CHE3163 Sustainable Processing I

Case study
Sustainability Assessment of Biofuels

Sources
Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for

Engineers and Scientists, Adisa Azapagic & Slobodan Perdan

(2011), Chapter 6
Other sources as noted
Some images from other sources

Learning outcomes
To understand biofuels production approaches and feedstocks
To understand the environmental sustainability of biofuels

compared with fossil fuels

To be aware of the importance of Land Use Change (LUC) in
assessing the sustainability of biofuels
To appreciate the social and economic sustainability of
biofuels

What are biofuels?

Any fuel derived from a biological feedstock
Can be used for transportation, power generation, heating
This case study will focus on fuels for transportation

Introduction
The transport sector contributed 13% of global greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions in 2007(a)

Contributed 11.4% of Australias GHG emissions in 2009(b)
In the EU the contribution is 25% and in the USA the
contribution is 29%(a)
In order to reduce global GHG emissions, significant cuts
must be made in transport sector
Biofuels offer an alternative to fossil-based transport fuels
(a) Azapagic, pp. 142-143.
(b) Australian National Greenhouse Accounts 2009
5

Biofuel policies
Many countries have implemented policies to encourage the

production and use of biofuels for transport.

Principal objectives of these policies are:

Reduce GHG emissions from transport

Enhance security of supply (not reliant on fossil oil supplies

from politically unstable regions)

Increase employment, especially in rural areas

Many countries require blending biofuels with conventional

fuels:

E.g. in New South Wales, 2% of total volume of petrol sold

must be ethanol

Biofuels - Feedstocks, Production and

Products

First generation biofuels

Produced from conventional food crops such as corn, wheat,

sugar cane, canola, sunflower seeds and palm oil.

Starches and sugars Bioethanol

Oils and fats Biodiesel

Advantages and disadvantages of first

generation biofuels
Advantages

Disadvantages

Familiar feedstocks

Competition with food crops (social /

economic impacts)

Well-established production methods

High cost feedstocks can lead to high

production costs (exception is Brazilian
sugarcane ethanol)

Scalable processes

Modest reductions in fossil fuel use and

GHG emissions (except for Brazil
sugarcane ethanol) due to Land Use
Change

Fuels compatible with fossil fuels

(somewhat)

Production of by-products (Glycerine,

DDGS) exceeds demand creates waste

Commercial production and use in

many countries
9

Second generation biofuels

Produced from non-food sources, including dedicated energy

crops. Examples include:

Perennial grasses
Short-rotation coppice willow trees
Waste biomass (agricultural, forestry, municipal solid waste)

Waste biomass generally preferred as no additional stresses are

placed on environment from their use (e.g. water demand, land

demand)
Main second gen biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel
Others include biohydrogen, biomethanol, bio-dimethylfurant
(bio-DMF), biodimethylether (bio-DME), Fischer-Tropsch
biodiesel, biohydrogen diesel and mixed alcohols
10

Second generation biofuels

Processing routes
Two main routes themo-chemical and bio-chemical

Thermochemical carried out at high temperatures and sometimes high

11

pressures. Analogous to chemical/fossil fuel processing (e.g pyrolysis

used for ethylene manufacture)
Biochemical route includes processes used in first generation biofuels
(chemical conversion, biological conversion) but also includes anaerobic
digestion to produce biogas (60% methane, 40% CO2)

Advantages and disadvantages of

second generation biofuels
Advantages

Disadvantages

Similar processes to petroleum/

chemical/bio industry

Unfamiliar feedstock with uncertain /

fluctuating availability

No competition with food

High capital and energy costs

Reduction in amount of waste that

needs to be disposed of / treated (if
waste is used as feedstock)

Processing not optimised for new

feedstocks (e.g. tar formation, syngas
cleanup)
Competition for land and water for
some energy crops
For anaerobic digestion, only a fraction
of the waste produced can be used

12

For non-liquid fuels, compatibility with

existing transport vehicles is significant
problem

Third generation biofuels

Main feedstock is microalgae. Still under development.

Algae cultivated in purpose-built systems (e.g. fermenters, photo-reactors or

13

ponds) or harvested from oceans.

