Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Economic-energy-environment analysis of prospective sugarcane

bioethanol production in Brazil
Ariovaldo Lopes de Carvalho a,d,⇑, Carlos Henggeler Antunes a,b, Fausto Freire a,c
a
Energy for Sustainability Initiative, Faculty of Sciences and Technology – University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis dos Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal1
b
INESC Coimbra, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering and INESC Coimbra, Polo 2, University of Coimbra, 3030-290 Coimbra, Portugal2
c
ADAI-LAETA Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
d
Federal Institute of Mato Grosso, Campus Diamantino, Rodovia Roberto Campos, 78400-970 Diamantino, Brazil3

h i g h l i g h t s

A Hybrid IO-MOLP model is formulated for energy-economic-environmental analysis.

Scenarios for sugarcane cultivation and 1st- and 2nd-generation bioethanol production.

Higher energy use and GHG emissions due to chemicals in 2G processes.

Lower overall employment level in the 1G + 2G scenarios compared to the 1G scenario.

Policies and technological choices should consider direct and indirect effects of 2G.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bioethanol from sugarcane can be produced using first-generation (1G) or second-generation (2G) tech-
Received 10 February 2016 nologies. 2G technologies can increase the capacity of production per sugarcane mass input and are
Received in revised form 24 July 2016 expected to have a key role in future reductions of environmental impacts of sugarcane bioethanol. A
Accepted 28 July 2016
hybrid Input-Output (IO) framework is developed for Brazil coupling the System of National Accounts
and the National Energy Balance, which is extended to assess Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Life-
cycle based estimates for two sugarcane cultivation systems, two 1G and eight 2G bioethanol production
Keywords:
scenarios, are coupled in the IO framework. A multi-objective linear programming (MOLP) model is formu-
Input-output analysis
Hybrid modeling
lated based on this framework for energy-economic-environmental analysis of the Brazilian economic sys-
Multi-objective linear programming tem and domestic bioethanol supply in prospective scenarios. Twenty-four solutions are computed: four
Multi-sectoral economy-energy- ‘‘extreme” solutions resulting from the individual optimization of each objective function (GDP, employ-
environment models ment level, total energy consumption and total GHG emissions - 1G scenario), ten compromise solutions
Lignocellulosic bioethanol minimizing the distance of the feasible region to the ideal solution (1G, 1G-optimized and prospective 1G
+ 2G scenarios), and ten solutions maximizing the total bioethanol production (1G, 1G-optimized and
prospective 1G + 2G scenarios). Higher diesel oil and lubricants consumption in the mechanical harvesting
process has counterbalanced the positive effects of more efficient trucks leading to higher energy con-
sumption and GHG emissions. Lower overall employment level in the 1G + 2G scenarios is achieved such
that policies linked to reabsorption of sugarcane cutters in alternative activities are positive. Indirect
effects from maximizing the bioethanol production increase the total energy consumption and the GHG
emissions thus requiring efficiency measures and fossil energy substitution by cleaner sources. The
integrated- or country-based analysis of the whole economic system has complemented the process
design and process-based analysis, contributing to identify direct and indirect effects that can offset the
benefits. Direct and indirect effects on the whole economic system have to be considered in policies
and technological choices for prospective bioethanol production, since positive direct effects of 1G + 2G
plants can be counterbalanced by indirect impacts on other sectors, mainly from chemicals in the process.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Federal Institute of Mato Grosso, Campus Diamantino, Rodovia Roberto Campos, 78400-970 Diamantino, Brazil.
E-mail address: ariovaldo.carvalho@dmt.ifmt.edu.br (A.L. de Carvalho).
1
http://www.uc.pt/efs.
2
http://www.uc.pt/en/org/inescc.
3
http://www.ifmt.edu.br.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.122
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526
Acronyms
1G first generation bioethanol
1G + 2G combined and integrated 1G and 2G technologies
2G second generation bioethanol
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
EH enzymatic hidrolysis
EIO-LCA economic input-output life cycle analysis
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gases
IO Input-Output
IOA Input Output Analysis
IO-MOLP input-output multi-objective linear programming
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LP Linear Programming
MOLP Multi-objective Linear Programming
NO2 nitrous oxide
NPISH non-profit institution serving households
PROALCOOL Brazilian Alcohol Program
R$ Brazilian Real
WIS water insoluble solids
1. Introduction
The 1970s worldwide oil crisis impelled Brazil to increase the
production of the first-generation (1G) bioethanol based entirely
on the fermentation of sugar juice from sugarcane and/or molasses
as an alternative fuel in the transportation sector. After some dec-
ades, policies in the scope of the Brazilian Alcohol Program
(PROALCOOL) have been responsible to consolidate the agriculture
and industrial supply by increasing investments on sugarcane cul-
tivation and construction of new bioethanol plants in Brazil. In
addition, the PROALCOOL has been responsible for the creation of
an important domestic market for this fuel by incentivizing the
substitution of petrol with bioethanol as much as the bioethanol
price was made competitive due to taxes on petrol and subsides
on bioethanol production. Nowadays, Brazil is the second major
bioethanol producer with 28% of the total worldwide, while the
United States, which is the major producer, is responsible for
58.5% of the total [1]. In the 2014/2015 harvest, 634.8 Mt of sugar-
cane have been produced in Brazil, resulting in 11.7 GL of anhy-
drous and 16.9 GL of hydrous bioethanol (a total of 28.7 GL) [2].
In 2014 bioethanol was responsible for 32.3% of the total energy
consumed in light vehicles in Brazil [3].
In Brazil, bioethanol is produced in mixed sugar-bioethanol
plants (the most common type of bioethanol plants, producing
both bioethanol and crystallized sugar) and in autonomous distil-
leries (producing only bioethanol). A lignocellulosic residue (called
bagasse) is also produced in the sugarcane processing. The bagasse
is burnt in boilers to generate heat and electricity that are used in
the bioethanol plant. Electricity surplus can be exported to the
national electricity system. More efficient and expensive boilers
for the combustion of bagasse have improved the capacity of the
plants in generating electricity surpluses, therefore allowing to
increase the return from each plant [4,5].
Prospective technologies for lignocellulosic bioethanol produc-
tion, also referred to as the second-generation (2G) bioethanol,
increase the role of bagasse in the process [6,7]. The use of bagasse
in 2G technologies as a raw material for bioethanol production can
increase the total capacity of production per unit of sugarcane. The
2G technologies are expected to have a key role in future reduc-
tions of environmental impacts of sugarcane bioethanol by using
515
Notation
ba anhydrous bioethanol
bh hydrous bioethanol
ci change in inventories
debt public debt
ec total energy consumption
emp employment level
exp exports
gdp gross domestic product
gdpcurr gross domestic product at current prices
gfcf gross fixed capital formation
ggb public administration global balance
ghg total greenhouse gas emissions
gva gross value added
imp imports
pc public consumption
rc resident consumption
sc sugarcane
ts taxes less subsides on products
ydcurr resident’s disposable income at current prices
sugarcane leaves and tops in bioethanol production. Instead of
being burnt in the field as in the near past (nowadays most of
the sugarcane is mechanically harvested in Brazil) or discarded
as residues of the mechanical harvesting (being waived or burnt),
leaves and tops can be used as energy sources to replace bagasse
burnt in the boilers or even used to produce 2G bioethanol. How-
ever, the 2G technologies have not been commercially competitive
in Brazil due to high production costs (compared to the 1G technol-
ogy) and some bottlenecks regarding the conversion of lignocellu-
lose into fermentable sugars and the downstream processing pose
a challenge for this option in the near future [8–11]. Combined and
integrated 1G and 2G technologies (1G + 2G) for bioethanol pro-
duction can also be implemented. Macrelli et al. [12] performed
a techno-economic evaluation of the integration of 1G + 2G
bioethanol production from sugarcane for fourteen scenarios, con-
sidering several operating conditions and process layouts. Accord-
ing to the simulations, the production of 2G bioethanol from
sugarcane bagasse and leaves in Brazil is already competitive
(without subsidies) with 1G starch-based bioethanol production
in Europe. Moreover 2G bioethanol could be produced at a lower
cost if subsidies were used to compensate for the opportunity cost
from the sale of excess electricity and the cost of enzymes contin-
ues to fall. In addition, other factors as energy prices, plant effi-
ciency and costs, type of electricity substituted, and policy
instruments can influence the sugarcane biomass use for 2G or
electricity production [13].
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040
standard defines Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as ‘‘a compilation and
evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental
impacts from a productive system throughout its life cycle” [14].
The LCA methodology assesses the environmental impacts associ-
ated with the life cycle of the product under study [15,16]. LCA
has an important role on public and private environmental man-
agement, comparing alternative products or helping in the devel-
opment of new products with lower environmental impacts [17].
Some studies [18–21] have used LCA to investigate the energy
and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) balances of sugarcane-based
bioethanol and, in a smaller number of cases, a wide-range of
impacts [22]. However, setting tight boundaries in the supply chain
of the analyzed system as required by the LCA approach can
516 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526
restrict the analysis, since upstream and downstream impacts that
can propagate through the economy are neglected. The cost and
time required for (full and exhaustive) LCA studies are a shortcom-
ing of this methodology, which has also motivated the research of
methods that simplify the analysis while still providing consistent
information to satisfy the overall assessment goals [23]. In this
sense, the environmental extended input-output models can be a
useful approach to overcome some weaknesses of LCA studies,
since the overall environmental impact of an entire sector of the
economy can be accounted for.
Input-Output Analysis (IOA) has been traditionally used to
study the inter/intra-relationships among different sectors in the
economic system, describing the relationship between the inputs
used and the outputs produced. Some authors have proposed dif-
ferent approaches to modify the Input-Output (IO) models to
account for environmental impacts using generalized IO models
[24], economic ecological-models [25] and commodity by industry
models [26]. An external expansion of the IO framework can also
be made to incorporate the environmental impacts, assuming a
proportional relation between the output of the sectors and the
corresponding impact levels [27]. IO models have also been
adapted for the analysis of the energy sector (e.g., [28–31]) and
energy and environmental interactions (e.g., [32,33]). Some studies
have developed basic and extended IO models to assess the inter-
actions of the Brazilian bioethanol sector with the overall Brazilian
economic system for different purposes: to assess the impacts from
sugar and bioethanol exports [34,35]; to estimate the impacts from
new bioethanol factories [36]; to prospective studies of demand
increase [37]; to assess the impacts on socioeconomic indicators
of different prospective technological mixes [38–40]. However,
most of these studies have just performed an economic analysis
and, in a small number of cases, an analysis of the employment
level. Unfortunately, these studies have not deeply assessed the
energy and GHG aspects related to the bioethanol sector and the
whole economic system. Other studies using the IO framework
have also addressed environmental and energy issues. Compeán
and Polenske [41] developed an environmentally extended interre-
gional input-output model using hybrid units accounting for
energy- and carbon-intensities to analyze the direct and indirect
impacts of different bioethanol production technologies. However,
this study has a limited number of sectors and fuels, the model
does not include the employment analysis and the impacts from
2G bioethanol are not assessed. Watanabe et al. [42] applied the
so-called Economic Input-Output Life-Cycle Analysis (EIO-LCA) to
the assessment of economic and GHG emissions of different 1G
and 2G sugarcane based bioethanol production technologies in
Brazil. However, this study did not address the effects on the
employment level, as well as the impacts on the energy intensities
and on the composition of the national energy mix. The EIO-LCA is
one of the methods utilized to integrate the IOA with the LCA of
specific sectors, such as hybrid approaches [27,43].
Alternatively, there are some studies, although not linked with
the bioethanol system, which have used IO hybrid models to assess
the energy sector (see e.g., [44,45]) and to assess the Brazilian eco-
nomic system (see e.g., [46–48]). It is important to refer that ‘‘hy-
brid” does not refer here to the linkage between IOA and LCA
methodologies, but to the combination of physical and monetary
units into the transaction and technical coefficients matrices of
the IOA. In this approach the basic IO model is adjusted and new
rows and columns are included in the transaction matrix to allo-
cate the energy sectors (or commodities), substituting flows in
monetary units by flows in physical units for the energy sectors
(or commodities) into the inter-sector transaction and final
demand matrices. These new matrices are then utilized to generate
new technical coefficient matrices, which are then applied to the
IO model (see [46,49]).
Some studies have developed linear programming (LP) models
coupled with the IO framework for different purposes [50–52].
However, Multi-objective Linear Programming (MOLP) models
coupled with IO framework can provide a more thorough assess-
ment of different axes of evaluation of potential policies, enabling
to explore the trade-offs between competing objectives through
the computation of non-dominated solutions, i.e. solutions for
which no other feasible solution exists improving the value of a
given objective function without worsening the value of, at least,
other objective function.
IO-MOLP models have been applied to study the impacts of
national and regional policies on the employment, water pollution,
energy requirements, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, foreign trade
balance, etc. [53–56]. There are also IO-MOLP models using hybrid
frameworks and external expansions of the IO model to assess en
ergy-environment-economic-social objectives [57–60]. These
models are used as basis for the extended hybrid IO-MOLP model
herein presented and applied to the Brazilian economic system,
which will be briefly outlined in the next section.
The literature review revealed a lack of studies using the IO-
MOLP framework encompassing economic, energy, environmental
(especially GHG emissions) and social (especially employment
levels) spheres coupled with LCA estimates for energy commodi-
ties analysis, as well as for the assessment of the 2G bioethanol
sector specifically devoted to the Brazilian economic system.
Therefore, a comprehensive approach is proposed for prospective
analysis of the economic system and specific energy commodities,
which applies extended and hybrid IO frameworks coupled with
multi-objective modeling and LCA estimates. The aim is to assess
the impacts on the total energy consumption, GHG emissions, sev-
eral economic variables and employment level associated with the
bioethanol production according to the current and prospective
technologies (1G and 2G) in the horizon of 2018. The integration
of LCA and hybrid IO-MOLP models herein proposed improves
the scope of analysis of energy products, especially 2G bioethanol.
This methodological framework allows incorporating different pro-
cesses into the model and expanding the boundaries of the analysis
to the entire economic system such that direct and indirect effects
in an integrated- or country-basis analysis are accounted for. Addi-
tionally, the model overcomes the lack of studies integrating IO-
MOLP models devoted to energy products, particularly for the anal-
ysis of 2G bioethanol systems, as well as for the integrated assess-
ment of energy, environmental, economic and social spheres. Such
comprehensive modeling and analysis has not been developed pre-
viously, especially applied to the Brazilian bioethanol system. This
methodological framework can be adapted to other economic sys-
tems, countries and target sectors to assess the trade-offs between
those axes of evaluation and support the design of appropriate
policies. The methods used to estimate the sugarcane and bioetha-
nol scenarios as well as the hybrid IO model formulated in this
study are presented in Section 2. Some illustrative results are pre-
sented in Section 3. Conclusions and future developments are
drawn in Section 4.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sugarcane scenarios
The first step to build up the Extended Hybrid IO-MOLP model
is to construct the sugarcane sector (or disaggregate it from the
sector in which it appears), which is not explicitly available in
the Brazilian IO tables. For this purpose, the methodology proposed
in [40] to estimate the average utilization and costs of the main
inputs (such as diesel oil, lubricants, agriculture inputs, salary,
etc.) in the life cycle of bioethanol was jointly used with the total
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526 517

