Premium
Multi‐attribute uncertainty analysis of the life cycle of lignocellulosic feedstock for biofuel production
Author(s) -
Rajagopalan Neethi,
Venditti Richard,
Kelley Steve,
Daystar Jesse
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.931
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1932-1031
pISSN - 1932-104X
DOI - 10.1002/bbb.1737
Subject(s) - life cycle assessment , biofuel , gasoline , raw material , life cycle inventory , environmental science , biomass (ecology) , lignocellulosic biomass , pulp and paper industry , production (economics) , biochemical engineering , waste management , engineering , economics , chemistry , agronomy , organic chemistry , biology , macroeconomics
Life cycle assessments (LCAs) have become a common tool for measuring the environmental performance of various products and processes. This study reviewed the life cycle of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock‐based (pine, eucalyptus, and switchgrass) ethanol biofuels and compared the results to gasoline. Uncertainty analysis of the cradle‐to‐wheel results was conducted using a pedigree matrix method to address uncertainty of life cycle inventory items. A tool called stochastic multi‐attribute analysis for life cycle impact assessment (SMAA‐LCIA) was used to interpret the results generated from the LCA. The normalized results showed that gasoline had high environmental impacts in categories such as carcinogenics and global warming, followed by switchgrass. But the use of a single‐score metric indicated that all bio‐based feedstocks had similar environmental performance, all significantly better than gasoline. The SMAA‐LCIA results showed that when all impacts were weighted equally, the preference from highest to lowest was for loblolly pine, eucalyptus, gasoline, and switchgrass. This rank order switched when differing weighting schemes of Producer, User, and LCA Expert were used. Overall, this method highlights the trade‐offs associated with the selection of different feedstocks and improves the comparison of overall results amongst fuel sources, which can then be more clearly presented to a decision‐maker. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd