IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i10p5726-5736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Michael
  • Huo, Hong
  • Arora, Salil

Abstract

Products other than biofuels are produced in biofuel plants. For example, corn ethanol plants produce distillers' grains and solubles. Soybean crushing plants produce soy meal and soy oil, which is used for biodiesel production. Electricity is generated in sugarcane ethanol plants both for internal consumption and export to the electric grid. Future cellulosic ethanol plants could be designed to co-produce electricity with ethanol. It is important to take co-products into account in the life-cycle analysis of biofuels and several methods are available to do so. Although the International Standard Organization's ISO 14040 advocates the system boundary expansion method (also known as the "displacement method" or the "substitution method") for life-cycle analyses, application of the method has been limited because of the difficulty in identifying and quantifying potential products to be displaced by biofuel co-products. As a result, some LCA studies and policy-making processes have considered alternative methods. In this paper, we examine the available methods to deal with biofuel co-products, explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method, and present biofuel LCA results with different co-product methods within the U.S. context.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Michael & Huo, Hong & Arora, Salil, 2011. "Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5726-5736, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:5726-5736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510002156
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. מחקר - ביטוח לאומי, 2007. "ינואר 2007," Working Papers 212, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    3. Delucchi, Mark, 2003. "A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9vr8s1bb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Wang, Michael Q., 2008. "Well-to-Wheels Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results and Issues of Fuel Ethanol," Lifecycle Carbon Footprint of Biofuels Workshop, January 29, 2008, Miami Beach, Florida 49098, Farm Foundation.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cherubini, Francesco & Bird, Neil D. & Cowie, Annette & Jungmeier, Gerfried & Schlamadinger, Bernhard & Woess-Gallasch, Susanne, 2009. "Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 434-447.
    2. McCollum, David & Yang, Christopher, 2009. "Achieving deep reductions in US transport greenhouse gas emissions: Scenario analysis and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5580-5596, December.
    3. Cherubini, Francesco, 2010. "GHG balances of bioenergy systems – Overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1565-1573.
    4. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    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. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    7. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    8. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Jon Strand, 2011. "Carbon Leakage from the Clean Development Mechanism," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 27-50.
    9. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    10. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    11. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    13. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    14. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    15. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    16. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    18. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    20. Oskar Englund & Ioannis Dimitriou & Virginia H. Dale & Keith L. Kline & Blas Mola‐Yudego & Fionnuala Murphy & Burton English & John McGrath & Gerald Busch & Maria Cristina Negri & Mark Brown & Kevin G, 2020. "Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), September.
    21. Forslund, Agneta & Gohin, Alexandre & Le Mouël, Chantal & Levert, Fabrice, 2014. "Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?," Working Papers 207810, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).

    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:39:y:2011:i:10:p:5726-5736. 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.