Life Cycle Assessment of an Advanced Bioethanol Technology in the Perspective of Constrained Biomass Availability

Transcription

1 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, Life Cycle Assessment of an Advanced Bioethanol Technology in the Perspective of Constrained Biomass Availability KARSTEN HEDEGAARD,*, KATHRINE A. THYØ, AND HENRIK WENZEL*, COWI A/S, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark, Copenhagen Energy Ltd., District heating, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark, and Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, Faculty of Engineering, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark Received February 05, Revised manuscript received June 18, Accepted August 14, Among the existing environmental assessments of bioethanol, the studies suggesting an environmental benefit of bioethanol all ignore the constraints on the availability of biomass resources and the implications competition for biomass has on the assessment. We show that toward 2030, regardless of whether a global or European perspective is applied, the amount of biomass, which can become available for bioethanol or other energy uses, will be physically and economically constrained. This implies that use of biomass or land for bioethanol production will most likely happen at the expense of alternative uses. In this perspective, we show that for the case of a new advanced bioethanol technology, in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions and fossil fuel dependency, more is lost than gained when prioritizing biomass or land for bioethanol. Technology pathways involving heat and power production and/or biogas, natural gas or electricity for transport are advantageous. Introduction * Address correspondence to either author. Phone: (0045) (K.H.); (0045) (H.W.); karsten.hj@gmail.com (K.H.); henrik.wenzel@kbm.sdu.dk (H.W.). COWI A/S. Copenhagen Energy Ltd. University of Southern Denmark. The conversion of biomass to ethanol for use in the transport sector has received increasing attention motivated by objectives of reducing CO 2 emissions and oil dependency. Along with the focus on the environmental and resource dependency benefits, the potential down-side of bioethanol is receiving increasing attention as well. The implications of using food for fuel especially are being discussed. In this context, much hope and research is directed toward advanced bioethanol technologies capable of fermenting nonfood lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks. The decisive issue for the environmental aspects of bioethanol is, however, not the issue of competition between food and fuel, but the issue of competition for the limited biomass in general, including competition between alternative energy uses of the biomass. Given the constraints on biomass availability and the magnitude of the new potential customers for biomass resources for transport, heat, electricity, polymers, and bulk chemicals, comparisons between the alternative energy uses become decisive: we cannot have all, and for decades ahead use of biomass for ethanol will most likely take place at the expense of alternative energy uses. In this perspective, advanced bioethanol technologies capable of fermenting lignocellulosic biomass do not distinguish themselves from conventional bioethanol technologies. In the present paper, we show that a new advanced bioethanol technology case of fermenting whole-crops comes out environmentally disadvantageous due to this. To our knowledge, this article is the first to present a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of bioethanol seen in this light of the constraints on biomass availability. Several of the existing studies on bioethanol (e.g., refs 1-5) comprise a system to and including production of bioethanol only and are mainly based on an energy balance expressing how much fossil energy is used to produce the bioethanol compared to the energy content of the ethanol output, and in some cases including the energy content of byproduct. Another group of studies (e.g., refs 6-11) applies an expanded system delimitation, taking into account all displacement mechanisms including the displacement of petrol in cars with the corresponding avoided oil extraction and refining and the displacement of animal feed products by the coproducts from the ethanol production. The system delimitation in all of the above studies is, however, inadequate for supporting decisions on bioethanol, because the implications of the constraints on the biomass and land resources are ignored. Only three studies are known to adequately consider the implications of biomass constraints (12-14), and the results of these studies do not suggest an environmental benefit of bioethanol. This article is based on these studies. In the present article, we justify that toward 2030, use of biomass or land for bioethanol or other energy purposes will most probably take place at the expense of alternative uses. Since natural gas and coal will be used as fuels for heat and power production at least within this time frame, the lost alternatives include substitution of natural gas or coal in the heat and power sector. In the case study, we investigate the environmental feasibility of using advanced fermentation based bioethanol for transport, when held up against the consequence of losing alternative biomass utilizations. The biomass feedstock considered is an energy whole-crop in the form of whole-crop maize and the bioethanol technology considered includes fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass Constraints Physical Biomass Constraints. We have assessed the physical biomass availability on a European and global scale toward A European perspective is relevant since biofuel trade is to some extent regionally oriented, and a global perspective has relevance since the market for liquid biofuels and for some solid biofuels (wood pellets, wood chips, tree trunks, and straw pellets) is expected to become very internationally oriented in the future (12). The assessment is based on comparing studies of technical biomass potentials with the biomass required to meet conflicting uses of biomass. The technical biomass potential is defined as the amount of biomass that, based on the available technology, can become available for energy purposesswhile still securing the demand for food, animal feed, and biomaterials. The technical biomass potential is based on inventories of potential bioenergy sources, including organic residues and waste and use of land for biomass production, with an evaluation of possibilities to utilize the sources for energy purposes (15). The potential is limited by ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 21, /es800358d CCC: $ American Chemical Society Published on Web 10/04/2008

2 TABLE 1. Biomass Potentials Compared to Biomass Required for Full Fossil Substitution study geogr. scope temporal scope resource focused demand driven scenario residues biomass potential (EJ/y) energy crops total biomass req. for full fossil fuel subst. a (EJ/y) fossil fuel subst. (%) 21 EU X EU X EU X low EU X high EU27 >2040 X low EU27 >2040 X high global 2030 X low global X high global 2030 X global X global 2020 X global 2025 X global 2025 n.d n.d global 2025 X b X b BI global 2030 X FFES global 2025 X b X b RIGES a Based on energy demand scenarios in refs 19 and 20, assumed fossil fuel substitution efficiencies, and supplementary energy statistics in ref 31. For conversion of biomass into transport biofuels, an average energy conversion efficiency of 60% is assumed (liquid biofuel output versus biomass feedstock input and net fuel use after crediting for an assumed use of byproduct as fuels). In the heat and power sector, an overall fossil fuel substitution efficiency of 90% is assumed, considering the conversion losses in obtaining high-quality biomass fuels, providing electric efficiencies on level with fuel-based power generation. b The study has an upper limit of biomass energy availability for the demand driven scenarios. n.d.: not documented. BI: Biomass Intensive variant. FFES: Fossil Free Energy Scenario. RIGES: Renewables-Intensive Global Energy Scenario. natural circumstances as well as the given technology level (16, 17). By definition, the technical potential is assessed without considering how much of the biomass would be economically feasible to utilize. As such, the technical bioenergy potential defines the upper physical limit of the amount of biomass that can become available for energy use (16, 18). The potential utilizations of biomass for energy include electricity, heat, and transport fuel production, substituting fossil fuels both in the energy sector and in the transport sector. The amount of biomass required for fossil fuel substitution therefore represents the maximum potential demand for biomass for energy. We estimate the biomass required for fossil fuel substitution based on energy demand scenarios set up by the International Energy Agency, concerning future use of fossil and renewable energy sources (19, 20). In Table 1, various studies of biomass potentials toward 2030 in a European and global scope are presented. The biomass potentials are held up against the amount of biomass required for full fossil fuel substitution for the given geographical and temporal scope. Studies applying a purely resource focused approach (17, 21-25) represent technical biomass potentials. It can be seen that in a European perspective, toward 2030, technical biomass potentials (21, 22) only provide a small contribution, 4-25%, compared to the biomass required for substitution of all fossil fuels. In a global perspective, the technical biomass potentials (17, 23-25) correspond to a fossil fuel substitution of 17-62% in Thus, the technical biomass potentials are far from reaching the level required to meet all potential utilizations of biomass for energy. This indicates that toward 2030, in a European perspective as well as a global perspective, the amount of biomass which can become available for energy purposes cannot satisfy all potential new biomass customers. As can be seen, the constraint is particularly strong in a European perspective. Economic Biomass Constraints. While the technical potentials express the upper physical limit of the biomass that can become available, economic limitations also exist. We have investigated the economic biomass constraints based on studies which, rather than