Water footprint analysis of second-generation bioethanol in Taiwan

Chiu, Chung Chia; Shiang, Wei-Jung; Lin, Chiuhsiang Joe; Wang, Ching-Huei; Chang, Der-Ming

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.068

Cited by 43 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to comparative studies by Berger et al (2015) and Pfister and Scherer (2015), biodiesel and bioethanol have the highest water footprint (three orders of magnitude higher than petrol and diesel). However, one should distinguish between first-generation and second-generation biofuels, the latter expected to have a lower water footprint because they are primarily based on waste (Chiu et al 2015).…”

Section: Activities With Variable Prioritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational water footprint: a methodological guidance

Mikosch

Berger

Finkbeiner

2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper proposes a practical methodological approach to assess the water footprint at the organizational level, in line with the current development of life-cycle based approaches toward the organizational scale on the one hand and footprint metrics on the other hand. This methodological development allows for organizational water footprint applications intended to inform management decisions and to alleviate water-related environmental impacts throughout the supply chain. Methods ISO 14046, dedicated to water footprint with a major focus on products, and ISO/TS 14072 for organizational LCA (O-LCA) are compared. A set of indications to carry out an organizational water footprint is identified based on: the requirements common to water footprint and organizational LCA; complementary methodological elements specified in only one of the standards; solutions to issues identified as conflicting. Additional application guidance on data collection prioritization for organizational water scarcity footprint studies is delivered based on the review of existing organizational case studies and comparative product or commodity studies. Results and discussion O-LCA and water footprint provide complementary requirements for the scoping phase and the inventory and impact assessment phase respectively, according to the different methodological foci. We identify conflicting or contradictory requirements related to (i) comparisons, (ii) system boundary definition, and (iii) approaches to avoid allocation. We recommend (i) avoiding comparisons in organizational water footprint studies, (ii) defining two-dimensional system boundaries ("life-cycle dimension" and "organizational dimension"), and (iii) avoiding system expansion. Additionally, when carrying out a water scarcity footprint for organizations, we suggest prioritizing data collection for direct activities, freshwater extraction and discharge, purchased energy, metals, agricultural products and biofuels, and, if water or energy consuming, the use phase. Conclusions The standards comparison allowed compiling a set of requirements for organizational water footprints. Combined with the targeted guidance to facilitate data collection for water scarcity footprint studies, this work can facilitate assessing the water footprint of organizations throughout their supply chains.

show abstract

Section: Activities With Variable Prioritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational water footprint: a methodological guidance

Mikosch

Berger

Finkbeiner

2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The WF of a product (m 3 / t) refers not only to the total volume of water used or polluted in order to produce a product but also to direct and indirect water uses in the production process. WF comprises green, blue, and gray water use expressed as an integrated freshwater resource allocation indicator; it permits more efficient water management than traditional limited water intake measurements [17]. Generally, WF is a more comprehensive and multidimensional indicator of freshwater consumption and pollution of a product within given geographical and temporal boundaries than the traditional measures of water withdrawal [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Footprint as an Emerging Environmental Tool for Assessing Sustainable Water Use of the Bioethanol Distillery at Metahara Sugarcane Farm, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia

Fito

Tefera

Demeku

et al. 2017

Water Conserv Sci Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Ethiopia, sugarcane estate farms and bioethanol distilleries are being expanded at an alarming rate to provide alternative sustainable energy as renewable, affordable, and low carbon footprint bioenergy for the transportation sector. The promotion of bioethanol production is definitely poised to cause high competition for water resources. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the water footprint (WF) of sugarcane molasses-based bioethanol production of the Metahara sugarcane farm. Ten years of meteorological data (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016) were collected from the Metahara weather stations and processed through the CROPWAT 8 model using the Penman-Monteith method. Sugarcane coefficient (K c ) was taken from FAO data; and sugarcane growing seasons, fertilizer application rates, sugarcane yield, and factory data were obtained from the Metahara factories. Reference evapotranspiration varied from 4.73 to 7.98 mm/day whereas effective rainfall (R eff ) values ranged from 256.4 to 743.6 mm/growing season of sugarcane (16 months). The estimated sugarcane water requirement (SWR) ranged from 2544.1 to 4833.3 mm/growing season. The ANOVA test (p > 0.05) for R eff showed statistically insignificant differences in means but the test for SWR (p < 0.05) revealed a statistically significant differences in means. The average sugarcane WF was 217.69 m 3 /t whereas the bioethanol WF was 3106.7 L/L. Hence, the WF of bioethanol production in the Metahara distillery is higher than the global average, indicating pressure on local water resources. Therefore, the results of this study may help policy makers to develop appropriate water resource management for the extensively growing sugar and bioethanol industries in Ethiopia.

show abstract

“…() studied the water footprint of energy production and supply in Thailand over the period 1986–2010. Other experts also assessed the water footprint for food waste (Ridoutt et al, ), companies (Ruini et al, ), the iron and steel industry (Gu et al, ), meat and milk production (Bosire et al, ), the pork industry (Miguel et al, ) and bioethanol (Chiu et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of Sugarcane Water Footprint by Controlled Drainage, in Khuzestan, Iran

Jahani

Mohammadi

Nasseri

et al. 2017

Irrigation and Drainage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this study was to estimate the different components of the water footprint for sugarcane production under the conditions of free (FD) and controlled drainage (as an on‐farm strategy for agricultural water management, CD) in an arid and semi‐arid region in the south‐west of Iran (Khuzestan Province). The different components of the water footprint (green, blue and grey) were assessed based on on‐farm measurements. The total amount of water footprint for sugarcane production in the study area stood at 250 m3t−1 in the treatment FD. Of this, 12.2, 71.8 and 16.0% were of the green, blue and grey water footprints, respectively. By using CD this value was reduced to 203 m3t−1 in total, of which, 13.7, 76.8 and 9.5% were of the green, blue and grey water footprints, respectively. This decrease in the amount of water footprint seems to be mainly a result of an increase in crop productivity (due to soil condition improvement), reduction of the in‐ and outflow of the sugarcane farm and also reduction of nitrate losses in the CD treatment. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Water footprint analysis of second-generation bioethanol in Taiwan

Cited by 43 publications

References 18 publications

Organizational water footprint: a methodological guidance

Organizational water footprint: a methodological guidance

Water Footprint as an Emerging Environmental Tool for Assessing Sustainable Water Use of the Bioethanol Distillery at Metahara Sugarcane Farm, Oromiya Region, Ethiopia

Reduction of Sugarcane Water Footprint by Controlled Drainage, in Khuzestan, Iran

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About