Pilot-scale conversion of lime-treated wheat straw into bioethanol: quality assessment of bioethanol and valorization of side streams by anaerobic digestion and combustion

Introduction  

The limited availability of fossil fuel sources, worldwide rising energy demands and anticipated climate changes attributed to an increase of greenhouse gasses are important driving forces for finding alternative energy sources. One approach to meeting the increasing energy demands and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is by large-scale substitution of petrochemically derived transport fuels by the use of carbon dioxide-neutral biofuels, such as ethanol derived from lignocellulosic material.     

Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol

Background, aim, and scope

Facing the threat of oil depletion and climate change, a shift from fossil resources to renewables is ongoing to secure long-term low carbon energy supplies. In view of the carbon dioxide reduction targets agreed upon in the Kyoto protocol, bioethanol has become an attractive option for one energy application, as transport fuel. Many studies on the LCA of fuel ethanol have been conducted, and the results vary to a large extent. In most of these studies, only one type of allocation is applied. However, the effect of allocation on outcomes is of crucial importance to LCA as a decision supporting tool. This is only addressed in a few studies to a limited extent. Moreover, most of the studies mainly focus on fossil energy use and GHG emissions. In this paper, a case study is presented wherein a more complete set of impact categories is used. Land use has been left out of account as only hectare data would be given which is obviously dominated by agriculture. Moreover, different allocation methods are applied to assess the sensitivity of the outcomes for allocation choices.

Materials and methods

This study focuses on the comparison of LCA results from the application of different allocation methods by presenting an LCA of gasoline and ethanol as fuels and with two types of blends of gasoline with ethanol, all used in a midsize car. As a main second-generation application growing fast in the USA, corn stover-based ethanol is chosen as a case study. The life cycles of the fuels include gasoline production, corn and stover agriculture, cellulosic ethanol production, blending ethanol with gasoline to produce E10 (10% of ethanol) and E85 (85% of ethanol), and finally the use of gasoline, E10, E85, and ethanol. In this study, a substantially broader set of eight environmental impacts is covered.

Results

LCA results appear to be largely dependent on the allocation methods rendered. The level of abiotic depletion and ozone layer depletion decrease when replacing gasoline by ethanol fuels, irrespective of the allocation method applied, while the rest of the impacts except global warming potential are larger. The results show a reduction of global warming potential when mass/energy allocation is applied; in the case of economic allocation, it gives contrary results. In the expanded systems, global warming potential is significantly reduced comparing to the ones from the allocated systems. A contribution analysis shows that car driving, electricity use for cellulase enzyme production, and ethanol conversion contribute largely to global warming potential from the life cycle of ethanol fuels.

Discussion

The reason why the results of global warming potential show a reverse trend is that the corn/stover allocation ratio shifts from 7.5 to 1.7 when shifting from economic allocation to mass/energy allocation. When mass/energy allocation is applied, both more credits (CO₂ uptake) and more penalties (N₂O emission) in agriculture are allocated to stover compared to the case of economic allocation. However, more CO₂ is taken up than N₂O (in CO₂ eq.) emitted. Hence, the smaller the allocation ratio is between corn and stover, the lower the share of the overall global warming emissions being allocated to ethanol will be. In the system expansion approach, global warming potentials are significantly reduced, resulting in the negative values in all cases. This implies that the system expansion results are comparable to one another because they make the same cutoffs but not really to the results related to mass, energy, and economic value-based allocated systems.

Conclusions

The choice of the allocation methods is essential for the outcomes, especially for global warming potential in this case. The application of economic allocation leads to increased GWP when replacing gasoline by ethanol fuels, while reduction of GWP is achieved when mass/energy allocation is used as well as in the system where biogenic CO₂ is excluded. Ethanol fuels are better options than gasoline when abiotic depletion and ozone layer depletion are concerned. In terms of other environmental impacts, gasoline is a better option, mainly due to the emissions of nutrients and toxic substances connected with agriculture. A clear shift of problems can be detected: saving fossil fuels at the expense of emissions related to agriculture, with GHG benefits depending on allocation choices. The overall evaluation of these fuel options, therefore, depends very much on the importance attached to each impact category.

Recommendations and perspectives

This study focuses only on corn stover-based ethanol as one case. Further studies may include other types of cellulosic feedstocks (i.e., switchgrass or wood), which require less intensive agricultural practice and may lead to better environmental performance of fuel ethanol. Furthermore, this study shows that widely used but different allocation methods determine outcomes of LCA studies on biofuels. This is an unacceptable situation from a societal point of view and a challenge from a scientific point of view. The results from applying just one allocation method are not sufficient for decision making. Comparison of different allocation methods is certainly of crucial importance. A broader approach beyond LCA for the analysis of biorefinery systems with regard to energy conservation, environmental impact, and cost–benefit will provide general indications on the sustainability of bio-based productions.     

Environmental assessment of black locust (<Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Robinia pseudoacacia</Emphasis> L.)-based ethanol as potential transport fuel

Purpose  

Lignocellulosic ethanol has received special research interest, driven by concerns over high fuel prices, security of energy supplies, global climate change as well as the search of opportunities for rural economic development. A well-to-wheel analysis was conducted for ethanol obtained from black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) by means of the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. This study assesses the environmental profile of using ethanol in mixtures E10 and E85 as transport fuel in comparison with conventional gasoline (CG). In addition, the best model of black locust cultivation was analysed under an environmental point of view.     

Nitrogen rate and landscape impacts on life cycle energy use and emissions from switchgrass‐derived ethanol

Switchgrass‐derived ethanol has been proposed as an alternative to fossil fuels to improve sustainability of the US energy sector. In this study, life cycle analysis (LCA) was used to estimate the environmental benefits of this fuel. To better define the LCA environmental impacts associated with fertilization rates and farm‐landscape topography, results from a controlled experiment were analyzed. Data from switchgrass plots planted in 2008, consistently managed with three nitrogen rates (0, 56, and 112 kg N ha^?1), two landscape positions (shoulder and footslope), and harvested annually (starting in 2009, the year after planting) through 2014 were used as input into the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in transportation (GREET) model. Simulations determined nitrogen (N) rate and landscape impacts on the life cycle energy and emissions from switchgrass ethanol used in a passenger car as ethanol–gasoline blends (10% ethanol:E10, 85% ethanol:E85s). Results indicated that E85s may lead to lower fossil fuels use (58 to 77%), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (33 to 82%), and particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions (15 to 54%) in comparison with gasoline. However, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other criteria pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), and sulfur dioxides (SO_x) were higher for E85s than those from gasoline. Nitrogen rate above 56 kg N ha^?1 yielded no increased biomass production benefits; but did increase (up to twofold) GHG, VOCs, and criteria pollutants. Lower blend (E10) results were closely similar to those from gasoline. The landscape topography also influenced life cycle impacts. Biomass grown at the footslope of fertilized plots led to higher switchgrass biomass yield, lower GHG, VOCs, and criteria pollutants in comparison with those at the shoulder position. Results also showed that replacing switchgrass before maximum stand life (10–20 years.) can further reduce the energy and emissions reduction benefits.     

Ethanol Fuels: E10 or E85 – Life Cycle Perspectives (5 pp)

Goal and Scope  

The environmental performance of two ethanol fuel applications (E10 and E85) is compared (E10 fuel: a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline by volume, and E85 fuel: a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline by volume).     

Life cycle assessment of gasoline in Indonesia

Purpose  

In the Indonesian transportation sector, gasoline is the most consumed fuel; in 2008 it accounted for 60% of the total fuel consumption in transportation. Increasing concern regarding environmental issues, particularly urban air quality, makes the utilization of gasoline in transport a crucial aspect to be analyzed. However, besides tailpipe emissions, there are many upstream processes when producing gasoline which need to be evaluated in terms of impacts to the environment.     

Comparative life cycle assessment of uses of rice husk for energy purposes

Purpose  

Recently, the Thai government has been advancing the expanded use of biomass as an alternative source of energy substituting it for the fossil fuels that have been shown to be harmful to the environment. Rice husk, one of the main sources of biomass in Thailand, has already been used as an energy source in many different applications and has been successful in reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. At present (2011), the main use of rice husk in Thailand is as fuel to generate electricity. However, rice husk can potentially be used to produce other forms of energy such as cellulosic ethanol. This paper compares the environmental performance of the current main use of rice husk for energy purposes in the Thai context, i.e., for electricity generation with the prospective use, i.e., for cellulosic ethanol production. The results from this study will identify the more environmentally friendly option for use of rice husk for energy purposes.     

Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand

Background, aim and scope

After China and India, Thailand is considered another emerging market for fuel ethanol in Asia. At present, ethanol in the country is mainly a fermentation/distillery product of cane molasses, although cassava and cane juice are considered other potential raw materials for the fuel. This study aims to evaluate the environmental impacts of substituting conventional gasoline (CG) with molasses-based gasohol in Thailand.

Materials and methods

The life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure carried out follows three interrelated phases: inventory analysis, characterization and interpretation. The functional unit for the comparison is 1 l gasoline equivalent consumed by a new passenger car to travel a specific distance.

Results

The results of the study show that molasses-based ethanol (MoE) in the form of 10% blend with gasoline (E10), along its whole life cycle, consumes less fossil energy (5.3%), less petroleum (8.1%) and provides a similar impact on acidification compared to CG. The fuel, however, has inferior performance in other categories (e.g. global warming potential, nutrient enrichment and photochemical ozone creation potential) indicated by increased impacts over CG.

Discussion

In most cases, higher impacts from the upstream of molasses-based ethanol tend to govern its net life cycle impacts relative to CG. This makes the fuel blend less environmentally friendly than CG for the specific conditions considered. However, as discussed later, this situation can be improved by appropriate changes in energy carriers.

Conclusions

The LCA procedure helps identify the key areas in the MoE production cycle where changes are required to improve environmental performance. Specifically, they are: (1) use of coal as energy source for ethanol conversion, (2) discharge of distillery spent wash into an anaerobic pond, and (3) open burning of cane trash in sugar cane production.

Recommendations and perspectives

Measures to improve the overall life cycle energy and environmental impacts of MoE are: (1) substituting biomass for fossil fuels in ethanol conversion, (2) capturing CH₄ from distillery spent wash and using it as an energy supply, and (3) utilizing cane trash for energy instead of open burning in fields.     

Life cycle cost analysis of fuel ethanol produced from cassava in Thailand

Background, aim, and scope

As a net oil importer, Thailand has a special interest in the development of biofuels, especially ethanol. At present, ethanol in the country is mainly a fermentation/distillery product of cane molasses, but cassava holds superior potential for the fuel. This study aims to assess the economics of cassava-based ethanol as an alternative transportation fuel in Thailand. The scope of the study includes the cassava cultivation/processing, the conversion to ethanol, the distribution of the fuel, and all transportation activities taking place within the system boundary.

Materials and methods

The life cycle cost assessment carried out follows three interrelated phases: data inventory, data analysis, and interpretation. The functional unit for the comparison between ethanol and gasoline is the specific distance that a car can travel on 1 L ethanol in the form of E10, a 10% ethanol blend in gasoline.

Results

The results of the analysis show, despite low raw material cost compared to molasses and cane-based ethanol, that cassava ethanol is still more costly than gasoline. This high cost has put an economic barrier to commercial application, leading to different opinions about government support for ethanol in the forms of tax incentives and subsidies.

Discussion

Overall, feedstock cost tends to govern ethanol’s production cost, thus, making itself and its 10% blend in gasoline less competitive than gasoline for the specific conditions considered. However, this situation can also be improved by appropriate measures, as discussed later.

Conclusions

To make ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline, the first possible measure is a combination of increasing crop yield and decreasing farming costs (chemical purchase and application, planting, and land preparation) so as to make a 47% reduction in the cost per tonne of cassava. This is modeled by a sensitivity analysis for the cost in the farming phase. In the industrial phase of the fuel production cycle, utilization of co-products and substitution of rice husk for bunker oil as process energy tend to reduce 62% of the price gap between ethanol and gasoline. The remaining 38% price gap can be eliminated with a 16% cut of raw material (cassava) cost, which is more practical than a 47% where no savings options in ethanol conversion phase are taken into account.

Recommendations and perspectives

The life cycle cost analysis helps identify the key areas in the ethanol production cycle where changes are required to improve cost performance. Including social aspects in an LCC analysis may make the results more favorable for ethanol.     

Life cycle assessment of potential energy uses for short rotation willow biomass in Sweden

Purpose

Two different bioenergy systems using willow chips as raw material has been assessed in detail applying life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to compare its environmental profile with conventional alternatives based on fossil fuels and demonstrate the potential of this biomass as a lignocellulosic energy source.

