On quantifying sources of uncertainty in the carbon footprint of biofuels: crop/feedstock, LCA modelling approach, land-use change, and GHG metrics

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering (SEED), School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.

2 Department of Operations Analytics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

3 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

4 NSW Department of Primary Industries, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

Abstract

Biofuel systems may represent a promising strategy to combat climate change by replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and transportation. First-generation biofuels from sugar and starch crops for ethanol (a gasoline substitute) and from oilseed crops for biodiesel (a petroleum diesel substitute) have come under increasing levels of scrutiny due to the uncertainty associated with the estimation of climate change impacts of biofuels, such as due to indirect effects on land use. This analysis estimates the magnitude of some uncertainty sources: i) crop/feedstock, ii) life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling approach, iii) land-use change (LUC), and iv) greenhouse gas (GHG) metrics. The metrics used for characterising the different GHGs (global warming potential-GWP and global temperature change potential-GTP at different time horizons) appeared not to play a significant role in explaining the variance in the carbon footprint of biofuels, as opposed to the crop/feedstock used, the inclusion/exclusion of LUC considerations, and the LCA modelling approach (p<0.001). The estimated climate footprint of biofuels is dependent on the latter three parameters and, thus, is context-specific. It is recommended that these parameters be dealt with in a manner consistent with the goal and scope of the study. In particular, it is essential to interpret the results of the carbon footprint of biofuel systems in light of the choices made in each of these sources of uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis is recommended to overcome their influence on the result.

Graphical Abstract

On quantifying sources of uncertainty in the carbon footprint of biofuels: crop/feedstock, LCA modelling approach, land-use change, and GHG metrics

Highlights

  • Uncertainty in the carbon footprints of biofuels is large.
  • Uncertainty comes from crop used, LUC and LCA modelling, but not GHG metrics.
  • Uncertain parameters should be dealt with consistently with the goal and scope.
  • Results should be interpreted in light of the methodological choices made.
  • Sensitivity analysis is recommended.