assessing biomass potentials, estimate the biomass supply in the energy system, based on a demand-driven approach. This biomass supply depends on factors such as projected population growth, economic development, climate policies, energy intensity of economic activity, expected development in energy technologies, competition with other energy technologies, and considerations regarding the amount of biomass that can become available at given costs (15). According to demand-driven studies (26-29), the global biomass supply in corresponds to 10-22% of the biomass required for full fossil fuel substitution, i.e. a significantly lower level than the global technical biomass potentials (Table 1). This indicates that when considering economic constraints, the limitation of biomass is even more significant. The explanation is that in reality, bioenergy technologies have to compete with other energy technologies in satisfying the energy demand. As a result, only the fraction of the biomass potentials realizable at cost levels providing economic competitiveness, or only the fraction available within the limits of available economic incentives, will be utilized. Systems Description. The identified constraints on biomass availability to meet the new conflicting demands for it strongly indicate that whenever biomass or land is used for bioethanol production, it will happen at the expense of alternative utilizations, e.g., for heat and power generation. When assessing the environmental aspects of bioethanol, this use of biomass or land should, therefore, be held up against alternative utilizations. Based on this recognition, we have performed an environmental assessment of a new Danish advanced bioethanol technology. The bioethanol technology analyzed is the Integrated Biomass Utilization System (IBUS) (developed by the Danish energy group DONG Energy A/S) where the ethanol plant is integrated with a coal-fired power plant. Via the IBUS process, bioethanol is produced together with byproduct in the form VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

3 TABLE 2. Energy Crop Utilization Pathways Compared in the Environmental Assessment transport sector heat and power sector reference system petrol coal or natural gas CHP production bioethanol scenarios bioethanol from whole-crop maize, IBUS concept. Use of fodder byproduct as animal feed (baseline) bioethanol from whole-crop maize, IBUS concept bioethanol from whole-crop maize, stand-alone plant use of fodder byproduct as animal feed (baseline) bioethanol from whole-crop maize, stand-alone plant coal or natural gas CHP production coal or natural gas CHP production, use of fodder byproduct as fuels displacing coal coal or natural gas CHP production coal or natural gas CHP production, use of fodder byproduct as fuels displacing coal alternative scenarios biogas from maize silage coal or natural gas CHP production petrol biogas from maize silage and subsequent CHP production displacing decentralized natural gas CHP plants biogas from maize silage and subsequent compressed natural gas (CNG) (displaced in CHP production displacing decentralized the heat and power sector) natural gas CHP plants thermal gasification of willow and subsequent petrol CHP production displacing natural gas compressed natural gas (CNG) (displaced in the heat and power sector) petrol electricity (use of electric cars) (produced from willow in the heat and power sector) on the fuel input side thermal gasification of willow and subsequent CHP production displacing natural gas on the fuel input side willow wood pellet manufacturing and subsequent CHP production (cofiring) displacing coal on the fuel input side willow wood pellet manufacturing and subsequent CHP production (cofiring) displacing coal on the fuel input side of solid biofuel and animal fodder, i.e., Dried Distillers Grain Soluble (DDGS) and molasses. The solid biofuel residue after ethanol fermentation can be incinerated directly at the power plant, displacing coal. The power plant integration means that in periods with low or no district heating demand, steam for the bioethanol process can be extracted from the power plant with low or no additional fuel use. As a result of this synergy effect, the average fossil fuel consumption for producing steam for the ethanol process is low (approximately 0.60 GJ coal/gj steam) compared to using a separate boiler (12). However, it is questionable whether the gain of this synergy effect can be attributed to the ethanol production, since alternative utilizations of the low fuel steam extraction exist, and since a longer term aim of the energy system infrastructure is to plan for reducing these excess heat losses from power production. Against this background, the performance of a stand-alone bioethanol plant is also investigated. For this case variant, the steam is assumed to be produced at a natural-gas-fired boiler (with a typical boiler efficiency of 0.95 GJ steam/gj natural gas). As a consequence of an increasing bioethanol production, saturation with DDGS on the global fodder market is probable in a future perspective. Thus, a situation is likely to occur where an alternative use of DDGS such as incineration with energy recovery will be applied. Based on these considerations, scenario variants have been set up for use of DDGS and molasses, entirely as fuels (displacing coal) instead of fodder. The assessment concerns whole-crop based bioethanol production, representing a large-scale production stretching further than use of biomass residues or waste. In order for bioethanol to become a major global transport fuel, energy crop production in temperate regions would also be required (12). Against this background, energy crop production in a temperate climate, represented by Danish conditions, is considered. When prioritizing land for biomass production targeted toward bioethanol, the lost alternatives comprise other energy crops and/or energy utilization pathways. In this context we consider other biomass conversionssbiogas production, thermal gasification, and wood pellet manufacturingscombined with subsequent combined heat and power (CHP) production, as well as other alternative transport fuels and vehicles technologiessbiogas, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), and electricity (use of electric cars). Based on discussions with experts in agricultural production, we have considered whole-crop maize to represent a high yield and suitable whole-crop for advanced bioethanol technologies capable of fermenting both starch and lignocellulosic biomass. For biogas production, whole-crop maize is assumed used as well, while the perennial crop, willow, is applied for heat and power production. The biomass technologies compared are currently at pilot or demonstration scale and are expected to reach commercial level toward 2030 (12, 14). In the environmental assessment, the consequence of choosing each biomass utilization route is investigated by modeling changes compared to a reference system comprising the transport sector and the heat and power sector. We apply a temporal scope toward 2030, representing a scope where natural gas and coal will continue to be used in the heat and power sector and petrol in the transport sector. Table 2 gives an overview of the various scenarios considered in the assessment. Method. The assessment is performed as an LCA and is based on the EDIP method (32) and further updates of this method (33-35), which are in agreement with the standards of the International Organization for Standardisation, ISO. The study is conducted according to the principles of ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008

4 FIGURE 1. Scenario examples of alternative utilizations of 1 ha year agricultural land for energy use: (a) reference system (for coal displacement scenarios), (b) IBUS bioethanol scenario (baseline), (c) willow CHP production displacing coal, and (d) willow CHP production displacing coal and using electric vehicles for transport. Induced (red lines), avoided (green scattered lines), and unchanged (gray lines) processes and flows compared to the reference system. The modeling of the scenarios expresses the induced and avoided processes and flows. The diagrams are simplified and therefore do not cover the full modeling performed. consequential LCA, which is today s best scientific practice. It implies that the LCA is comparative and dedicated to identifying the environmental consequence of choosing one alternative over the other. The consequential and comparative approach ensures that all compared alternatives are equivalent and provide the same services to society, not just regarding the primary service, which in this case is a specified transportation, electricity, and heat service, but also on all secondary services. Secondary services are defined as products/services arising, e.g., as coproducts from processes in the studied systems. In the case of liquid biofuels, such secondary services can typically be animal feed and nutrients. Consequential LCA ensures equivalence on all such services by identifying and including the displacements of alternative products that will occur when choosing one alternative over the other. The modeling has been facilitated in Gabi4 LCA software. The LCA covers all environmentally significant induced and avoided processes and flows compared to the reference system occurring as a consequence of choosing the given technology pathway. The approach is illustrated in Figure 1, presenting simplified diagrams of the reference system and VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

5 FIGURE 2. Greenhouse gas emissions in a life cycle perspective for alternative energy utilizations of 1 ha year agricultural land (a) shown distributed on sources and (b) as net greenhouse gas emissions (positive values represent induced emissions and negative values represent avoided emissions). CO 2 -eq.: CO 2 -equivalents. CNG: Compressed Natural Gas. a few of the scenarios considered. The scenarios all provide the same primary service to society, namely 154,000 km transport in a typical European compact size 5-seater passenger car, 87 GJ power to the grid, and 113 GJ district heating to the grid, and are thus perfectly comparable in this respect. This forms the functional unit of the environmental assessment. These quantities reflect the largest biomass based transport service, power service, and heat service, respectively, delivered among the scenarios. For