Assessing the environmental sustainability of ethanol from integrated biorefineries

This paper considers the life cycle environmental sustainability of ethanol produced in integrated biorefineries together with chemicals and energy. Four types of second-generation feedstocks are considered: wheat straw, forest residue, poplar, and miscanthus. Seven out of 11 environmental impacts from ethanol are negative, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, when the system is credited for the co-products, indicating environmental savings. Ethanol from poplar is the best and straw the worst option for most impacts. Land use change from forest to miscanthus increases the GHG emissions several-fold. For poplar, the effect is opposite: converting grassland to forest reduces the emissions by three-fold. Compared to fossil and first-generation ethanol, ethanol from integrated biorefineries is more sustainable for most impacts, with the exception of wheat straw. Pure ethanol saves up to 87% of GHG emissions compared to petrol per MJ of fuel. However, for the current 5% ethanol–petrol blends, the savings are much smaller (<3%). Therefore, unless much higher blends become widespread, the contribution of ethanol from integrated biorefineries to the reduction of GHG emissions will be insignificant. Yet, higher ethanol blends would lead to an increase in some impacts, notably terrestrial and freshwater toxicity as well as eutrophication for some feedstocks.

[1]  Ryan Davis,et al.  Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover , 2011 .

[2]  J. Büchs,et al.  Biocatalytic conversion of lignocellulose to platform chemicals , 2012, Biotechnology journal.

[3]  Huajiang Huang,et al.  A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries , 2008 .

[4]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic conversion to ethanol: A review , 2012 .

[5]  Modelling ethanol production from cellulose: separate hydrolysis and fermentation versus simultaneous saccharification and fermentation , 2009 .

[6]  Stefan Bringezu,et al.  Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels , 2009 .

[7]  Theocharis Tsoutsos,et al.  Life cycle analysis for bioethanol production from sugar beet crops in Greece , 2011 .

[8]  B. Dale,et al.  Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues , 2004 .

[9]  J. Damborský,et al.  Microscopic monitoring provides information on structure and properties during biocatalyst immobilization. , 2014, Biotechnology journal.

[10]  A. Azapagic.  Sustainability considerations for integrated biorefineries. , 2014, Trends in biotechnology.

[11]  G. S. Vijaya Raghavan,et al.  Feedstocks, logistics and pre-treatment processes for sustainable lignocellulosic biorefineries: A comprehensive review , 2013 .

[12]  J. Greet,et al.  Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2012 report , 2012 .

[13]  B. Dien,et al.  Fermentation of sugar mixtures using Escherichia coli catabolite repression mutants engineered for production of L-lactic acid , 2002, Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[14]  Judith Gurney.  BP Statistical Review of World Energy , 1985 .

[15]  S. Polasky,et al.  Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt , 2008, Science.

[16]  B. Norment.  The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 , 2011 .

[17]  M. Arshadi,et al.  Biochemical production of bioethanol , 2011 .

[18]  A. Aden,et al.  Process Design Report for Stover Feedstock: Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover , 2002 .

[19]  G. Yohe,et al.  Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon , 2009 .

[20]  Deepak R. Keshwani,et al.  Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added applications: a review. , 2009, Bioresource technology.

[21]  Yin Li,et al.  Engineering Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient anaerobic xylose fermentation: Reflections and perspectives , 2012, Biotechnology journal.

[22]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Life cycle assessment An operational guide to the ISO standards , 2001 .

[23]  Han Xiao,et al.  Economical challenges to microbial producers of butanol: Feedstock, butanol ratio and titer , 2011, Biotechnology journal.

[24]  Diego Luna,et al.  Biofuels: a technological perspective , 2008 .

[25]  G. Guebitz,et al.  Enzymatic synthesis of lignin–siloxane hybrid functional polymers , 2012, Biotechnology journal.

[26]  Bryce J. Stokes,et al.  Biomass as Feedstock for A Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply , 2005 .

[27]  A. Demirbas,et al.  Biorefineries: Current activities and future developments , 2009 .

[28]  Stephen Dow.  Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 , 2007 .

[29]  Heather L. MacLean,et al.  The contribution of enzymes and process chemicals to the life cycle of ethanol , 2009 .

[30]  Steven C. Ricke,et al.  Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. , 2012 .

[31]  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 .