Keywords

References

  1. Agostini, A., Giuntoli, J., Marelli, L., Amaducci, S., 2020. Flaws in the interpretation phase of bioenergy LCA fuel the debate and mislead policymakers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25(1), 17-35.
  2. Ahlgren, S., Björklund, A., Ekman, A., Karlsson, H., Berlin, J., Börjesson, P., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., Janssen, M., Strid, I., 2015. Review of methodological choices in LCA of biorefinery systems‐key issues and recommendations. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 9(5), 606-619.
  3. Bamber, N., Turner, I., Arulnathan, V., Li, Y., Zargar Ershadi, S., Smart, A., Pelletier, N., 2020. Comparing sources and analysis of uncertainty in consequential and attributional life cycle assessment: review of current practice and recommendations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25(1),168-180.
  4. Brandão, M., 2008. Some methodological issues in the life cycle assessment of food systems: reference systems, land use emissions and allocation. Aspects appl. Biol. 86, 31-40.
  5. Brandão, M., 2020. Do bioenergy, bioeconomy and circular economy systems mitigate climate change? insights from life cycle assessment. In Handbook of the Circular Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  6. Brandão, M., Clift, R., Cowie, A., Greenhalgh, S., 2014. The use of life cycle assessment in the support of robust (climate) policy making: comment on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate‐change mitigation…”. J. Ind. Ecol. 18(3), 461-463.
  7. Brandão, M., Martin, M., Cowie, A., Hamelin, L., Zamagni, A., 2017. Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: What, How, and Why?. In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies. Elsevier.
  8. Brandão, M., Kirschbaum, M.U., Cowie, A.L., Hjuler, S.V., 2019. Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: comparison of 15 impact assessment methods. GCB Bioenergy. 11(5), 727-743.
  9. Brandão, M., Azzi, E., Novaes, R.M., Cowie, A., 2021. The modelling approach determines the carbon footprint of biofuels: the role of LCA in informing decision makers in government and industry. Cleaner Environ. Syst. 2, 100027.
  10. Cherubini, F., Bird, N.D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B. and Woess-Gallasch, S., 2009. Energy-and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53(8), 434-447.
  11. Cherubini, E., Franco, D., Zanghelini, G.M., Soares, S.R., 2018. Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23(10), 2055-2070.
  12. Cherubini, F., Fuglestvedt, J., Gasser, T., Reisinger, A., Cavalett, O., Huijbregts, M.A., Johansson, D.J., Jørgensen, S.V., Raugei, M., Schivley, G., Strømman, A.H., 2016. Bridging the gap between impact assessment methods and climate science. Environ. Sci. Policy. 64, 129-140.
  13. Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102(2), 437-451.
  14. Chum, H., Faaij, A.P.C., Moreira, J.R. and Junginger, H.M., 2011. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  15. Cucurachi, S., Blanco, C.F., Steubing, B., Heijungs, R., 2021. Implementation of uncertainty analysis and moment‐independent global sensitivity analysis for full‐scale life cycle assessment models. J. Ind. Ecol.
  16. Donke, A.C.G., Novaes, R.M.L., Pazianotto, R.A.A., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Reinhard, J., Picoli, J.F., Folegatti-Matsuura, M.I.D.S., 2020. Integrating regionalized Brazilian land use change datasets into the ecoinvent database: new data, premises and uncertainties have large effects in the results. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25(6), 1027-1042.
  17. De Rosa, M., Pizzol, M., Schmidt, J., 2018. How methodological choices affect LCA climate impact results: the case of structural timber. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23(1), 147-158.
  18. Ekvall, T., 2019. Attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Sustainability Assess. 21st IntechOpen.
  19. EU, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union. 5, 2009.
  20. EU, 2015. Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Off. J. Eur. Union. 239, 1-29.
  21. EU, 2018. Directive 2018/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Off. J. Eur. Union.
  22. Garcia, R., Figueiredo, F., Brandao, M., Hegg, M., Castanheira, É., Malça, J., Nilsson, A., Freire, F., 2020. A meta-analysis of the life cycle greenhouse gas balances of microalgae biodiesel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25(9), 1737-1748.
  23. Groen, E.A., Heijungs, R., 2017. Ignoring correlation in uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: what is the risk?. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62, 98-109.
  24. Haberl, H., Sprinz, D., Bonazountas, M., Cocco, P., Desaubies, Y., Henze, M., Hertel, O., Johnson, R.K., Kastrup, U., Laconte, P., Lange, E., 2012. Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy. 45, 18-23.
  25. Heijungs, R., 2021. Selecting the best product alternative in a sea of uncertainty. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26(3), 616-632.
  26. Igos, E., Benetto, E., Meyer, R., Baustert, P., Othoniel, B., 2019. How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies?. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24(4), 794-807.
  27. ISO ISO 14040. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Int. Organ. Standardisation.
  28. ISO ISO 14044. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines. Int. Organ. Standardisation.
  29. Johnson, E., 2009. Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29(3), 165-168.
  30. Jolliet, O., Antón, A., Boulay, A.M., Cherubini, F., Fantke, P., Levasseur, A., McKone, T.E., Michelsen, O., I Canals, L.M., Motoshita, M., Pfister, S., 2018. Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23(11), 2189-2207.
  31. Koponen, K., Soimakallio, S., Kline, K.L., Cowie, A., Brandão, M., 2018. Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy-choice of reference system. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 81(2), 2271-2280.
  32. Levasseur, A., Cavalett, O., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Gasser, T., Johansson, D.J., Jørgensen, S.V., Raugei, M., Reisinger, A., Schivley, G., Strømman, A., Tanaka, K., 2016. Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate science: review of recent findings and recommendations for application to LCA. Ecol. Indic. 71, 163-174.
