IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v211y2018icp368-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A consequential assessment of changes in greenhouse gas emissions due to the introduction of wheat straw ethanol in the context of European legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Buchspies, Benedikt
  • Kaltschmitt, Martin

Abstract

Until today, first generation (1G) biofuels dominate the market for alternative fuels. The European Commission decided to cap 1G biofuels and promote second generation (2G) biofuels with the intention to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to limit the competition of food, feed and biofuels, as well as to improve societal approval. The assessment of consequences entailed to a shift from 1G to 2G biofuels is required to judge whether such a shift is advisable or not. According to the renewable energy directive (RED), GHG savings, need to be determined for all biofuels. By the end of 2020, fuel blends need to achieve a GHG reduction of 6%. Thus, GHG savings will determine the quantity of biofuel to be blended with fossil fuels and thereby eventually define the demand for biofuels. In this paper, the consequences of a shift from a 1G to a 2G biofuel is assessed by the example of bioethanol from wheat grains and straw. In total, three concepts of 2G ethanol production from wheat straw are considered: fermentation of C6-sugars with (1) co-production of feed, (2) coupled with biogas production and (3) co-fermentation of C5- and C6-sugars with co-production of feed. To determine the effect of the introduction of 2G ethanol, GHG savings according to RED are calculated first, and, in a second step, consequences of the shift from 1G to 2G ethanol are assessed by accounting for substitution mechanisms and emissions from direct and indirect land-use change (LUC). GHG savings of these 2G concepts according to RED methodology range from 103 to 105%. The shift from 1G ethanol to these 2G concepts is assessed by two scenarios: (1) additional production of 2G ethanol and (2) the replacement of 1G ethanol by 2G ethanol. Results indicate that GHG emissions decrease in scenario 1 if all surplus ethanol replaces fossil fuels. Under the given assumptions, the reduction in emissions ranges from 9.0 to 12.1 kg CO2-eq./GJ ethanol-gasoline blend. If 1G ethanol is replaced by 2G ethanol, GHG emission increase in a range from 7.5 to 16.5 kg CO2-eq./GJ fuel blend. This is mainly due to the provision of feed that needs to be supplied as a consequence of the shift in production: 1G ethanol production provides a high protein feed that needs to be provided by other means. Hence, the main driver for an increase in emissions is the provision of soybean meal and entailed emissions from LUC. A sensitivity analysis shows that these results are robust regarding input parameters and LUC assumptions. These findings point out that it is of utmost importance to assess changes induced by the introduction of novel fuels rather than assessing them isolated from market conditions. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that current and proposed legislation might trigger effects opposed to those intended.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchspies, Benedikt & Kaltschmitt, Martin, 2018. "A consequential assessment of changes in greenhouse gas emissions due to the introduction of wheat straw ethanol in the context of European legislation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 368-381.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:211:y:2018:i:c:p:368-381
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315477
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monteleone, Massimo & Cammerino, Anna Rita Bernadette & Garofalo, Pasquale & Delivand, Mitra Kami, 2015. "Straw-to-soil or straw-to-energy? An optimal trade off in a long term sustainability perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 891-899.
    2. Wang, Lei & Littlewood, Jade & Murphy, Richard J., 2013. "Environmental sustainability of bioethanol production from wheat straw in the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 715-725.
    3. Morales, Marjorie & Quintero, Julián & Conejeros, Raúl & Aroca, Germán, 2015. "Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic bioethanol: Environmental impacts and energy balance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1349-1361.
    4. Whittaker, Carly & Borrion, Aiduan Li & Newnes, Linda & McManus, Marcelle, 2014. "The renewable energy directive and cereal residues," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 207-215.
    5. de Carvalho, Ariovaldo Lopes & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Freire, Fausto, 2016. "Economic-energy-environment analysis of prospective sugarcane bioethanol production in Brazil," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 514-526.
    6. Weiser, Christian & Zeller, Vanessa & Reinicke, Frank & Wagner, Bernhard & Majer, Stefan & Vetter, Armin & Thraen, Daniela, 2014. "Integrated assessment of sustainable cereal straw potential and different straw-based energy applications in Germany," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 749-762.
    7. Ghosh, Shiladitya & Chowdhury, Ranjana & Bhattacharya, Pinaki, 2017. "Sustainability of cereal straws for the fermentative production of second generation biofuels: A review of the efficiency and economics of biochemical pretreatment processes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 284-298.
    8. Borrion, Aiduan Li & McManus, Marcelle C. & Hammond, Geoffrey P., 2012. "Environmental life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic conversion to ethanol: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 4638-4650.
    9. Richard Plevin & Mark Delucchi & Felix Creutzig, 2014. "Response to Comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 468-470, May.
    10. Hamelin, Lorie & Naroznova, Irina & Wenzel, Henrik, 2014. "Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 774-782.
    11. Pereira, L.G. & Dias, M.O.S. & Mariano, A.P. & Maciel Filho, R. & Bonomi, A., 2015. "Economic and environmental assessment of n-butanol production in an integrated first and second generation sugarcane biorefinery: Fermentative versus catalytic routes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 120-131.
    12. Edgar Hertwich, 2014. "Understanding the Climate Mitigation Benefits of Product Systems: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation…”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 464-465, May.