Similar processing routes as for second gen biofuels
Currently not cost competitive
Other third gen biofuels could include bio-propanol or bio-butanol but not
expected to hit the market before 2050

Advantages and disadvantages of third

generation biofuels
Advantages

Disadvantages

Microalgae has a high oil content

Not commercially available yet

Can be cultivated in a range of systems,

including in contaminated water

High initial costs to establish algae

production systems

Wide spectrum of processing routes and High water content

biofuel products
If cultivated artificially could require
large areas growth rates limited by
rate of insolation
If exploited from the oceans, could
impact on marine life and ecosystems

14

Sustainability assessment of biofuels

Biofuels have emerged as potentially more sustainable

alternative to fossil fuels particularly due to potential to

reduce GHG emissions. This is because CO2 emissions from
biomass are considered carbon neutral
Also attractive as may enhance security of supply and may
stimulate rural development
However there are some disadvantages such as
Additional land requirements and competition with food

production systems
Additional GHG emissions due to Land-use Change (LUC)
High capital and (sometimes) operating costs
Various social issues such as health & safety, land-rights, child
labour
15

Sustainability assessment of biofuels

Assessing these competing sustainability impacts should consider

all relevant environmental, social, economic aspects

Should also avoid shifting burdens along supply chains
Should therefore consider the full life cycle of biofuels including
Cultivation of feedstock
Biofuel production processes
Biofuel use

This assessment clearly lends itself to the LCA approach

16

Sustainability issues in the life cycle of

biofuels

17

Life cycle of fossil fuels

Need to also consider fossil fuels such as distillate (diesel) and

gasoline (petrol). This gives a basis for comparison with biofuels.

18

Global warming potential

Global warming potential (GWP) measured in mass (g or kg) of CO2 equivalent
Kyoto protocol GWP factors based on radiative forcing effects of each greenhouse gas

over 100 years in the atmosphere (if gas lasts that long)
Greenhouse gas

GWP (CO2-equivalent)
Kyoto Protocol(1997)

Sources:
IPCC AR4 (2007) IPCC 2nd
Assessment Report
1
(1995)
25

CO2

Methane (CH4)

21

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

310

298

HFC-23

11,700

14,800

HFC-134a

1,300

1,430

Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

23,900

22,800

IPCC 4th Assessment

Report (2007)

You multiply each gas by its GWP factor to get its CO2-equivalent (all are on a mass
19

basis). Then add up all these GWP (CO2-eq) values to get total GWP for a process or
step in the life cycle

GWP LCA approach

To compare GWP for different fuels, each containing different Lower Heating

20

Values (LHV) means GHG emissions are usually compared on an energy basis
(kg CO2-eq / MJ fuel).
Hence the FUNCTIONAL UNIT in this LCA is 1 MJ of fuel
GWPtotal = GWPproduction + GWPuse (g CO2-e / MJ)
GWPuse for biofuels is zero as CO2 from combustion is simply returning
CO2 that was absorbed from atmosphere during biomass growth
However GWPuse for fossil fuel use (combustion) must be considered

Life cycle GWP for different fuels

21

Cultivation stage for wheat bioethanol

22

Analysis of life cycle GWP for wheat ethanol

Considerable fraction of total life cycle GWP for wheat ethanol comes from

23

cultivation
Of this cultivation GWP impact, almost two-thirds comes from N2O
emissions. Some N2O is produced as by-product of N fertiliser manufacture
N2O is also produced as nitrogen-based fertilisers break down after being
sprayed on the soil (only 20-50% of fertiliser is actually taken up by plant)
As GWP factor for N2O is very high (298 in IPCC AR4) even small quantities
of N2O emissions from nitrogen breakdown make a big difference.
Somewhat counter-intuitive result! Many people would expect that CO2
from fertiliser production or from use of fuels used for cultivation would be
the biggest contributor.
Sugar cane requires less fertiliser and hence produces less N2O and has lower
GWP during cultivation (cf. wheat) and over full life cycle
Demonstrates you cannot always rely on intuition when dealing with LCA

Life cycle GHG emissions for biofuels

compared with conventional transport fuels

24

Life cycle GHG emissions for biofuels

compared with conventional transport fuels
Best performing biofuel from food crops is Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane
However best overall is 2nd generation ethanol from biological waste (derived

25

from municipal solid waste MSW)

Notice that US corn ethanol actually has worse life cycle emissions that
petrol!
However these results are controversial and rely heavily on the assumptions
used in the estimation of GHG emissions
Significant variation in life cycle emissions results can be seen depending on
assumptions used
Does however call into question the emissions benefits for some (not all)
biofuels
Note that its generally the feedstock and not the biofuel product that affects
the life cycle GWP
Demonstrates the power of a full LCA to make rational decisions

Land use change (LUC)

LUC probably most controversial issue

26

with biofuels
Additional GHG emissions when carbon
stored in soil or natural vegetation is
disturbed and released through LUC
Direct LUC conversion of existing land
from current use to cultivation of biomass
for biofuel production
Indirect LUC displacement of existing
agricultural activity due to biofuel crop
cultivation
Direct LUC relatively easy to assess for
GWP impact
Indirect LUC much harder
Highly dependent on particular land and its
existing use being changed to biomass
production

Land use change (LUC)

Influence on GHG emissions with/without direct LUC for biodiesel from
rapeseed (canola) oil (Fehrenbach et al., 2007)

27

GHG emissions
(g CO2-eq./MJ)

GHG savings relative to

distillate (diesel)

Total without LUC

45.2

Direct LUC

32.8

47.5

Total with LUC

78.0

9.5

In some cases conversion of land (managed or wild grassland, forest) to

biofuel production will result in GHG emissions large enough to cancel
out potential benefits of biofuels. Hence LUC must be included in LCA
for biofuels

Default values for land use change for

bioethanol (UK Dept. of Transport, 2008)
GWP from LUC for bioethanol all figures in g CO2-eq. / MJ biofuel
All impacts calculated over 20 year period from when LUC occurs
Feedstock

Land originally covered by

Cropland

Forestland

Grassland

Canada

977

126

France

329

83

UK

438

116

Sugar beet

UK

228

60

Sugar cane

Brazil

319

88

South Africa

220

14

Wheat

28

Origin

E.g. converting Brazilian rainforest to sugar cane LUC GWP = 319 g CO2-eq/MJ.
Over 20 years total GWP = 20 x 319 = 6380 g CO2-eq / MJ.
GWP for ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is 24.1 g CO2-eq / MJ.
GWP for petrol is 84.8 g CO2-eq / MJ. So bioethanol GHG saving = 84.8-24.1=60.7
Payback time for LUC GWP is 6380/60.7 = 105 years! Not a good thing to do!

Other life cycle environmental impacts

29

Economic sustainability of biofuels

Over the life cycle, costs of biofuels consist of:
Costs of feedstock cultivation, preparation, delivery
Capital costs for biofuel manufacturing plants to convert

feedstock into biofuels

Other costs such as labour, utilities, maintenance, insurance
etc.
Feedstock costs vary widely from place to place and over

time
E.g. Europe 21 to 180 per tonne of dry matter (2006)
Average in Europe around 60 per tonne of dry matter

30

Economic sustainability of biofuels

Capital costs uncertain due to many factors
Thermochemical plants (involving gasification and Fischer-

Tropsch synthesis) appear to be most economically

sustainable option
Integration of biofuel facility with existing refinery or
chemical plant can be the most cost effective option
Biochemical plants have much more uncertainty around
costing
Some figures provided in Azapagic table 6.7 and 6.8
Also competition from fossil fuels is very significant rising
crude oil prices making biofuels more economically
attractive
31

Social sustainability of biofuels

One stated aim of biofuels is to increase rural development improve

welfare, infrastructure, reduce poverty etc.

Biomass production has range of social impacts including
Human health
Human rights and labour rights
Land ownership
Impact on food security / affordability
Community development
Impact on indigenous peoples

The areas of high biomass production are often areas of low wealth/

earnings, so socio-economic benefits from biofuels can be significant

Ethical biofuel certification programmes, such as the UKs
Renewable Fuel Transport Obligation programme (started 2008), can
help
32