Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks

PurposeBio-based products are often considered sustainable due to their renewable nature. However, the environmental performance of products needs to be assessed considering a life cycle perspective to get a complete picture of potential benefits and trade-offs. We present a life cycle assessment of the global commodity ethanol, produced from different feedstock and geographical origin. The aim is to understand the main drivers for environmental impacts in the production of bio-based ethanol as well as its relative performance compared to a fossil-based alternative.MethodsEthanol production is assessed from cradle to gate; furthermore, end-of-life emissions are also included in order to allow a full comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, assuming degradation of ethanol once emitted to air from household and personal care products. The functional unit is 1 kg ethanol, produced from maize grain in USA, maize stover in USA, sugarcane in North-East of Brazil and Centre-South of Brazil, and sugar beet and wheat in France. As a reference, ethanol produced from fossil ethylene in Western Europe is used. Six impact categories from the ReCiPe assessment method are considered, along with seven novel impact categories on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES).Results and discussionGHG emissions per kilogram bio-based ethanol range from 0.7 to 1.5 kg CO2 eq per kg ethanol and from 1.3 to 2 kg per kg if emissions at end-of-life are included. Fossil-based ethanol involves GHG emissions of 1.3 kg CO2 eq per kg from cradle-to-gate and 3.7 kg CO2 eq per kg if end-of-life is included. Maize stover in USA and sugar beet in France have the lowest impact from a GHG perspective, although when other impact categories are considered trade-offs are encountered. BES impact indicators show a clear preference for fossil-based ethanol. The sensitivity analyses showed how certain methodological choices (allocation rules, land use change accounting, land use biomes), as well as some scenario choices (sugarcane harvest method, maize drying) affect the environmental performance of bio-based ethanol. Also, the uncertainty assessment showed that results for the bio-based alternatives often overlap, making it difficult to tell whether they are significantly different.ConclusionsBio-based ethanol appears as a preferable option from a GHG perspective, but when other impacts are considered, especially those related to land use, fossil-based ethanol is preferable. A key methodological aspect that remains to be harmonised is the quantification of land use change, which has an outstanding influence in the results, especially on GHG emissions.

[1]  Shelie A. Miller,et al.  Environmental trade-offs of biobased production. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Llorenç Milà i Canals,et al.  Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land‐use change for crop production , 2012 .

[3]  Thomas Koellner,et al.  Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[5]  Daniel Alves Aguiar,et al.  Remote Sensing Time Series to Evaluate Direct Land Use Change of Recent Expanded Sugarcane Crop in Brazil , 2011 .

[6]  Llorenç Milà i Canals,et al.  Estimation of the variability in global warming potential of worldwide crop production using a modular extrapolation approach. , 2012 .

[7]  B. Dale,et al.  Regional variations in greenhouse gas emissions of biobased products in the United States—corn-based ethanol and soybean oil , 2009 .

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

[9]  Sarah Sim,et al.  Land use impact assessment of margarine , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[10]  Ruedi Müller-Wenk,et al.  Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air , 2010 .

[11]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil , 2009 .

[12]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand , 2008 .

[13]  Llorenç Milà i Canals,et al.  Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  M. Cellura,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment , 2012 .

[15]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .

[16]  T. Koellner,et al.  Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand , 2008 .

[18]  L. Nielsen,et al.  An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. , 2008 .

[19]  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 .

[20]  Per-Anders Hansson,et al.  Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of food products: a case study on table potatoes , 2010 .

[21]  Sarah Sim,et al.  MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA , 2010 .

[22]  Gregory R. Carmichael,et al.  Increased estimates of air-pollution emissions from Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol , 2012 .

[23]  Ardente Fulvio,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment: The State of the Art and Discussion of Examples , 2012 .

[24]  H. Belshaw,et al.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations , 1947, International Organization.

[25]  T. Koellner,et al.  UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[26]  T. Koellner,et al.  Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[27]  Albert W. Chan,et al.  Life Cycle assessment of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose , 2003 .

[28]  Thapat Silalertruksa,et al.  Long-term bioethanol system and its implications on GHG emissions: a case study of Thailand. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  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.

[30]  G. Psacharopoulos.  Overview and methodology , 1991 .