IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v56y2013icp41-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing uncertainty in life-cycle carbon intensity in a national low-carbon fuel standard

Author

Listed:
  • Kocoloski, Matt
  • Mullins, Kimberley A.
  • Venkatesh, Aranya
  • Michael Griffin, W.

Abstract

Policies formulated to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as a low-carbon fuel standard, frequently rely on life-cycle assessment (LCA) to estimate emissions, but LCA results are often highly uncertain. This study develops life-cycle models that quantitatively and qualitatively describe the uncertainty and variability in GHG emissions for both fossil fuels and ethanol and examines mechanisms to reduce those uncertainties in the policy process. Uncertainty regarding emissions from gasoline is non-negligible, with an estimated 90% confidence interval ranging from 84 to 100gCO2e/MJ. Emissions from biofuels have greater uncertainty. The widths of the 90% confidence intervals for corn and switchgrass ethanol are estimated to be on the order of 100gCO2e/MJ, and removing emissions from indirect land use change still leaves significant remaining uncertainty. Though an opt-in policy mechanism can reduce some uncertainty by incentivizing producers to self-report fuel production parameters, some important parameters, such as land use change emissions and nitrogen volatilization, cannot be accurately measured and self-reported. Low-carbon fuel policies should explicitly acknowledge, quantify, and incorporate uncertainty in life cycle emissions in order to more effectively achieve emissions reductions. Two complementary ways to incorporate this uncertainty in low carbon fuel policy design are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Kocoloski, Matt & Mullins, Kimberley A. & Venkatesh, Aranya & Michael Griffin, W., 2013. "Addressing uncertainty in life-cycle carbon intensity in a national low-carbon fuel standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-50.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:56:y:2013:i:c:p:41-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512006714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.012?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. Eric D. Williams & Christopher L. Weber & Troy R. Hawkins, 2009. "Hybrid Framework for Managing Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(6), pages 928-944, December.
    2. Kim, Man-Keun & McCarl, Bruce A., 2009. "Uncertainty Discounting for Land-Based Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 1-11, April.
    3. Shannon M. Lloyd & Robert Ries, 2007. "Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life‐Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 11(1), pages 161-179, January.
    4. Madhu Khanna & Xiaoguang Chen & Haixiao Huang & Hayri Onal, 2011. "Supply of Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstocks and Regional Production Pattern," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 473-480.
    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. Yeh, Sonia & Witcover, Julie & Lade, Gabriel E. & Sperling, Daniel, 2016. "A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-234.
    2. Antonios Persakis, 2024. "The impact of climate policy uncertainty on ESG performance, carbon emission intensity and firm performance: evidence from Fortune 1000 firms," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 24031-24081, September.
    3. Hoekman, S. Kent & Broch, Amber, 2018. "Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part II – Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 3159-3177.
    4. Mandegari, Mohsen & Ebadian, Mahmood & Saddler, Jack (John), 2023. "The need for effective life cycle assessment (LCA) to enhance the effectiveness of policies such as low carbon fuel standards (LCFS's)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Caldeira, Carla & Queirós, João & Noshadravan, Arash & Freire, Fausto, 2016. "Incorporating uncertainty in the life cycle assessment of biodiesel from waste cooking oil addressing different collection systems," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 83-92.
    6. Shen, Neng & Deng, Rumeng & Liao, Haolan & Shevchuk, Oleksandr, 2020. "Mapping renewable energy subsidy policy research published from 1997 to 2018: A scientometric review," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    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. Ling-Chin, J. & Heidrich, O. & Roskilly, A.P., 2016. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) – from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA framework for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 352-378.
    2. Kumar, Indraneel & Tyner, Wallace E. & Sinha, Kumares C., 2016. "Input–output life cycle environmental assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 294-301.
    3. Wu, X.D. & Guo, J.L. & Chen, G.Q., 2018. "The striking amount of carbon emissions by the construction stage of coal-fired power generation system in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 358-369.
    4. Zuo, Alec & Hou, Lingling & Huang, Zeying, 2020. "How does farmers' current usage of crop straws influence the willingness-to-accept price to sell?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Suzi Kerr, 2013. "Managing Risks and Tradeoffs Using Water Markets," Working Papers 13_13, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    6. Khounani, Zahra & Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, Homa & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Sulaiman, Alawi & Goli, Sayed Amir Hossein & Tavassoli-Kafrani, Elham & Ghaffari, Akram & Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali & Kim, Ki-Hyun, 2020. "Unlocking the potential of walnut husk extract in the production of waste cooking oil-based biodiesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    7. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias & Elofsson, Katarina & Munnich, Miriam, 2012. "Stochastic carbon sinks for combating carbon dioxide emissions in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1523-1531.
    8. Santiago Bucaram & Mario Andrés Fernandez & Diego Grijalva, 2016. "Sell the oil deposits!: A financial proposal to keep the oil underground in the Yasuni National Park, Ecuador," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-14, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Robert Perlack, Robert & Eaton, Lawrence & Thurhollow, Anthony & Langholtz, Matt & De La Torre Ugarte, Daniel, 2011. "US billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry," MPRA Paper 89324, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2011.
    10. Akito Ozawa & Mai Inoue & Naomi Kitagawa & Ryoji Muramatsu & Yurie Anzai & Yutaka Genchi & Yuki Kudoh, 2017. "Assessing Uncertainties of Well-To-Tank Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydrogen Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Chen, Xiaoguang, 2016. "Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 141-149.
    12. Soimakallio, Sampo & Kiviluoma, Juha & Saikku, Laura, 2011. "The complexity and challenges of determining GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from grid electricity consumption and conservation in LCA (life cycle assessment) – A methodological review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 6705-6713.
    13. Briac Baudais & Hamid Ben Ahmed & Gurvan Jodin & Nicolas Degrenne & Stéphane Lefebvre, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of a 150 kW Electronic Power Inverter," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Amy W. Ando & Shibashis Mukherjee, 2012. "Benefits of pollution monitoring technology for greenhouse gas offset markets," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 122-136.
    15. Zhang, XiaoHong & Wei, Ye & Li, Min & Deng, ShiHuai & Wu, Jun & Zhang, YanZong & Xiao, Hong, 2014. "Emergy evaluation of an integrated livestock wastewater treatment system," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 95-107.
    16. Tian, Jing & Andraded, Celio & Lumbreras, Julio & Guan, Dabo & Wang, Fangzhi & Liao, Hua, 2018. "Integrating Sustainability Into City-level CO2 Accounting: Social Consumption Pattern and Income Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-16.
    17. Egbendewe-Mondzozo, Aklesso & Swinton, Scott M. & Izaurralde, R. César & Manowitz, David H. & Zhang, Xuesong, 2013. "Maintaining environmental quality while expanding biomass production: Sub-regional U.S. policy simulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 518-531.
    18. Kimberly Bawden & Eric Williams, 2015. "Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment of Low, Mid and High-Rise Multi-Family Dwellings," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19, April.
    19. Santiago Bucaram & Mario Fernandez & Diego Grijalva, 2016. "Sell the oil deposits! A financial proposal to keep the oil underground in the Yasuni National Park, Ecuador," WIDER Working Paper Series 014, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Ji, Xi & Long, Xianling, 2016. "A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.

    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:enepol:v:56:y:2013:i:c:p:41-50. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.