System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production

This study aims to establish a procedure for handling co-products in life cycle assessment (LCA) of a typical sugar cane system. The procedure is essential for environmental assessment of ethanol from molasses, a co-product of sugar which has long been used mainly for feed. We compare system expansion and two allocation procedures for estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of molasses ethanol. As seen from our results, system expansion yields the highest estimate among the three. However, no matter which procedure is used, a significant reduction of emissions from the fuel stage in the abatement scenario, which assumes implementation of substituting bioenergy for fossil-based energy to reduce GHG emissions, combined with a negligible level of emissions from the use stage, keeps the estimate of ethanol life cycle GHG emissions below that of gasoline. Pointing out that indirect land use change (ILUC) is a consequence of diverting molasses from feed to fuel, system expansion is the most adequate method when the purpose of the LCA is to support decision makers in weighing the options and consequences. As shown in the sensitivity analysis, an addition of carbon emissions from ILUC worsens the GHG balance of ethanol, with deforestation being a worst-case scenario where the fuel is no longer a net carbon saver but carbon emitter.

[1]  Michele John,et al.  Global warming contributions from wheat, sheep meat and wool production in Victoria, Australia - a life cycle assessment , 2010 .

[2]  Pål Börjesson,et al.  Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective – What determines this? , 2009 .

[3]  Semida Silveira,et al.  Net energy balance of molasses based ethanol: The case of Nepal , 2009 .

[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]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Energy balance and GHG-abatement cost of cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand , 2007 .

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

[7]  R. Prakash,et al.  Net energy and gross pollution from bioethanol production in India , 1998 .

[8]  United Kingdom,et al.  GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 2005 , 2005 .

[9]  Tatsuki Ueda,et al.  Potential conflicts for the reuse of rice husk in Thailand , 2007, Paddy and Water Environment.

[10]  Robin P. White,et al.  Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystems. , 2000 .

[11]  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 .

[12]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[13]  S. Polasky,et al.  Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Environmental Assessment of Electricity Production from Rice Husk: A Case Study in Thailand , 2005 .

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

[16]  B. Dale,et al.  Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: some unexplored variables. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Berit Mattsson,et al.  Environmentally-friendly food processing. , 2003 .

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

[19]  Joanna Isobel House,et al.  Climate change 2001 : synthesis report , 2001 .

[20]  B. S. Platt.  Tables of representative values of foods commonly used in tropical countries. , 1962, Special report series (Medical Research Council (Great Britain)).

[21]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? , 2007 .

[22]  Daniel M. Kammen,et al.  Molasses for ethanol: the economic and environmental impacts of a new pathway for the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of sugarcane ethanol , 2009 .

[23]  Thu Lan T. Nguyen,et al.  Fossil energy savings potential of sugar cane bio-energy systems , 2009 .

[24]  R. P. Beeharry,et al.  Carbon balance of sugarcane bioenergy systems , 2001 .

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

[26]  A. Seth,et al.  Global climate change: An introduction and results from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) , 2007 .

[27]  B. P. Gupta.  Status of biomethanation development in India , 1988 .

[28]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

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

[30]  B. Weidema.  Market information in life cycle assessment , 2003 .

[31]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Fossil energy savings and GHG mitigation potentials of ethanol as a gasoline substitute in Thailand , 2007 .

[32]  D. Tilman,et al.  Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Lisbeth Mogensen,et al.  Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU , 2010 .

[34]  T. Preston,et al.  Sugarcane as feed : proceedings of an FAO expert consultation held in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic from 7-11 July 1986 , 1988 .