Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of aviation biofuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane molasses

被引:46
|
作者
Cox, Kelly [1 ]
Renouf, Marguerite [2 ]
Dargan, Aidan [1 ]
Turner, Christopher [3 ]
Klein-Marcuschamer, Daniel [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Brisbane Technol Ctr, Boeing Res & Technol Australia, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Geog Planning & Environm Management, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Australian Inst Bioengn & Nanotechnol, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[4] Joint BioEnergy Inst, Deconstruct Div, Emeryville, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Phys Biosci Div, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
来源
关键词
LCA; environmental impact; energy; greenhouse gas; alternative fuel; jet fuel; NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS; AUSTRALIAN SUGARCANE; CARBON; FUEL; TRANSPORT; ENERGY; FOCUS; FOOD; N2O;
D O I
10.1002/bbb.1488
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
The environmental benefits and trade-offs of automotive biofuels are well known, but less is known about aviation biofuels. We modeled the environmental impacts of three pathways for aviation biofuel in Australia (from microalgae, pongamia, and sugarcane molasses) using attributional life cycle assessments (LCAs), applying both economic allocation and system expansion. Based on economic allocation, sugarcane molasses has the better fossil energy ratio FER (1.7 MJ out/MJ in) and GHG abatement (73% less than aviation kerosene) of the three, but with trade-offs of higher water use and eutrophication potential. Microalgae and pongamia have lower FER and GHG abatement (1.0 and 1.1; 53% and 43%), but mostly avoid eutrophication and reduce water use trade-offs. All have similar and relatively low land use intensities. If produced on land where existing carbon stocks are not compromised, the sugarcane and microalgae pathways would currently meet a 50% GHG abatement requirement. Based on system expansion, microalgae and pongamia had lower impacts than sugarcane for all categories except energy input, highlighting the positive aspects of these next-generation feedstocks. The low fossil energy conservation potential of these pathways was found to be a drawback, and significant energy efficiencies will be needed before they can affect fossil energy conservation. Energy recovery from processing residues (base case) was preferable over use as animal feed (variant case), and crucial for favorable energy and GHG conservation. However this finding is at odds with the economic preferences identified in a companion technoeconomic study. (C) 2014 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
引用
收藏
页码:579 / 593
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Technoeconomic analysis of renewable aviation fuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane
    Klein-Marcuschamer, Daniel
    Turner, Christopher
    Allen, Mark
    Gray, Peter
    Dietzgen, Ralf G.
    Gresshoff, Peter M.
    Hankamer, Ben
    Heimann, Kirsten
    Scott, Paul T.
    Stephens, Evan
    Speight, Robert
    Nielsen, Lars K.
    BIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR, 2013, 7 (04): : 416 - 428
  • [2] A LCA (life cycle assessment) of the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse
    Grillo Reno, Maria Luiza
    Silva Lora, Electo Eduardo
    Escobar Palacio, Jose Carlos
    Venturini, Osvaldo Jose
    Buchgeister, Jens
    Almazan, Oscar
    ENERGY, 2011, 36 (06) : 3716 - 3726
  • [3] Life cycle environmental impacts of bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses in Iran
    Farahani, Saeid Shahvarooghi
    Asoodar, Mohammad Amin
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2017, 24 (28) : 22547 - 22556
  • [4] Life cycle environmental impacts of bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses in Iran
    Saeid Shahvarooghi Farahani
    Mohammad Amin Asoodar
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24 : 22547 - 22556
  • [5] Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane molasses in northern and western India and its impact on Indian biofuel programme
    Soam, Shveta
    Kumar, Ravindra
    Gupta, Ravi P.
    Sharma, Pankaj K.
    Tuli, Deepak K.
    Das, Biswapriya
    ENERGY, 2015, 83 : 307 - 315
  • [6] Life cycle assessment of upgraded microalgae-to-biofuel chains
    Wu, Wei
    Lei, Yi-Chun
    Chang, Jo-Shu
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 288
  • [7] Biofuel or excavation? - Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options
    Suer, Pascal
    Andersson-Skold, Yvonne
    BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2011, 35 (02): : 969 - 981
  • [8] Environmental impact and energy balance assessment in ethanol production from sugarcane molasses: A life cycle analysis in southern India
    Uppalapati, Sudhakar
    Jani, S. P.
    Raj, J. Bensam
    Rajaganapathy, C.
    Murugapoopathi, S.
    Shangdiar, Sumarlin
    Amesho, Kassian T. T.
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2024, 204
  • [9] Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Environmental and Energy Systems
    Ciacci, Luca
    Passarini, Fabrizio
    ENERGIES, 2020, 13 (22)
  • [10] Life cycle assessment of biofuel production from microalgae cultivated in anaerobic digested wastewater
    Li, Gang
    Lu, Zhitao
    Zhang, Jiang
    Li, Huan
    Zhou, Yuguang
    Zayan, Ali Mohammed Ibrahim
    Huang, Zhigang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 13 (01) : 241 - 246