IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v46y2010i4d10.1007_s00267-010-9494-2.html

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production: Biochemical Versus Thermochemical Conversion

Author

Listed:
  • Dongyan Mu

    (Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering and Ecological Science and Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate Program)

  • Thomas Seager

    (Rochester Institute of Technology, Golisano Institute for Sustainability)

  • P. Suresh Rao

    (Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering)

  • Fu Zhao

    (Purdue University, School of Mechanical Engineering and Division of Environmental and Ecological Engineering)

Abstract

Lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into ethanol through either biochemical or thermochemical conversion processes. Biochemical conversion involves hydrolysis and fermentation while thermochemical conversion involves gasification and catalytic synthesis. Even though these routes produce comparable amounts of ethanol and have similar energy efficiency at the plant level, little is known about their relative environmental performance from a life cycle perspective. Especially, the indirect impacts, i.e. emissions and resource consumption associated with the production of various process inputs, are largely neglected in previous studies. This article compiles material and energy flow data from process simulation models to develop life cycle inventory and compares the fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water consumption of both biomass-to-ethanol production processes. The results are presented in terms of contributions from feedstock, direct, indirect, and co-product credits for four representative biomass feedstocks i.e., wood chips, corn stover, waste paper, and wheat straw. To explore the potentials of the two conversion pathways, different technological scenarios are modeled, including current, 2012 and 2020 technology targets, as well as different production/co-production configurations. The modeling results suggest that biochemical conversion has slightly better performance on greenhouse gas emission and fossil fuel consumption, but that thermochemical conversion has significantly less direct, indirect, and life cycle water consumption. Also, if the thermochemical plant operates as a biorefinery with mixed alcohol co-products separated for chemicals, it has the potential to achieve better performance than biochemical pathway across all environmental impact categories considered due to higher co-product credits associated with chemicals being displaced. The results from this work serve as a starting point for developing full life cycle assessment model that facilitates effective decision-making regarding lignocellulosic ethanol production.

Suggested Citation

  • Dongyan Mu & Thomas Seager & P. Suresh Rao & Fu Zhao, 2010. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production: Biochemical Versus Thermochemical Conversion," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 565-578, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:46:y:2010:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-010-9494-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9494-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-010-9494-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-010-9494-2?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:envman:v:46:y:2010:i:4:d:10.1007_s00267-010-9494-2. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.