Environmental and resource burdens associated with world biofuel production out to 2050: footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to waste arisings and water consumption
TL;DR: The carbon and environmental footprints associated with the world production of liquid biofuels have been computed for the period 2010–2050 and bioproductive land use was found to exhibit the largest footprint component (a 48% share in 2050), followed by the carbon footprint (23%), embodied energy (16%), and then the water footprint (9%).
Abstract: Environmental or 'ecological' footprints have been widely used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption and waste absorption presented in terms of biologically productive land area [in global hectares (gha)] required per capita with prevailing technology. In contrast, 'carbon footprints' are the amount of carbon (or carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions for such activities in units of mass or weight (like kilograms per functional unit), but can be translated into a component of the environmental footprint (on a gha basis). The carbon and environmental footprints associated with the world production of liquid biofuels have been computed for the period 2010-2050. Estimates of future global biofuel production were adopted from the 2011 International Energy Agency (IEA) 'technology roadmap' for transport biofuels. This suggests that, although first generation biofuels will dominate the market up to 2020, advanced or second generation biofuels might constitute some 75% of biofuel production by 2050. The overall environmental footprint was estimated to be 0.29 billion (bn) gha in 2010 and is likely to grow to around 2.57 bn gha by 2050. It was then disaggregated into various components: bioproductive land, built land, carbon emissions, embodied energy, materials and waste, transport, and water consumption. This component-based approach has enabled the examination of the Manufactured and Natural Capital elements of the 'four capitals' model of sustainability quite broadly, along with specific issues (such as the linkages associated with the so-called energy-land-water nexus). Bioproductive land use was found to exhibit the largest footprint component (a 48% share in 2050), followed by the carbon footprint (23%), embodied energy (16%), and then the water footprint (9%). Footprint components related to built land, transport and waste arisings were all found to account for an insignificant proportion to the overall environmental footprint, together amounting to only about 2.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The aim of this paper is to review and analyse the latest available evidence to provide a greater clarity and understanding of the environmental impacts of different liquid biofuels and investigates the key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA ofBiofuels.
Abstract: Biofuels are being promoted as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels as they could help to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the related climate change impact from transport. However, there are also concerns that their wider deployment could lead to unintended environmental consequences. Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have considered the climate change and other environmental impacts of biofuels. However, their findings are often conflicting, with a wide variation in the estimates. Thus, the aim of this paper is to review and analyse the latest available evidence to provide a greater clarity and understanding of the environmental impacts of different liquid biofuels. It is evident from the review that the outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and dependent on many factors, including the type of feedstock, production routes, data variations and methodological choices. Despite this, the existing evidence suggests that, if no land-use change (LUC) is involved, first-generation biofuels can-on average-have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but the reductions for most feedstocks are insufficient to meet the GHG savings required by the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). However, second-generation biofuels have, in general, a greater potential to reduce the emissions, provided there is no LUC. Third-generation biofuels do not represent a feasible option at present state of development as their GHG emissions are higher than those from fossil fuels. As also discussed in the paper, several studies show that reductions in GHG emissions from biofuels are achieved at the expense of other impacts, such as acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and biodiversity loss. The paper also investigates the key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA of biofuels and provides recommendations to address these issues.
183 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the environmental impacts of alternative approaches to biofuel production (i.e., first, second, and third generation biofuels), with a focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services, were contrasted to develop a set of criteria for guiding the identification of sustainable bio-fuel production alternatives, as well as strategies for decreasing the economic barriers that prevent the implementation of more sustainable bio fuel production systems.
Abstract: Novel energy production systems are needed that not only offer reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but also cause fewer overall environmental impacts. How to identify and implement more sustainable biofuel production alternatives, and how to overcome economic challenges for their implementation, is a matter of debate. In this study, the environmental impacts of alternative approaches to biofuel production (i.e., first, second, and third generation biofuels), with a focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services, were contrasted to develop a set of criteria for guiding the identification of sustainable biofuel production alternatives (i.e., those that maximize socioeconomic and environmental benefits), as well as strategies for decreasing the economic barriers that prevent the implementation of more sustainable biofuel production systems. The identification and implementation of sustainable biofuel production alternatives should be based on rigorous assessments that integrate socioeconomic and environmental objectives at local, regional, and global scales. Further development of environmental indicators, standardized environmental assessments, multi-objective case studies, and globally integrated assessments, along with improved estimations of biofuel production at fine spatial scales, can enhance the identification of more sustainable biofuel production systems. In the short term, several governmental mandates and incentives, along with the development of financial and market-based mechanisms and applied research partnerships, can accelerate the implementation of more sustainable biofuel production alternatives. The set of criteria and strategies developed here can guide decision making towards the identification and adoption of sustainable biofuel production systems.