output of the sugarcane sector. Two different sugarcane production Table 2

scenarios are considered: a current sugarcane scenario considering Production cost for combined 1G + 2G plants (R$/R$ of Bioethanol) (based on [12])a.

the sugarcane cultivated using average agricultural technology of Inputs 2G-A 2G-B 2G-C 2G-D 2G-E 2G-F 2G-G 2G-H
Brazil in 2009, and a future sugarcane scenario considering opti- Sugarcane 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.35 0.33
mized conditions of cultivation, mechanical harvesting (with straw + leaves
removal and delivery to the bio-refinery) and transportation. Enzymes 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.26
Acid 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Base 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
2.2. Bioethanol scenarios
a
The scenarios 2G-A to 2G-H represent the values for combined 1G + 2G plants
without mixing the material streams. The 1G process (autonomous distillery)
Results from [12] have been used in our study as input data to
comprises the traditional Melle-Boinot steps, while the 2G bioethanol production
eight scenarios regarding current and prospective 1G and 2G tech- from sugarcane bagasse and leaves using separate hydrolysis and fermentation
nologies. The simulations of [12] have considered that 1G plants [12].
utilize sugarcane as raw material (165 dry t/h), fresh water
(310 m3/h) and Bagasse to boiler (74 dry t/h), producing 46 m3/h
of bioethanol, 370 m3/h of Vinasse and 77 MWel of electricity.
The integration of 1G and 2G bioethanol production was carried the outputs of other sectors in fixed proportions in order to pro-
out sequentially investigating eight scenarios (2G-A to 2G-H) for duce its own single output and the inputs into a sector are propor-
process variables found to have significant impact on the plant tional to the total output of that sector [61,49]. The basic IO
design and capital cost. Firstly, a base case (Scenario 2G-A, repre- relationship is:
senting the combined 1G + 2G plant from [12]) is considered. Four x¼A xþy ð1Þ
combinations of enzyme dosage and enzymatic hydrolysis (EH)
residence time were investigated in scenarios 2G-B, 2G-C, 2G-D where A is a matrix of inter-sectoral direct requirements (or techni-
and 2G-E to identify the scenario with lowest bioethanol selling cal coefficients matrix) in which each element aij represents the
price. The resulting scenario 2G-E was then used as the starting value of input required from sector i to produce one monetary unit
point for the evaluation of leaves addition (Scenario 2G-F), heat worth output of sector j (i = 1, . . . , n; and j = 1, . . . , n), x is the vector
integration (Scenario 2G-G) and leaves addition together with heat of total outputs and y is the vector of the final demand.
integration (Scenario 2G-H) (see Table 1). In this step, the energy flows in the Brazilian National Energy
The estimates of [12] for eight different configurations of com- Balance [62] are incorporated into the 2009 Brazilian IO table
bined 1G + 2G bioethanol production plants (2G-A to 2G-H) were [63] by considering artificial sectors (see also [57,58]). For this pur-
used to calculate the cost of the main inputs utilized in each com- pose some adjustments and inclusion of new rows and columns in
bined 1G + 2G process to produce a monetary unit of bioethanol the IO table are necessary in order to incorporate the different
(presented in Table 2). Those estimates were used to compute energy sectors (or commodities). Thus a new inter-sectoral (or
eight different sets of technical coefficients for the Brazilian transaction) matrix and vectors for final demand and total output
bioethanol sector weighted by the total bioethanol produced in are obtained, in which energy flows are considered in physical
the 1G + 2G plants for each scenario (see Appendix A). These sets quantities of energy (tons of oil equivalent, toe) and all non-
of technological coefficients of bioethanol production were used energy sector flows are measured in monetary units. The technical
to substitute the technical coefficient of the bioethanol sector into coefficients for the inter-sectoral matrix and final demand vectors
the 2009 Brazilian technical coefficient matrix in each optimiza- with hybrid units (monetary/physical, monetary/monetary, physi-
tion. Moreover, as referred to previously, two sugarcane produc- cal/physical or physical/monetary) are then obtained from this
tion scenarios will be considered and also inserted into the new IO framework. The adjustments performed in the IO frame-
technical coefficient matrix according to the scenarios to be opti- work provide: a square matrix with 112 activity sectors split into
mized. Therefore each bioethanol plant uses different sugarcane 53 economic sectors, 5 energy producing sectors, 5 artificial sectors
types as input: for the current scenario (1G) the current sugarcane used for distributing the energy consumed by each means of
scenario is considered, whereas for 1G-optimized and 1G + 2G (2G- transportation and 49 artificial sectors for energy commodities; 6
A to 2G-H) scenarios the future sugarcane scenario is considered. column vectors with the components of final demand (exports –
exp; public consumption – pc; resident consumption – rc; gross
2.3. Hybrid IO-MOLP model fixed capital formation – gfcf; and changes in inventories – ci); 1
column vector for competitive imports (considered for energy
The third step to build the Extended Hybrid IO-MOLP model commodities only); and 6 row vectors for the primary inputs
consists in rearranging the IO tables to obtain technical coefficients (wages, gross mixed income, gross operating surplus, other
in hybrid units. The IO model assumes that each sector consumes production taxes and other production subsides).

