IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v235y2019icp591-601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of U.S. Midwest corn stover ethanol greenhouse gas emissions from GREET and GHGenius

Author

Listed:
  • Obnamia, Jon Albert
  • Dias, Goretty M.
  • MacLean, Heather L.
  • Saville, Bradley A.

Abstract

This paper evaluates differences in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn stover ethanol produced in the U.S. Midwest, as estimated by the life cycle-based software GHGenius 4.03a, GREET 2013, and GREET 2015. Life cycle assessments are not typically conducted using more than one software package, but comparisons such as the analysis in this paper provide a critical review of a fuel product system. In particular, differences in the data and assumptions become evident for life cycle stages of the same fuel product when compared between life cycle assessment software packages. Using default settings in the three software packages, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions predictions ranged from 2.75 to 47.8 gCO2 equivalent per MJ of ethanol (gCO2e MJ−1), which presents a difference of as much as 45 gCO2e MJ−1. Assumptions regarding nitrogen fertilizer, land management, on/off-site enzyme production, and material/energy inputs included/excluded had substantial effects on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. A consistent corn stover ethanol pathway using equivalent model assumptions and material/energy inputs was developed and implemented in each of the software packages, resulting in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions ranging from 40.7 to 42.0 gCO2e MJ−1. The difference in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions was considerably reduced to 1.3 gCO2e MJ−1 at most between software packages; however, individual emissions sources such as nitrogen fertilizer production, fertilizer application, corn steep liquor, glucose, sodium hydroxide, and biomass electricity still exhibit variation between software packages (e.g., up to 7.3 gCO2e MJ−1 E100 for equivalent glucose input), mainly due to different emissions factors data. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions appeared consistent because emissions sources that vary between software packages offset each other. Differences in greenhouse gas emissions determined for corn stover ethanol point to the need to improve the life cycle modelling and replicability of life cycle studies on this biofuel pathway. Such inconsistencies are relevant in a carbon economy because the same product will have a different value in different jurisdictions as a result of differences in life cycle assessment software packages.

Suggested Citation

  • Obnamia, Jon Albert & Dias, Goretty M. & MacLean, Heather L. & Saville, Bradley A., 2019. "Comparison of U.S. Midwest corn stover ethanol greenhouse gas emissions from GREET and GHGenius," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 591-601.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:235:y:2019:i:c:p:591-601
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918316581
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.091?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. Hennecke, Anna M. & Faist, Mireille & Reinhardt, Jürgen & Junquera, Victoria & Neeft, John & Fehrenbach, Horst, 2013. "Biofuel greenhouse gas calculations under the European Renewable Energy Directive – A comparison of the BioGrace tool vs. the tool of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 55-62.
    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. Desantes, J.M. & Novella, R. & Pla, B. & Lopez-Juarez, M., 2021. "Impact of fuel cell range extender powertrain design on greenhouse gases and NOX emissions in automotive applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    2. Weiwei Wang, 2023. "Integrated Assessment of Economic Supply and Environmental Effects of Biomass Co-Firing in Coal Power Plants: A Case Study of Jiangsu, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza & Bruno Colling Klein & Mateus Ferreira Chagas & Otavio Cavalett & Antonio Bonomi, 2021. "Towards Comparable Carbon Credits: Harmonization of LCA Models of Cellulosic Biofuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Maja Perčić & Nikola Vladimir & Marija Koričan, 2021. "Electrification of Inland Waterway Ships Considering Power System Lifetime Emissions and Costs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-25, October.

    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. Sastre, Carlos M. & Carrasco, Juan & Barro, Ruth & González-Arechavala, Yolanda & Maletta, Emiliano & Santos, Ana M. & Ciria, Pilar, 2016. "Improving bioenergy sustainability evaluations by using soil nitrogen balance coupled with life cycle assessment: A case study for electricity generated from rye biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 847-863.
    2. Lilianna Głąb & Józef Sowiński, 2019. "Sustainable Production of Sweet Sorghum as a Bioenergy Crop Using Biosolids Taking into Account Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    4. Malça, João & Coelho, António & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 837-844.
    5. Sastre, C.M. & Maletta, E. & González-Arechavala, Y. & Ciria, P. & Santos, A.M. & del Val, A. & Pérez, P. & Carrasco, J., 2014. "Centralised electricity production from winter cereals biomass grown under central-northern Spain conditions: Global warming and energy yield assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 737-748.
    6. 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.
    7. Inge Stupak & Jamie Joudrey & C. Tattersall Smith & Luc Pelkmans & Helena Chum & Annette Cowie & Oskar Englund & Chun Sheng Goh & Martin Junginger, 2016. "A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-118, January.
    8. Pambudi, Nugroho Agung & Itoi, Ryuichi & Jalilinasrabady, Saeid & Jaelani, Khasani, 2015. "Performance improvement of a single-flash geothermal power plant in Dieng, Indonesia, upon conversion to a double-flash system using thermodynamic analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 424-431.
    9. Murnaghan, Kitty, 2017. "A comprehensive evaluation of the EU's biofuel policy: From biofuels to agrofuels," IPE Working Papers 81/2017, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    10. de Man, Reinier & German, Laura, 2017. "Certifying the sustainability of biofuels: Promise and reality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 871-883.
    11. Carneiro, Maria Luisa N.M. & Pradelle, Florian & Braga, Sergio L. & Gomes, Marcos Sebastião P. & Martins, Ana Rosa F.A. & Turkovics, Franck & Pradelle, Renata N.C., 2017. "Potential of biofuels from algae: Comparison with fossil fuels, ethanol and biodiesel in Europe and Brazil through life cycle assessment (LCA)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 632-653.
    12. Sastre, C.M. & González-Arechavala, Y. & Santos, A.M., 2015. "Global warming and energy yield evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation – A LCA that takes into account parameter uncertainty and variability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 900-911.
    13. O'Keeffe, S. & Majer, S. & Drache, C. & Franko, U. & Thrän, D., 2017. "Modelling biodiesel production within a regional context – A comparison with RED Benchmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 355-370.
    14. Aleksandra Siudek & Anna M. Klepacka, 2022. "The Logistics Aspect in Research on the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Agricultural Biogas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-9, August.
    15. Czyrnek-Delêtre, Magdalena M. & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Murphy, Jerry D., 2017. "Beyond carbon and energy: The challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 436-448.
    16. Bicalho, Tereza & Bessou, Cécile & Pacca, Sergio A., 2016. "Land use change within EU sustainability criteria for biofuels: The case of oil palm expansion in the Brazilian Amazon," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 588-597.
    17. Han, Xiaoye & Yang, Zhenyi & Wang, Meiping & Tjong, Jimi & Zheng, Ming, 2017. "Clean combustion of n-butanol as a next generation biofuel for diesel engines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 347-359.
    18. Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Pongpat, Patcharaporn, 2015. "Sustainability assessment of sugarcane biorefinery and molasses ethanol production in Thailand using eco-efficiency indicator," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 603-609.
    19. Peter, Christiane & Helming, Katharina & Nendel, Claas, 2017. "Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 461-476.
    20. Pereira, L.G. & Cavalett, O. & Bonomi, A. & Zhang, Y. & Warner, E. & Chum, H.L., 2019. "Comparison of biofuel life-cycle GHG emissions assessment tools: The case studies of ethanol produced from sugarcane, corn, and wheat," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-12.

    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:235:y:2019:i:c:p:591-601. 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.