example, the transport service of 154,000 km is the transport distance delivered in the scenario where biomass is used for producing electricity for transportation by electric cars (Figure 1d). In the other scenarios, the reference fuel, petrol, will then be used up to the deliverance of this transport service. Functional outputs from the systems in terms of animal feed products and utilized nutrient value are kept equal by including the alternative feed and fertilizer products substituted by these functional outputs. Detailed descriptions of the modeling can be found in Jensen and Thyø (12). Toward 2030, average yields in practice of 15 tons of dry matter per hectare per year have been assumed for both of the energy crops in question, i.e., for whole-crop maize and willow. Thus, differences between the scenarios reflect differences in the technology pathways alone. It is reasonable to assume similar yield levels for the two crops since their current average yields are similar: 10.6 and 11 tons DM per hectare per year for whole-crop maize and willow, respectively (the 75% percentile) (12). Possible differences in carbon dioxide sequestration during production of maize and willow, respectively, have not been included. Electricity consumption is modeled as coal CHP, which in many countries is likely to cover marginal electricity demand (34). However, for the most essential electricity flows, natural gas based electricity is also modeled, and the assumption regarding marginal electricity demand is found not to be crucial for the scenario comparison. With respect to the assessment parameters, we focus on the two key parameters that are most often used to justify ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008

6 TABLE 3. Energy Input/Output Data for Different Biomass-to-Energy Technologies fuel input a (primary energy, GJ) feedstock technology power heat total liquid/gaseous biofuel product output a (primary energy, GJ) solid biofuel fodder total net fossil fuel subst. efficiency b bioeth. maize kernels IBUS concept (0.75) bioeth. maize stover IBUS concept (0.74) bioeth. whole-crop maize IBUS concept (0.75) bioeth. whole-crop maize stand-alone plant (0.68) biogas whole-crop maize anaerobic digestion, biogas upgrading CHP willow wood pellet manufacturing., cofiring at coal CHP plants CHP willow thermal gasification, cofiring at natural gas CHP plants CHP whole-crop maize anaerobic digestion, biogas CHP a Per GJ biomass feedstock input (lower heating values used). b Fossil fuel energy substituted at the power plant or in the car engine, per biomass feedstock energy and primary fuel use for biofuel processing. Indirect fossil fuel substitution as a consequence of fodder byproduct displacing fodder production is included in the environmental assessment but not in the substitution efficiencies given here. It is assumed that 1 GJ bioethanol substitutes 1 GJ petrol in the engine and that 1 GJ willow wood pellet or producer gas substitutes 1 GJ fossil fuel at the power plant. Values in parenthesis indicate substitution factors in case of incineration of possible fodder byproduct. the promotion of bioethanol from an environmental perspective, i.e., GHG mitigation and reduction in fossil fuel dependency. Results and Discussion As shown in Figure 2b, the ethanol baseline scenarios, representing use of DDGS and molasses as fodder, provide by far the lowest net GHG mitigation compared to the alternative utilizations of land for energy purposes. For instance, use of willow for CHP substituting coal provides GHG mitigation more than twice as high, and even higher if combined with electric cars. Assuming use of the fodder byproduct as fuels, significantly larger GHG mitigation is obtained; however, the ethanol scenarios are still in the low end compared to the alternatives. The low net GHG mitigation obtained in the ethanol scenarios is mainly caused by the considerable amounts of steam and electricity consumed in the process of converting biomass into bioethanol, particularly for pretreatment, hydrolysis, extract concentration, distillation, and drying processes (12). In comparison, less energy is required for catalyzing the anaerobic digestion in the biogas process, for the thermal gasification of willow, or for wood pellet manufacturing. This results in lower net fossil fuel substitution efficiencies for ethanol compared to the alternatives, as presented in Table 3. Other factors contributing to the difference in GHG mitigation across the scenarios comprise the high CO 2 content of coal, providing high GHG emissions reduction when prioritizing biomass for coal displacement and the high energy efficiency of electric motors compared to combustion engines. As revealed in Figure 3b, the ethanol scenarios provide a low net fossil fuel displacement compared to several of the alternative technology pathways. Assessing how well the technology pathways perform in terms of reducing fossil fuel dependency, one should, however, not merely rely on energy balances. As reflected in the fuel prices, oil and natural gas are considered to be of higher value than coal, per energy content. This is due to factors such as higher energy densities, the fact that natural gas and oil can be used directly