IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i10p5950-5960.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: A comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS2050 methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Whittaker, Carly
  • McManus, Marcelle C.
  • Hammond, Geoffrey P.

Abstract

Biofuels have been identified as a potential short-term solution for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road transport. Currently, '1st generation' biofuels are produced from food crops, but there are concerns with the indirect effects of utilising edible crops for fuel. There is increased interest in producing '2nd generation' biofuels from woody crops and straw, as these can be grown on lower grade land or do not compete directly with food. In order to ensure that biofuels actually deliver emission savings, the overall GHG balance of producing them must be calculated accurately, and compared with conventional fossil fuels. The GHG balance can vary significantly however, depending on biomass type, the production processes, the indirect effects, and also by the method by which the GHG emission balance is calculated. Currently, in the UK, there are three main GHG methodologies that potentially affect biofuel producers. Each has a different approach to measure GHG emissions from biofuel production, and each provides a different result, causing difficulties for policy makers. This study performs a partial life cycle assessment for bioethanol production from wheat grain and wheat straw to demonstrate the variability of the results between methodologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Whittaker, Carly & McManus, Marcelle C. & Hammond, Geoffrey P., 2011. "Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: A comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS2050 methodologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5950-5960, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:5950-5960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511005106
    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. Kaufman, Andrew S. & Meier, Paul J. & Sinistore, Julie C. & Reinemann, Douglas J., 2010. "Applying life-cycle assessment to low carbon fuel standards--How allocation choices influence carbon intensity for renewable transportation fuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5229-5241, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. Shanshan Wang & Weifeng Wang & Hongqiang Yang, 2018. "Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Fabio Menten & Benoît Chèze & Laure Patouillard & Frédérique Bouvart, 2013. "The use of Meta-Regression Analysis to harmonize LCA literature: an application to GHG emissions of 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels," Working Papers 2013/01, INRA, Economie Publique.
    4. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    5. Khatiwada, Dilip & Seabra, Joaquim & Silveira, Semida & Walter, Arnaldo, 2012. "Accounting greenhouse gas emissions in the lifecycle of Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol: Methodological references in European and American regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 384-397.
    6. 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.
    7. Menten, Fabio & Chèze, Benoît & Patouillard, Laure & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2013. "A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 108-134.
    8. Manninen, Kaisa & Koskela, Sirkka & Nuppunen, Anni & Sorvari, Jaana & Nevalainen, Olli & Siitonen, Sari, 2013. "The applicability of the renewable energy directive calculation to assess the sustainability of biogas production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 549-557.
    9. Mohr, Alison & Raman, Sujatha, 2013. "Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-122.
    10. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Pongrácz, Eva & Fabritius, Timo, 2013. "The potential of using biomass-based reducing agents in the blast furnace: A review of thermochemical conversion technologies and assessments related to sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 511-528.
    3. Escobar, Neus & Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate, Casiano & Sanjuán, Neus & Clemente, Gabriela & Rozakis, Stelios, 2017. "An agro-industrial model for the optimization of biodiesel production in Spain to meet the European GHG reduction targets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 619-631.
    4. 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.
    5. Andreas Meyer-Aurich & Jørgen Olesen & Annette Prochnow & Reiner Brunsch, 2013. "Greenhouse gas mitigation with scarce land: The potential contribution of increased nitrogen input," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(7), pages 921-932, October.
    6. Fabio Menten & Benoît Chèze & Laure Patouillard & Frédérique Bouvart, 2013. "The use of Meta-Regression Analysis to harmonize LCA literature: an application to GHG emissions of 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels," Working Papers 2013/01, INRA, Economie Publique.
    7. Menten, Fabio & Chèze, Benoît & Patouillard, Laure & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2013. "A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 108-134.
    8. Menten, Fabio & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Lorne, Daphné & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2015. "Lessons from the use of a long-term energy model for consequential life cycle assessment: The BTL case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 942-960.
    9. Boies, Adam M. & McFarlane, Dane & Taff, Steven & Watts, Winthrop F. & Kittelson, David B., 2011. "Implications of local lifecycle analyses and low carbon fuel standard design on gasohol transportation fuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7191-7201.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    15. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    16. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    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:5950-5960. 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.