- Email: [email protected]
Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective
T
M. Collottaa, P. Champagnec,∗, G. Tomasonia, M. Albertia, L. Busia, W. Mabeeb a
DIMI, Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy Queen's University, Department of Geography and Planning, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, 68 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada c Queens University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ellis Hall, 58 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada b
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Bioenergy Biofuels Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) Roundtable on sustainable biomaterials (RSB) Sustainability
The reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change poses challenges across multiple sectors. Biofuels have been touted as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels, but policy guiding this sector must ensure that biomass is obtained in a sustainably. In this context, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) tools have been identified as a means to conduct comprehensive impact evaluations of the biofuel sector. The objective of this work is to highlight key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being assessed using LCSA, and to relate these back to the framework of Principles and Criteria (P&C) developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) to assess the ability of LCSA approaches to effectively inform all Principles within the RSB. 60 LCSA studies, published since 2007, were selected to include a range of biofuel production scenarios, including various technologies and geographic settings. System boundaries and functional units used in these studies were evaluated and compared. The ability of each study to provide quantitative indicators related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability was tabulated. It was found that some RSB Principles can be effectively evaluated using an LCSA approach, including Principle 3 (greenhouse gas emissions) and Principle 10 (air quality). Most other Principles within the RSB P&C framework, however, are only partially addressed, and Principle 11 (technology, inputs, and management of waste) is not informed in any way by existing LCSA. The results suggest that existing LCSA studies, while expanding to consider more economic and social sustainability considerations, are unlikely to cover all aspects of biofuel production systems and are not sufficient to completely inform the full range of RSB Criteria. In the future, LCSA should be further extended to help address critical aspects of sustainability, while the RSB framework should be strengthened to employ a life cycle approach across all Principles.
1. Introduction Human activities, including the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use, have had significant impacts on the global carbon cycle [1]. The problem posed by fossil fuel use is increasing; it has been estimated that global oil consumption grew by approximately 1% per annum between 2004 and 2018, reaching a global oil demand of 99.2 million barrels per day in 2018 [2,3]. At the same time, national targets found across the European Union (EU) [4], as well as in Canada [5], promote a shift towards a less carbon intensive economy. Language to this effect can also be found within the 2015 Paris Agreement [6], which has been signed by 197 countries and ratified by 185 countries (as of June 2019). One means to counter the expanding use of fossil fuels is greater uptake of renewable alternatives, including solid and liquid biofuels, which could potentially reduce the environmental footprint of the ∗
energy sector. Robust tools that can assess the impacts of energy consumption are required to ensure that biofuel options provide real environmental benefits compared to fossil energy use [7–9]. Because the production and use of biofuels presents an opportunity for job creation and rural development [10,11], it is important that social benefits also be assessed. Finally, the development of biofuel feedstocks and increase in biofuel use will have economic ramifications, including costs to consumers and impacts on trade, which need to be understood [12,13]. The need for robust assessment tools is increasing because biofuel use is growing rapidly. At global level, the use of established transportation biofuels (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel) rose by 4% to reach 83 Mtoe (143 billion litres) in 2017, with an average prospective of growth of 2.5% every year [14]. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) of the EU promotes the production of energy from renewable sources, calling for the equivalent of 252 TWh (approximately 26.6 billion litres) of biodiesel by 2020 [4,15]. In
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Champagne), [email protected] (W. Mabee).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358 Received 1 October 2018; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019 1364-0321/ Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
the USA, the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS II) targets the use of over 136 billion litres of various biofuels by 2022. Both the EU and the USA have broadened their focus beyond established or conventional biofuels to incorporate advanced or drop-in biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and renewable diesel; the introduction of new, biomass-based fuels has raised new concerns over sustainability [16]. These concerns are likely to grow; the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that a mixture of established and advanced biofuels will provide up to 27% of the world's transportation fuel by 2050 [17]. Debate over the sustainability of biofuels is complicated by the intertwined nature of environmental, economic, and social sustainability measures, and hindered by a lack of holistic tools capable of estimating the overall impact of renewable fuels [18]. For decision-makers to better understand sustainability issues, it is clear that quantitative environmental, economic and social assessments are necessary [19]. The predominant tool used to assess sustainability of biofuel systems is life cycle assessment (LCA). As initially applied, the LCA methodology was somewhat limited in that it focused on environmental impacts of the systems, with less capacity to measure economic and/or social aspects of sustainability (e.g. Refs. [10,19]). Environmental, economic and social measures are strongly interlinked, however, and their interactions affect all aspects of the emerging biofuel sector, from land use policies through to agricultural markets [11,20]. In recognition of this fact, a suite of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) tools now exist that are better able to evaluate the overall sustainability of a biofuel production system, including environmental (LCA), economic (life cycle costing or LCC), and social impacts (social life cycle assessment or S-LCA) [21,22]. While LCSA models now incorporate wide aspects of sustainability, they remain time- and data-intensive tools, and are not ideal as policy instruments. An option often adopted in regulatory policy is that of certification schemes, which use indicator frameworks to carry out a simplified (but holistic) review of environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with given products. One such system is the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), which is made up of principles and criteria designed to ensure that bio-based products are being produced in a manner that is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable [23]. The RSB framework is one among many frameworks that have been proposed to evaluate sustainability of bioproducts and biofuels. A recent review of five leading frameworks suggested that the RSB was the most comprehensive choice available, particularly praising the incorporation of social sustainability principles within the RSB [24]. One of the successes of the RSB has been its ability to overcome detractors and controversy by essentially inventing new sustainability measures; to be effective, these measures must be supported with comprehensive data [25]. This paper evaluates the ability of existing LCSA studies to provide high-quality data that can inform each of the principles of the RSB, as applied to biofuel production. The only similar study in the literature was recently published by Van Schoubroeck et al. (2018); they considered data availability to support sustainable biochemical production and reported that many existing sets of indicators lack a holistic view on sustainability, are incomplete, or lack focus [26]. A goal of the present paper is the application of the RSB principles framework in order to highlight gaps in the ability of current LCSA data to inform sustainability analyses of biofuels, and to inform the design of future LCSA studies. A large set of recent and relevant LCSA studies on biofuels is reviewed and their ability to assess environmental, economic, and social impacts of biofuel is explored. The current range of indicators measured in existing LCSA studies are then reviewed to understand their ability to inform specific criteria within the RSB framework.
established (ethanol, biodiesel); others include more recent market entrants (hydrotreatment of animal or vegetable oils to produce renewable diesel), or emerging fuels (synthesis of syngas to produce dimethyl ether). Fig. 1 illustrates a simplified overview of these production pathways, identifying feedstocks, process elements (‘A’ and ‘B’), and intermediate (or ‘raw’) biofuels as well as ‘finished’ or consumerready fuels. Different biofuel products may be gaseous or liquid in form, and are derived through different production processes for a variety of end uses. For example, biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of biomass is used primarily for the production of electricity and heat; liquid biofuels such as ethanol are typically generated through a biological conversion process and used in the transport sector. The efficiency of transformation from biomass to a liquid or gaseous fuel is influenced by biomass yield, costs and scale of supply, and efficiency of production [27]. According to the US Department of Agriculture, global biofuel production is projected to grow in coming years, although at a slower pace than over the last half decade [28]. European biofuels for transportation are likely to reach 8.7% of consumption by 2020, just below the 10% target set by the EU Transportation Commission [29]. The International Energy Agency suggests that global consumption of biofuels for road transport will likely range between 5% and 18% by 2040, reaching proportions as high as 31% in the EU and 29% in the United States [30,31]. In the face of increasing biofuel use, it is important that safeguards are put in place to ensure that biomass is grown and harvested in a sustainable fashion, and that the impact of biofuel production systems – which are highly variable, as highlighted by Fig. 1 – deliver net benefits when compared to fossil fuel production systems. This is particularly true for environmental benefits (e.g. reduction of greenhouse gas emissions), as this is one of the primary drivers for increased biofuels use. It is also increasingly important that biofuels deliver positive economic outcomes (e.g. relatively low-cost fuels, reasonable returns on investment) and social performance (e.g. jobs, community benefits), as these metrics are critical to the success of these ventures. This analysis focuses on recent LCSA studies related to established transportation biofuels including bioethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybean and rapeseed, which are currently the most adopted source of renewable energy in the transportation sector [27,32,33]. 2.2. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials While LCSA is an effective scientific tool for measuring the impacts related to biofuel systems, it is complicated and time consuming. Decision-makers and regulatory bodies may find it more feasible to regulate sustainability by using simpler tools, such as a framework of principles, criteria and/or indicators. One such system, specifically designed for advanced bio-based products, has been developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). The RSB is an independent and global multi stakeholder coalition with the goal of promoting the sustainability of biomaterials. The Principles & Criteria (P&C) for Sustainable Biofuels Production published by the RSB defines different environmental, economic and social criteria in order to assess the sustainability of global biofuel production. Moreover, all of these principles and criteria are in agreement with the sustainability requirements laid in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). The principles presented in the RSB system cover a range of environmental, social, and economic criteria. Since these are meant to be guidelines for assessing overall biofuel sustainability, the demarcation between environmental, social and economic considerations within an individual criterion is not always clear. For environmental impacts, the criteria used are greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); soil, water, air and ecosystem preservation; land use; and, the impact of the use of technology on the environment and people. Criteria describing the social impact of biofuels focus on the legality; planning; monitoring and continuous improvement; human and labor rights; rural and social
2. Methods 2.1. Biofuels There are several classes of biofuels, each of which may be produced following different production processes. Some biofuels are well2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 1. Pathways linking biomass to intermediate and finished liquid (L) and gaseous (G) biofuel outputs.
development; local food security; and, land rights. Finally, economic criteria include planning; monitoring; continuous improvement factors; and, the implementation of a business plan. All of these points reflect a commitment to long-term economic viability within an environmentally- and socially-beneficial system. The principals and criteria framework that has been introduced by the RSB specifies the requirements necessary to certify sustainable operations along the entire supply chain of biofuel production. For example, guidelines on best practices are provided in the production and harvest of feedstock, and for the production, use and transport of biofuel. The P&C framework developed by the RSB shows a clear relationship to other tools designed to ensure sustainability. A series of criteria and indicator (C&I) frameworks developed in the 1990s by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) are used to promote sustainable forest management (SFM), which seeks to enable positive environmental, economic and social performance for managed forest ecosystems [34]. Different regional C&I processes have been developed for different parts of the world, each having unique forest ecosystems. As an example, the Montreal Process defines SFM for North America and has been discussed and developed over the last 20 years. Under the Montreal Process, a regional, scientific set of indicators has been developed that can be used to evaluate the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forestlands [35]. While the RSB framework was developed to operate independently of these tools, at least one author has explored the potential of linking RSB with existing tools to further promote sustainability of bioenergy production [36]. It is worthwhile noting that a number of international certification and labeling systems have been developed that follow the UNCED C&I tools. For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies forests globally using their own modified C&I framework, providing a third-party assessment of forest sustainability [37].
2.3. Selecting LCSA studies The question of biofuel sustainability is a complicated one, and involves a variety of factors which have not been considered in previous criteria and indicator systems. For example, biofuels often rely on crops which can displace existing forest lands, which brings into question issues of indirect land use change; a number of the studies we consider look at indirect land use change, often with different conclusions as to the severity of the issue. Similarly, the technological complexity of the processes applied in converting biomass into various fuels means that the production of a single product (such as ethanol) can include a number of co-products; how those co-products are used may have a wide range of actual environmental, economic, and/or social impacts, which need to be captured. This is part of the justification for the use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) in trying to assess the overall impacts of biofuel systems. This study presents an analysis on a large set of LCSA papers for the production of both liquid and solid biofuel coming from different biomass feedstocks. The main objectives of the analysis are to highlight the key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being explored through LCSA, and to relate these indicators back to the P&C framework developed by the RSB in order to assess whether existing LCSA studies can inform the RSB process effectively. Each of the LCSA studies explored in this paper are listed in Table 1. Keywords used in identifying LCSAs include ‘life cycle sustainability assessment’, ‘LCSA’, ‘biofuels’, ‘ethanol’, ‘biodiesel’, ‘bioenergy’, ‘life cycle assessment’, ‘LCA’, ‘life cycle costing’, ‘LCC’, ‘social life cycle assessment’, ‘S-LCA’, and ‘sustainability’. The initial list of studies was then restricted to those published after 2005, and further reduced to reflect the most complete studies covering a range of biofuel production scenarios, technologies and geographic settings. In all, 60 studies were selected for detailed analysis. In terms of technologies, the selected 3
Year of study
2016 2009 2015 2005 2005 2006
2013 2007 2007
2007
2008 2008 2009 2008 2015 2009 2009 2014 2010 2010
2010 2010
2012
2007 2010 2011 2009 2010 2010 2009 2011 2012
2011
2008 2011 2011 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012
2012 2013
#
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22
23
4
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44
Combustion of bioethanol Combusting 1 MJ algae
1 ha land, GJ grain output 1 ha of SRC willow 1 ha of willow plantation 1 ha of ag. land use Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven 10 GWh of heat from biomass 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass 1 ha corn stover production
Combustion of biomass
1 ha of land for one year 5000 tons/day biorefinery Production of annual crops Production of bioethanol Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char 1 year supply heat, electricity Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol
1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV
Energy yield per hectare and year 1 tonne of bioethanol
CO2 per MWh electricity 1 kg of dry biomass MJ of Bioethanol GJ energy crops and hectare 1 MJ of fuel 1 km driving amt biomass treated per year 1 MJ butanol produced MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, 1 km traveled by a FFV
1 kg monosaccharide
n/s 1 kg Bioethanol 1 kg of crop produced
1 GJ Biodiesel SOM, soil nutrient balance 1 km distance (FFV) 1 l bioethanol 1 l bioethanol, 1 l biodiesel 1 ha per year
Functional Unit
Table 1 Main characteristics of the LCSA studies analized.
China EU
EU EU EU EU USA USA EU EU USA
EU
EU USA EU Canada USA USA EU Canada USA
EU
EU EU
USA/Canada USA USA EU India n/s n/s USA World USA
Australia
EU USA Canada
Argentina Argentina Turkey Canada USA EU
Country of Study
n/s, IPCC n/s, ReCiPe (E)
Simapro v7.3 & Aspen-Plus, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, CML Baseline 2001 GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 GHGenius 3.19 GREET, Aspen-Plus GREET, DAYCENT n/s, ICBM GHGenius 3.19 SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, GREET, TRACI n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, Input/Output SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 GREET GREET SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 n/s, CML Baseline2000 n/s, IPCC
GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 GaBi 4, EDIP 2003
GHGenius, GREET GREET, DAYCENT GREET, BESS Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Chain Mgmt, LCA Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000 GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 n/s, ISO 14040 SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET
n/s, n/s n/s, DAYCENT GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 Baseline n/s, Eco-indicator 95
Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H) Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 Gabi 4, EDPI GHGenius n/s, DAYCENT n/s, n/s
LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.1 Ecoinvent v2.0 USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, GaBi Different reports, papers Ecoinvent v2.0
n/s
Ecoinvent 1.2 n/s Ecoinvent v1.1 IPCC inventory n/s GREET and IPCC inventory n/s IPCC inventory Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI
Australian LCI, Ecoinvent 2.0 NREL report EFMA USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.3 IPCC inventory GREET CONCAWE Ecoinvent .2.0 US LCI, AP 42 PE International GmbH GaBi Database, DEFRA report EMEP/EEA, NREL report
Ecoinvent 3.1,PestLCI n/s Ecoinvent 2.0 IPCC inventory NREL report IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, DEFRA n/s DEAM and other sources GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0
LCA database utilized
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Included primary data
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Presented sensitivity analysis
(continued on next page)
Yang & Chen 2013 [75] Collet et al., 2014 [76]
Goglio et al., 2012 [66] González-García et al., 2012 [67] González-García et al., 2012 [68] Tonini et al., 2012 [69] Wang et al., 2012 [70] Yang et al., 2012 [71] Godard et al., 2013 [72] González-García et al., 2013 [73] Murphy and Kendall 2013 [74]
Buonocore et al., 2012 [65]
Brandão et al., 2011 [56] Eranki and Dale 2011 [57] Fazio and Monti 2011 [58] Hussain et al., 2010 [59] Kaliyan et al., 2011 [60] Kauffman et al., 2011 [61] Kimming et al., 2011 [62] Whitman et al., 2011 [63] Budsberg et al., 2012 [64]
Wang et al., 2012 [55]
Schumacher et al., 2010 [54] Stephenson et al., 2010 [13]
Searcy et al., 2008 [45] Kim et al., 2009 [46] Liska et al., 2009 [47] Monti et al., 2009 [48] Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 [49] Bai et al., 2010 [33] Cherubini et al., 2010 [50] Väisänen et al., 2016 [51] Hoefnagels et al., 2010 [52] Hsu et al., 2010 [53]
Reneuf et al., 2008 [44]
Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 [3] Kim et al., 2008 [32] Pelletier et al., 2008 [43]
Fernandez et al., 2016 [38] Van Dam et al., 2009 [39] Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 [40] Spatari et al., 2005 [41] Adler et al., 2007 [27] Styles and Jones 2007 [42]
Reference
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Levasseur et al., 2017 [92]
Prapaspongsa et al., 2017 [91]
Rocha et al., 2014 [77] Yang et al., 2015 [78] Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin 2011 [79] Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 [80] Lechon et al., 2011 [81] Lindorfer et al., 2014 [82] Collotta et al., 2016 [83] Collotta et al., 2017 [84] Collotta et al., 2017 [85] Collotta et al., 2018 [86] de Azevedo et al., 2017 [87] Ekener et al., 2018 [88] Brito and Martins 2017 [89] Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 [90]
✓ ✓
As expected when reviewing LCSA studies, no two analyses examined here are exactly alike, although many covered similar fuels or were conducted in the same geographic region. Table 1 describes a list of studies, spread over a wide geographic and temporal span, that are informed by a wide range of tools and a number of different life cycle inventories. The range of options available to a proponent who seeks to achieve RSB certification is significant and presents a challenge that will be explored below. Another challenge is related to the number of different functional units were used, as shown in Fig. 2; the most common functional units were units of fuel (or energy) produced or units of feedstock provided to the system, although some studies were based on the units of fuel combusted. A number of studies used geographic units (km traveled or route selected). The range of functional units selected reflects emphasis of individual studies; the choice of functional unit heavily influences system boundaries, as discussed further below. The indicators used by individual LCSA studies are highly variable, and the ability of these studies to provide critical information pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability is assessed and discussed. Based on the 60 studies selected, an initial assessment of the ability of LCSA to inform the RSB framework is discussed, and the practical implications of the study – including policy recommendations – are summarized in the final section below. 3.1. Current challenges in biofuel sustainability associated with the RSB LCSA can provide scientifically-rigorous data describing the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of a specific biofuel production system, but the overview of the 60 LCSA studies provided in Table 1 highlights challenges involved in employing this methodology. As a scientific method, LCSA is malleable and can (and should) be adapted to each unique circumstance, and ISO standards make it very clear that life cycle assessments are not designed for comparison [93]. From a policy perspective, this creates a massive challenge: even a ‘standardized’ approach to life cycle analysis provides great latitude for interpretation of project- or site-specific data. While the RSB represents a simplified approach to assessing the sustainability of a biofuel system, it relies on the application of life cycle science to inform the P&C framework. This is overt in some components of the RSB standard; for example, the standard clearly states that individual proponents must use a lifecycle approach to calculate greenhouse gas emissions related to their project, as per Principle 3 [94,95]; the RSB has developed a detailed GHG calculation methodology (currently on version 2.3) which provides very clear guidance on aspects of the analysis, including system boundaries and functional units [96]. The RSB has developed their own tool to facilitate calculation of GHG impacts, and specifies use of data from databases including EcoInvent, the IPCC, and the USDA in various places throughout. The RSB tool, like other LCSA tools and GHG calculators, supports sensitivity analyses, although the RSB Standard does not specify the use of sensitivity
2017 60
n/s – included but not specified.
2017 59
Production of 1 kg butanol
CA
Ecoinvent v.3.1
✓ ✓ Thailand
Ecoinvent v2.2
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Delphi survey IPCC inventory n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 Ecoinvent v.3 Ecoinvent v.3 2014 2008 2013 2016 2017 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2017 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
Production of Bioethanol Production of Bioethanol 1 MJ of Bioethanol Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris Production of 1 kg of lipids Production of 1 kg of lipids Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure n/s Production 1 kg of n-butanol 1 MJ of energy released in the combustion of bioethanol Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel
World EU EU EU EU EU EU Brazil EU EU EU
Delphi method n/s BioGrace Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML n/s, IMPACT 2002+ SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint (H) SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008 method SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact 2002 + method
✓
✓ Ecoinvent v2.0 n/s n/s SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000 Input/Output model Input/Output model 2013 2014 2010 45 46 47
1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel Biodiesel from microalgae Production of Bioethanol
Brazil China Canada
LCA database utilized Country of Study Functional Unit Year of study #
Table 1 (continued)
studies most often considered ethanol or biodiesel products, although some chose unique functional units as their basis of analysis (for example, kg of monosaccharides). In terms of geographic range, the USA and EU are most commonly used as study regions, although other countries such as Canada or parts of Asia and South America are also represented. Some studies presented new primary data, while others were based on secondary sources; some include sensitivity analyses which speak to the variability within the studies, while others do not. Some of the studies focused exclusively on environmental (LCA), economic (LCC), or social assessments (S-LCA), while others presented more comprehensive LCSA. The tools and inventories utilized to carry out the studies are also detailed in Table 1, as are the functional units used to present the analysis. Fig. 2 shows a subdivision of the studies based on the type of functional unit adopted. 3. Results and discussion
LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
Included primary data
Presented sensitivity analysis
Reference
M. Collotta, et al.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 2. Type of functional unit adopted in the studies analyzed. Bars of the same color indicate similar types of functional unit. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
analyses to understand the potential range of performance associated with different biofuel pathways [95]. The application of LCSA is implicit in other Principles included within the RSB framework. For example, Principles 8 (Soil), 9 (Water), and 10 (Air) speak to maintaining key environmental services [94] that are best measured using a life cycle approach. Similarly, Principle 2 incorporates monitoring and planning, while Principle 11 incorporates waste management, both of which are important aspects of product life cycle. Principle 6 examines food security and Principle 7 deals with conservation and biodiversity – essentially impacts associated with new product development which again can be captured using a life cycle approach. To give one example of why life cycle is important within these P&C: Criterion 9c states that ‘water used for the operations shall not be withdrawn beyond replenishment capacity … ’ [94]. To be able to address this criteria, a biofuel producer would need to know exactly how much water is being used throughout their process, including the stages of biomass production as well as industrial processing, and this in turn would require a life cycle approach. Water removals could impact food production and biodiversity, depending on where and to what extent water is being taken. Process wastewater needs to be managed and returned to the ecosystem, and all aspects of water use need to be monitored. The life cycle approach would allow for this to happen, supporting multiple Principles within the RSB standard and ensuring that data was collected and managed in a rigorous fashion. To date, however, the RSB has not provided detailed procedures to meet these P &C; clear instructions for setting system boundaries are not in place and functional units are not defined. The challenge around each of these Principles becomes how, exactly, data is being collected, assessed, and interpreted to support specific criteria. The RSB has other Principles which on the surface appear to be less suited to an LCSA approach. For example, Principle 1 (legality), Principle 4 (human and labour rights), Principle 5 (rural and social development), and Principle 12 (land rights) all are deeply rooted in issues of law and/or economics. Many of the individual Criteria under these Principles are met through the development of new training, education, or employment programs. In some cases the RSB has provided guidance on how these P&C can be informed; for example, Criterion 5b deals with regions of poverty, which in turn are defined by the United Nations Human Development Indicators at the national level [94]. The challenge associated with these Principles arises from the rather complicated supply chains that define many biofuel supply chains.
Often the production of biofuels is not a localized operation; a number of different countries may be involved at different points in the supply chain. While Criterion 5b specifies development of new employment programs in regions of poverty (as defined by the UN) [94], a detailed supply chain is required to ensure that all of these regions are identified – including the producers of all inputs, including feedstocks, process chemicals and water, as well as regions that accept outputs of the process, such as pollution, that might have negative impacts. Without detailed supply chains, these areas might not be identified or acknowledged in the RSB certification process. Similarly, Criterion 1 focuses on complying with all applicable laws of the country in which the operation occurs; a challenge arises when different nations are involved in the supply chain, which again might not be captured in the RSB without a detailed analysis of both inputs and outputs. Applying an LCSA approach could help to strengthen the development of data to support these P&C. 3.2. System boundaries and existing LCSAs An LCSA approach may help to better define data inputs to the RSB framework, but only if system boundaries are defined in a rigorous fashion. As discussed in the previous section, the RSB does provide very clear guidance on system boundaries with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. For other Principles, however, the RSB is relatively quiet, with only occasional guidance recommending a national rating (as with Criteria 1 & 5b) [94]. If an LCSA approach is to be used to better inform the RSB, it is very important that this approach cover the full range of biofuel production. The review of 60 studies made it clear that existing LCSAs rarely adhere to a ‘holistic’ set of system boundaries that incorporate all aspects of biofuel production. Table 2 describes nine unique production phases: cultivation and cultivation input production, land use, transportation, biomass pre-processing, biofuel production, storage, byproduct management, and biofuel use, while Fig. 3 shows the number of studies that examined each production phase. Interestingly, of the 60 studies reviewed, only one [52] covered all nine of these production phases, while five studies covered eight of the nine production phases. This analysis suggests that the current practice with respect to LCSAs has trended towards more focused analyses of specific aspects of biofuel systems, addressing critical areas of concern rather than attempting to understand the overall impacts of these systems. The data also highlights the fact that LCSA has been successfully 6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 2 Production phases identified in 60 LCSA studies. LCA #
Cultivation Input Production
Cultivation
Land use
Inter-operational Transportation
Biomass preprocessing
Biofuel production
Interoperational Storage
Bio-waste and coproduct management
Biofuel usage - use of the final product
Total number of production phases considered
19 4 16 17 35 41 1 3 14 15 18 21 22 32 38 8 24 30 33 36 43 44 45 54 58 59 10 11 20 23 25 27 28 29 31 34 37 39 40 50 52 53 55 56 57 60 2 5 6 42 51 13 26 49 9 12 7 46 47 48
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 51
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 55
✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 29
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 43
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 39
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 40
✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 66
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 21
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 26
9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
applied to all nine of the production phases effectively, with multiple studies existing that could inform approaches to analyzing each part of the biofuel system. In the 60 studies selected cultivation was the most widely studied component, showing up in 55 LCSA publications. The phases most often omitted in LCSA studies included storage and coproduct management. Perhaps worryingly, two of the most contentious components of the system – land use and biofuel use – were omitted in
more than half of the studies considered. Fig. 3 illustrates the number of studies that were found to correspond to each component in the biofuel production system. The system boundary discussion is important because it highlights the limited ability of existing LCSA studies to adequately report on the overall impact of biofuel production. While the RSB Standard does a good job of defining system boundaries for greenhouse gas emissions, 7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 3. Percentage of LCSA studies to incorporate individual production phases. Bars of the same color indicate closely linked or co-located phases of production. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
the Standard is much less clear on the boundaries that need to be applied for other Principles. It may be assumed that some of the data used to inform the Criteria under these Principles will be sourced from existing LCSA studies; if so, there is a strong chance that important elements of the biofuel supply chain are not being reflected in current RSB certification practices.
eutrophication have been presented as two of the most important impact categories in several LCA studies [32,33,40,44,48,50,55,65,66]; a primary source for these two categories is nitrogen losses from soil (NOx and NO3-). Soil organic carbon (SOC) is another important environmental factor that usually reduces the impact in the soil when the crop/ cultivation is removed. The review suggests that significant environmental impacts are not well covered in the literature, including water use and respiratory effects. Water use in particular is an important aspect of RSB certification, and the relative paucity of data available in the literature to inform this Criteria suggests that additional work is needed in this space. Certainly a review of those studies that did include water use suggests that the data requirements are challenging, and that a collective effort to increase data availability would be welcome.
3.3. Key impacts considered in existing LCSAs The indicators that are used within LCSA studies can vary significantly, depending upon the scope of the LCSA, the system boundaries and functional unit that are selected, and the data that is available. In the 60 LCSAs that are reviewed in this paper, a wide variety of environmental, economic, and social indicators were employed to examine key areas of impact as shown in Table 3. The table highlights the strong emphasis that studies to date have placed on certain environmental impacts, but also identifies certain economic and social impacts that are not yet well documented in the literature.
3.3.2. Economic impacts Seven studies were identified that do address economic impacts, and these are listed in Table 3. The consideration of the economic impact of biofuels is an element of fundamental importance. Companies and consumers make their choices largely based on cost effectiveness or competitiveness with fossil energy; as a result, the diffusion of biofuels in the market is highly dependent on their cost. Furthermore, improved economic performance of biofuels essentially reduces the need for fiscal incentive policies and encourages the entry of new participants into the biofuel market. Compared to environmental impacts, economic indicators are rarely included in LCSA, and more detailed life cycle costing studies are rarely assessed in concert with other environmental factors. In the literature, a few papers present a complete techno-economic analysis conducted across the life cycle of different production processes [13,19,32,39,40,45,78,79]. Common economic impacts that were included are economic indices, value of co-products, capital expenditures, and operating costs [32,39,99]. Two approaches are commonly taken to modeling economic life cycle impacts; most studies consider the economic feasibility of bioethanol production at the project level (i.e. a combination of capital and operating costs), while others work at a regional scale, utilizing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other macroeconomic indicators [13,32,40,78,79]. Critical indicators identified in these studies include transportation costs, food prices, and land prices, all of which have a significant influence on overall economic sustainability [19,39]. This is particularly important when one considers the relationship between these indicators and other
3.3.1. Environmental impacts Environmental impacts are well described within the LCSAs, as shown in Table 3. There are several factors that strongly influence the cultivation of biomass. The most important of these include the nature and quantity of the commodities displaced by co-products (i.e. surplus energy for combustion), yield of monosaccharide per hectare of agricultural production, soil proprieties, climate conditions and finally crop and nitrogen management [44]. A number of studies underline the relationship between the use of nitrogen in the biomass cultivation and corresponding environmental impacts [32,44,46,63,77,97,98]. Another important consideration is the production and consumption of agrochemicals (fertilizers) and fuels used in field cultivation [27,32,39,40,46,59,61]. It is also important to consider GHG fluxes associated with biomass cultivation, including soil CO2 and methane (CH4) fluxes; finally, agricultural equipment operation has significant impacts [27]. The impacts of biomass production on soil chemistry, including carbon sequestration and N2O emissions, are critical factors in determining environmental footprint. A possible reduction in the emission of nitrogen from soil is usually related to precision farming technologies, and planting of winter cover crops. The dominant source that directly influences the environmental impact is N2O, which is mainly associated with nitrogen fertilizers [32]. Acidification and 8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 3 Environmental, economic and social impacts considered in 60 LCSA studies. LCSA impacts considered
Effects
Studies #s
Abiotic depletion
Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Acidification
Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential
Ecotoxicity Energy use Eutrophication Global warning potential
Hazard-weighted concentration Energy depletion potential Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine eutrophication potential Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential
Human toxicity
Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential
Ionizing radiation Land Use
Ionising radiation potential Agricultural and urban land occupation potential
Marine toxicity Ozone depletion
Marine ecotoxicity potential Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Particulate matter formation Photochemical oxidation
PM10 Concentration Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Respiratory effects Water use Other environmental impact Production cost Economic impact multiplier CNY/CNY Economic index = value added/ operating cost GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Industrial output impact Social well-being
Inorganics substances Amount of water and water depletion potential Different effects Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size Economy growth Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating costs, land prices, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production
17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f, 42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49, 18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
Employment impact multiplier people/ 10000 CNY Probability, Reversibility and Monitorability of every social impact
Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and development opportunities to rural communities, human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of the company, corruption and legal system, Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related), Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
39, 35, 10, 2, 32, 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh 3, 11, 56 46 2, 8, 22 47, 56 1, 2, 7, 56
46, 47 48
Notes: a fossil fuel consumption; b freshwater and terrestrial; c soil organic carbon; d terrestrial and aquatic; e volatile organic compounds; f non-renewable energy consumption; g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial; h respiratory inorganic effects; j net energy yield; l net carbon emission reduction; m cancer, non-cancer, respiratory.
environmental impacts associated with biomass production, and the net impact of the entire biomass supply chain. The review highlights the relative lack of attention paid to economic impacts within LCSA, and the range of options available to practitioners who do wish to incorporate some economic factors. Within the LCSA studies considered, economic impacts tended to be restricted to a single impact category, rather than representing different types of impacts within the same study. In part, this reflects the relative novelty of incorporating economic factors into LCSA work; at the same time, it may reflect upon the challenges with incorporating this type of analysis into a methodology that until recently has focused on environmental factors.
potentially impact the price and supply of food, as well as labor force conditions, especially in developing countries [19]. At the current time, a major challenge with social impacts is that they are difficult to measure in a quantitative or empirical fashion, particularly at a project scale rather than a regional or national level. Socio-economic impacts of biofuel production and usage are taken into account in a number of LCSA studies. In Table 3, seven studies that take an S-LCA approach are presented [3,38,39,78–80,100]. Critical social factors identified within these studies include the need to ensure that benefits associated with biofuel projects accrue at a local level [39], the importance of assessing the impacts of biofuel production on land, food and feed prices, and the anticipated changes in land ownership, and vegetation and crop patterns. The most socially divisive issue related to biofuels has been the potential impacts of increased biofuel feedstock production on food systems, and the need to ensure that biomass production for energy does not endanger food supply [39]. Modern LCSAs, such as those carried out by Ekener-Pedersen et al., in 2014 and 2016 [3,100], now incorporate issues such as human rights, labor situations, health and safety, community and governance impact categories. The main indicators related to social impact categories tend to be gender equity, health-related diseases, forced labour, minimum wages, injuries, large land holdings and corruption. Understanding social sustainability through the LCSA lens may be
3.3.3. Social impacts It has been previously noted that policy plays an important role in developing sustainability criteria, particularly in the USA and EU context. Social sustainability has become a greater concern to policymakers in recent years, and the need to achieve ‘social license’ is now a real issue associated with new biofuel projects. With this in mind, it is important to note that neither the US nor the EU have mandated social sustainability criteria for renewable fuels, even if there is considerable global attention to developing indicators and methodologies capable of evaluating social impacts; in contrast, the RFS does include a number of social measures, as discussed in the next section. Biofuel production can 9
10
Use of Technology, Inputs and Management of Waste
Land Rights
11
12
Conservation
7
Air
Local Food Security
6
10
Rural and social development
5
Water
Human and Labor Rights
4
9
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3
Soil
Legality Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
1 2
8
RSB criteria
n
Production efficiency Social and environmental long-term performance Damages risk for people and environment Good practices implementation Residues, waste and byproduct Existing land right and land use rights
Biodiversity, ecosystem and conservation impact Habitats fragmentation Invasive species monitoring Soil chemical and biological conditions Soil degradation Soil health maintenance Respect of existing water rights Water management plan for efficient use Surface or groundwater depletion Surface and groundwater quality enhancement Air pollution emissions/open air burning
Discrimination Improvement of socioeconomic status of locals Participation of women, youth and indigenous Food security risk assessment
Working conditions, wages and safety Child Labor
Slave or forced labor
Freedom of association
Follow all applicable laws Mitigation, monitoring and evaluation plans Business plan for long-term economic viability GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel (RSB method)
Main indicators for RSB
Land Use, land competition
Particulate Matter Formation Volatile Organic Compounds Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption Ozone Layer Depletion Photochemical Oxidant Formation Soil Organic Carbon
Acidification potential
Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity Water Use
Forest Ecosystem Health Ecological Toxicity Water security (feedstock and process related) Eutrophication potential
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56 48 2 48
Inclusion of small-scale producers Local prosperity, Social well-being On-site food security, Off-site food security Land process, food and feed prices Biodiversity security
2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60 4 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55 2, 24
39 48 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
2, 56 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44 48
8, 39 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 7, 56
7 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Study #s
Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, non-communicable diseases, obesity Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages, forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social wellbeing, integrity of the company Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain
Net Energy Yield Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq]
Governance and legal system corruption Cumulative Energy Demand
LCSA impacts considered
Table 4 Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
2016
Fernandez et al., 2016
Van Dam et al., 2009 Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 Spatari et al., 2005 Adler et al., 2007
Styles and Jones 2007 Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 Kim et al., 2007 Pelletier et al., 2008
Reneuf et al., 2008 Searcy et al., 2008 Kim et al., 2009 Liska et al., 2009 Monti et al., 2009 Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 Bai et al., 2010 Cherubini et al., 2010
Väisänen et al., 2016 Hoefnagels et al., 2010 Hsu et al., 2010
Schumacher et al., 2010 Stephenson et al., 2010 Wang et al., 2012
Brandão et al., 2011 Eranki and Dale 2011 Fazio and Monti 2011 Hussain et al., 2010 Kaliyan et al., 2011
Kauffman et al., 2011 Kimming et al., 2011 Whitman et al., 2011 Budsberg et al., 2012
Buonocore et al., 2012
Goglio et al., 2012 González-García et al., 2012 González-García et al., 2012 Tonini et al., 2012 Wang et al., 2012 Yang et al., 2012 Godard et al., 2013 González-García et al., 2013 Murphy and Kendall 2013 Yang & Chen 2013 Collet et al., 2014
1
2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20
21 22 23
11
24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32
33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
2008 2011 2011 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013
2011
2010 2009 2011 2012
2007 2010 2011 2009 2010
2010 2010 2012
2014 2010 2010
2007 2008 2008 2009 2008 2015 2009 2009
2006 2013 2007 2007
2009 2015 2005 2005
Year of study
LCA # Reference
Table 5 Comparison of the 60 biofuel from biomass papers.
1 ha land, GJ grain output 1 ha of SRC willow 1 ha of willow plantation 1 ha of ag. land use Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven 10 GWh of heat from biomass 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass 1 ha corn stover production Combustion of bioethanol Combusting 1 MJ algae
Combustion of biomass
Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char 1 year supply heat, electricity Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol
1 ha of land for one year 5000 tons/day biorefinery Production of annual crops Production of bioethanol Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol
Energy yield per hectare and year 1 tonne of bioethanol 1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV
1 kg monosaccharide CO2 per MWh electricity 1 kg of dry biomass MJ of Bioethanol GJ energy crops and hectare 1 MJ of fuel 1 km driving amt biomass treated per year 1 MJ butanol produced MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, 1 km traveled by a FFV
SOM, soil nutrient balance 1 km distance (FFV) 1 l bioethanol 1 l bioethanol, 1 l biodiesel 1 ha per year n/s 1 kg Bioethanol 1 kg of crop produced
1 GJ Biodiesel
Functional Unit
EU EU EU EU USA USA EU EU USA China EU
EU
USA EU Canada USA
EU USA EU Canada USA
EU EU EU
USA World USA
Australia USA/Canada USA USA EU India n/s n/s
EU EU USA Canada
Argentina Turkey Canada USA
Argentina
GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 GaBi 4, EDIP 2003 Simapro v7.3 & Aspen-Plus, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, CML Baseline 2001 GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 GHGenius 3.19 GREET, Aspen-Plus GREET, DAYCENT n/s, ICBM GHGenius 3.19 SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, GREET, TRACI n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, Input/Output SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 GREET GREET SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 n/s, CML Baseline2000 n/s, IPCC n/s, IPCC n/s, ReCiPe (E)
GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 n/s, ISO 14040 SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET
n/s, n/s n/s, n/s n/s, DAYCENT GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 Baseline n/s, Eco-indicator 95 GHGenius, GREET GREET, DAYCENT GREET, BESS Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Chain Mgmt, LCA Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000
Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 Gabi 4, EDPI GHGenius n/s, DAYCENT
Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H)
Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.1 Ecoinvent v2.0 USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, GaBi Different reports, papers Ecoinvent v2.0
n/s
GREET and IPCC inventory n/s IPCC inventory Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI
Ecoinvent 1.2 n/s Ecoinvent v1.1 IPCC inventory n/s
GREET CONCAWE Ecoinvent .2.0 US LCI, AP 42 PE International GmbH GaBi Database, DEFRA report EMEP/EEA, NREL report
Australian LCI, Ecoinvent 2.0 NREL report EFMA USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.3 IPCC inventory
IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, DEFRA n/s DEAM and other sources GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0
Ecoinvent 3.1, PestLCI n/s Ecoinvent 2.0 IPCC inventory NREL report
LCA database utilized
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Included primary data
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
(continued on next page)
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Presented sensitivity analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
✓ ✓
3.4. LCSA as a tool to inform the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials In Table 4, the Principles and Criteria defined by the RSB are related to specific LCSA outputs obtained in the 60 studies considered in this review. In particular, each RSB Principle is matched with the studies from which quantitative information can be gleaned in order to inform the Criteria within the Principle. For each Principle, the applicable data that may be taken from the studies reviewed in this paper are presented. It is clear from Table 4 that some of the Principles within the RSB framework are well documented through LCSA, indicating that methodologies are well established and that the necessary data to inform these Principles are available. The Criteria that are best informed include those related to GHG emissions (Principle 3), water management (Principle 9), air pollution and the depletion of non-renewable resources (Principle 10) (see Table 6) (see Table 7) (see Table 8) (see Table 5). Other indicators used in the RSB framework are not well detailed, particularly those under Principle 11 which incorporates indicators related to the use of technology, inputs and management of waste, longterm performance of the system, and good risk management. In fact, no LCSA study considered in this work provided direct measurements of these indicators. While this may simply be a reflection of a lack of interest in exploring these issues through LCSA, this finding may speak to a lack of readily-available data that could support evaluation of these system components. The impacts of rapidly changing technologies on product sustainability, and the importance of waste management to life cycle assessment suggests that this is an area that needs more attention. The lack of LCSA studies that could support Principle 11 may also be an artifact of the study approach, which focused on the outputs of quantitative analysis rather than qualitative assessment. As noted previously, a strength of the RSB framework is the holistic fashion in which various aspects of sustainability are considered, while a strength of the LCSA approach is the scientific rigor which is applied to data collection and analysis. Fig. 4 summarizes the different RSB Principles and the number of existing LCSA studies that might be used to inform the Criteria in each; there is very little data available that has been developed using an LCSA approach that can describe economic and social impacts on a life cycle basis. As discussed previously, this forces the RSB to rely on other types of data; doing so may fail to capture significant impacts that would affect the overall sustainability of a given biofuel system. These are clearly areas where LCSA may be expanded to provide better approximations of overall sustainability, as defined by the RSB.
Ecoinvent v.3.1
✓ ✓ Ecoinvent v2.2
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
one of the most challenging propositions for practitioners, as the data required to inform LCSA tends to be unavailable at the local level; social statistics tend to be presented in aggregate and on a periodic basis (e.g. coinciding with census reports every 4–6 years). The ability of a biofuel proponent to collect data regarding social impacts may be limited by ethical concerns or by practical limitations. In the RSB standard, criteria related to social sustainability tend to focus on actions that can be taken to alleviate potential issues, such as the creation of education, training, and employment programs. These types of activities are not typically captured within LCSA studies today.
CA Levasseur et al., 2017 60
3.5. Practical implications of the study
n/s – included but not specified.
Production of 1 kg butanol 2017
Thailand Prapaspongsa et al., 2017
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59
2017
Production of Bioethanol Production of Bioethanol 1 MJ of Bioethanol Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris Production of 1 kg of lipids Production of 1 kg of lipids Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure n/s Production 1 kg of n-butanol 1 MJ of energy released in the combustion of bioethanol Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel 2014 2008 2013 2016 2017 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2017
World EU EU EU EU EU EU Brazil EU EU EU
Delphi method n/s BioGrace Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML n/s, IMPACT 2002+ SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint (H) SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008 method SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact 2002 + method
Delphi survey IPCC inventory n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 Ecoinvent v.3 Ecoinvent v.3
✓
✓ ✓ Ecoinvent v2.0 n/s n/s SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000 Input/Output model Input/Output model Brazil China Canada 1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel Biodiesel from microalgae Production of Bioethanol 2013 2014 2010
Rocha et al., 2014 Yang et al., 2015 Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin 2011 Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 Lechon et al., 2011 Lindorfer et al., 2014 Collotta et al., 2016 Collotta et al., 2017 Collotta et al., 2017b Collotta et al., 2018 de Azevedo et al., 2017 Ekener et al., 2018 Brito and Martins 2017 Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 45 46 47
LCA # Reference
Table 5 (continued)
Year of study
Functional Unit
Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
LCA database utilized
Included primary data
Presented sensitivity analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
This review suggests that LCSA approaches to impact assessment, while becoming more holistic across all aspects of sustainability, are still not sufficient to completely inform the full range of P&C laid out by the RSB. After assessing the LCSA data developed across the 60 studies considered in this paper, it was clear that RSB Principle 11 is not informed in any way. Three other RSB Principles (1, 6, 7) are only partially addressed, through one or two studies each. While significant LCSA data is available to inform the other Principles, there remain a number of Criteria that are not well covered or absent altogether, as 12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 6 Production phase analyzed in the LCA biofuel from biomass papers. LCA #
Cultivation Input Production
Cultivation
Land use
Inter-operational Transportation
Biomass preprocessing
Biofuel production
Interoperational Storage
Bio-waste and coproduct management
Biofuel usage - use of the final product
Total number of production phases considered
19 4 16 17 35 41 1 3 14 15 18 21 22 32 38 8 24 30 33 36 43 44 45 54 58 59 10 11 20 23 25 27 28 29 31 34 37 39 40 50 52 53 55 56 57 60 2 5 6 42 51 13 26 49 9 12 7 46 47 48
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
described in Table 4. It should be noted that some P&C are very well detailed, particularly with respect to Principle 3 (greenhouse gas emissions) and Principle 10 (air impacts); there are multiple studies, covering wide geographic areas, which provide useful data and which detail strong methodological approaches to measuring these impacts. It is important to reflect that the RSB does not dictate the use of LCSA to inform each Principle and Criteria within the Standard. Data is available, and the proponents that are working with the RSB to obtain
certification are able to inform each of the criteria. The practical implication of these findings is that much of the data that is being used to inform the RSB is not being generated through an LCSA approach. As discussed previously, this may be a serious issue because of the complex and expansive nature of biofuel production pathways; inputs and outputs to biofuel production may travel great distances, across multiple borders, and may impact a number of different ecological, economic, and social systems across a full life cycle. Extending the LCSA approach 13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 7 Environmental, economic and social indicators incorporated in 60 biofuel from biomass studies. n
LCSA impacts considered
Effects
Studies
1
Abiotic depletion
Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
2
Acidification
Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential
3 4 5
Ecotoxicity Energy use Eutrophication
Hazard-weighted concentration Energy depletion potential Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine eutrophication potential
6
Global warning potential
Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential
7
Human toxicity
Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential
8 9
Ionizing radiation Land Use
Ionising radiation potential Agricultural and urban land occupation potential
10 11
Marine toxicity Ozone depletion
Marine ecotoxicity potential Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
12 13
Particulate matter formation Photochemical oxidation
PM10 Concentration Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
14 15 16 17 18
Respiratory effects Water use Other environmental impact Production cost Economic impact multiplier CNY/ CNY Economic index = value added/ operating cost GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Industrial output impact Social well-being
Inorganics substances Amount of water and water depletion potential Different effects Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size Economy growth
17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f, 42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49, 18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
19 21 22
23 24
Employment impact multiplier people/10000 CNY Probability, Reversibility and Monitorability of every social impact
39, 35, 10, 2, 32, 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh 3, 11, 56 46
Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating costs, land prices, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production
2, 8, 22
Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and development opportunities to rural communities, human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of the company, corruption and legal system, Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related), Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
1, 2, 7, 56
47, 56
46, 47, 48
Notes:a fossil fuel consumption;b freshwater and terrestrial;c soil organic carbon;d terrestrial and aquatic;e volatile organic compounds;f non-renewable energy consumption;g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial;h respiratory inorganic effects;j net energy yield;l net carbon emission reduction;m cancer, non-cancer, respiratory.