Table 1
Summary of the conditions for the 1G + 2G scenarios investigated (based on [12]).

Parameters 1G + 2G scenarios
2G-A 2G-B 2G-C 2G-D 2G-E 2G-F 2G-G 2G-H
1G heat Integration Yes Yes
Leaves Yes Yes
WIS (%)a 7 7 7 7 7 7/7 7 7/14
Enzyme dosage Low Low Low Highb Highb Highb Highb Highb
Hydrolysis time (h) 72 72 48 72 48 72 72 72
Glucose yield from EH, (%)a 47 47 42 73 66 73/96 73 73/76
Steam Dryer No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1G + 2G bioethanol, L/dry t of sugarcane 329 341 337 360 360 435 379 420
a
When two values are given the first is for bagasse and the second for leaves.
b
The high enzyme loading is twice the low enzyme loading.
518 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526
An external expansion of the IO model is made to estimate GHG
emissions from energy combustion, industrial processes, agricul-
ture activities, waste management, wastewater treatment and dis-
charge, and fugitive emissions. In this step, which is based on the
IPCC [64] methodology, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) emission factors are used in combination with
the activity level of specific sectors and final demand components.
These estimates give a vector with the environmental impacts per
unit of output of the sectors and the final demand, considering the
corresponding Global Warming Potential (100-year horizon: 25 for
CH4 and 298 for NO2) relative to CO2 [65].
Finally, the MOLP model based on IOA proposed by [57] is used
as basis and adapted to the Brazilian reality. In this model a set of
443 variables is considered including: the total output and exports
(at basic and consumer prices) of each sector (a total of 336 vari-
ables); competitive imports of energy commodities (49 variables);
several economic variables (58 variables). The model includes
(internal) coherence constraints derived from the IOA and other
sets of constraints associated with the structure of the economic
system, employment and energy consumption, which are briefly
described below. Further details about the MOLP model can be
found in [59].
2.4. Model constraints
Coherence constraints are used to determine that the interme-
diate consumption and final demand of each activity sector shall
not exceed the corresponding total amount available from national
production and competitive imports.
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP, expenditure approach) is
computed considering the final demand minus imports at FOB
(free on board) prices (including tourism). The GDP (production
approach) is computed by the sum of gross value added (gva)
and the total of taxes less subsides on products (ts) that are not
included in the production.
The gross value added is given by the sum of wages, gross
mixed income, gross operating surplus, other production taxes
minus other production subsides.
Taxes less subsidies on goods or services are calculated for the
intermediate consumption and final demand items.
The model also establishes some assumptions for several con-
sumption relations: the households’ consumption on the territory
includes the consumption on the territory by resident and non-
resident households; the residents’ consumption includes the con-
sumption of households and Non-profit Institutions Serving
Households (NPISH); the resident households’ consumption on
the territory is linearly dependent on the available income; and
the tourism imports is given as a proportion of the residents’
household consumption.
The GDP at current prices (gdpcurr) is estimated considering the
components of GDP (expense approach) at constant prices and the
corresponding deflators. Additionally, the consumption of goods
and services by the public administration at current prices and
the gross fixed capital formation (gfcf) at current prices are exoge-
nously defined.
The residents’ disposable income at current prices (ydcurr) is
computed by subtracting the public administration and (non-
financial and financial) corporations’ disposable incomes from
the National Disposable Income.
Public debt (debt) is given by the summation of the previous
period debt with the symmetrical value of the public administra-
tion’s global balance, plus an adjustment variable.
Public administration’s global balance (ggb) is computed by
subtracting the public administration’s expenditures from the pub-
lic administration’s revenues.
The employment level (emp) is obtained by using labor gross
productivity coefficients for each sector.
The total energy consumption for energy purposes (ec) is
obtained from the sum of national and imported energy excluding
the energy consumed for non-energy purposes, i.e. the energy
commodities that are used as raw materials (e.g., primary fuels
used to produce secondary fuels, products for the chemical indus-
try, etc.). Specific technical coefficients are applied to the interme-
diary consumption and final demand.
2.5. Objective functions
The objective functions considered in the model are: maximiza-
tion of GDP (at 2009 basic prices – due to the most recent data
available) (gdp), maximization of the employment level (emp),
minimization of the total energy consumption for energy purposes
(ec) and minimization of the total GHG emissions (ghg).
Firstly, each objective function was optimized individually for
the 1G scenario to obtain four distinct non-dominated solutions
(solutions 1–4). These solutions provide an overview of the range
of variation of the objective values within the non-dominated
region. Then, for the 1G scenario, the solution that minimizes the
Tchebyscheff distance to the ideal solution is computed (solution
5), which allows obtaining a ‘‘balanced” compromise non-
dominated solution to the MOLP model since this surrogate scalar
function enables to obtain the non-dominated solution that mini-
mizes the maximum deviation to the best value reachable in the fea-
sible region for each objective function (which cannot be obtained
simultaneously since the objective functions are conflicting).
The same procedure is then applied for the 1G-optimized (sub-
stituting the 2009-average coefficient vector of the sugarcane sec-
tor by the optimized one, solution 6) and prospective technologies
(1G + 2G) scenarios (substituting the 2009-average coefficient vec-
tor of the sugarcane sector by the optimized one – in all scenarios –
and the coefficient vector of the bioethanol sector by the corre-
sponding 1G + 2G vector – in each scenario, solutions 7–14). In this
step, two additional constraints are included in the model in order
to establish the values of GDP (at 2009 basic prices) and the total
(anhydrous + hydrous) bioethanol production at the same levels
obtained in the 1G scenario. This procedure enables to compare
the impacts due to the specific technologies on the other objectives
(and selected decision variables) assuring the same economic per-
formance and bioethanol production level.
In order to compare the potential of these new technologies in
increasing the total bioethanol production, as well as the impacts
on the economic, environmental, energy and employment levels,
the maximization of the total (anhydrous + hydrous) bioethanol
production in each of the 10 different scenarios (1G, 1G-optimized,
2G-A, 2G-B, 2G-C, 2G-D, 2G-E, 2G-F, 2G-G and 2G-H) are considered
(solutions 15–24). Table 3 summarizes the objective functions and
scenarios considered in the 24 non-dominated solutions obtained.
The MOLP model has been supplied with realistic data gathered
from several sources [12,62–64,66–68]. The IO framework has been
compiled using a workbook structure of multiple linked spread-
sheets (using Microsoft Excel), while the optimizations was per-
formed using Opensolver (OS; http://opensolver.org). The results of
all optimizations and the discussion will be presented in the next
section.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Individual optimization of each objective function
Tables 4 and 5 outline the results for the objective functions and
main variables of 4 non-dominated solutions corresponding to the
individual optimization of each objective function (GDP, employ-
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526 519

ment level, total energy consumption and total GHG emissions) for
the 1G scenario. The 2009 values of each objective function and
Sol.
24

x
selected variables are included in Tables 4 and 5 for comparison
purposes.
Sol.
23

x
3.2. Minimization of the distance of the feasible region to the ideal
Sol.

solution
22

x
Tables 6 and 7 outline the results of the objective functions and
Sol.
21

x
main variables of 10 non-dominated compromise solutions
obtained by minimizing the distance of the feasible region (using
Sol.
20

a weighted Tchebyscheff metric, see e.g., [69]) to the ideal solution

x

x
for the 1G, 1G-optimized and prospective 1G + 2G scenarios (solu-
Sol.

tions 5–14 in Tables 6 and 7).

