim,et al.  Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from corn grain i. system expansion , 2002 .

[8]  M. Kaltschmitt,et al.  Life cycle analysis of biofuels under different environmental aspects , 1997 .

[9]  Kiran L. Kadam,et al.  Environmental benefits on a life cycle basis of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in India. , 2002 .

[10]  Ana Margarita,et al.  Metodología para el análisis de ciclo de vida combinado con el análisis exergético en la Industria Azucarera Cubana , 2007 .

[11]  Jo Dewulf,et al.  Assessment of the sustainability of technology by means of a thermodynamically based life cycle analysis , 2002, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[12]  Jo Dewulf,et al.  Illustrations towards quantifying the sustainability of technology , 2000 .

[13]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of conventional and organic farming , 2000 .

[14]  M. Curran,et al.  A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective , 2007 .

[15]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[16]  Toolseeram Ramjeawon,et al.  Life cycle assessment of cane-sugar on the island of mauritius , 2004 .

[17]  Henri Lecouls,et al.  ISO 14043: Environmental management · life cycle assessment · life cycle interpretation , 1999 .

[18]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review , 2001 .

[19]  M. Goedkoop,et al.  The Eco-indicator 99, A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[20]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  ISO 14041: Environmental management — life cycle assessment — goal and scope definition — inventory analysis , 1998 .

[21]  Joan Rieradevall i Pons,et al.  Environmental analysis of the energy use of hemp – analysis of the comparative life cycle: diesel oil vs. hemp–diesel , 2005 .

[22]  Niels Jungbluth,et al.  Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Applied to Renewable Resources , 2006 .

[23]  Dániel Puppán.  ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF BIOFUELS , 2002 .

[24]  Jo Dewulf,et al.  Renewables-based technology : sustainability assessment , 2006 .