as transport fuels, and that they are more scarce, i.e., assuming continuation of current production rates, global oil and natural gas reserves offer supply horizons of years and years, respectively, compared to years for coal (36). Thus, when interpreting the results in Figure 3a, oil or natural gas displacements should be valued higher than coal displacements. Figure 3a reveals that in terms of obtaining the highest reduction in oil dependency, use of the land for ethanol production is far from being the optimal solution. Up to 2.5 times as high oil savings can be obtained with the alternative energy crop utilization pathways. Moreover, for a stand-alone bioethanol plant using steam from a natural gas boiler, considerable net consumption of natural gas occurs. Overall, for the case presented, the reductions in GHG emissions and fossil fuel dependency, obtained by producing whole-crop maize for bioethanol production happens at the expense of other land/biomass utilizations, which would provide considerably larger reductions. Thus, for this technology case and perspective, more is lost than gained when prioritizing land/biomass for bioethanol. This is mainly caused by the significant energy conversion losses in bioethanol production compared to use of biomass in the energy sector. The losses lie in the need for pretreatment (lignocellulosic based production), the relatively low fermentation yield of ethanol, the need to dry and further process the byproduct and residual unconverted matter in order to make use of them, and the need to separate ethanol and water, implying distillation in all known cases. Such losses are not present in alternative technologies, e.g., biomass conversion to electricity and/or heat by incineration or conversion to biogas. As long as fermentation-based conversion of biomass to ethanol implies these losses, bioethanol will come out disadvantageous to the alternatives studied heresand this is the case for presently known bioethanol technologies including both starch and lignocellulose based production. Thus, the results question the assumed justification for lignocellulosic fermentation based bioethanol: instead of reductions in GHG emissions and fossil fuel dependency, net increases will much more likely be the outcome, when considering the alternative biomass/land utilizations deprived on behalf of bioethanol. Among the scenarios investigated, willow CHP production combined with using electric cars for transport yields the highest GHG mitigation and reduction in oil dependency. VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

7 FIGURE 3. Fossil fuel displacement in a life cycle perspective for alternative energy utilizations of 1 ha year agricultural land, shown as (a) net consumption/displacement of crude oil, hard coal, and natural gas, respectively, and as (b) net fossil fuel displacement (positive values represent fuel consumptions and negative values represent fuel displacements). CNG: Compressed Natural Gas. Another advantage of electric cars is that they can serve as a buffer in the electricity grid allowing for further implementation of fluctuating wind and solar power in the energy system. However, the electric car and plug-in hybrid cars (electric motor and combustion engine) are still in a development stage and commercialization is not expected to occur until 10 to 15 years from now (37). Technologies for use of CNG or biogas as transport fuel are commercially available and are used to an increasing degree in a number of countries, e.g., in Germany and Sweden. The natural gas supply horizon of approximately years, based on current global reserves and production rate, makes it a relevant alternative transport fuel. Evidently, natural gas will be present in our energy sector worldwide for the period ahead until the electric car is expected available. Maximizing both GHG mitigation and fossil fuel displacement, the optimal biogas scenario is thus for biogas to substitute natural gas in heat and power production and to use the displaced natural gas to substitute oil in the transport sector (Figures 2b, 3b). This renders the scenario for upgrading biogas (removing CO 2) directly for transport less interesting, as it will imply unnecessary losses. Literature Cited (1) Bentsen, N. S.; Felby, C.; Ipsen, K. H. Energy Balance of 2nd Generation Bioethanol Production in Denmark; Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning and Elsam Engineering A/S: Copenhagen, Denmark, (2) Patzek, T. W. Sustainability of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California: Berkeley, CA, (3) Pimentel, D. Ethanol fuels: Energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts are negative. Nat. Resour. Res. 2003, 12, (4) Shapouri, H.; Duffield, J.; Wang, M. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Agricultural Economics: Washington, D.C., (5) Shapouri, H.; Duffield, J.; Wang, M. The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist: Washington, D.C., (6) General Motors; LBST; bp; ExxonMobil; Shell; TotalFinaElf. GM Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems: A European Study; GM: Ottobrunn, Germany, (7) Wang, M. The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model, Version 1.5a; Calculations made by IEA for reference case using the downloadable model in consultation with author; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008