19

x
Solutions that minimize the distance of the feasible region to
the ideal solution present objective function values that are well
Sol.
18

balanced in comparison to the solutions individually optimizing

each objective (which are more ‘‘extreme”). In a preliminary over-
Sol.
17

all analysis, solutions considering different bioethanol scenarios

x

(1G, 1G-optimized and 1G + 2G) display:

Sol.
16

a reduction between 1.17 and 1.32 million of employees com-

Sol.

pared to the solutions that individually optimize GDP and

15

employment objectives;

an increase of approximately 1.11–1.26 million of employees
Sol.
14

compared to the solutions that individually optimize energy

consumption and GHG emissions;
Sol.
13

energy consumption and GHG emissions in solutions pertaining

x

to the bioethanol scenarios present a reduction between 8.94–

Sol.

9.36 Mtoe and 41,846–57,450 Gg CO2eq, respectively, compared

12

to the solutions that individually optimize GDP and employ-

ment objectives;
Sol.
11

the solutions pertaining to the bioethanol scenarios present an

increase of 7.13–7.79 Mtoe and 34,828–36,854 Gg CO2eq,
Sol.
10

respectively, compared to the solutions that individually opti-

x

mize the energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Sol.
Summary of the objective functions and scenarios considered in each non-dominated solution analyzed.

Solution 6 (which minimizes the Tchebyscheff distance to the

Sol.

ideal solution for the 1G-optimized scenario) presents marginal

8

impacts in terms of energy consumption and GHG emissions, as

Sol.

well as unexpressive variations in the employment level in relation

7

to solution 5 (which minimizes the Tchebyscheff distance to the

Sol.

ideal solution for the 1G – 2009 average – scenario). In solution

6

6 the total energy consumption and GHG emissions are raised by

Sol.

0.57 ktoe and 2.75 Gg CO2eq, respectively, compared to the 1G sce-

5

nario. Although the more efficient and higher load capacity trucks
Sol.

for sugarcane transportation demand relatively less diesel oil and

4

lubricants, the requirements of these products are higher as much

Sol.

as the mechanical harvesting process are applied, therefore coun-

3

terbalancing the impacts. It is noteworthy that due to a lack of a

Sol.

reliable methodology and data shortage, the model has not consid-
2

ered the substitution effects on the direct employment require-

Sol.

ments from the harvesting and transportation activities in the

1
x

1G-optimized scenario in comparison to the 1G scenario. Thus,

the marginal variation observed in the total number of employees
Sugarcane Current
Min Tchebyscheff

2G-H
2G-D

2G-G
2G-A
2G-B
2G-C

2G-E
2G-F

is mainly due to indirect effects on the total output of other sectors.

1G

The total GHG emissions and energy consumption are dissimilar

Solutions?

Bioethanol

Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Bioethanol
Optimized
Sugarcane
Max Total
Max emp
Max gdp

Distance
Min ghg

between the 1G + 2G scenarios:

Min ec

Solutions 7–9 display lower or similar values compared to the

1G and 1G-optimized scenarios.

Solutions 10–14 present relatively higher values of total GHG
Scenarios

Scenarios
functions

Bioethanol
Sugarcane

emissions and energy consumption than solutions 7–9.

Objective
Table 3

In addition, the same differences are observed in the general

employment level:
520 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526

Table 4
Values of the objective functions in the non-dominated solutions computed in the individual optimization of each objective function.

Notation Description Units 2009 Max gdp Max emp Min ec Min ghg
a
gdp Gross Domestic Product MR$ 3,239,404 4,351,337 4,351,337 4,133,118 4,126,511
emp Employees Emp.  103 41,208 55,200 55,319 52,883 52,766
ec Energy consumption – total ktoe 205,679 273,740 273,526 256,800 257,254
ghg GHG emissions – total Gg CO2eq 2,406,175 2,738,023 2,752,640 2,660,362 2,659,322

The values in bold represent the ideal solution of each objective function.
a
Constant 2009 prices.

Table 5
Values of the main variables in the non-dominated solutions computed in the individual optimization of each objective function.

Notation Description Units 2009c Max gdp Max emp Min ec Min ghg
a
sc Sugarcane MR$ 21,098 26,612 26,703 24,569 25,050
ba Bioethanol Anhydrous GL 7014 8836 8922 7014 8325
bh Bioethanol Hydrous GL 19,089 24,929 24,633 22,521 23,357
rc Resident́s consumption MR$a 1,979,751 2,668,603 2,574,038 2,475,401 2,494,412
pc Public consumption MR$a 687,001 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816
ci Changes in inventories MR$a 7471 10,082 10,221 9527 9405
gfcf Gross fixed capital formation MR$a 585,317 861,608 861,608 816,599 786,297
imp Imports MR$a 360,847 436,793 436,188 411,438 408,272
exp Exports MR$a 355,653 345,186 439,284 339,267 340,663
ts Taxes MR$a 445,025 593,996 592,700 558,856 557,783
gva Gross value added MR$a 2,794,379 3,757,340 3,758,636 3,574,262 3,568,728
gdpcurr GDP current MR$b 3,239,404 6,735,909 6,776,766 6,447,358 6,486,833
ydcurr Residents’ disposable income MR$b 2,091,051 4,726,263 4,558,783 4,384,091 4,417,761
ggb Public adm. global balance MR$b 149,309 130,120 139,629 245,756 245,774
debt Public debt MR$b 2,167,856 4,558,698 4,568,207 4,674,334 4,702,954
a
Constant 2009 prices.
b
Current 2018 prices.
c
The values for gdpcurr, ydcurr, ggb and debt in the column 2009 are in current 2009 prices.

Table 6
Values of the objective functions in the non-dominated solutions computed by minimizing the distance of the feasible region to the ideal solution.

Notation Units Sol. 5 Sol. 6 Sol. 7 Sol. 8 Sol. 9 Sol. 10 Sol. 11 Sol. 12 Sol. 13 Sol. 14
1G 1G Opt. 2G - A 2G - B 2G - C 2G - D 2G - E 2G - F 2G - G 2G - H
gdp MR$a 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658 4,236,658
emp Emp.  103 54,024 54,024 54,029 54,024 54,024 54,016 54,013 53,998 54,005 54,000
ec ktoe 264,410 264,410 264,379 264,409 264,405 264,453 264,474 264,588 264,519 264,581
ghg Gg CO2eq 2,695,334 2,695,337 2,695,190 2,695,333 2,695,314 2,695,541 2,695,641 2,696,177 2,695,853 2,696,145
a
Constant 2009 prices.

Table 7
Values of the main variables in the non-dominated solutions computed by minimizing the distance of the feasible region to the ideal solution.

Notation Units Sol. 5 Sol. 6 Sol. 7 Sol. 8 Sol. 9 Sol. 10 Sol. 11 Sol. 12 Sol. 13 Sol. 14
1G 1G Opt. 2G - A 2G - B 2G - C 2G - D 2G - E 2G - F 2G - G 2G - H
sc MR$a 25,536 25,536 25,021 24,423 24,473 23,455 23,152 21,565 22,238 21,739
ba GL 8439 8439 8445 8444 8444 8443 8485 8502 8461 8516
bh GL 23,867 23,867 23,862 23,862 23,862 23,863 23,822 23,805 23,846 23,791
rc MR$a 2,551,100 2,551,101 2,549,135 2,549,557 2,549,827 2,551,814 2,552,048 2,551,951 2,551,637 2,552,113
pc MR$a 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816 922,816
ci MR$a 9870 9870 9875 9874 9874 9869 9479 9238 9700 9108
gfcf MR$a 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608
imp MR$a 425,656 425,656 426,333 426,260 426,309 426,363 426,093 425,689 425,965 425,681
exp MR$a 336,660 336,660 339,306 338,811 338,589 336,653 335,758 335,209 336,262 334,911
ts MR$a 575,572 575,574 575,636 575,661 575,664 575,732 575,729 575,776 575,754 575,768
gva MR$a 3,661,086 3,661,083 3,661,022 3,660,997 3,660,994 3,660,926 3,660,929 3,660,882 3,660,904 3,660,890
gdpcurr MR$b 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865 6,544,865
ydcurr MR$b 4,518,159 4,518,160 4,514,679 4,515,426 4,515,904 4,519,422 4,519,838 4,519,666 4,519,110 4,519,952
ggb MR$b 193,215 193,239 193,232 193,190 193,152 192,900 192,912 192,962 192,980 192,946
debt MR$b 4,621,794 4,621,818 4,621,811 4,621,769 4,621,731 4,621,478 4,621,490 4,621,540 4,621,559 4,621,525
a
Constant 2009 prices.
b
Current 2018 prices.
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526 521

the employment level increases or has similar values in solu-
tions 7–9 (achieving the highest values in scenario 2G-A, repre-
senting an increase of approximately 5.19 thousand employees
compared to the 1G scenario);

the employment level decreases in solutions 10–14 (achieving
the lowest values in scenario 2G-F, representing a reduction of
almost 25.80 thousand employees compared to the 1G scenario).
These differences regarding the energy consumption, GHG
emissions and employment level can be explained by the higher
use of chemicals, especially enzymes (see Table 1), in the scenarios
10–14 in relation to scenarios 7–9. This increases the output of the
chemical sector leading to direct and indirect effects on the energy
consumption (and consequently on the GHG emissions), as well as
on the overall employment level.
Another important characteristic is that all 1G + 2G scenarios dis-
play a reduction in the total sugarcane outputs, achieving the lowest
value in the scenario 2G-F (MR$ 21,565), validating the assumption
that less sugarcane is demanded in combined 1G + 2G plants in rela-
tion to 1G plants to produce the same bioethanol amount.
It is possible to verify in Tables 6 and 7 that even fixing the GDP
and the total bioethanol values in those optimizations (solutions 5–
10), the economic structure is remarkably dissimilar in each solu-
tion (the same occurs for the amount of hydrous and anhydrous
bioethanol produced). The main characteristics of those solutions
include: an overall increase of exports, imports, taxes and gross
value added in the 1G + 2G scenarios compared to the 1G scenario,
while the values of public administration’s global balance (in abso-
lute terms) and public debt have a marginal overall decrease.
3.3. Maximization of the total bioethanol production
The results regarding the maximization of the total (anhydrous
+ hydrous) bioethanol production in each scenario (solutions 15–
24) are presented in Tables 8 and 9. It is possible to verify that:

All solutions achieved the upper limit established for the resi-
dent’s consumption (2.75% higher than the values obtained in
the optimization of GDP), total exports and GFCF.

