Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Bai Y, Luo L, van der Voet E (2010) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol as transport fuel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:468–477

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Botha T, von Blottnitz H (2006) A comparison of the environmental benefits of bagasse-derived electricity and fuel ethanol on life-cycle basis. Energ Policy 34:2654–2661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caneghem JV, Block C, Vandecasteele C (2010) Assessment of the impact on human health of industrial emissions to air: Does the result depend on the applied method? J Hazard Mater 184:788–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini F, Ulgiati S (2010) Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems—a LCA case study. Appl Energ 87:47–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 e does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:191–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009) The ecological scarcity method—eco-factors 2006: a method for impact assessment in LCA. Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Zürich und Bern. www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01031/index.html?lang=en. Accessed on 20 June 2011

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort. www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99. Accessed 22 June 2011

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver AM, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition; Report I: Characterisation. www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2011

  • González-García S, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Comparative environmental performance of lignocellulosic ethanol from different feedstocks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:2077–2085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GREET, version 1.8d (2010) Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation. Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, USA

  • Guinée JB (ed) (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards; LCA in Perspective; Guide; Operational Annex to Guide. Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University: The Netherlands

  • Halleux H, Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Germain A (2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of two biofuels: ethanol from sugar beet and rapeseed methyl ester. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):184–190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment e the EDIP2003 methodology. Danish Ministry of the Environment. www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-579-4/pdf/87-7614-580-8.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2011

  • ISO (1998) ISO Norm 14041: 1998. Environmental management—life cycle assessment. Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) ISO Norm 14044: 2006. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines. Environmental management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jane CB, Norris G, Pennington D, Mckone TE (2002) TRACI e the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Indus Ecol 6:49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JRC (2010) ILCD Handbook: analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. Background document. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Background-analysis-online-12March2010.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2011

  • JRC (2011) ILCD handbook: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. Background document. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD%20Handbook%20Recommendations%20for%20Life%20Cycle%20Impact%20Assessment%20in%20the%20European%20context.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2012

  • Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:1613–1619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macedo IC (2005) Sugar cane’s energy—twelve studies on Brazilian sugar cane agribusiness and its sustainability. Berlendis & Vertecchia: UNICA, São Paulo

  • Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR (2008) Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenerg 32:582–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ometto AR, Hauschild MZ, Roma WNL (2009) Lifecycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:236–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, de Koning A, Hauschild M, Pennington DW, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment e insights from a detergent case study within OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:295–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt JH, Thomsen M (2011a) Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:646–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt JH, Thomsen M (2011b) Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:687–698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PRé Consultants (2011). SimaPro 7.3 Life Cycle Assessment software. Detailed information can be found on www.pre.nl

  • Renou S, Thomas JS, Aoustin E, Pons MN (2008) Influence of impact assessment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J Clean Prod 16:1098–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Pagan RJ (2010) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:927–937

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Renouf MA, Pagan RJ, Wegener MK (2011) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane products with a focus on cane processing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:125–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seabra JEA (2008) Avaliação técnico-econômica de opções para o aproveitamento integral da biomassa de cana no Brasil. Univerisidade Esdadual de Campinas (Doutorado), Faculdade de Engenharia Mecânica

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabra JEA, Tao L, Chum HL, Macedo IC (2010) A techno-economic evaluation of the effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-products refinery options with sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1065–1078

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seabra JEA, Macedo IC, Chum HL, Faroni CE, Sarto CA (2011) Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 5(5):519–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2009) Ecoinvent database. Version 2.0. December 2010. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. Accessed 10 Aug 2011

  • Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer EW, Müllerenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Uihlein A, Schebek L (2009) Environmental impacts of a lignocellulose feedstock biorefinery system: an assessment. Biomass Bioenerg 33:793–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UNICA (2011) União da Indústria de cana-de-açúcar. Dados e Cotações—Estatísticas: Produção brasileira de etanol. www.unica.com.br/dadosCotacao/estatistica/. Accessed 12 Aug 2011

  • Walter A, Dolzan P, Quilodrán O, Oliveira JG, da Silva C, Piacente F, Segarstedt A (2011) Sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in Brazil considering land use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic aspects. Energy Policy 39(10):5703–5716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Chang VWC, Fane AG (2011) Environmental life cycle assessment of reverse osmosis desalination: the influence of different life cycle impact assessment methods on the characterization results. Desalination. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.066

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Marina Oliveira de Souza Dias, Tassia Lopes Junqueira, and Henrique Coutinho Junqueira Franco for providing valuable data and suggestions to this study. Otávio Cavalett is grateful to Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for the financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol, CTBE, Caixa Postal 6170, 13083-970, Campinas, Brazil

    Otávio Cavalett, Mateus Ferreira Chagas, Joaquim E. A. Seabra & Antonio Bonomi

  2. Faculdade de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Mendeleyev 200, 13083-860, Campinas, Brazil

    Joaquim E. A. Seabra

Authors
  1. Otávio Cavalett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mateus Ferreira Chagas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joaquim E. A. Seabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Bonomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Otávio Cavalett.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Seungdo Kim

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

PDF 184 kb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cavalett, O., Chagas, M.F., Seabra, J.E.A. et al. Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 647–658 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0465-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0465-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation