Quantifying variability in life cycle greenhouse gas inventories of alternative middle distillate transportation fuels.

The presence of variability in life cycle analysis (LCA) is inherent due to both inexact LCA procedures and variation of numerical inputs. Variability in LCA needs to be clearly distinguished from uncertainty. This paper uses specific examples from the production of diesel and jet fuels from 14 different feedstocks to demonstrate general trends in the types and magnitudes of variability present in life cycle greenhouse gas (LC-GHG) inventories of middle distillate fuels. Sources of variability have been categorized as pathway specific, coproduct usage and allocation, and land use change. The results of this research demonstrate that subjective choices such as coproduct usage and allocation methodology can be more important sources of variability in the LC-GHG inventory of a fuel option than the process and energy use of fuel production. Through the application of a consistent analysis methodology across all fuel options, the influence of these subjective biases is minimized, and the LC-GHG inventories for each feedstock-to-fuel option can be effectively compared and discussed. By considering the types and magnitudes of variability across multiple fuel pathways, it is evident that LCA results should be presented as a range instead of a point value. The policy implications of this are discussed.

[1]  G. Heath,et al.  Environmental and sustainability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in the U.S.: what do we really know? , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Mark A. Delucchi,et al.  Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Lifecycle Analyses of Transportation Fuels , 2004 .

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

[4]  W. Parton,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  Hong Huo,et al.  Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context , 2011 .

[6]  Daniel Weisser,et al.  A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies , 2007 .

[7]  M. J. Mulky,et al.  Toxicological studies on ratanjyot oil. , 1995, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[8]  李翠霞 Environmental science & technology. , 1970, Analytical chemistry.

[9]  Michael Wang,et al.  Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products , 2004 .

[10]  Andrew D. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material for: Ethanol Can Contribute To Energy and Environmental Goals , 2006 .

[11]  J. Melillo,et al.  Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? , 2009, Science.

[12]  André Faaij,et al.  A greenhouse gas balance of electricity production from co-firing palm oil products from Malaysia , 2007 .

[13]  Vincent Mahieu,et al.  Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context , 2004 .

[14]  Alan W. Gertler,et al.  Biodistillate Transportation Fuels 3 - Life Cycle Impacts , 2009 .

[15]  V. R. Tolbert,et al.  High-value renewable energy from prairie grasses. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Rolf Sommer,et al.  Carbon storage and root penetration in deep soils under small-farmer land-use systems in the Eastern Amazon region, Brazil , 2000, Plant and Soil.