All bioethanol scenarios have negative impacts in terms of
employment level. The minimum value is obtained in solution
22 that is 5.58% lower than in the solution optimizing the
employment level. This fact can be explained by the negative
influence on the outputs of the public services (the sectors pre-
senting the major output decreases) due to the lowest level of
public consumption in those solutions.

All 1G + 2G scenarios provided improvements in terms of total
bioethanol production, achieving the highest level in solution
24 with a surplus of 15.47 ML of bioethanol compared to the
1G scenario (solution 15).

Even with a higher bioethanol production the total sugarcane
requirements are reduced in all 1G + 2G scenarios, achieving
the lowest value in solution 22 (MR$ 23,790).

The values of imports and taxes in all scenarios increase
between 1.78–1.84% and 2.34–2.40%, respectively, compared
to the solution optimizing the GDP.
An important characteristic of these solutions is that even
obtaining highest values (in absolute terms) of public debt, the
ratio between the public debt and GDP are lower than in the solu-
tions optimizing the energy consumption and GHG emissions. The
average values in solutions 15–24 represent 67.7% of the GDP,
while in the solutions optimizing the energy consumption and
GHG emissions this ratio achieves 72.5%.
The major drawbacks of solutions 15–24 are the negative
impacts on the total energy consumption and GHG emissions,
which achieved in the best case (solution 17) 284,500 ktoe and
2,803,701 Gg of CO2eq, respectively. This can be explained by the
influence of higher production of bioethanol on the overall produc-
tion of all sectors (demonstrated in higher levels of gross value
added) and exports, as well as direct and indirect effects from
higher consumption of chemical products in the 1G + 2G scenarios.

Table 8
Values of the objective function in the non-dominated solutions considering the maximization of the bioethanol production in each scenario.

Notation Units Sol. 15 Sol. 16 Sol. 17 Sol. 18 Sol. 19 Sol. 20 Sol. 21 Sol. 22 Sol. 23 Sol. 24
1G 1G Opt. 2G - A 2G - B 2G - C 2G - D 2G - E 2G - F 2G - G 2G - H
ba + bh GL 35,885 35,885 35,894 35,895 35,895 35,898 35,899 35,900 35,897 35,901

Table 9
Values of selected variables in the non-dominated solutions considering the maximization of the bioethanol production in each scenario.

Notation Units Sol. 15 Sol. 16 Sol. 17 Sol. 18 Sol. 19 Sol. 20 Sol. 21 Sol. 22 Sol. 23 Sol. 24
1G 1G Opt. 2G - A 2G - B 2G - C 2G - D 2G - E 2G - F 2G - G 2G - H
gdp MR$a 4,276,212 4,276,211 4,276,609 4,276,671 4,276,693 4,276,899 4,276,986 4,277,124 4,276,972 4,277,155
emp Emp.  103 52,252 52,252 52,256 52,251 52,253 52,248 52,247 52,234 52,238 52,237
ec ktoe 284,614 284,614 284,500 284,572 284,550 284,617 284,620 284,833 284,793 284,782
ghg Gg CO2eq 2,803,884 2,803,884 2,803,701 2,803,946 2,803,985 2,804,657 2,804,900 2,805,540 2,804,993 2,805,578
sc MR$a 28,143 28,143 27,554 26,902 26,955 25,840 25,519 23,790 24,518 23,983
ba GL 9703 9703 9777 9777 9781 9799 9809 9805 9787 9814
bh GL 26,182 26,182 26,117 26,118 26,114 26,098 26,090 26,095 26,110 26,087
rc MR$a 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955 2,741,955
pc MR$a 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001 687,001
ci MR$a 9031 9032 8392 8397 8356 8202 8121 8157 8309 8081
gfcf MR$a 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608 861,608
imp MR$a 444,605 444,606 444,848 444,781 444,800 444,746 444,741 444,568 444,568 444,612
exp MR$a 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284 439,284
ts MR$a 607,924 607,925 608,061 608,089 608,091 608,160 608,182 608,264 608,203 608,262
gva MR$a 3,668,287 3,668,286 3,668,548 3,668,582 3,668,602 3,668,740 3,668,804 3,668,860 3,668,769 3,668,893
gdpcurr MR$b 7,145,234 7,145,224 7,145,641 7,145,657 7,145,676 7,145,793 7,145,844 7,145,885 7,145,768 7,145,918
ydcurr MR$b 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175 4,856,175
ggb MR$b 264,535 264,535 263,934 263,833 263,799 263,472 263,336 263,112 263,348 263,064
debt MR$b 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887 4,834,887
a
Constant 2009 prices.
b
Current 2018 prices.
522 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526
3.4. Policy implications
Illustrative results have provided valuable insights about the
trade-offs involved and allowed identifying the performance and
trends of the main variables. The results can be useful for future
policies and technological choices related to the bioethanol sector,
such as:

Higher diesel oil and lubricants consumption in the mechanical
harvesting process in 1G-optimized scenario (solution 6) has
counterbalanced the positive effects of more efficient and
higher load capacity trucks for sugarcane transportation. This
fact lead to negative marginal impacts in terms of total energy
consumption and GHG emissions compared to the 1G scenario
(solution 5). Thus, more efficient harvesters or engine fueled
with other cleaner energy source (e.g., biodiesel) would be use-
ful in reducing the fossil fuel consumption and the GHG emis-
sions associated with the mechanical harvesting.

A reduction in the total sugarcane outputs is obtained in all 1G
+ 2G scenarios (solutions 7–14). Therefore, the assumption that
less sugarcane is required in 1G + 2G plants than the 1G plant to
produce the same bioethanol amount is validated.

All solutions maximizing the total (anhydrous + hydrous)
bioethanol production (solutions 15–24) achieved the upper
bound defined for resident’s consumption, total exports and
GFCF. Hence, internal and external expansions of the bioethanol
market as well as new investments are necessary to guarantee
major production levels.

A lower overall employment level is obtained in the 1G + 2G
scenarios (solutions 17–24) compared to the 1G and 1G-
optimized scenarios (solutions 15 and 16). This fact is due to
relatively less agricultural and industrial employment require-
ments in the 1G + 2G scenarios. Thus, improving policies to pro-
mote training and reabsorption of sugarcane cutters as machine
operators or in support and maintenance activities will be pos-
itive to reduce the impacts on the sugarcane cultivation process.
In addition, the lesser industrial employment requirements by
unit of bioethanol produced in the 2G process would be coun-
terbalanced if the productivity of the 2G technology also pro-
vides cost reduction in the process, increasing the
competitiveness of the product and improving the bioethanol
market. It is also important to refer that the 2G technology
would be useful in reducing the employment seasonality in
the sector, given that the raw material to produce 2G bioethanol
can be stocked and used in the sugarcane off season.

An important negative effect in all scenarios maximizing the
total bioethanol production (solutions 15–24) is the increase
of the total energy consumption and the GHG emissions caused
by the higher production of bioethanol on the overall produc-
tion of all sectors and exports. Possibly this fact is related to
the fossil fuel intensity of the Brazilian economy, such that indi-
rect effects from higher bioethanol production are propagated
through the whole economy. Policies envisaging the reduction
of the coefficients of energy consumption, and consequently
the associated GHG emissions, will have a remarkable positive
impact. Possible options include, for example, efficiency mea-
sures and the substitution of fossil energy by other cleaner
sources, such as: increasing the wind and solar energy produc-
tion, reducing the thermal power generation, increasing the
share of biodiesel, bioethanol or even electricity in the trans-
portation sector.

