Processing of Straw/Corn Stover: Comparison of Life Cycle Emissions

Searcy, Erin; Flynn, Peter C.

doi:10.1080/15435070802498010

Cited by 55 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The issue is whether biomass should be used as a biofuel in stationary energy systems for CHP or as a feedstock for transportation biofuel production. Relatively few papers among the reviewed studies made an attempt to compare alternative biomass uses (Botha and von Blottnitz, 2006;Cherubini et al, 2009;CONCAWE, 2006;Elsayed et al, 2003;Greene, 2004;Kaltschmitt et al, 1997;Searcy and Flynn, 2008;Uihlein et al, 2008). In order to make such a comparison, a proper functional unit must be chosen, like unit of input biomass.…”

Section: Efficient Biomass Use: Vehicle Vs Stationary Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Similarly, Greene (2004) suggests that bioelectricity ensures larger climate change mitigation benefits per tonne of input biomass than transportation biofuels when coal electricity is displaced, but GHG savings become comparable between the two options when natural gas-derived electricity is replaced (Greene, 2004). Another paper based on possible bioenergy uses of agricultural residues reveals that electricity production via direct firing or gasification save about three times the amount of GHG emissions saved by bioethanol and FT-diesel per unit of input biomass (coal electricity is assumed to be displaced) (Searcy and Flynn, 2008). Finally, two papers reveal that heating uses of biomass usually provide greater GHG savings per hectare than conventional biofuels and bioelectricity production systems (Cherubini et al, 2009;Kaltschmitt et al, 1997).…”

Section: Efficient Biomass Use: Vehicle Vs Stationary Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges

Cherubini

Strømman

2011

Bioresource Technology

646

348

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Efficient Biomass Use: Vehicle Vs Stationary Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Efficient Biomass Use: Vehicle Vs Stationary Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges

Cherubini

Strømman

2011

Bioresource Technology

646

348

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Especially the land use requirements, causing competition with land for food and nature elsewhere, are the driving forces for the technology of secondgeneration bioethanol-which uses celluloses from lowvalue agricultural products or wastes, like corn stover, wheat straw, and bagasse from sugar cane, wood, or grass. Some studies have been performed on these new production routes (Fu et al 2003;Sheehan et al 2004;Kemppainen and Schonnard 2005;Spatari et al 2005;Searcy and Flynn 2008;Luo et al 2008;González-García et al 2009). These studies show, to a varying degree, reduction of fossil fuel use and of GHG emissions, in comparison with the use of gasoline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Luo

Voet

Huppes

et al. 2009

Int J Life Cycle Assess

249

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 secondgeneration 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 (CO 2 uptake) and more penalties (N 2 O emission) in agriculture are allocated to stover compared to the case of economic allocation. However, mo...

show abstract

“…Although such analyses/assessments based on life cycle approach may be not LCA in a narrow sense, it can be called LCA in a broad sense. Especially in the field of energy technology assessment including bioenergy, a great deal of LCA studies in broad sense has been performed from the viewpoint of energy and climate change policies (e.g., Searcy and Flynn 2008;Varun and Bhat 2010). A method developed in the present study is based on a life cycle approach.…”

Section: Life Cycle Approach: Lca In a Broad Sensementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Local Biomass Projects on Energy Balance and GHG Emission: A Life Cycle Approach

Hondo¹,

Kikuchi²

2014

International Journal of Green Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging attention has been given to the use of biomass in local areas for its contribution to reducing fossil fuel dependence and mitigating global warming. The objective of the present study is to develop a method that quantitatively assesses the effects of local biomass projects on fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. A practical method based on a life cycle approach is proposed and applied to a case of bioethanol project in Miyako Islands of Japan. The project is aiming to produce bioethanol from molasses within the islands, and to replace the entire gasoline consumed in the islands to E3 fuel (i.e., a mixture of 3% ethanol and 97% gasoline by volume). The assessment using the developed method revealed that, first, the complete shift from gasoline to E3 fuel allows for decreases in fossil fuel consumption and GHG emission. Second, the performance of the project is improved by the integration of the ethanol plant and the sugar factory. Moreover, the assessment found that, in small-scale bioethanol projects, the contribution of capital goods to life cycle fuel consumption and GHG emission is not negligible.

show abstract

Processing of Straw/Corn Stover: Comparison of Life Cycle Emissions

Cited by 55 publications

References 29 publications

Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges

Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges

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

The Effect of Local Biomass Projects on Energy Balance and GHG Emission: A Life Cycle Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About