Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India in comparison to Brazil

PurposeIndia’s biofuel programme relies on ethanol production from sugarcane molasses. However, there is limited insight on environmental impacts across the Indian ethanol production chain. This study closes this gap by assessing the environmental impacts of ethanol production from sugarcane molasses in Uttar Pradesh, India. A comparative analysis with south-central Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is also presented to compare the performance of sugarcane molasses-based ethanol with sugarcane juice-based ethanol.MethodsThe production process is assessed by a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. The multifunctionality problem is solved by applying two variants of system expansion and economic allocation. Environmental impacts are assessed with Impact 2002+ and results are presented at the midpoint level for greenhouse gas emissions, non-renewable energy use, freshwater eutrophication and water use. Furthermore, results include impacts on human health and ecosystem quality at the damage level. Sensitivity analysis is also performed on key contributing parameters such as pesticides, stillage treatment and irrigation water use.Results and discussionIt is found that, compared to Brazilian ethanol, Indian ethanol causes lower or comparable greenhouse gas emissions (0.09–0.64 kgCO2eq/kgethanolIN, 0.46–0.63 kgCO2eq/kgethanolBR), non-renewable energy use (−0.3–6.3 MJ/kgethanolIN, 1–4 MJ/kgethanolBR), human health impacts (3.6 · 10−6 DALY/kgethanolIN, 4 · 10−6 DALY/kgethanolBR) and ecosystem impairment (2.5 PDF · m2 · year/kgethanolIN, 3.3 PDF · m2 · year/kgethanolBR). One reason is that Indian ethanol is exclusively produced from molasses, a co-product of sugar production, resulting in allocation of the environmental burden. Additionally, Indian sugar mills and distilleries produce surplus electricity for which they receive credits for displacing grid electricity of relatively high CO2 emission intensity. When economic allocation is applied, the greenhouse gas emissions for Indian and Brazilian ethanol are comparable. Non-renewable energy use is higher for Indian ethanol, primarily due to energy requirements for irrigation. For water use and related impacts, Indian ethanol scores worse due groundwater irrigation, despite the dampening effect of allocation. The variation on greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy use of Indian mills is much larger for high and low performance than the respective systems in Brazil.ConclusionsImportant measures can be taken across the production chain to improve the environmental performance of Indian ethanol production (e.g. avoiding the use of specific pesticides, avoiding the disposal of untreated stillage, transition to water efficient crops). However, to meet the targets of the Indian ethanol blending programme, displacement effects are likely to occur in countries which export ethanol. To assess such effects, a consequential study needs to be prepared.

[1]  Экология.  Low-carbon fuel standard , 2011 .

[2]  Joaquim E. A. Seabra,et al.  Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  Marco Aurélio dos Santos,et al.  Gross greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants , 2006 .

[4]  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 .

[5]  L. M. Canals,et al.  Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from the degradation of chemicals in the environment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Aldo Roberto Ometto,et al.  Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil , 2009 .

[7]  O. Jolliet,et al.  IMPACT 2002 + : User Guide Draft for version Q 2 . 21 ( version adapted by Quantis ) Prepared by : , 2012 .

[8]  Shri Y D Jhunjhunwala.  Indian Sugar Mills Association , 1968 .

[9]  Ravi Prakash,et al.  Gross carbon emissions from alternative transport fuels in India , 2005 .

[10]  M. Wegener,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing , 2010 .

[11]  M. A. Renouf,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane products with a focus on cane processing , 2011 .

[12]  John E. Hermansen,et al.  System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production , 2012 .

[13]  M. Hauschild,et al.  PestLCI 2.0: a second generation model for estimating emissions of pesticides from arable land in LCA , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[15]  Rubens Maciel Filho,et al.  Environmental and economic assessment of sugarcane first generation biorefineries in Brazil , 2012, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy.

[16]  Semida Silveira,et al.  Power generation from sugarcane biomass – A complementary option to hydroelectricity in Nepal and Brazil , 2011 .

[17]  Aie.  World Energy Outlook 2011 , 2001 .

[18]  Joaquim E. A. Seabra,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use , 2011 .

[19]  P. Fearnside,et al.  Greenhouse-gas emissions from tropical dams , 2012 .

[20]  Semida Silveira,et al.  Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol in Nepal. , 2011 .

[21]  Patrick Lamers,et al.  International bioenergy trade—A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market , 2011 .

[22]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane , 2009 .

[23]  Joaquim E. A. Seabra,et al.  Comparative analysis for power generation and ethanol production from sugarcane residual biomass in Brazil , 2011 .

[24]  Birka Wicke,et al.  Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation , 2012 .

[25]  I. C. Macedo,et al.  Sugar cane's energy : twelve studies on Brazilian sugar cane agribusiness and its sustainability , 2005 .

[26]  J. Seabra,et al.  Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. , 2008 .

[27]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems , 2007 .

[28]  S. Pfister,et al.  Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  L. K. Gohar,et al.  Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernme , 2006 .

[30]  A. Hoekstra,et al.  The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crops products , 2011 .

[31]  M. Gopinathan,et al.  Biofuels: opportunities and challenges in India , 2009, In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant.

[32]  P. K. Tewari,et al.  Water management initiatives in sugarcane molasses based distilleries in India , 2007 .

[33]  M. Balakrishnan,et al.  Wastewater treatment in molasses-based alcohol distilleries for COD and color removal: a review. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[34]  Aie.  World Energy Outlook 2011 , 2011 .

[35]  Tushaar Shah,et al.  Climate change and groundwater: India’s opportunities for mitigation and adaptation , 2009 .

[36]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Greenhouse gas savings potential of sugar cane bio-energy systems , 2010 .

[37]  André Faaij,et al.  Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems , 2010 .

[38]  A. Ravishankara,et al.  Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century , 2009, Science.

[39]  S. K. Srivastava,et al.  Extent of Groundwater Extraction and Irrigation Efficiency on Farms under Different Water-market Regimes in Central Uttar Pradesh , 2009 .