Direct and indirect effects from different patterns of chemical
utilization (especially enzymes) in the 2G processes have influ-
enced the total GHG emissions, energy consumption and
employment level. Nevertheless, the cost of chemicals is
expected to decrease in the medium to long term as far as
new technological improvements and economies of scale are
attained. Hence, the negative influence of chemicals on the
overall cost and consumption pattern of the 2G processes can
be reduced, as well as the corresponding direct and indirect
effects.
4. Conclusions
An extended hybrid IO-MOLP model to assess the impacts of
different 1G and 1G + 2G bioethanol production processes on the
Brazilian economic system and the bioethanol supply in prospec-
tive scenarios was presented. Two sugarcane cultivation, two 1G
and eight 2G bioethanol production processes scenarios have been
set. Four objective functions and several defining, environmental
and economic constraints have been considered in the MOLP
model developed in this study. Relevant indicators involving eco-
nomic, social, environment and energy concerns have been evalu-
ated, considering several activity sectors and a scenario for 2018.
Illustrative results are presented and the main characteristics and
trade-offs are identified.
The integration of IO hybrid formulation and LCA approaches
has allowed incorporating different processes into the model and
expand the boundaries of analysis. The integrated- or country-
basis analysis, as presented in this study can complement the
plant- or process-basis analysis of the energy commodities. The
integrated- or country-basis analysis would be useful in develop-
ing the product, specially the 2G bioethanol, improving the
(renewable) energy supply, reducing the overall GHG emissions
and affording the employment level sustainability. It is worthwhile
noting that policies and technological choices for prospective
bioethanol production will have to take into account the direct
and indirect effects on the whole economic system, since positive
direct effects of 1G + 2G plants can be counterbalanced by indirect
impacts on the output of other sectors, mainly from the utilization
of chemicals in the process.
The heterogeneity of sectors and the uncertainty associated
with prospective scenarios of the Brazilian economic system and
the inter-relationships between sectors are limitations inherent
to this type of model and can lead to a bias in the estimates. The
assumptions and simplifications of IO models, such as fixity of
coefficients, constant returns to scale, and homogeneity of produc-
tion, may lead to criticisms about the exclusion of joint production,
the uniqueness of technological process to each sector and the
capacity of economic agents in responding to exogenous shocks.
However, these assumptions only become limitations when they
compromise the integrity of the conclusions that are being drawn
from the research, by which some adjustments can be made
[70,71]. Nevertheless, the IO framework coupled with the MOLP
model has provided a useful tool to assess the impacts from differ-
ent processes as a result of changes in the output of economic sec-
tors in prospective scenarios. This methodological framework can
be extended to other countries, target sectors or energy products
to shape appropriate policies.
Since only the main inputs in the sugarcane and 2G bioethanol
life cycle are considered, further improvements can include other
less expressive inputs and outputs of those processes within a
more detailed framework. In addition, different electricity cogener-
ation options can be investigated. The deterministic characteristics
of the coefficients and variables, as well as the uncertainty inherent
to the calculation of environmental impacts and economic projec-
tions are issues that can be avoided by including the treatment of
uncertainty in future extensions of this model using, for example,
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526 523

interval programming techniques to reach robust recommenda-
tions compatible with a range of input parameters.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology under projects UID/MULTI/00308/2013
and PTDC/SEN-TRA/117251/2010 and doctoral grant SFRH/
BD/42960/2008. This work has been developed under the Energy
for Sustainability Initiative of the University of Coimbra.
Appendix A
See Table A1.

Table A1
Technical coefficients for the 1G and 2G scenarios investigated (R$/toe or toe/toe).

Sectors/fuels 1G 2G-A 2G-B 2G-C 2G-D 2G-E 2G-F 2G-G 2G-H

Agriculture and forestry 0.00012531 0.00010817 0.00010436 0.00010560 0.00009885 0.00009885 0.00008181 0.00009390 0.00008473
Production of sugarcane 0.17934350 0.17229684 0.16409073 0.16476892 0.15080008 0.14678138 0.12503387 0.13412254 0.12746704
Production of wood and charcoal 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Wood 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Charcoal 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Livestock and fishing 0.00366046 0.00000003 0.00000003 0.00000003 0.00000003 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002
Petroleum and natural gas 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Crude oil 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Natural gas wet 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Natural gas dry 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Iron ore 0.00000083 0.00000072 0.00000069 0.00000070 0.00000066 0.00000066 0.00000054 0.00000062 0.00000056
Other extractive industry 0.00000151 0.00000134 0.00000130 0.00000131 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000102 0.00000117 0.00000105
Coal production 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 3100 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 3300 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 3700 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 4200 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 4500 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 4700 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 5200 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 5900 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal 6000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Steam coal without specification 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Metallurgical coal 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Food and beverage 0.01037657 0.00895729 0.00864207 0.00874465 0.00818596 0.00818596 0.00677459 0.00777559 0.00701654
Tobacco products 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000002
Textiles 0.00060517 0.00052240 0.00050402 0.00051000 0.00047741 0.00047741 0.00039510 0.00045348 0.00040921
Clothing and accessories 0.00000244 0.00000211 0.00000203 0.00000206 0.00000193 0.00000193 0.00000159 0.00000183 0.00000165
Leather goods and footwear 0.00000098 0.00000084 0.00000081 0.00000082 0.00000077 0.00000077 0.00000064 0.00000073 0.00000066
Wood products - except furniture 0.00000258 0.00000223 0.00000215 0.00000217 0.00000203 0.00000203 0.00000168 0.00000193 0.00000174
Pulp and paper products 0.00068549 0.00059173 0.00057090 0.00057768 0.00054077 0.00054077 0.00044754 0.00051366 0.00046352
Newspapers, magazines, CDs and 0.00000197 0.00000146 0.00000140 0.00000142 0.00000133 0.00000133 0.00000110 0.00000126 0.00000114
other products recorded
Petroleum refining and coke 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Automotive gasoline 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Fuel oil 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Diesel oil 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Aviation gasoline 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Liquefied petroleum gas 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Naphtha 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Kerosene Illuminated 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Jet Kerosene 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Gas coke 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Coke coal 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Refinery gas 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Petroleum coke 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Other energy petroleum products 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Tar 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Asphalt 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Lubricants 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Solvents 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Other non-energy petroleum 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
products
Alcohol 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Anhydrous bioethanol 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Hydrous bioethanol 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Sugarcane Juice 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477 0.18429477
Molasses 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612 0.05141612
Sugarcane Bagasse 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209 0.21000209
Chemicals 0.00042538 0.05274093 0.06053489 0.06189334 0.08461411 0.09261657 0.11439605 0.09402625 0.11577290
Manufacture of resins and 0.00000052 0.00000045 0.00000043 0.00000044 0.00000041 0.00000041 0.00000034 0.00000039 0.00000035
elastomers
Pharmaceutical products 0.00000259 0.00000223 0.00000216 0.00000218 0.00000204 0.00000204 0.00000169 0.00000194 0.00000175
Agrochemicals 0.00002671 0.00002306 0.00002225 0.00002251 0.00002107 0.00002107 0.00001744 0.00002002 0.00001806

(continued on next page)

524 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526

Table A1 (continued)