Methods

Short rotation forest willow plantations dedicated to biomass chips production for energy purposes and located in Southern Sweden were considered as the agricultural case study. The bioenergy systems under assessment were based on the production and use of willow-based ethanol in a flexi fuel vehicle blended with gasoline (85 % ethanol by volume) and the direct combustion of willow chips in an industrial furnace in order to produce heat for end users. The standard framework for LCA from the International Standards Organisation was followed in this study. The environmental profiles as well as the hot spots all through the life cycles were identified.

Results and discussion

According to the results, Swedish willow biomass production is energetically efficient, and the destination of this biomass for energy purposes (independently the sort of energy) presents environmental benefits, specifically in terms of avoided greenhouse gases emissions and fossil fuels depletion. Several processes from the agricultural activities were identified as hot spots, and special considerations should be paid on them due to their contribution to the environmental impact categories under analysis. This was the case for the production and use of the nitrogen-based fertilizer, as well as the diesel used in agricultural machineries.

Conclusions

Special attention should be paid on diffuse emissions from the ethanol production plant as well as on the control system of the combustion emissions from the boiler.     

Legacy effects of individual crops affect N2O emissions accounting within crop rotations

Uruguay is pursuing renewable energy production pathways using feedstocks from its agricultural sector to supply transportation fuels, among them ethanol produced from commercial technologies that use sweet and grain sorghum. However, the environmental performance of the fuel is not known. We investigate the life cycle environmental and cost performance of these two major agricultural crops used to produce ethanol that have begun commercial production and are poised to grow to meet national energy targets for replacing gasoline. Using both attributional and consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks for system boundaries to quantify the carbon intensity, and engineering cost analysis to estimate the unit production cost of ethanol from grain and sweet sorghum, we determined abatement costs. We found 1) an accounting error in estimating N₂O emissions for a specific crop in multiple crop rotations when using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) Tier 1 methods within an attributional LCA framework, due to N legacy effects; 2) choice of baseline and crop identity in multiple crop rotations evaluated within the consequential LCA framework both affect the global warming intensity (GWI) of ethanol; and 3) although abatement costs for ethanol from grain sorghum are positive and from sweet sorghum they are negative, both grain and sweet sorghum pathways have a high potential for reducing transport fuel GWI by more than 50% relative to gasoline, and are within the ranges targeted by the US renewable transportation fuel policies.     

Life cycle assessment of automotive fuels: critical analysis and recommendations on the emissions inventory in the tank to wheels stage

Purpose  

As new alternative automotive fuels are being developed, life cycle assessment (LCA) is being used to assess the sustainability of these new options. A fuel LCA is commonly referred as a “Well To Wheels” analysis and calculates the environmental impacts of producing the fuel (the “Well To Tank” stage) and using it to move a car (the “Tank To Wheels” stage, TTW). The TTW environmental impacts are the main topic of this article.     

Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods

Purpose

The main objective of this study is to expand the discussion about how, and to what extent, the environmental performance is affected by the use of different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) illustrated by the case study of the comparison between environmental impacts of gasoline and ethanol form sugarcane in Brazil.

Methods

The following LCIA methods have been considered in the evaluation: CML 2001, Impact 2002+, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI 2, ReCiPe, and Ecological Scarcity 2006. Energy allocation was used to split the environmental burdens between ethanol and surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane mill. The phases of feedstock and (bio)fuel production, distribution, and use are included in system boundaries.

Results and discussion

At the midpoint level, comparison of different LCIA methods showed that ethanol presents lower impacts than gasoline in important categories such as global warming, fossil depletion, and ozone layer depletion. However, ethanol presents higher impacts in acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and agricultural land use categories. Regarding to single-score indicators, ethanol presented better performance than gasoline using ReCiPe Endpoint LCIA method. Using IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99, and Ecological Scarcity 2006, higher scores are verified for ethanol, mainly due to the impacts related to particulate emissions and land use impacts.

Conclusions

Although there is a relative agreement on the results regarding equivalent environmental impact categories using different LCIA methods at midpoint level, when single-score indicators are considered, use of different LCIA methods lead to different conclusions. Single-score results also limit the interpretability at endpoint level, as a consequence of small contributions of relevant environmental impact categories weighted in a single-score indicator.     

Quantifying the metabolic capabilities of engineered <Emphasis Type="Italic">Zymomonas mobilis</Emphasis> using linear programming analysis

Background  

The need for discovery of alternative, renewable, environmentally friendly energy sources and the development of cost-efficient, "clean" methods for their conversion into higher fuels becomes imperative. Ethanol, whose significance as fuel has dramatically increased in the last decade, can be produced from hexoses and pentoses through microbial fermentation. Importantly, plant biomass, if appropriately and effectively decomposed, is a potential inexpensive and highly renewable source of the hexose and pentose mixture. Recently, the engineered (to also catabolize pentoses) anaerobic bacterium Zymomonas mobilis has been widely discussed among the most promising microorganisms for the microbial production of ethanol fuel. However, Z. mobilis genome having been fully sequenced in 2005, there is still a small number of published studies of its in vivo physiology and limited use of the metabolic engineering experimental and computational toolboxes to understand its metabolic pathway interconnectivity and regulation towards the optimization of its hexose and pentose fermentation into ethanol.     

Energy Efficiency Analysis: Biomass-to-Wheel Efficiency Related with Biofuels Production, Fuel Distribution, and Powertrain Systems

Background

Energy efficiency analysis for different biomass-utilization scenarios would help make more informed decisions for developing future biomass-based transportation systems. Diverse biofuels produced from biomass include cellulosic ethanol, butanol, fatty acid ethyl esters, methane, hydrogen, methanol, dimethyether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and bioelectricity; the respective powertrain systems include internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles based on gasoline or diesel ICEs, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, sugar fuel cell vehicles (SFCV), and battery electric vehicles (BEV).

Methodology/Principal Findings

We conducted a simple, straightforward, and transparent biomass-to-wheel (BTW) analysis including three separate conversion elements -- biomass-to-fuel conversion, fuel transport and distribution, and respective powertrain systems. BTW efficiency is a ratio of the kinetic energy of an automobile''s wheels to the chemical energy of delivered biomass just before entering biorefineries. Up to 13 scenarios were analyzed and compared to a base line case – corn ethanol/ICE. This analysis suggests that BEV, whose electricity is generated from stationary fuel cells, and SFCV, based on a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with an on-board sugar-to-hydrogen bioreformer, would have the highest BTW efficiencies, nearly four times that of ethanol-ICE.

Significance

In the long term, a small fraction of the annual US biomass (e.g., 7.1%, or 700 million tons of biomass) would be sufficient to meet 100% of light-duty passenger vehicle fuel needs (i.e., 150 billion gallons of gasoline/ethanol per year), through up to four-fold enhanced BTW efficiencies by using SFCV or BEV. SFCV would have several advantages over BEV: much higher energy storage densities, faster refilling rates, better safety, and less environmental burdens.     

The commercial performance of cellulosic ethanol supply-chains in Europe

Background

The production of fuel-grade ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass resources has the potential to increase biofuel production capacity whilst minimising the negative environmental impacts. These benefits will only be realised if lignocellulosic ethanol production can compete on price with conventional fossil fuels and if it can be produced commercially at scale. This paper focuses on lignocellulosic ethanol production in Europe. The hypothesis is that the eventual cost of production will be determined not only by the performance of the conversion process but by the performance of the entire supply-chain from feedstock production to consumption. To test this, a model for supply-chain cost comparison is developed, the components of representative ethanol supply-chains are described, the factors that are most important in determining the cost and profitability of ethanol production are identified, and a detailed sensitivity analysis is conducted.

Results

The most important cost determinants are the cost of feedstocks, primarily determined by location and existing markets, and the value obtained for ethanol, primarily determined by the oil price and policy incentives. Both of these factors are highly uncertain. The best performing chains (ethanol produced from softwood and sold as a low percentage blend with gasoline) could ultimately be cost competitive with gasoline without requiring subsidy, but production from straw would generally be less competitive.

Conclusion

Supply-chain design will play a critical role in determining commercial viability. The importance of feedstock supply highlights the need for location-specific assessments of feedstock availability and price. Similarly, the role of subsidies and policy incentives in creating and sustaining the ethanol market highlights the importance of political engagement and the need to include political risks in investment appraisal. For the supply-chains described here, and with the cost and market parameters selected, selling ethanol as a low percentage blend with gasoline will maximise ethanol revenues and minimise the need for subsidies. It follows, therefore, that the market for low percentage blends should be saturated before markets for high percentage blends.     