  33. Lo Piano, S., Benini, L., 2022. A critical perspective on uncertainty appraisal and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol.
  34. Luo, L., van der Voet, E., Huppes, G., De Haes, H.A.U., 2009. Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(6), 529-539.
  35. Malça, J., Freire, F., 2010. Uncertainty analysis in biofuel systems: an application to the life cycle of rapeseed oil. J. Ind. Ecol. 14(2), 322-334.
  36. McManus, M.C., Taylor, C.M., Mohr, A., Whittaker, C., Scown, C.D., Borrion, A.L., Glithero, N.J., Yin, Y.,  Challenge clusters facing LCA in environmental decision-making-what we can learn from biofuels. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20(10), 1399-14.
  37. Mendoza Beltran, A., Prado, V., Font Vivanco, D., Henriksson, P.J., Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., 2018. Quantified uncertainties in comparative life cycle assessment: what can be concluded?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52(4), 2152-2161.
  38. Mendoza Beltran, A., Prado, V., Font Vivanco, D., Henriksson, P.J., Guinée, J.B. and Heijungs, R., 2018. Quantified uncertainties in comparative life cycle assessment: what can be concluded?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52(4), 2152-2161.
  39. Muñoz, I., Schmidt, J.H., Brandão, M., Weidema, B.P., 2015. Rebuttal to ‘indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA)-scientific robustness and consistency with international standards’. Gcb Bioenergy. 7(4), 565-566.
  40. Myhre, G.D., Shindell, F.M., Bréon, W., Collins, J., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, D., Koch, J., Lamarque, F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., Zhang, H., 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, in: Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  41. Obydenkova, S.V., Kouris, P.D., Smeulders, D.M., Boot, M.D., van der Meer, Y., 2021. Modeling life‐cycle inventory for multi‐product biorefinery: tracking environmental burdens and evaluation of uncertainty caused by allocation procedure. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 15(5), 1281-1300.
  42. Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M.T., 2015. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, Seventh ed. Cengage Learning.
  43. Pfister, S., Scherer, L., 2015. Uncertainty analysis of the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Energy, Sustainability Soc. 5(1), 1-12.
  44. Plevin, R.J., Delucchi, M.A., Creutzig, F., 2014. Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate‐change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J. Ind. Ecol. 18(1), 73-83.
  45. Sala, S., Amadei, A.M., Beylot, A., Ardente, F., 2021. The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1-20.
  46. Sathaye, J., Lucon, O., Rahman, A., Christensen, J., Denton, F., Fujino, J., Heath, G., Mirza, M., Rudnick, H., Schlaepfer, A., Shmakin, A., 2011. Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development.
  47. Schaubroeck, T., Schaubroeck, S., Heijungs, R., Zamagni, A., Brandão, M., Benetto, E., 2021. Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: definitions, conceptual characteristics and modelling restrictions. Sustainability. 13(13), 7386.
  48. Schmidt, J.H., Weidema, B.P., Brandão, M., 2015. A framework for modelling indirect land use changes in life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 230-238.
  49. Schmidt, J., De Rosa, M., 2020. Certified palm oil reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to non-certified. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 124045.
  50. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T.H., 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science. 319(5867), 1238-1240.
  51. Song, X.P., Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P., Adusei, B., Pickering, J., Adami, M., Lima, A., Zalles, V., Stehman, S.V., Di Bella, C.M., Conde, M.C., 2021. Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 and implications for conservation. Nat. Sustainability. 4(9), 784-792.
  52. Sonnemann, G., Vigon, B., 2011. Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment database-“Shonan Guidance Principles”. SCP documents. UNEP-SETAC, Geneva. 158.
  53. Suh, S., Yang, Y., 2014. On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19(6), 1179-1184.
  54. Tribus, M., El-Sayed, Y., 1982. Introduction to thermoeconomics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Compendium, MIT.
  55. Valin, H., Peters, D., Van den Berg, M., Frank, S., Havlik, P., Forsell, N., Hamelinck, C., Pirker, J., Mosnier, A., Balkovic, J., Schmidt, E., 2015. The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU: Quantification of area and greenhouse gas impacts.
  56. Weidema, B.P., 2003. Market information in life cycle assessment. Miljøstyrelsen. 863, 365.
  57. Weidema, B.P., 2009. Avoiding or ignoring uncertainty. J. Ind. Ecol. 13(3), 354-356.
  58. Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Brandão, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., Patel, M.K., 2012. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J. Ind. Ecol. 16(s1), S169-S181.
  59. Wiloso, E.I., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Fang, K., 2016. Effect of biogenic carbon inventory on the life cycle assessment of bioenergy: challenges to the neutrality assumption. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 78-85.
  60. Wiloso, E.I., Heijungs, R., De Snoo, G.R., 2012. LCA of second generation bioethanol: a review and some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16(7), 5295-5308.
  61. Woltjer, G., Daioglou, V., Elbersen, B., Ibañez, G.B., Smeets, E.M.W., González, D.S., Barnó, J.G., 2017. Study report on reporting requirements on biofuels and bioliquids stemming from the directive (EU) 2015/1513. European Commission.
  62. Wood, S.W., Cowie, A., 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. IEA Bioenergy Task 38.
  63. Zanchi, G., Pena, N., Bird, N., 2012. Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? a comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. Gcb Bioenergy. 4(6), 761-772.

Files

Cited by

Share

How to cite

Statistics