Sectors/fuels 1G 2G-A 2G-B 2G-C 2G-D 2G-E 2G-F 2G-G 2G-H

Perfumes, soaps and cleaning 0.00000233 0.00000201 0.00000194 0.00000197 0.00000184 0.00000184 0.00000152 0.00000175 0.00000158
supplies
Paints, varnishes, enamels and 0.00000212 0.00000183 0.00000177 0.00000179 0.00000167 0.00000167 0.00000138 0.00000159 0.00000143
lacquers
Chemical products and 0.00022850 0.00019725 0.00019031 0.00019256 0.00018026 0.00018026 0.00014918 0.00017122 0.00015451
preparations
Rubber and plastic 0.00341800 0.00295050 0.00284667 0.00288045 0.00269643 0.00269643 0.00223152 0.00256125 0.00231122
Cement 0.00000755 0.00000652 0.00000629 0.00000636 0.00000595 0.00000595 0.00000493 0.00000566 0.00000510
Other products of nonmetallic 0.00082011 0.00070794 0.00068303 0.00069113 0.00064698 0.00064698 0.00053543 0.00061454 0.00055455
minerals
Manufacture of steel and steel 0.00004896 0.00004227 0.00004078 0.00004126 0.00003863 0.00003863 0.00003197 0.00003669 0.00003311
products
Metallurgy of nonferrous metals 0.00006440 0.00005559 0.00005363 0.00005427 0.00005080 0.00005080 0.00004204 0.00004825 0.00004354
Metal products - except 0.00425346 0.00367168 0.00354247 0.00358452 0.00335551 0.00335551 0.00277697 0.00318729 0.00287615
machinery and equipment
Machinery and equipment, 0.00394162 0.00340249 0.00328276 0.00332172 0.00310950 0.00310950 0.00257338 0.00295361 0.00266529
including maintenance and
repairs
Appliances 0.00000794 0.00000685 0.00000661 0.00000669 0.00000626 0.00000626 0.00000518 0.00000595 0.00000537
Office machines and computer 0.00000985 0.00000850 0.00000820 0.00000830 0.00000777 0.00000777 0.00000643 0.00000738 0.00000666
equipment
Machinery, equipment and 0.00019839 0.00017125 0.00016523 0.00016719 0.00015651 0.00015651 0.00012952 0.00014866 0.00013415
material
Electronic and communication 0.00001908 0.00001647 0.00001589 0.00001608 0.00001505 0.00001505 0.00001246 0.00001430 0.00001290
equipment
Apparatus/instruments 0.00000550 0.00000474 0.00000458 0.00000463 0.00000434 0.00000434 0.00000359 0.00000412 0.00000372
healthcare, optical and
measurement
Cars, vans and utilities 0.00000047 0.00000041 0.00000039 0.00000040 0.00000037 0.00000037 0.00000031 0.00000035 0.00000032
Trucks and buses 0.00000927 0.00000800 0.00000772 0.00000781 0.00000731 0.00000731 0.00000605 0.00000695 0.00000627
Parts and accessories for motor 0.00018460 0.00015935 0.00015375 0.00015557 0.00014563 0.00014563 0.00012052 0.00013833 0.00012483
vehicles
Other transportation equipment 0.00000275 0.00000238 0.00000229 0.00000232 0.00000217 0.00000217 0.00000180 0.00000206 0.00000186
Furniture and products from other 0.00000777 0.00000670 0.00000646 0.00000654 0.00000612 0.00000612 0.00000506 0.00000581 0.00000525
industries
Gas, water, sewer and street 0.00098510 0.00036686 0.00035395 0.00035815 0.00033527 0.00033527 0.00027747 0.00031846 0.00028738
cleaning
Electricity Distribution 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254 0.00641254
Uranium (U308) 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Hydro 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Bleach 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Other Renewable 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Nuclear power plants (Uranium C, 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
UO2)
Public service power plants 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Cogeneration 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Construction 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Trade 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Transport, storage and mail 0.00005561 0.00004801 0.00004632 0.00004687 0.00004387 0.00004387 0.00003631 0.00004167 0.00003761
Road transport 0.00470288 0.00406650 0.00392340 0.00396997 0.00371633 0.00371633 0.00307558 0.00353002 0.00318542
Pipelines 0.00760046 0.00656088 0.00633000 0.00640513 0.00599592 0.00599592 0.00496214 0.00569533 0.00513936
Railway transport 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Water-borne transport 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Aviation transport 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
Information services 0.00068096 0.00058121 0.00056076 0.00056741 0.00053116 0.00053116 0.00043958 0.00050453 0.00045528
Financial intermediation and 0.00719549 0.00621130 0.00599272 0.00606385 0.00567644 0.00567644 0.00469774 0.00539187 0.00486552
insurance
Real estate and rents 0.00096477 0.00083281 0.00080351 0.00081304 0.00076110 0.00076110 0.00062988 0.00072294 0.00065237
Maintenance and repair 0.00015882 0.00013710 0.00013227 0.00013384 0.00012529 0.00012529 0.00010369 0.00011901 0.00010739
Accommodation services and 0.00047220 0.00040761 0.00039327 0.00039794 0.00037251 0.00037251 0.00030829 0.00035384 0.00031930
meals
Business services 0.00387139 0.00334187 0.00322427 0.00326254 0.00305410 0.00305410 0.00252753 0.00290099 0.00261780
Private education 0.00003501 0.00003022 0.00002916 0.00002950 0.00002762 0.00002762 0.00002286 0.00002623 0.00002367
Private health 0.00007377 0.00006368 0.00006144 0.00006217 0.00005819 0.00005819 0.00004816 0.00005528 0.00004988
Services for families 0.00059180 0.00051086 0.00049288 0.00049873 0.00046687 0.00046687 0.00038637 0.00044346 0.00040017
Public education 0.00000759 0.00000655 0.00000632 0.00000640 0.00000599 0.00000599 0.00000496 0.00000569 0.00000513
Public health 0.00000008 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000005 0.00000006 0.00000006
Public service and social security 0.00031084 0.00026833 0.00025888 0.00026196 0.00024522 0.00024522 0.00020294 0.00023293 0.00021019
 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526 525

References [28] Gay P, Proops J. Carbon-dioxide production by th UK economy: an input output

assessment. Appl Energy 1993;44:113–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-
2619(93)90057-V.
[1] Renewable Fuel Association. World fuel ethanol production – 2015 Available
[29] Cruz Jr J, Tan R, Culaba A, Ballacillo J. A dynamic input–output model for
atAvailable from: <http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/statistics/
nascent bioenergy supply chains. Appl Energy 2009;86:S86–94. http://dx.doi.
#1454099788442-e48b2782-ea53>2016 [accessed 08 Jun 2016].
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.007.
[2] Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB). CONAB database Available
[30] Chen S, Chen B. Urban energy consumption: different insights from energy
atAvailable from: <http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1252&t=
flow analysis, input–output analysis and ecological network analysis. Appl
2>2015 [accessed 05 May 2015].
Energy 2015;138:99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.055.
[3] Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (EPE). Brazilian energy balance – year
[31] Zhang B, Qiao H, Chen Z, Chen B. Growth in embodied energy transfers via
2014. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Brazil: Empresa de Pesquisa
China’s domestic trade: evidence from multi-regional input–output analysis.
Energética; 2015.
Appl Energy; 2015 [in press]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.
[4] Macedo I, Leal M, Hassuani S. Sugar cane residues for power generation in the
076.
sugar/ethanol mills in Brazil. Energy Sust Dev 2001;5(1):77–82. http://dx.doi.
[32] Chung W, Tohno S, Shim S. An estimation of energy and GHG emission
org/10.1016/S0973-0826(09)60022-3.
intensity caused by energy consumption in Korea: an energy IO approach.
[5] Ensinas A, Arnao J, Nebra S. Increasing energetic efficiency in sugar, ethanol,
Appl Energy 2009;86:1902–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
and electricity producing plants. In: Cortez L, editor. Sugarcane bioethanol:
apenergy.2009.02.001.
R&D for productivity and sustainability. São Paulo (Brazil): Edgard Blucher
[33] Chung W, Tohno S, Choi K. Socio-technological impact analysis using an
Ltda; 2010. p. 583–600.
energy IO approach to GHG emissions issues in South Korea. Appl Energy
[6] Dwivedi P, Alavalapati J, Lal P. Cellulosic ethanol production in the United
2011;88:3747–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.03.033.
States: Conversion technologies, current production status, economics, and
[34] Burnquist H, Costa C, Guilhoto J. Impacts of changes in regional sugar and
emerging developments. Energy Sust Dev 2009;13:174–82. http://dx.doi.org/
ethanol exports upon Brazilian overall economy. In: Input-output and general
10.1016/j.esd.2009.06.003.
equilibrium: data, modeling and policy analysis conference, 2 – 4 September,
[7] Mosqueira-Salazar K, Palacios-Bereche R, Chávez-Rodríguez M, Seabra J, Nebra
Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. Available at:Available from:
S. Reduction of water consumption in an integrated first- and second-
<http://www.iioa.org/conferences/intermediate-2004/pdf/515.pdf> [accessed
generation ethanol plant. Energy Sust Dev 2013;17:531–5. http://dx.doi.org/
25 February 2014].
10.1016/j.esd.2013.08.001.
[35] Costa C, Burnquist H, Guilhoto J. Impacto de alterações nas exportações de
[8] Rosillo-Calle F, Walter A. Global market for bioethanol: historical trends and
açúcar e álcool nas regiões Centro-Sul e Norte-Nordeste sobre a economia do
future prospects. Energy Sust Dev 2006;10(1):20–32. http://dx.doi.org/
Brasil. Revis Econ Sociol Rural 2006;44(4):609–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60504-9.
S0103-20032006000400001.
[9] Hahn-Hägerdal B, Galbe M, Gorwa-Grauslund M, Lidén G, Zacchi G. Bioethanol
[36] Terciote R. Impactos econômicos da implementação das novas usinas de cana-
- the fuel of tomorrow from the residues of today. Trends Biotechnol 2006;24
de-açúcar. In: Proceedings of the 6th Encontro de Energia no Meio Rural,
(12):549–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.10.004.
Campinas, Brazil. Available at:Available from: <http://www.
[10] Galbe M, Sassner P, Wingren A, Zacchi G. Process engineering economics of
proceedings.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=
bioethanol production. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2007;108:303–27. http://
MSC0000000022006000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso> [accessed 15 February
dx.doi.org/10.1007/10_2007_063.
2014].
[11] Cardona C, Quintero J, Paz I. Production of bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse:
[37] Filho J, Filho J. Os impactos econômicos da expansão da produção de etanol sob
status and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(13):4754–66. http://dx.
a ótica da matriz de contabilidade social brasileira. In: Proceedings of the XLVII
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.097.
Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia
[12] Macrelli S, Mogensen J, Zacc G. Techno-economic evaluation of 2nd generation
Rural, 26 – 30 July, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Available at:Available from: <http://
bioethanol production from sugar cane bagasse and leaves integrated with the
www.sober.org.br/palestra/13/816.pdf> [accessed 20 February 2014].
sugar-based ethanol process. Biotechnol Biofuels 2012;5(22):1–18. http://dx.
[38] Scaramucci J, Cunha M. Bioethanol as basis for regional development in Brazil:
doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-22.
an input-output model with mixed technologies. In: Intermediate
[13] Khatiwada D, Leduc S, McCallum I. Optimizing ethanol and bioelectricity
international input-output meeting, 26 – 28 July, Sendai, Japan. Available at:
production in sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil. Renew Energy
Available from: <http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/
2016;85:371–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.009.
ersa06/papers/242.pdf> [accessed 10 January 2014].
[14] International Standard Organization (ISO). Environmental management – life
[39] Scaramucci J, Cunha M. Aspectos socioeconômicos do uso energético da
cycle assessment – principles and framework – TC 207/SC 5 ISO
biomassa de cana-de-açúcar. In: Cortez L, Lora E, Gómez E, editors. Biomassa
14040. Geneva: International Standard Organization; 1997.
para Energia, Editora Unicamp, Brazil; 2008. p. 699–730.
[15] Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, et al. Life
[40] Cunha M, Scaramucci J. The construction of an updated economic database for
cycle assessment. Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory
energy studies: an application to the Brazilian sugarcane agroindustry. In:
analysis, and applications. Environ Int 2004;30(5):701–20. http://dx.doi.org/
International conference on regional and urban modeling, 1 – 3 June, Brussels,
10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005.
Belgium. Available at:Available from: <http://ecomod.net/sites/
[16] Narayanaswamy V, Althman W, Berkel R, McGregor M. A primer on
default/files/document-conference/ecomod2006-rum/1400.pdf> [accessed 10
environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Australian
February 2014].
grains. Australia: Curtin University of Technology, Centre of Excellence in
[41] Compeán R, Polenske K. Antagonistic bioenergies: technological divergence of
Cleaner Production; 2002.
the ethanol industry in Brazil. Energy Policy 2011;39:6951–61. http://dx.doi.
[17] Guinée J, Gorrée M, Huppes R, Kleijn R, Koning A, Oers L, et al. Life cycle
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.017.
assessment - an operational guide to the ISO standards. Netherlands: Leiden
[42] Watanabe M, Chagas M, Cavalett O, Cunha M, Bonomi A. Integrating Life Cycle
University, Centre of Environmental Science; 2001.
Assessment and Input-Output Analysis for the assessment of ethanol
[18] Ometto A. Avaliação do ciclo de vida do álcool etílico hidratado combustível
greenhouse gases emission in Brazil. In: 4th international workshop:
pelos métodos EDIP. Brasil: Tese de doutoramento em Engenharia,
advances in cleaner production - integrating cleaner production into
Universidade de São Paulo; 2005.
sustainability strategies, 22 – 24 May, São Paulo, Brazil. Available at:
[19] Oliveira M, Vaughan B, Rykiel Jr E. Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide
Available from: <http://www.advancesincleanerproduction.net/fourth/files/
balances, and ecological footprint. Bioscience 2005;55(7):593–602.
sessoes/5B/4/watanabe_et_al_work.pdf> [accessed 15 January 2013].
[20] Macedo I. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances in bio-ethanol
[43] Rojas S. Integração do enfoque Input-Output na Avaliação de Ciclo de Vida.
production and utilization in Brazil (1996). Biomass Bioenergy 1998;14–
Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, Brazil; 2009.
1:77–81.
Available at: <http://acv.ibict.br/publicacoes/documentos-tecnicos/relatorios-
[21] Macedo I, Seabra J, Silva J. Green house gases emissions in the production and
tecnicos-de-inventarios> [accessed 10 January 2014].
use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a
[44] Bush R, Jacques D, Scott K, Barrett J. The carbon payback of micro-generation:
prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:582–95.
an integrated hybrid input–output approach. Appl Energy 2014;119:85–98.
[22] Luo L, Voet E, Huppes G. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.063.
bioethanol from sugar cane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2008;615:1–7.
[45] Igos E, Rugani B, Rege S, Benetto E, Drouet L, Zachary D. Combination of
[23] Matthews H, Small M. Extending the boundaries of life-cycle assessment
equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the
through environmental economic input-output models. J Ind Ecol 2000;4
environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios. Appl Energy
(3):7–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/108819800300106357.
2015;145:234–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.007.
[24] Leontief W. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an
[46] Hilgemberg E. Quantificação e Efeitos Econômicos do Controle de Emissões de
input-output approach. In: Leontief W, editor. Input-output economics. New
CO2 Decorrentes do Uso de Gás Natural, Álcool e Derivados de Petróleo no
York (USA): Oxford University Press; 1970. p. 241–60. 1986.
Brasil: Um modelo Inter-regional de Insumo-Produto PhD Thesis. Piracicaba
[25] Daly H. On economics as a life science. J Polit Econ 1968;76(3):392–406.
(Brazil): University of São Paulo; 2004. Available at:Available from: <http://
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/259412.
www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/11/11132/tde-01102007-111239/
[26] Victor P. Pollution: economics and environment. London (UK): George Allen &
publico/EmersonHilgemberg.pdf> [accessed 20 February 2014].
Unwin; 1972.
[47] Figueiredo N, Júnior I, Perobelli F. Construção da matriz de insumo-produto
[27] Suh S, Huppes G. Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod
híbrida para o estado de Pernambuco e avaliação da intensidade energética e
2005;13(7):687–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.04.001.
de emissões de CO2 setorial. In: Proceedings of the Fórum Banco do Nordeste
526 A.L. de Carvalho et al. / Applied Energy 181 (2016) 514–526
do Brasil de desenvolvimento – XIV Encontro regional de economia, 16 – 17
July, Banco do Nordeste do Brasil, Fortaleza, Brazil. Available at:Available
from: <http://www.bnb.gov.br/content/aplicacao/
eventos/forumbnb2009/docs/construcao.pdf> [accessed 1 March 2014].
[48] Santiago F. Um modelo econométrico + insumo-produto para a previsão de
longo prazo da demanda de combustíveis no Brasil MSc
Thesis. Brazil: Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora; 2009.
[49] Miller R, Blair P. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. 2nd
ed. New York (USA): Cambridge University Press; 2009.
[50] Moulik T, Dholakia B, Dholakia R, Ramani K. Energy planning in India: the
relevance of regional planning for natural policy. Energy Policy 1992;20
(9):836–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(92)90120-Q.
[51] Hristu-Varsakelis D, Karagianni S, Pempetzoglou M, Sfetsos A. Optimizing
production with energy and GHG emission constraints in Greece: an input–
output analysis. Energy Policy 2010;38(3):1566–77. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.040.
[52] Tan R, Aviso K, Barilea I, Culaba A, Cruz Jr J. A fuzzy multi-regional input–
output optimization model for biomass production and trade under resource
and footprint constraints. Appl Energy 2012;90:154–60. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.032.
[53] Cho C. The economic-energy-environmental policy problem: an application of
the interactive multiobjective decision method for Chungbuk Province. J
Environ Manage 1999;56(2):119–31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jema.1999.0264.
[54] Hsu G, Chou F. Integrated planning for mitigating CO2 emissions in Taiwan: a
multi-objective programming approach. Energy Policy 2000;28(8):519–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00006-9.
[55] Chen T. The impact of mitigating CO emissions on Taiwan’s economy. Energy
Econ 2001;23:141–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(00)00060-8.
[56] Kravtsov M, Pashkevich A. A multicriteria approach to optimization of the
gross domestic product. Autom Remote Control 2004;65(2):337–45. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1023/B:AURC.0000014730.28129.e5.
[57] Oliveira C, Antunes C. A multiple objective model to deal with economy-
energy-environment interactions. Eur J Oper Res 2004;153:370–85. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00159-0.
[58] Oliveira C, Antunes C. A multi-objective multi-sectoral economy-energy-
environment model: application to Portugal. Energy 2011;36(5):2856–66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.028.
[59] Carvalho A, Antunes C, Freire F, Henriques C. A hybrid input-output multi-
objective model to assess economic-energy-environment trade-offs in Brazil.
Energy 2015;82:769–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.089.
[60] Carvalho A, Antunes C, Freire F, Henriques C. A multi-objective interactive
approach to assess economic-energy-environment trade-offs in Brazil. Renew
Sust Energy Rev 2016;54:1429–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.10.064.
[61] Leontief W. Input-output analysis. In: Leontief W, editor. Input-output
economics. New York (USA): Oxford University Press; 1985. p. 19–40. 1986.
[62] Ministério das Minas e Energia (MME). Balanço Energético Nacional,
Ministério das Minas e Energia, Brazil Available at:Available from: <https://
ben.epe.gov.br/downloads/relatorio_final_ben_2010.pdf>2010 [accessed 10
June 2013].
[63] Guilhoto J, Sesso Filho U. Estimação da Matriz Insumo-Produto Utilizando
Dados Preliminares das Contas Nacionais: Aplicação e Análise de Indicadores
Econômicos para o Brasil em 2005. Econ Technol 2010;23:53–62. http://dx.
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1836495.
[64] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC guidelines for
national greenhouse gas inventories, intergovernmental panel on climate
change/institute for global environmental strategies (IGES). Japan: Hayama;
2006.
[65] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2007 – the
physical science basis. New York (USA): Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Cambridge University Press; 2007.
[66] Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Matriz Insumo-Produto
Brasil 2000/2005, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Brazil; 2008.
[67] Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (MCT). Segunda Comunicação Nacional do
Brasil à Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança do Clima,
Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, Brazil Available at:Available from: <http://
www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0213/213909.pdf>2010 [accessed 15 October
2013].
[68] International Monetary Fund (IMF). World economic outlook database,
international monetary fund Available at:Available from: <http://www.imf.
org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/index.aspx>2013 [accessed 10
January 2014].
[69] Steuer R, Choo E. An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple
objective programming. Math Program 26, 326–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/BF02591870.
[70] Bickneel K, Ball R, Cullen R, Bigsby H. New methodology for the ecological
footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecol Econ 1998;27
(2):149–60.
[71] Cruz L. A Portuguese energy-economy-environment input-output model:
policy applications Ph.D. Thesis. Keele (UK): Keele University, School of
Politics International Relations and the Environment; 2002.