8 (8) Levelton Engineering Ltd. Assessment of Net Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Ethanol-Gasoline Blends in Southern Ontario ; Cross-Sectoral Policy Development Division, Industry Performance and Analysis Directorate, Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Richmond, BC, (9) Nielsen, P. H.; Wenzel, H. Environmental Assessment of Ethanol Produced from Corn Starch and used as an Alternative to Conventional Gasoline for Car Driving; The Institute for Product Development: Lyngby, Denmark, (10) Calzoni, J., et al. Bioenergy for Europe: which ones fit best?: A Comparative Analysis for the Community; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU): Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; (11) Wang, M.; Saricks, C.; Santini, D. Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Center for Transportation Research, Energy System Division: IL, (12) Jensen, K. H.; Thyø, K. A. 2nd Generation Bio-ethanol for Transport: the IBUS Concept s Boundary Conditions and Environmental Assessment; Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2007; (13) Jensen, K. H.; Thyø, K. A.; Wenzel, H. Life-Cycle Assessment of Bio-diesel from Animal Fat; Institute for Product Development: Lyngby, Denmark, 2007; (14) Thyø, K. A.; Wenzel, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas from Maize Silage and from Manure; Institute for Product Development: Lyngby, Denmark, 2007; (15) Berndes, G.; Hoogwijk, M.; van den Broek, R. The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, (16) Smeets, E.; Faaij, A.; Lewandowski, I. A Quick scan of Global Bio-energy Potentials to 2050: An Analysis of the Regional Availability of Biomass Resources for Export in Relation to the Underlying Factors; Copernicus Institute: Utrecht, Netherlands, (17) Fischer, G.; Schrattenholzer, L. Global bioenergy potentials through Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20, (18) Hoogwijk, M.; Faaij, A.; Eickhout, B.; de Vried, B.; Turkenburg, W. Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29, (19) International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2005: Middle East and North Africa Insight; IEA: Paris, (20) International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2004; IEA: Paris, (21) European Environment Agency. How much biomass can Europe use without harming the environment?; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, (22) Ericsson, K; Nilsson, L. J. Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe using a resource-focused approach. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, (23) Swischer, J.; Wilson, D. Renewable energy potentials. Energy 1993, 18, (24) Hall, D.; Rosilo-Calle, F.; Woods, J. Biomass for Energy: Supply Prospects. In Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity; Johansson, T. B.; Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., Williams, R., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, D.C., 1993; pp (25) Dessus, B.; Devin, B.; Pharabod, F. World potential of renewable energies: actually accessible in the nineties and environmental impact analysis. La Houille Blanche 1992, 1, (26) Leemans, R.; van Amstel, A.; Battjes, C.; Kreileman, E.; Toet, S. The land cover and carbon cycle consequences of large-scale utilizations of biomass as an energy source. Global Environ. Change 1996, 6, (27) Williams, R. H. Variants of a Low CO 2 -Emitting Energy System (LESS) for the World; IPCC Second Assessment Report; Working Group IIa, Energy Supply Mitigation Options: Washington, D.C., (28) Lazarus, M. L.; Greber, L.; Hall, J.; Bartels, C.; Bernow, S.; Hansen, E.; Raskin, P.; von Hippel, D. Towards a Fossil Free Energy Future: The Next Energy Transition, A Technical Analysis for Greenpeace International; Stockholm Environmental Institute, Boston Center: Boston, MA, (29) Johansson, T. B.; Kelly, H.; Reddy, A. K. N.; Williams, R. A Renewables-intensive Global Energy Scenario. In Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity; Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N., Williams, R., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, D.C., 1993; pp (30) Shell International. The Evolution of the World s Energy System ; Shell Center: London, (31) International Energy Agency. Statistics by Country/Region ; (32) Wenzel, H.; Hauschild, M.; Alting, L. Environmental Assessment of Products - 1: Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development; Chapman & Hall: London, (33) Weidema, B. P.; Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall, T. Scenarios in Life-Cycle Assessment; SETAC Press: Pensacola, FL, (34) Weidema, B. P. Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, (35) Stranddorf, H. K.; Hoffmann, L.; Schmidt, A. Påvirkningskategorier, Normalisering og Vægtning i LCA; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, (36) LCA Center Denmark. EDIP Factors; Lyngby, Denmark, 2005; (37) Horstmann, J. Elbiler i Danmark: Sammenfattende Rapport; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, ES800358D VOL. 42, NO. 21, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY