Energy use indicators in energy and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations

Arvidsson, Rickard; Fransson, Kristin; Fröling, Morgan; Svanström, Magdalena; Molander, Sverker

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.001

Cited by 73 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, early LCAs essentially based their calculations on predicted yields, as at that point there were few (if any) fully operational projects. For example, early jatropha LCAs assumed yields as high as 12-13 t/ha in Thailand [82,83], 6-11.25 t/ha in India [84], 5 t/ha in Malaysia [85], 5 t/ha in China [86] and 4 t/ha in the Ivory Coast [87]. Even more worrying is that still some LCAs assume yields as high as 11.6 t/ha in Colombia [88], 9.75 t/ha in China [89] and 8 t/ha in Tanzania [90].…”

Section: Jatropha's Unmet Expectations In Southern Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise, Fall and Potential Resilience Benefits of Jatropha in Southern Africa

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jatropha is the latest in a list of "miracle crops" that have been promoted in southern Africa for their perceived development benefits. This was based on promises of high yields, low water requirement, ability to grow on marginal land and lack of competition with food. In less than 10 years, tens of thousands of hectares were acquired for jatropha plantations and thousands of hectares were planted, most of which are now unused or abandoned. Overestimations of jatropha yields coupled with underestimations of the management costs have probably been the prime contributors to the collapse of most jatropha projects in southern African. However, a few projects still survive and show signs of possible long-term sustainability. We consider two such projects, a smallholder-based project in Malawi and a large-scale plantation in Mozambique. Though their long-term sustainability is not proven, both projects may increase resilience by diversifying household income streams and contributing to national fuel security. By identifying what seems to be working in these projects we provide insights as to why other projects may have failed in southern Africa and whether there is still place for jatropha in the region. In essence can jatropha still enhance local/national resilience or are jatropha's benefits just a myth? OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2014, 6 3616

show abstract

Section: Jatropha's Unmet Expectations In Southern Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise, Fall and Potential Resilience Benefits of Jatropha in Southern Africa

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of these concerns were discussed in subsequent publications [7][8][9]. Similar issues have recently arisen in the energy assessment of biofuels, which has led to publications discussing how different energy-use indicators, such as fossil energy demand vs. cumulative energy demand, can lead to vastly different conclusions as to the efficacy of certain technologies [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Comparing Apples to Apples: Why the Net Energy Analysis Community Needs to Adopt the Life-Cycle Analysis Framework

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we know which energy technologies or resources are worth pursuing and which aren't? One way to answer that question is to compare the energy return of a certain technology-i.e., how much energy is remaining after accounting for the amount of energy expended in the production and delivery process. Such energy return ratios (the most famous of which is energy return on investment (EROI)) fall within the field of net energy analysis (NEA), and provide an easy way to determine which technology is "better"; i.e., higher Energy Return Ratios (ERRs) are, certeris paribus, better than lower ERRs. Although useful as a broad measure of energy profitability, comparisons can also be misleading, particularly if the units being compared are different. For example, the energy content of electricity produced from a photovoltaic cell is different than the energy content of coal at the mine-mouth, yet these are often compared directly within the literature. These types of inconsistencies are common within the NEA literature. In this paper, we offer life cycle assessment (LCA) and the LCA methodology as a possible solution to the persistent methodological issues within the NEA community, and urge all NEA practitioners to adopt this methodology in the future.

show abstract

“…In particular, analysing results ────────────────────────── for various energy use indicators requires additional research, as there is no standardised methodology. Typically, studies are not fully clear on how energy use is calculated, while it is decisive for the results (Arvidsson et al 2012, Modahl et al 2013). The problem is not relevant for standard impact categories in LCA, such as eutrophication and acidification.…”

Section: Other Impact Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%