    13. Smeets, Edward & Tabeau, Andrzej & van Berkum, Siemen & Moorad, Jamil & van Meijl, Hans & Woltjer, Geert, 2014. "The impact of the rebound effect of the use of first generation biofuels in the EU on greenhouse gas emissions: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 393-403.
    14. Koponen, Kati & Hannula, Ilkka, 2017. "GHG emission balances and prospects of hydrogen enhanced synthetic biofuels from solid biomass in the European context," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 106-118.
    15. Vetter, Armin & Arnold, Karin, 2010. "Klima- und Umwelteffekte von Biomethan: Anlagentechnik und Substratauswahl," Wuppertal Papers 182, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    16. Zech, Konstantin M. & Meisel, Kathleen & Brosowski, André & Toft, Lars Villadsgaard & Müller-Langer, Franziska, 2016. "Environmental and economic assessment of the Inbicon lignocellulosic ethanol technology," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 347-356.
    17. Miguel Brandão & Roland Clift & Annette Cowie & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2014. "The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in the Support of Robust (Climate) Policy Making: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 461-463, May.
    18. Bruce E. Dale & Seungdo Kim, 2014. "Can the Predictions of Consequential Life Cycle Assessment Be Tested in the Real World? Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation...”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 466-467, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicole Bamber & Ian Turner & Baishali Dutta & Mohammed Davoud Heidari & Nathan Pelletier, 2023. "Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Grain and Oilseed Crops: Review and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Buchspies, Benedikt & Kaltschmitt, Martin & Neuling, Ulf, 2020. "Potential changes in GHG emissions arising from the introduction of biorefineries combining biofuel and electrofuel production within the European Union – A location specific assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Sanchez, Nestor & Ruiz, Ruth & Rödl, Anne & Cobo, Martha, 2021. "Technical and environmental analysis on the power production from residual biomass using hydrogen as energy vector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 825-839.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Venturini, Giada & Pizarro-Alonso, Amalia & Münster, Marie, 2019. "How to maximise the value of residual biomass resources: The case of straw in Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 369-388.
    2. Siti Jamilah Hanim Mohd YUSOF & Ahmad Muhaimin Roslan & Khairul Nadiah Ibrahim & Sharifah Soplah Syed ABDULLAH & Mohd Rafein Zakaria & Mohd Ali Hassan & Yoshihito Shirai, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment for Bioethanol Production from Oil Palm Frond Juice in an Oil Palm Based Biorefinery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Joseph Palazzo & Roland Geyer & Sangwon Suh, 2020. "A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 815-829, August.
    4. Koponen, Kati & Soimakallio, Sampo & Kline, Keith L. & Cowie, Annette & Brandão, Miguel, 2018. "Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2271-2280.
    5. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    6. Richard Plevin & Mark Delucchi & Felix Creutzig, 2014. "Response to Comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 468-470, May.
    7. Arianne Provost‐Savard & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2024. "Substitution modeling can coherently be used in attributional life cycle assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 410-425, June.
    8. Soam, Shveta & Kapoor, Manali & Kumar, Ravindra & Borjesson, Pal & Gupta, Ravi P. & Tuli, Deepak K., 2016. "Global warming potential and energy analysis of second generation ethanol production from rice straw in India," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 353-364.
    9. Bonou, Alexandra & Laurent, Alexis & Olsen, Stig I., 2016. "Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 327-337.
    10. Porcelli, Roberto & Gibon, Thomas & Marazza, Diego & Righi, Serena & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Prospective environmental impact assessment and simulation applied to an emerging biowaste-based energy technology in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    12. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    13. Meng, Fanran & Dornau, Aritha & Mcqueen Mason, Simon J. & Thomas, Gavin H. & Conradie, Alex & McKechnie, Jon, 2021. "Bioethanol from autoclaved municipal solid waste: Assessment of environmental and financial viability under policy contexts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    14. Liu, Beibei & Wu, Qiaoran & Wang, Feng & Zhang, Bing, 2019. "Is straw return-to-field always beneficial? Evidence from an integrated cost-benefit analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 393-402.
    15. Buchspies, Benedikt & Kaltschmitt, Martin & Neuling, Ulf, 2020. "Potential changes in GHG emissions arising from the introduction of biorefineries combining biofuel and electrofuel production within the European Union – A location specific assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Daylan, B. & Ciliz, N., 2016. "Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 578-587.
    17. Fiorentino, Gabriella & Zucaro, Amalia & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2019. "Towards an energy efficient chemistry. Switching from fossil to bio-based products in a life cycle perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 720-729.
    18. Daniele Cocco & Paola A. Deligios & Luigi Ledda & Leonardo Sulas & Adriana Virdis & Gianluca Carboni, 2014. "LCA Study of Oleaginous Bioenergy Chains in a Mediterranean Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Song, Junnian & Yang, Wei & Higano, Yoshiro & Wang, Xian’en, 2015. "Dynamic integrated assessment of bioenergy technologies for energy production utilizing agricultural residues: An input–output approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 178-189.
    20. Qian Kang & Tianwei Tan, 2016. "Exergy and CO 2 Analyses as Key Tools for the Evaluation of Bio-Ethanol Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:211:y:2018:i:c:p:368-381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.