161 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a detailed screening of the physical and chemical properties of both solid-digestate and pyrochar was performed, inferring their effects on soil quality, and the results showed that while P and K are enriched in pyrochamber, total N showed no significant differences.
141 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the food-energy-water nexus concept is used to find strategic integrations that improve productivity and reduce losses and environmental impacts in the value chain of a biorefinery, by incorporating opportunities into a whole systems approach for design and planning.
Abstract: Concerns over securing basic resources to an increasing world population have stressed the importance of critical interactions between the food, energy and water supply systems, as framed by the food-energy-water nexus concept. Current biorefineries producing first generation biofuels from food crops have impacted nexus resources, most notoriously land and food but also water and fossil energy resources required during cultivation and processing. Solutions to the nexus challenges of biorefineries require the search for alternative feedstocks and the application of methods that capture opportunities for synergistic interactions with the nexus. At the process level, more efficient water and energy use and food production could be possible if methods for extensive biomass fractionation, process integration and optimisation are developed. There is also a great opportunity to include the interactions between biomass supply and the nexus sectors in value chain optimisation to find strategic integrations that improve productivity and reduce losses and environmental impacts. By incorporating opportunities into a whole systems approach for design and planning, biorefineries will be able to balance nexus resource trade-offs, deliver their potential for full exploitation of biomass as the only source of renewable carbon and materials, and translate nexus issues into social welfare and sustainable development.
50 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the embodied energy and carbon footprint is used for assessing the environmental burden, not for replacing a complete LCA, but for providing fast and reliable information to those involved in the design of a new product.
42 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the concepts underpinning the ecosystem services framework (ESF), laying out the scope and limitations of the approach, and describe the major challenges in making the ESF operational: detailed information at scales relevant to decision-making; practical know-how in the process of institutional design & implementation; and compelling models of success in which economic incentives are aligned with conservation.
Abstract: Work at the interface of ecology and economics has inspired a major transformation in the way people think about the environment. Increasingly, ecosystems are seen as capital assets, with the potential to generate a stream of vital life-support services meriting careful evaluation and investment. We first present the concepts underpinning the ecosystem services framework (ESF), laying out the scope and limitations of the approach. We then describe the major challenges in making the ESF operational: (i) detailed information at scales relevant to decision-making; (ii) practical know-how in the process of institutional design & implementation; and (iii) compelling models of success in which economic incentives are aligned with conservation. We close with a brief review of pioneering experiments now underway worldwide, which illustrate how these challenges can be overcome.
499 citations
"Environmental and resource burdens ..." refers background in this paper
...Global Change Biology Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 8, 894–908 turn provide ecosystem services (ES), or ‘living natural capital’ (Turner & Daily, 2008), such as those required for food (including those associated with the pollination in crops), timber and the absorption or…...
[...]
...The term ‘Natural Capital’ (Costanza & Daly, 1992; Ekins, 1992; Aronson et al., 2006; Turner & Daily, 2008; Daly & Farley, 2011) is typically used to denote the biotic or abiotic stocks and flows that yield natural assets and tangible natural resources....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: The book gives a detailed overview of energy resources available today, their economic evaluation and the technologies to exploit them, and some of the emerging technologies are also presented.
