Assessing the environmental sustainability of ethanol from integrated biorefineries.
This paper considers the life cycle environmental sustainability of ethanol produced in integrated biorefineries together with chemicals and energy. Four types of second-generation feedstocks are considered: wheat straw, forest residue, poplar, and miscanthus. Seven out of 11 environmental impacts from ethanol are negative, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, when the system is credited for the co-products, indicating environmental savings. Ethanol from poplar is the best and straw the worst option for most impacts. Land use change from forest to miscanthus increases the GHG emissions several-fold. For poplar, the effect is opposite: converting grassland to forest reduces the emissions by three-fold. Compared to fossil and first-generation ethanol, ethanol from integrated biorefineries is more sustainable for most impacts, with the exception of wheat straw. Pure ethanol saves up to 87% of GHG emissions compared to petrol per MJ of fuel. However, for the current 5% ethanol-petrol blends, the savings are much smaller (<3%). Therefore, unless much higher blends become widespread, the contribution of ethanol from integrated biorefineries to the reduction of GHG emissions will be insignificant. Yet, higher ethanol blends would lead to an increase in some impacts, notably terrestrial and freshwater toxicity as well as eutrophication for some feedstocks.
['Falano|Temitope|T|', 'Jeswani|Harish K|HK|', 'Azapagic|Adisa|A|']
D056804:Biofuels D004777:Environment D000431:Ethanol D005285:Fermentation D017752:Greenhouse Effect D010578:Petroleum
Ethanol Integrated biorefineries Environmental impacts Biofuels Life cycle assessment