Life cycle analysis of biochemical cellulosic ethanol under multiple scenarios

Cellulosic ethanol is widely believed to offer substantial environmental advantages over petroleum fuels and grain‐based ethanol, particularly in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The environmental impacts of biofuels are largely caused by precombustion activities, feedstock production and conversion facility operations. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is required to understand these impacts. This article describes a field‐to‐blending terminal LCA of cellulosic ethanol produced by biochemical conversion (hydrolysis and fermentation) using corn stover or switchgrass as feedstock. This LCA develops unique models for most elements of the biofuel production process and assigns environmental impact to different phases of production. More than 30 scenarios are evaluated, reflecting a range of feedstock, technology and scale options for near‐term and future facilities. Cellulosic ethanol, as modeled here, has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to petroleum‐based liquid transportation fuels, though substantial uncertainty exists. Most of the conservative scenarios estimate GHG emissions of approximately 45–60 g carbon dioxide equivalent per MJ of delivered fuel (g CO₂e MJ^?1) without credit for coproducts, and 20–30 g CO₂e MJ^?1 when coproducts are considered. Under most scenarios, feedstock production, grinding and transport dominate the total GHG footprint. The most optimistic scenarios include sequestration of carbon in soil and have GHG emissions below zero g CO₂e MJ^?1, while the most pessimistic have life‐cycle GHG emissions higher than petroleum gasoline. Soil carbon changes are the greatest source of uncertainty, dominating all other sources of GHG emissions at the upper bound of their uncertainty. Many LCAs of biofuels are narrowly constrained to GHG emissions and energy; however, these narrow assessments may miss important environmental impacts. To ensure a more holistic assessment of environmental performance, a complete life cycle inventory, with over 1100 tracked material and energy flows for each scenario is provided in the online supplementary material for this article.     

Life cycle assessment of energy and GHG emissions during ethanol production from grass straws using various pretreatment processes

Purpose  

The aim of this study was to perform a well-to-pump life cycle assessment (LCA) to investigate the overall net energy balance and environmental impact of bioethanol production using Tall Fescue grass straw as feedstock. The energy requirements and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were compared to those of gasoline to explore the potential of bioethanol as sustainable fuel.     

LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass

Background, aim, and scope  

The availability of fossil resources is predicted to decrease in the near future: they are a non-renewable source, they cause environmental concerns, and they are subjected to price instability. Utilization of biomass as raw material in a biorefinery is a promising alternative to fossil resources for production of energy carriers and chemicals, as well as for mitigating climate change and enhancing energy security. This paper focuses on a biorefinery concept which produces bioethanol, bioenergy, and biochemicals from switchgrass, a lignocellulosic crop. Results are compared with a fossil reference system producing the same products/services from fossil sources.     

Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand

Goal and Scope  A well-to-wheel analysis has been conducted for cassava-based ethanol (CE) in Thailand. The aim of the analysis is to assess the potentials of CE in the form of gasohol E10 for promoting energy security and reducing environmental impacts in comparison with conventional gasoline (CG). Method  In the LCA procedure, three separate but interrelated components: inventory analysis, characterization and interpretation were performed for the complete chain of the fuel life cycle. To compare gasohol E10 and CG, this study addressed their impact potentials per gasoline-equivalent litre, taking into account the performance difference between gasohol and gasoline in an explosion motor. Results and Discussions  The results obtained show that CE in the form of E10, along its whole life cycle, reduces certain environmental loads compared to CG. The percentage reductions relative to CG are 6.1% for fossil energy use, 6.0% for global warming potential, 6.8% for acidification, and 12.2% for nutrient enrichment. Using biomass in place of fossil fuels for process energy in the manufacture of ethanol leads to improved overall life cycle energy and environmental performance of ethanol blends relative to CG. Conclusions and Outlook  The LCA brings to light the key areas in the ethanol production cycle that researchers and technicians need to work on to maximize ethanol’s contribution to energy security and environmental sustainability ESS-Submission Editor: Mark Goedkoop (goedkoop@pre.nl)