Abstract: Review: Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options By Jefferson W. Tester …[et al.]. Reviewed by Umar Karim Mirza Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Pakistan Jefferson W. Tester, Elisabeth M. Drake, Michael J. Driscoll, Michael W. Golay and William A. Peters. Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. 872 pp. ISBN: 0-262-20153-4, US$78.00 (cloth). Alkaline paper. All the authors of Sustainable Energy are associated with MIT. Jefferson W. Tester is H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering, Elisabeth M. Drake is Associate Director of the Energy Laboratory, Emeritus, Michael J. Driscoll is Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Emeritus, Michael W. Golay is Professor of Nuclear Engineering, and William A. Peters is Executive Director of the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies. The book gives a detailed overview of energy resources available today, their economic evaluation and the technologies to exploit them. Some of the emerging technologies are also presented. A detailed account of the effects of energy use on environment and energy sustainability is given as well. Chapter 1 defines sustainable energy as the engine of sustainable development. The second chapter gives an idea about estimation and evaluation of energy resources. Units of measurement are discussed and difference forms of energy are compared as well. Chapter 3 elaborates thermodynamics and transport of heat energy. Local, regional, and global environmental effects of energy are described in Chapter 4. Adverse effects as well as benefits are discussed. Economic evaluation of energy projects is provided in Chapter 5. The next chapter gives an account of energy systems and sustainability metrics. Chapter 7 focuses on fossil energy while Chapter 8 gives a description of nuclear energy. Chapters 9 through 15 discuss renewable energy in general as well as various specific types. The following chapter treats energy storage, transportation, and distribution. Electric power sector description is discussed in Chapter 17. Chapters 18 through 20 present energy use in transportation, industry, and commercial and residential buildings. Synergistic complex systems are illustrated in Chapter 21. The last chapter describes the options we have and offers a few questions as well. Lists of conversion factors and acronyms, and a useful index follow. While mostly descriptive in nature, this book does touch the mathematical side of things when necessary. Every chapter is followed by references for
466 citations
"Environmental and resource burdens ..." refers background in this paper
...Biomass can be converted into premium-quality liquid biofuels and biochemicals (Tester et al., 2005; Hammond & Seth, 2013)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2000
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define progress and indicate progress in green-printing, and discuss the impact of organizations and services on the green-growth of the world's green spaces.
Abstract: Introduction * Redefining Progress * Indicating Progress * Footprinting Foundations * Footprinting Fundamentals * From Activities to Impacts * Twenty Questions About Ecological Footprinting * Global and National Footprints * Regional Footprinting * Assessing the Impact of Organizations and Services * Footprinting for Product Assessment * Footprinting Lifestyles - How Big is Your Ecological Garden? * Next Steps * Annexe 1 - A Primer on Thermodynamics * Conversion Tables * Glossary * Index
410 citations
"Environmental and resource burdens ..." refers background or methods in this paper
...Five land types have typically been employed: Chambers et al. (2000), for example, adopted bioproductive land, bioproductive sea, energy land, built land and the land needed to secure biodiversity as their categories (see Fig....
[...]
...Simmons et al. (2000) adopted an equivalence factor of 2.82 gha ha 1 for what they termed builtup area, which was subsequently used by Chambers et al. (2000)....
[...]
...‘Bioproductive land’ consists of arable land, forests and pasture, as well as (where appropriate) bioproductive sea (Chambers et al., 2000)....
[...]
...Built land is land whose productive capacity has been largely utilized (or ‘lost’) for development purposes (Chambers et al., 2000), that is for buildings, roads and the like....
[...]
...land type will vary, but they will normally yield significant animal and plant output (Chambers et al., 2000)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe an approach to developing a methodology to establish a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems to provide practical advice for policy makers, planners and the bioenergy industry, and thus to support policy development and bioenergy deployment at different scales.
193 citations
"Environmental and resource burdens ..." refers background in this paper
...…therefore need to be assessed against the full range of sustainability considerations and over the full life cycle of the biofuel supply chain (Elghali et al., 2007; RoySoc, 2008; Hammond & Jones, 2011; Hammond et al., 2012): from ‘field-to-(‘gas’ or petrol station) forecourt’ or…...
[...]
...But the deployment of biofuels has been linked to significant adverse impacts in terms of direct and indirect land-use change (LUC and iLUC), loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Elghali et al., 2007; Hammond et al., 2008) and competition with food production....
[...]
TL;DR: Proponents of biomass-based fuels push for sustainability against a steady tide of conflicting analysis, but can advanced biofuels cut the mustard?
Abstract: Proponents of biomass-based fuels push for sustainability against a steady tide of conflicting analysis, but can advanced biofuels cut the mustard?
188 citations