3 Search Results

The use of alternative fuels, particularly bio-based fuels, has been an important strategy to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions compared to petroleum-based fuels. However, discrepancies between results obtained by using different attributional life-cycle assessment (LCA) tools have challenged the credibility of the individual assessments, and as result, the progress towards or compliance with GHG mitigation targets. The objective of this study was to identify the main differences and commonalities in methodological structures, calculation procedures, and assumptions for the major commercial biofuel, ethanol, across three public LCA tools, BioGrace (EU), GHGenius (Canada), and GREET (U.S.), and a research-oriented fourth, themore » Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (VSB), a Brazilian platform for sugarcane ethanol assessments. The calculated emissions across models ranged from 16 to 45 for sugarcane, 43-62 for corn, and 45-68 g CO₂eq MJ^-1 for wheat ethanol. Harmonizing the three public models with VSB assumptions for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil, the range was reduced to 16-17 g CO₂eq MJ^-1 for sugarcane ethanol. Agricultural production (e.g., N₂O emissions from fertilizers; energy and fuel use; straw field-burning; and limestone application) and ethanol shipping were found to be the major causes for variations for differences calculated for sugarcane ethanol. Similarly, harmonizing BioGrace and GHGenius calculations using GREET assumptions for U.S. corn ethanol generated nearly identical results (models varied within a 3% range). The coproduct treatment method was found to be the most influential parameter in the variations calculated for both corn and wheat ethanol. The application of the tools as part of GHG emissions accounting requirements is often defined via regulations and differences and/or conflicting assumptions set-forth in these models lead to most differences observed. Our study provides recommendations for promoting transparency in LCA calculations and assumptions across the tools used in research and development or for regulatory tools regarding biofuels.« less

Raw bio-oil produced from fast pyrolysis of pine woodchips was co-processed with standard Brazilian vacuum gasoil (VGO) and tested in a 200 kg•h^-1 fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) demonstration-scale unit using a commercial FCC equilibrium catalyst. Two different bio-oil/VGO weight ratios were used: 5/95 and 10/90. Co-processing of raw bio-oil in FCC was shown to be technically feasible. Bio-oil could be directly co-processed with a regular gasoil FCC feed up to 10 wt%. The bio-oil and the conventional gasoil were cracked into valuable liquid products such as gasoline and diesel range products. Most of the oxygen present in the bio-oil wasmore » eliminated as water and carbon monoxide as these yields were always higher than that of carbon dioxide. Product quality analysis shows that trace oxygenates, primarily alkyl phenols, in FCC gasoline and diesel products are present with or without co-processing oxygenated intermediates. The oxygenate concentrations increase with co-processing, but have not resulted in increased concerns with quality of fuel properties. The presence of renewable carbon was confirmed in gasoline and diesel cuts through ¹⁴C isotopic analysis, showing that renewable carbon is not only being converted into coke, CO, and CO₂, but also into valuable refining liquid products. Thus, gasoline and diesel could be produced from lignocellulosic raw materials through a conventional refining scheme, which uses the catalytic cracking process. As a result, the bio-oil renewable carbon conversion into liquid products (carbon efficiency) was approximately 30%, well above the efficiency found in literature for FCC bio-oil upgrading.« less

Abstract The ongoing debate about costs and benefits of wood‐pellet based bioenergy production in the southeastern United States ( SE USA ) requires an understanding of the science and context influencing market decisions associated with its sustainability. Production of pellets has garnered much attention as US exports have grown from negligible amounts in the early 2000s to 4.6 million metric tonnes in 2015. Currently, 98% of these pellet exports are shipped to Europe to displace coal in power plants. We ask, ‘How is the production of wood pellets in the SE USA affecting forest systems and the ecosystem services theymore » provide?’ To address this question, we review current forest conditions and the status of the wood products industry, how pellet production affects ecosystem services and biodiversity, and what methods are in place to monitor changes and protect vulnerable systems. Scientific studies provide evidence that wood pellets in the SE USA are a fraction of total forestry operations and can be produced while maintaining or improving forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are protected by the requirement to utilize loggers trained to apply scientifically based best management practices in planning and implementing harvest for the export market. Bioenergy markets supplement incomes to private rural landholders and provide an incentive for forest management practices that simultaneously benefit water quality and wildlife and reduce risk of fire and insect outbreaks. Bioenergy also increases the value of forest land to landowners, thereby decreasing likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to verify that regulations and good practices are achieving goals and to enable timely responses if problems arise. Conducting rigorous research to understand how conditions change in response to management choices requires baseline data, monitoring, and appropriate reference scenarios. Long‐term monitoring data on forest conditions should be publicly accessible and utilized to inform adaptive management.« less