in a fashion similar to the way that the RSB already treats Principle 3 (related to GHG emissions) – implementing a more rigorous methodology with clearly defined system boundaries, functional units, and data sources – would help to ensure that all upstream and downstream impacts are being captured by the RSB framework. This study also has implications for the practice of LCSA. The RSB brings a holistic overview of sustainability to the table, and the review of existing LCSA studies suggest that there is significant room to expand the number of indicators used within LCSA, particularly to reflect economic and social impacts. The RSB has suggested interesting Criteria to help track social and economic sustainability issues, which may be translated in some cases to indicator sets for use within LCSA. In this way, LCSA could be significantly strengthened and the applicability of these tools to RSB Certification (or to other frameworks for assessing sustainability) would be increased. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that the RSB consider implementing guidelines on a life cycle basis which clearly delineate system boundaries, functional units, and data sources for each of the Principles included in the P&C framework. A potential template for these guidelines exists in relation to Principle 3 (see RSB 2017b). It is also recommended that policymakers seeking to enhance the
sustainability of alternative fuel systems consider the use of LCSA to inform these analyses, and promote the expansion of LCSA to inform critical aspects of economic and social sustainability. 4. Conclusion This work is based on the idea that the LCSA methodology provides the most robust, scientifically-rigorous data to inform our understanding of the sustainability of biofuel systems, and that the RSB has developed one of the most robust certification frameworks for sustainable biofuels. The RSB P&C framework for certifying biofuel systems already includes overt use of life cycle methodologies (Principle 3), and implies a life cycle approach in other areas (Principles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10). The remaining Principles within the P&C framework would likely benefit from the application of a life cycle approach as well. To determine the ability of existing LCSA studies to inform the RSB P&C framework, an assessment of 60 recent LCSA studies was carried out. This review identified some interesting trends. In examining system boundaries used in these studies, it was found that very few LCSA studies considered all aspects of biofuel production systems when assessing sustainability. This is an important finding, as it suggests that 14
15
Use of Technology, Inputs and Management of Waste
Land Rights
11
12
Conservation
7
Air
Local Food Security
6
10
Rural and social development
5
Water
Human and Labor Rights
4
9
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3
Soil
Legality Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
1 2
8
RSB criteria
n
Production efficiency Social and environmental long-term performance Damages risk for people and environment Good practices implementation Residues, waste and byproduct Existing land right and land use rights
Biodiversity, ecosystem and conservation impact Habitats fragmentation Invasive species monitoring Soil chemical and biological conditions Soil degradation Soil health maintenance Respect of existing water rights Water management plan for efficient use Surface or groundwater depletion Surface and groundwater quality enhancement Ari pollution emissions Open air burning
Improvement of socioeconomic status of locals Participation of women, youth and indigenous Food security risk assessment
Freedom of association Slave or forced labor Working conditions, wages and safety Child Labor Discrimination
Follow all applicable laws Mitigation, monitoring and evaluation plans Business plan for long-term economic viability GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel (RSB method)
Main indicators for RSB
Land Use, land competition
Particulate Matter Formation Volatile Organic Compounds Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption Ozone Layer Depletion Photochemical Oxidant Formation Soil Organic Carbon
Acidification potential
Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity Water Use
Water security (feedstock and process related) Eutrophication potential
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Forest Ecosystem Health Ecological Toxicity
On-site food security, Off-site food security Land process, food and feed prices Biodiversity security
Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, non-communicable diseases, obesity Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages, forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social wellbeing, integrity of the company Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain Inclusion of small-scale producers Local prosperity, Social well-being
GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq]
Governance and legal system corruption Cumulative Energy Demand Net Energy Yield Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption
LCSA impacts considered
Table 8 Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60 4 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55 2, 24
48 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
39
14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
48 2 48
1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56
14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44 48
2, 56
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 7, 56
8, 39
7 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Study #s
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 4. Number of studies informing each RSB criterion.
LCSA approaches to impact assessment have not trended towards being able to provide holistic measures of biofuel production impacts, but rather have focused on isolated components of the production system to answer specific questions. This in turn means that fewer studies are available in the literature that can be used as exemplars for biofuel producers, and indeed implies that our current state of knowledge when it comes to the impacts of biofuel production is curtailed by a lack of holistic work on the subject. While there may be relatively few studies in the literature that can comment on holistic biofuel production impacts, the fact that individual LCSA studies do exist that cover all production phases related to biofuel production does suggest that the LCSA approach can usefully be applied to satisfy criteria within the RSB. While this is currently in fact specified under Principle 3 of the RSB standard, it is suggested that the life cycle approach could be implemented across other Principles and Criteria within the RSB to improve the quality of data and ensure that RSB certification is capturing the impacts of all aspects of the biofuel production system. It is clear from this analysis, however, that LCSA studies that can assess economic or social sustainability are rare, and that the types of data generated by these studies are still insufficient to fully support the RSB P&C framework. Of the 60 LCSA studies that were assessed, the majority (54 studies) provided quantitative assessments of environmental sustainability, across a wide range of indicators. By comparison, only 7 studies provided quantitative analyses of economic sustainability, and only 7 studies provided data on social sustainability. Only two of these studies considered a combination of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. This review suggests interesting new avenues for development of LCSA approaches to evaluating sustainability. The RSB P&C framework incorporates novel methodologies for assessing the economic and social impacts of biofuel production systems. These approaches include proactive programs in education, training, and employment, and may serve as useful indicators within LCSA. Future exploration of these opportunities is warranted in order to better incorporate economic and social impacts into the LCSA tool. While this study has focused on biofuel production systems, the types of indicators considered could support better sustainability assessments for a wide variety of products and processes. This review also provides insight into ways in which the RSB P&C could be improved, to better incorporate a life cycle approach and to strengthen the value of certification using the RSB methodologies.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Ontario Ministry of Research Innovation (Ontario Research Fund). Additional funds were provided via a National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant and through the Canada Research Chairs Program. Finally, the authors thank BioFuelNet Canada for funding support and access to data during the writing of this paper. References [1] Janzen HH. Carbon cycling in earth systems - a soil science perspective. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2004;104:399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.040. [2] International Energy Agency. Oil information overview. 2018. [3] Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G. Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 2014;73:416–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.034. [4] European Parliament. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. Off J Eur Union 2009;140:16–62. https://doi.org/10. 3000/17252555.L_2009.140.eng. [5] Environment Canada Inquiry Centre. Canada's emissions trends. 2011. EN81-18/ 2013E-PDF. [6] United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris agreement. 21st conf parties. 2015. p. 3. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9. [7] Wiebe K, Croppenstedt A, Raney T, Skoet J, Zurek M, Tschirley J, et al. Environmental impacts of biofuels. Biofuels Prospect Risks Oppor 2008:55–71. [8] Pieprzyk B, Kortluke N, Rojas Hilje P. The impact of fossil fuels. 2009. [9] Hertwich EG, van der Voet E, Tukker A. Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production. Priority Products and Materials; 2010. [10] Kazamia E, Smith AG. Assessing the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Trends Plant Sci 2014;19:615–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.08.001. [11] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification : a global overview. Energy Policy 2011;39:1630–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039. [12] Diop D, Blanco M, Flammini A, Schalifer M, Kropiwicka MA, Markhof MM. Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for Development. 2013. [13] Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Dennis JS. The environmental and economic sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:9612–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104. [14] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2018. 2018https://doi.org/10. 1787/weo-2018-en. [15] Eurobserver. Biofuels barometer 2018https://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/biofuelsbarometer-2018/. [16] Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A. A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy 2016;59:516–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2016.09.009. [17] Schnepf R, Yacobucci BD. Renewable fuel standard (RFS): overview and issues. 2010. [18] Mondou M, Skogstad G. The regulation of biofuels in the United States. European Union and Canada; 2012. p. 1–33.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al. [19] Cambero C, Sowlati T. Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives - a review of literature. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014. 04.041. [20] Nuffield Council on bioethics. Biofuels: Ethical Issues 2011;44:1–226http:// nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Biofuels_ethical_issues_FULLREPORT_0.pdf, Accessed date: 23 April 2019. [21] Ciroth A, Finkbeiner M, Hildenbrand J, Klöpffer W, Mazijn B, Prakash S, et al. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability A ssessment: making informed choices on products. 2011. DTI/1412/PA. [22] Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T. From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3. [23] RSB A. Guide to RSB Certification. Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2016. [24] Haugen HM. Coherence or forum shopping in biofuels sustainability schemes? Nordic J Human Rights 2015;33(1):52–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131. 2015.1000052. [25] Winickoff DE, Mondou M. The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: the case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Soc Stud Sci 2017;47(1):7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716667855. [26] Van Schoubroeck S, Van Dael M, Van Passel S, Malina R. A review of sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.007. [27] Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 2007;17:675–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1890/05-2018. [28] Usda. USDA agricultural projections to 2024. United States Dep Agric; 2015. p. 97. [29] Lonza L, Hass H, Maas H, Reid A, Rose K. EU renewable energy targets in 2020: analysis of scenarios for transport fuels. 2011. https://doi.org/10.2788/74948. [30] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2014. 2014 https://www.iea.org/weo/. [31] Bourguignon D. EU biofuels policy. Eur Parliam Res Serv 2015;10. [32] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry milling. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:5250–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. 2007.09.034. [33] Bai Y, Luo L, Van Der Voet E. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol as transport fuel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:468–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-010-0177-2. [34] United Nations Conference on Environment and development. Authoritative and non-legally binding statement of principles for the conservation and sustainable management of all types of forests. 1992. [35] The Montreal Process. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. 1995. Hull, Quebec. [36] Barnett B. An evaluation of the UK's use of SFM standards to procure solid woody biomass for electricity generation using sustainability bioenergy criteria. BiofuelsUK 2016;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1118775. [37] FSC. Principles and criterias for forest stewardship. 2015. [38] Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel in Spain: comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish production versus Argentinean imports. Energy Sustain Dev 2016;33:36–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005. [39] van Dam J, Faaij APC, Hilbert J, Petruzzi H, Turkenburg WC. Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina. Part A: potential and economic feasibility for national and international markets. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1710–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.009. [40] Daylan B, Ciliz N. Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel. Renew Energy 2016;89:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.059. [41] Spatari S, Zhang Y, Maclean HL. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:9750–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ es048293. [42] Styles D, Jones MB. Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:759–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.05.003. [43] Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 2008;42:989–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9155-x. [44] Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK. An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1144–55. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.012. [45] Searcy E, Flynn PC. Processing of straw/corn stover: comparison of life cycle emissions. Int J Green Energy 2008;5:423–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15435070802498010. [46] Kim S, Dale BE, Jenkins R. Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14:160–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-008-0054-4. [47] Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, et al. Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of cornethanol. J Ind Ecol 2009;13:58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008. 00105.x. [48] Monti A, Fazio S, Venturi G. Cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment in perennial energy crops. Eur J Agron 2009;31:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.04. 001. [49] Portugal-Pereira J, Nakatani J, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Life cycle assessment of conventional and optimised Jatropha biodiesel fuels. Renew Energy 2016;86:585–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.046. [50] Cherubini F, Jungmeier G. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2. [51] Väisänen S, Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Havukainen M, Soukka R, Luoranen M. Carbon footprint of biobutanol by ABE fermentation from corn and sugarcane. Renew Energy 2016;89:401–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.016. [52] Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A. Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1661–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.014. [53] Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A. Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. Ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:5289–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100186h. [54] Schumacher B, Oechsner H, Senn T, Jungbluth T. Life cycle assessment of the conversion of Zea mays and x Triticosecale into biogas and bioethanol. Eng Life Sci 2010;10:577–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201000069. [55] Wang M, Han J, Dunn JB, Cai H, Elgowainy A. Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environ Res Lett 2012;7:45905. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/ 4/045905. [56] Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R. Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2323–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009. 10.019. [57] Eranki PL, Dale BE. Comparative life cycle assessment of centralized and distributed biomass processing systems combined with mixed feedstock landscapes. GCB Bioenergy 2011;3:427–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01096.x. [58] Fazio S, Monti A. Life cycle assessment of different bioenergy production systems including perennial and annual crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:4868–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.014. [59] Hussain MM, Dincer I, Reddy BV. A comparative life cycle assessment of bio- and conventional fuels in a Canadian province. Int J Energy Res 2010;35:795–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1742. [60] Kaliyan N, Morey RV, Tiffany DG. Reducing life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol by integrating biomass to produce heat and power at ethanol plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010. 11.035. [61] Kauffman N, Hayes D, Brown R. A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel production from a hectare of corn. Fuel 2011;90:3306–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fuel.2011.06.031. [62] Kimming M, Sundberg C, Nordberg Å, Baky A, Bernesson S, Norén O, et al. Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants - a comparative life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1572–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2010.12.027. [63] Whitman T, Yanni S, Whalen J. Life cycle assessment of corn stover production for cellulosic ethanol in Quebec. Can J Soil Sci 2011;91:997–1012. https://doi.org/10. 4141/cjss2011-011. [64] Budsberg E, Puettmann ME, Volk T a, Johnson L. Life-cycle assessment for the production of bioethanol from willow biomass crops via biochemical conversion *. For Prod J 2012;62:305–13. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-12-00022.1. [65] Buonocore E, Franzese PP, Ulgiati S. Assessing the environmental performance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: a life cycle assessment perspective. Energy 2012;37:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.032. [66] Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M. LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;42:33–42. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.021. [67] González-García S, Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J, Murphy RJ. Life cycle assessment of two alternative bioenergy systems involving Salix spp. biomass: bioethanol production and power generation. Appl Energy 2012;95:111–22. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.022. [68] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Murphy R. Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 2012;421–422:210–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.041. [69] Tonini D, Hamelin L, Wenzel H, Astrup T. Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:13521–30. https://doi.org/10.1021/ es3024435. [70] Wang L, Templer R, Murphy RJ. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three management options for waste papers: bioethanol production, recycling and incineration with energy recovery. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:89–98. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.130. [71] Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S. Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:3671–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203641p. [72] Godard C, Boissy J, Gabrielle B. Life-cycle assessment of local feedstock supply scenarios to compare candidate biomass sources. GCB Bioenergy 2013;5:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01187.x. [73] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Murphy RJ. Life cycle assessment of potential energy uses for short rotation willow biomass in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:783–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0536-2. [74] Murphy CW, Kendall A. Life cycle inventory development for corn and stover production systems under different allocation methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;58:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.008. [75] Yang Q, Chen GQ. Greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol production in China. Ecol Model 2013;252:176–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.011.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al. [76] Collet P, Lardon L, Hélias A, Bricout S, Lombaert-Valot I, Perrier B, et al. Biodiesel from microalgae - life cycle assessment and recommendations for potential improvements. Renew Energy 2014;71:525–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene. 2014.06.009. [77] Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, Renó MLG, et al. Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: a meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:435–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.036. [78] Yang Y, Zhang B, Cheng J, Pu S. Socio-economic impacts of algae-derived biodiesel industrial development in China: an input-output analysis. Algal Res 2015;9:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.02.010. [79] Mukhopadhyay K, Thomassin PJ. Macroeconomic effects of the ethanol biofuel sector in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2822–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2011.03.021. [80] Ribeiro BE, Quintanilla MA. Transitions in biofuel technologies: an appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2015;92:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.006. [81] Lechon Y, Cabal H, Sáez R. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the adoption of the EU Directive on biofuels in Spain. Effect of the import of raw materials and land use changes. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2374–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.036. [82] Lindorfer J, Fazeni K, Steinmüller H. Life cycle analysis and soil organic carbon balance as methods for assessing the ecological sustainability of 2nd generation biofuel feedstock. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;5:95–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.seta.2013.12.003. [83] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Alberti M, Busi L, et al. Environmental assessment of Co-location alternatives for a microalgae cultivation plant: a case study in the city of kingston (Canada). Energy Procedia 2016;95:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.007. [84] Collotta M, Busi L, Champagne P, Romagnoli F, Tomasoni G, Mabee W, et al. Comparative LCA of three alternative technologies for lipid extraction in biodiesel from microalgae production. Energy Procedia 2017;113. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2017.04.061. [85] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Leite GB, Busi L, et al. Comparative LCA of flocculation for the harvesting of microalgae for biofuels production. Procedia CIRP 2017;61:756–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir. 2016.11.146. [86] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G. Wastewater and waste CO2 for sustainable biofuels from microalgae. Algal Res 2018;29. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.algal.2017.11.013. [87] de Azevedo A, Fornasier F, da Silva Szarblewski M, de Souza Schneider RDC, Hoeltz
M, de Souza D. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from cattle manure. J Clean Prod 2017;162:1021–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.141. [88] Ekener E, Hansson J, Larsson A, Peck P. Developing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting - tested on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels. J Clean Prod 2018;181:337–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.211. [89] Brito M, Martins F. Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel 2017;208:476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.050. [90] Guerrero AB, Muñoz E. Life cycle assessment of second generation ethanol derived from banana agricultural waste: environmental impacts and energy balance. J Clean Prod 2018;174:710–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.298. [91] Prapaspongsa T, Musikavong C, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel production in Thailand: impacts from modelling choices, co-product utilisation, improvement technologies, and land use change. J Clean Prod 2017;153:435–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.130. [92] Levasseur A, Bahn O, Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Marinova M, Vaillancourt K. Assessing butanol from integrated forest biorefinery: a combined techno-economic and life cycle approach. Appl Energy 2017;198:440–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2017.04.040. [93] International Standards Organization. EN ISO 14040:2006 - environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. 2007. [94] RSB. RSB. Principles and criteria. Reference code RSB-STD-01-001 (version 3.0). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017. [95] RSB. RSB. Standard for advanced fuels. Reference code RSB-STD-01-010 (version 2.1). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2018. [96] RSB. RSB GHG Calculation Methodology. Reference code RSB-STD-01-003-01 (version 2.3). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017. [97] Shapouri H, Duffield J a, Wang M. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. Energy Policy 2002;35:1414–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.007. [98] Sheehan J, Aden a, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M, et al. Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol 2003;7:117–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819803323059433. [99] Mcaloon A, Taylor F, Yee W. Determining the cost of producing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. Natl Renew Energy Lab 2000;2008:44. NREL/ TP-580-28893. [100] Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M. Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2016:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-0161058-0.
18
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective
T
M. Collottaa, P. Champagnec,∗, G. Tomasonia, M. Albertia, L. Busia, W. Mabeeb a
DIMI, Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy Queen's University, Department of Geography and Planning, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, 68 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada c Queens University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ellis Hall, 58 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada b
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Bioenergy Biofuels Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) Roundtable on sustainable biomaterials (RSB) Sustainability
The reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change poses challenges across multiple sectors. Biofuels have been touted as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels, but policy guiding this sector must ensure that biomass is obtained in a sustainably. In this context, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) tools have been identified as a means to conduct comprehensive impact evaluations of the biofuel sector. The objective of this work is to highlight key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being assessed using LCSA, and to relate these back to the framework of Principles and Criteria (P&C) developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) to assess the ability of LCSA approaches to effectively inform all Principles within the RSB. 60 LCSA studies, published since 2007, were selected to include a range of biofuel production scenarios, including various technologies and geographic settings. System boundaries and functional units used in these studies were evaluated and compared. The ability of each study to provide quantitative indicators related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability was tabulated. It was found that some RSB Principles can be effectively evaluated using an LCSA approach, including Principle 3 (greenhouse gas emissions) and Principle 10 (air quality). Most other Principles within the RSB P&C framework, however, are only partially addressed, and Principle 11 (technology, inputs, and management of waste) is not informed in any way by existing LCSA. The results suggest that existing LCSA studies, while expanding to consider more economic and social sustainability considerations, are unlikely to cover all aspects of biofuel production systems and are not sufficient to completely inform the full range of RSB Criteria. In the future, LCSA should be further extended to help address critical aspects of sustainability, while the RSB framework should be strengthened to employ a life cycle approach across all Principles.
1. Introduction Human activities, including the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use, have had significant impacts on the global carbon cycle [1]. The problem posed by fossil fuel use is increasing; it has been estimated that global oil consumption grew by approximately 1% per annum between 2004 and 2018, reaching a global oil demand of 99.2 million barrels per day in 2018 [2,3]. At the same time, national targets found across the European Union (EU) [4], as well as in Canada [5], promote a shift towards a less carbon intensive economy. Language to this effect can also be found within the 2015 Paris Agreement [6], which has been signed by 197 countries and ratified by 185 countries (as of June 2019). One means to counter the expanding use of fossil fuels is greater uptake of renewable alternatives, including solid and liquid biofuels, which could potentially reduce the environmental footprint of the ∗
energy sector. Robust tools that can assess the impacts of energy consumption are required to ensure that biofuel options provide real environmental benefits compared to fossil energy use [7–9]. Because the production and use of biofuels presents an opportunity for job creation and rural development [10,11], it is important that social benefits also be assessed. Finally, the development of biofuel feedstocks and increase in biofuel use will have economic ramifications, including costs to consumers and impacts on trade, which need to be understood [12,13]. The need for robust assessment tools is increasing because biofuel use is growing rapidly. At global level, the use of established transportation biofuels (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel) rose by 4% to reach 83 Mtoe (143 billion litres) in 2017, with an average prospective of growth of 2.5% every year [14]. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) of the EU promotes the production of energy from renewable sources, calling for the equivalent of 252 TWh (approximately 26.6 billion litres) of biodiesel by 2020 [4,15]. In
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Champagne), [email protected] (W. Mabee).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358 Received 1 October 2018; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019 1364-0321/ Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
the USA, the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS II) targets the use of over 136 billion litres of various biofuels by 2022. Both the EU and the USA have broadened their focus beyond established or conventional biofuels to incorporate advanced or drop-in biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and renewable diesel; the introduction of new, biomass-based fuels has raised new concerns over sustainability [16]. These concerns are likely to grow; the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that a mixture of established and advanced biofuels will provide up to 27% of the world's transportation fuel by 2050 [17]. Debate over the sustainability of biofuels is complicated by the intertwined nature of environmental, economic, and social sustainability measures, and hindered by a lack of holistic tools capable of estimating the overall impact of renewable fuels [18]. For decision-makers to better understand sustainability issues, it is clear that quantitative environmental, economic and social assessments are necessary [19]. The predominant tool used to assess sustainability of biofuel systems is life cycle assessment (LCA). As initially applied, the LCA methodology was somewhat limited in that it focused on environmental impacts of the systems, with less capacity to measure economic and/or social aspects of sustainability (e.g. Refs. [10,19]). Environmental, economic and social measures are strongly interlinked, however, and their interactions affect all aspects of the emerging biofuel sector, from land use policies through to agricultural markets [11,20]. In recognition of this fact, a suite of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) tools now exist that are better able to evaluate the overall sustainability of a biofuel production system, including environmental (LCA), economic (life cycle costing or LCC), and social impacts (social life cycle assessment or S-LCA) [21,22]. While LCSA models now incorporate wide aspects of sustainability, they remain time- and data-intensive tools, and are not ideal as policy instruments. An option often adopted in regulatory policy is that of certification schemes, which use indicator frameworks to carry out a simplified (but holistic) review of environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with given products. One such system is the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), which is made up of principles and criteria designed to ensure that bio-based products are being produced in a manner that is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable [23]. The RSB framework is one among many frameworks that have been proposed to evaluate sustainability of bioproducts and biofuels. A recent review of five leading frameworks suggested that the RSB was the most comprehensive choice available, particularly praising the incorporation of social sustainability principles within the RSB [24]. One of the successes of the RSB has been its ability to overcome detractors and controversy by essentially inventing new sustainability measures; to be effective, these measures must be supported with comprehensive data [25]. This paper evaluates the ability of existing LCSA studies to provide high-quality data that can inform each of the principles of the RSB, as applied to biofuel production. The only similar study in the literature was recently published by Van Schoubroeck et al. (2018); they considered data availability to support sustainable biochemical production and reported that many existing sets of indicators lack a holistic view on sustainability, are incomplete, or lack focus [26]. A goal of the present paper is the application of the RSB principles framework in order to highlight gaps in the ability of current LCSA data to inform sustainability analyses of biofuels, and to inform the design of future LCSA studies. A large set of recent and relevant LCSA studies on biofuels is reviewed and their ability to assess environmental, economic, and social impacts of biofuel is explored. The current range of indicators measured in existing LCSA studies are then reviewed to understand their ability to inform specific criteria within the RSB framework.
established (ethanol, biodiesel); others include more recent market entrants (hydrotreatment of animal or vegetable oils to produce renewable diesel), or emerging fuels (synthesis of syngas to produce dimethyl ether). Fig. 1 illustrates a simplified overview of these production pathways, identifying feedstocks, process elements (‘A’ and ‘B’), and intermediate (or ‘raw’) biofuels as well as ‘finished’ or consumerready fuels. Different biofuel products may be gaseous or liquid in form, and are derived through different production processes for a variety of end uses. For example, biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of biomass is used primarily for the production of electricity and heat; liquid biofuels such as ethanol are typically generated through a biological conversion process and used in the transport sector. The efficiency of transformation from biomass to a liquid or gaseous fuel is influenced by biomass yield, costs and scale of supply, and efficiency of production [27]. According to the US Department of Agriculture, global biofuel production is projected to grow in coming years, although at a slower pace than over the last half decade [28]. European biofuels for transportation are likely to reach 8.7% of consumption by 2020, just below the 10% target set by the EU Transportation Commission [29]. The International Energy Agency suggests that global consumption of biofuels for road transport will likely range between 5% and 18% by 2040, reaching proportions as high as 31% in the EU and 29% in the United States [30,31]. In the face of increasing biofuel use, it is important that safeguards are put in place to ensure that biomass is grown and harvested in a sustainable fashion, and that the impact of biofuel production systems – which are highly variable, as highlighted by Fig. 1 – deliver net benefits when compared to fossil fuel production systems. This is particularly true for environmental benefits (e.g. reduction of greenhouse gas emissions), as this is one of the primary drivers for increased biofuels use. It is also increasingly important that biofuels deliver positive economic outcomes (e.g. relatively low-cost fuels, reasonable returns on investment) and social performance (e.g. jobs, community benefits), as these metrics are critical to the success of these ventures. This analysis focuses on recent LCSA studies related to established transportation biofuels including bioethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybean and rapeseed, which are currently the most adopted source of renewable energy in the transportation sector [27,32,33]. 2.2. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials While LCSA is an effective scientific tool for measuring the impacts related to biofuel systems, it is complicated and time consuming. Decision-makers and regulatory bodies may find it more feasible to regulate sustainability by using simpler tools, such as a framework of principles, criteria and/or indicators. One such system, specifically designed for advanced bio-based products, has been developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). The RSB is an independent and global multi stakeholder coalition with the goal of promoting the sustainability of biomaterials. The Principles & Criteria (P&C) for Sustainable Biofuels Production published by the RSB defines different environmental, economic and social criteria in order to assess the sustainability of global biofuel production. Moreover, all of these principles and criteria are in agreement with the sustainability requirements laid in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). The principles presented in the RSB system cover a range of environmental, social, and economic criteria. Since these are meant to be guidelines for assessing overall biofuel sustainability, the demarcation between environmental, social and economic considerations within an individual criterion is not always clear. For environmental impacts, the criteria used are greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); soil, water, air and ecosystem preservation; land use; and, the impact of the use of technology on the environment and people. Criteria describing the social impact of biofuels focus on the legality; planning; monitoring and continuous improvement; human and labor rights; rural and social
2. Methods 2.1. Biofuels There are several classes of biofuels, each of which may be produced following different production processes. Some biofuels are well2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 1. Pathways linking biomass to intermediate and finished liquid (L) and gaseous (G) biofuel outputs.
development; local food security; and, land rights. Finally, economic criteria include planning; monitoring; continuous improvement factors; and, the implementation of a business plan. All of these points reflect a commitment to long-term economic viability within an environmentally- and socially-beneficial system. The principals and criteria framework that has been introduced by the RSB specifies the requirements necessary to certify sustainable operations along the entire supply chain of biofuel production. For example, guidelines on best practices are provided in the production and harvest of feedstock, and for the production, use and transport of biofuel. The P&C framework developed by the RSB shows a clear relationship to other tools designed to ensure sustainability. A series of criteria and indicator (C&I) frameworks developed in the 1990s by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) are used to promote sustainable forest management (SFM), which seeks to enable positive environmental, economic and social performance for managed forest ecosystems [34]. Different regional C&I processes have been developed for different parts of the world, each having unique forest ecosystems. As an example, the Montreal Process defines SFM for North America and has been discussed and developed over the last 20 years. Under the Montreal Process, a regional, scientific set of indicators has been developed that can be used to evaluate the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forestlands [35]. While the RSB framework was developed to operate independently of these tools, at least one author has explored the potential of linking RSB with existing tools to further promote sustainability of bioenergy production [36]. It is worthwhile noting that a number of international certification and labeling systems have been developed that follow the UNCED C&I tools. For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies forests globally using their own modified C&I framework, providing a third-party assessment of forest sustainability [37].
2.3. Selecting LCSA studies The question of biofuel sustainability is a complicated one, and involves a variety of factors which have not been considered in previous criteria and indicator systems. For example, biofuels often rely on crops which can displace existing forest lands, which brings into question issues of indirect land use change; a number of the studies we consider look at indirect land use change, often with different conclusions as to the severity of the issue. Similarly, the technological complexity of the processes applied in converting biomass into various fuels means that the production of a single product (such as ethanol) can include a number of co-products; how those co-products are used may have a wide range of actual environmental, economic, and/or social impacts, which need to be captured. This is part of the justification for the use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) in trying to assess the overall impacts of biofuel systems. This study presents an analysis on a large set of LCSA papers for the production of both liquid and solid biofuel coming from different biomass feedstocks. The main objectives of the analysis are to highlight the key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being explored through LCSA, and to relate these indicators back to the P&C framework developed by the RSB in order to assess whether existing LCSA studies can inform the RSB process effectively. Each of the LCSA studies explored in this paper are listed in Table 1. Keywords used in identifying LCSAs include ‘life cycle sustainability assessment’, ‘LCSA’, ‘biofuels’, ‘ethanol’, ‘biodiesel’, ‘bioenergy’, ‘life cycle assessment’, ‘LCA’, ‘life cycle costing’, ‘LCC’, ‘social life cycle assessment’, ‘S-LCA’, and ‘sustainability’. The initial list of studies was then restricted to those published after 2005, and further reduced to reflect the most complete studies covering a range of biofuel production scenarios, technologies and geographic settings. In all, 60 studies were selected for detailed analysis. In terms of technologies, the selected 3
Year of study
2016 2009 2015 2005 2005 2006
2013 2007 2007
2007
2008 2008 2009 2008 2015 2009 2009 2014 2010 2010
2010 2010
2012
2007 2010 2011 2009 2010 2010 2009 2011 2012
2011
2008 2011 2011 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012
2012 2013
#
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22
23
4
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44
Combustion of bioethanol Combusting 1 MJ algae
1 ha land, GJ grain output 1 ha of SRC willow 1 ha of willow plantation 1 ha of ag. land use Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven 10 GWh of heat from biomass 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass 1 ha corn stover production
Combustion of biomass
1 ha of land for one year 5000 tons/day biorefinery Production of annual crops Production of bioethanol Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char 1 year supply heat, electricity Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol
1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV
Energy yield per hectare and year 1 tonne of bioethanol
CO2 per MWh electricity 1 kg of dry biomass MJ of Bioethanol GJ energy crops and hectare 1 MJ of fuel 1 km driving amt biomass treated per year 1 MJ butanol produced MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, 1 km traveled by a FFV
1 kg monosaccharide
n/s 1 kg Bioethanol 1 kg of crop produced
1 GJ Biodiesel SOM, soil nutrient balance 1 km distance (FFV) 1 l bioethanol 1 l bioethanol, 1 l biodiesel 1 ha per year
Functional Unit
Table 1 Main characteristics of the LCSA studies analized.
China EU
EU EU EU EU USA USA EU EU USA
EU
EU USA EU Canada USA USA EU Canada USA
EU
EU EU
USA/Canada USA USA EU India n/s n/s USA World USA
Australia
EU USA Canada
Argentina Argentina Turkey Canada USA EU
Country of Study
n/s, IPCC n/s, ReCiPe (E)
Simapro v7.3 & Aspen-Plus, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, CML Baseline 2001 GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 GHGenius 3.19 GREET, Aspen-Plus GREET, DAYCENT n/s, ICBM GHGenius 3.19 SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, GREET, TRACI n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, Input/Output SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 GREET GREET SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 n/s, CML Baseline2000 n/s, IPCC
GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 GaBi 4, EDIP 2003
GHGenius, GREET GREET, DAYCENT GREET, BESS Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Chain Mgmt, LCA Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000 GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 n/s, ISO 14040 SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET
n/s, n/s n/s, DAYCENT GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 Baseline n/s, Eco-indicator 95
Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H) Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 Gabi 4, EDPI GHGenius n/s, DAYCENT n/s, n/s
LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.1 Ecoinvent v2.0 USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, GaBi Different reports, papers Ecoinvent v2.0
n/s
Ecoinvent 1.2 n/s Ecoinvent v1.1 IPCC inventory n/s GREET and IPCC inventory n/s IPCC inventory Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI
Australian LCI, Ecoinvent 2.0 NREL report EFMA USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.3 IPCC inventory GREET CONCAWE Ecoinvent .2.0 US LCI, AP 42 PE International GmbH GaBi Database, DEFRA report EMEP/EEA, NREL report
Ecoinvent 3.1,PestLCI n/s Ecoinvent 2.0 IPCC inventory NREL report IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, DEFRA n/s DEAM and other sources GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0
LCA database utilized
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Included primary data
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Presented sensitivity analysis
(continued on next page)
Yang & Chen 2013 [75] Collet et al., 2014 [76]
Goglio et al., 2012 [66] González-García et al., 2012 [67] González-García et al., 2012 [68] Tonini et al., 2012 [69] Wang et al., 2012 [70] Yang et al., 2012 [71] Godard et al., 2013 [72] González-García et al., 2013 [73] Murphy and Kendall 2013 [74]
Buonocore et al., 2012 [65]
Brandão et al., 2011 [56] Eranki and Dale 2011 [57] Fazio and Monti 2011 [58] Hussain et al., 2010 [59] Kaliyan et al., 2011 [60] Kauffman et al., 2011 [61] Kimming et al., 2011 [62] Whitman et al., 2011 [63] Budsberg et al., 2012 [64]
Wang et al., 2012 [55]
Schumacher et al., 2010 [54] Stephenson et al., 2010 [13]
Searcy et al., 2008 [45] Kim et al., 2009 [46] Liska et al., 2009 [47] Monti et al., 2009 [48] Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 [49] Bai et al., 2010 [33] Cherubini et al., 2010 [50] Väisänen et al., 2016 [51] Hoefnagels et al., 2010 [52] Hsu et al., 2010 [53]
Reneuf et al., 2008 [44]
Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 [3] Kim et al., 2008 [32] Pelletier et al., 2008 [43]
Fernandez et al., 2016 [38] Van Dam et al., 2009 [39] Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 [40] Spatari et al., 2005 [41] Adler et al., 2007 [27] Styles and Jones 2007 [42]
Reference
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Levasseur et al., 2017 [92]
Prapaspongsa et al., 2017 [91]
Rocha et al., 2014 [77] Yang et al., 2015 [78] Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin 2011 [79] Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 [80] Lechon et al., 2011 [81] Lindorfer et al., 2014 [82] Collotta et al., 2016 [83] Collotta et al., 2017 [84] Collotta et al., 2017 [85] Collotta et al., 2018 [86] de Azevedo et al., 2017 [87] Ekener et al., 2018 [88] Brito and Martins 2017 [89] Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 [90]
✓ ✓
As expected when reviewing LCSA studies, no two analyses examined here are exactly alike, although many covered similar fuels or were conducted in the same geographic region. Table 1 describes a list of studies, spread over a wide geographic and temporal span, that are informed by a wide range of tools and a number of different life cycle inventories. The range of options available to a proponent who seeks to achieve RSB certification is significant and presents a challenge that will be explored below. Another challenge is related to the number of different functional units were used, as shown in Fig. 2; the most common functional units were units of fuel (or energy) produced or units of feedstock provided to the system, although some studies were based on the units of fuel combusted. A number of studies used geographic units (km traveled or route selected). The range of functional units selected reflects emphasis of individual studies; the choice of functional unit heavily influences system boundaries, as discussed further below. The indicators used by individual LCSA studies are highly variable, and the ability of these studies to provide critical information pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability is assessed and discussed. Based on the 60 studies selected, an initial assessment of the ability of LCSA to inform the RSB framework is discussed, and the practical implications of the study – including policy recommendations – are summarized in the final section below. 3.1. Current challenges in biofuel sustainability associated with the RSB LCSA can provide scientifically-rigorous data describing the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of a specific biofuel production system, but the overview of the 60 LCSA studies provided in Table 1 highlights challenges involved in employing this methodology. As a scientific method, LCSA is malleable and can (and should) be adapted to each unique circumstance, and ISO standards make it very clear that life cycle assessments are not designed for comparison [93]. From a policy perspective, this creates a massive challenge: even a ‘standardized’ approach to life cycle analysis provides great latitude for interpretation of project- or site-specific data. While the RSB represents a simplified approach to assessing the sustainability of a biofuel system, it relies on the application of life cycle science to inform the P&C framework. This is overt in some components of the RSB standard; for example, the standard clearly states that individual proponents must use a lifecycle approach to calculate greenhouse gas emissions related to their project, as per Principle 3 [94,95]; the RSB has developed a detailed GHG calculation methodology (currently on version 2.3) which provides very clear guidance on aspects of the analysis, including system boundaries and functional units [96]. The RSB has developed their own tool to facilitate calculation of GHG impacts, and specifies use of data from databases including EcoInvent, the IPCC, and the USDA in various places throughout. The RSB tool, like other LCSA tools and GHG calculators, supports sensitivity analyses, although the RSB Standard does not specify the use of sensitivity
2017 60
n/s – included but not specified.
2017 59
Production of 1 kg butanol
CA
Ecoinvent v.3.1
✓ ✓ Thailand
Ecoinvent v2.2
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Delphi survey IPCC inventory n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 Ecoinvent v.3 Ecoinvent v.3 2014 2008 2013 2016 2017 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2017 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
Production of Bioethanol Production of Bioethanol 1 MJ of Bioethanol Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris Production of 1 kg of lipids Production of 1 kg of lipids Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure n/s Production 1 kg of n-butanol 1 MJ of energy released in the combustion of bioethanol Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel
World EU EU EU EU EU EU Brazil EU EU EU
Delphi method n/s BioGrace Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML n/s, IMPACT 2002+ SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint (H) SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008 method SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact 2002 + method
✓
✓ Ecoinvent v2.0 n/s n/s SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000 Input/Output model Input/Output model 2013 2014 2010 45 46 47
1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel Biodiesel from microalgae Production of Bioethanol
Brazil China Canada
LCA database utilized Country of Study Functional Unit Year of study #
Table 1 (continued)
studies most often considered ethanol or biodiesel products, although some chose unique functional units as their basis of analysis (for example, kg of monosaccharides). In terms of geographic range, the USA and EU are most commonly used as study regions, although other countries such as Canada or parts of Asia and South America are also represented. Some studies presented new primary data, while others were based on secondary sources; some include sensitivity analyses which speak to the variability within the studies, while others do not. Some of the studies focused exclusively on environmental (LCA), economic (LCC), or social assessments (S-LCA), while others presented more comprehensive LCSA. The tools and inventories utilized to carry out the studies are also detailed in Table 1, as are the functional units used to present the analysis. Fig. 2 shows a subdivision of the studies based on the type of functional unit adopted. 3. Results and discussion
LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
Included primary data
Presented sensitivity analysis
Reference
M. Collotta, et al.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 2. Type of functional unit adopted in the studies analyzed. Bars of the same color indicate similar types of functional unit. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
analyses to understand the potential range of performance associated with different biofuel pathways [95]. The application of LCSA is implicit in other Principles included within the RSB framework. For example, Principles 8 (Soil), 9 (Water), and 10 (Air) speak to maintaining key environmental services [94] that are best measured using a life cycle approach. Similarly, Principle 2 incorporates monitoring and planning, while Principle 11 incorporates waste management, both of which are important aspects of product life cycle. Principle 6 examines food security and Principle 7 deals with conservation and biodiversity – essentially impacts associated with new product development which again can be captured using a life cycle approach. To give one example of why life cycle is important within these P&C: Criterion 9c states that ‘water used for the operations shall not be withdrawn beyond replenishment capacity … ’ [94]. To be able to address this criteria, a biofuel producer would need to know exactly how much water is being used throughout their process, including the stages of biomass production as well as industrial processing, and this in turn would require a life cycle approach. Water removals could impact food production and biodiversity, depending on where and to what extent water is being taken. Process wastewater needs to be managed and returned to the ecosystem, and all aspects of water use need to be monitored. The life cycle approach would allow for this to happen, supporting multiple Principles within the RSB standard and ensuring that data was collected and managed in a rigorous fashion. To date, however, the RSB has not provided detailed procedures to meet these P &C; clear instructions for setting system boundaries are not in place and functional units are not defined. The challenge around each of these Principles becomes how, exactly, data is being collected, assessed, and interpreted to support specific criteria. The RSB has other Principles which on the surface appear to be less suited to an LCSA approach. For example, Principle 1 (legality), Principle 4 (human and labour rights), Principle 5 (rural and social development), and Principle 12 (land rights) all are deeply rooted in issues of law and/or economics. Many of the individual Criteria under these Principles are met through the development of new training, education, or employment programs. In some cases the RSB has provided guidance on how these P&C can be informed; for example, Criterion 5b deals with regions of poverty, which in turn are defined by the United Nations Human Development Indicators at the national level [94]. The challenge associated with these Principles arises from the rather complicated supply chains that define many biofuel supply chains.
Often the production of biofuels is not a localized operation; a number of different countries may be involved at different points in the supply chain. While Criterion 5b specifies development of new employment programs in regions of poverty (as defined by the UN) [94], a detailed supply chain is required to ensure that all of these regions are identified – including the producers of all inputs, including feedstocks, process chemicals and water, as well as regions that accept outputs of the process, such as pollution, that might have negative impacts. Without detailed supply chains, these areas might not be identified or acknowledged in the RSB certification process. Similarly, Criterion 1 focuses on complying with all applicable laws of the country in which the operation occurs; a challenge arises when different nations are involved in the supply chain, which again might not be captured in the RSB without a detailed analysis of both inputs and outputs. Applying an LCSA approach could help to strengthen the development of data to support these P&C. 3.2. System boundaries and existing LCSAs An LCSA approach may help to better define data inputs to the RSB framework, but only if system boundaries are defined in a rigorous fashion. As discussed in the previous section, the RSB does provide very clear guidance on system boundaries with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. For other Principles, however, the RSB is relatively quiet, with only occasional guidance recommending a national rating (as with Criteria 1 & 5b) [94]. If an LCSA approach is to be used to better inform the RSB, it is very important that this approach cover the full range of biofuel production. The review of 60 studies made it clear that existing LCSAs rarely adhere to a ‘holistic’ set of system boundaries that incorporate all aspects of biofuel production. Table 2 describes nine unique production phases: cultivation and cultivation input production, land use, transportation, biomass pre-processing, biofuel production, storage, byproduct management, and biofuel use, while Fig. 3 shows the number of studies that examined each production phase. Interestingly, of the 60 studies reviewed, only one [52] covered all nine of these production phases, while five studies covered eight of the nine production phases. This analysis suggests that the current practice with respect to LCSAs has trended towards more focused analyses of specific aspects of biofuel systems, addressing critical areas of concern rather than attempting to understand the overall impacts of these systems. The data also highlights the fact that LCSA has been successfully 6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 2 Production phases identified in 60 LCSA studies. LCA #
Cultivation Input Production
Cultivation
Land use
Inter-operational Transportation
Biomass preprocessing
Biofuel production
Interoperational Storage
Bio-waste and coproduct management
Biofuel usage - use of the final product
Total number of production phases considered
19 4 16 17 35 41 1 3 14 15 18 21 22 32 38 8 24 30 33 36 43 44 45 54 58 59 10 11 20 23 25 27 28 29 31 34 37 39 40 50 52 53 55 56 57 60 2 5 6 42 51 13 26 49 9 12 7 46 47 48
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 51
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 55
✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 29
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 43
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 39
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 40
✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 66
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 21
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 26
9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
applied to all nine of the production phases effectively, with multiple studies existing that could inform approaches to analyzing each part of the biofuel system. In the 60 studies selected cultivation was the most widely studied component, showing up in 55 LCSA publications. The phases most often omitted in LCSA studies included storage and coproduct management. Perhaps worryingly, two of the most contentious components of the system – land use and biofuel use – were omitted in
more than half of the studies considered. Fig. 3 illustrates the number of studies that were found to correspond to each component in the biofuel production system. The system boundary discussion is important because it highlights the limited ability of existing LCSA studies to adequately report on the overall impact of biofuel production. While the RSB Standard does a good job of defining system boundaries for greenhouse gas emissions, 7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 3. Percentage of LCSA studies to incorporate individual production phases. Bars of the same color indicate closely linked or co-located phases of production. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
the Standard is much less clear on the boundaries that need to be applied for other Principles. It may be assumed that some of the data used to inform the Criteria under these Principles will be sourced from existing LCSA studies; if so, there is a strong chance that important elements of the biofuel supply chain are not being reflected in current RSB certification practices.
eutrophication have been presented as two of the most important impact categories in several LCA studies [32,33,40,44,48,50,55,65,66]; a primary source for these two categories is nitrogen losses from soil (NOx and NO3-). Soil organic carbon (SOC) is another important environmental factor that usually reduces the impact in the soil when the crop/ cultivation is removed. The review suggests that significant environmental impacts are not well covered in the literature, including water use and respiratory effects. Water use in particular is an important aspect of RSB certification, and the relative paucity of data available in the literature to inform this Criteria suggests that additional work is needed in this space. Certainly a review of those studies that did include water use suggests that the data requirements are challenging, and that a collective effort to increase data availability would be welcome.
3.3. Key impacts considered in existing LCSAs The indicators that are used within LCSA studies can vary significantly, depending upon the scope of the LCSA, the system boundaries and functional unit that are selected, and the data that is available. In the 60 LCSAs that are reviewed in this paper, a wide variety of environmental, economic, and social indicators were employed to examine key areas of impact as shown in Table 3. The table highlights the strong emphasis that studies to date have placed on certain environmental impacts, but also identifies certain economic and social impacts that are not yet well documented in the literature.
3.3.2. Economic impacts Seven studies were identified that do address economic impacts, and these are listed in Table 3. The consideration of the economic impact of biofuels is an element of fundamental importance. Companies and consumers make their choices largely based on cost effectiveness or competitiveness with fossil energy; as a result, the diffusion of biofuels in the market is highly dependent on their cost. Furthermore, improved economic performance of biofuels essentially reduces the need for fiscal incentive policies and encourages the entry of new participants into the biofuel market. Compared to environmental impacts, economic indicators are rarely included in LCSA, and more detailed life cycle costing studies are rarely assessed in concert with other environmental factors. In the literature, a few papers present a complete techno-economic analysis conducted across the life cycle of different production processes [13,19,32,39,40,45,78,79]. Common economic impacts that were included are economic indices, value of co-products, capital expenditures, and operating costs [32,39,99]. Two approaches are commonly taken to modeling economic life cycle impacts; most studies consider the economic feasibility of bioethanol production at the project level (i.e. a combination of capital and operating costs), while others work at a regional scale, utilizing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other macroeconomic indicators [13,32,40,78,79]. Critical indicators identified in these studies include transportation costs, food prices, and land prices, all of which have a significant influence on overall economic sustainability [19,39]. This is particularly important when one considers the relationship between these indicators and other
3.3.1. Environmental impacts Environmental impacts are well described within the LCSAs, as shown in Table 3. There are several factors that strongly influence the cultivation of biomass. The most important of these include the nature and quantity of the commodities displaced by co-products (i.e. surplus energy for combustion), yield of monosaccharide per hectare of agricultural production, soil proprieties, climate conditions and finally crop and nitrogen management [44]. A number of studies underline the relationship between the use of nitrogen in the biomass cultivation and corresponding environmental impacts [32,44,46,63,77,97,98]. Another important consideration is the production and consumption of agrochemicals (fertilizers) and fuels used in field cultivation [27,32,39,40,46,59,61]. It is also important to consider GHG fluxes associated with biomass cultivation, including soil CO2 and methane (CH4) fluxes; finally, agricultural equipment operation has significant impacts [27]. The impacts of biomass production on soil chemistry, including carbon sequestration and N2O emissions, are critical factors in determining environmental footprint. A possible reduction in the emission of nitrogen from soil is usually related to precision farming technologies, and planting of winter cover crops. The dominant source that directly influences the environmental impact is N2O, which is mainly associated with nitrogen fertilizers [32]. Acidification and 8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 3 Environmental, economic and social impacts considered in 60 LCSA studies. LCSA impacts considered
Effects
Studies #s
Abiotic depletion
Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Acidification
Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential
Ecotoxicity Energy use Eutrophication Global warning potential
Hazard-weighted concentration Energy depletion potential Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine eutrophication potential Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential
Human toxicity
Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential
Ionizing radiation Land Use
Ionising radiation potential Agricultural and urban land occupation potential
Marine toxicity Ozone depletion
Marine ecotoxicity potential Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Particulate matter formation Photochemical oxidation
PM10 Concentration Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
Respiratory effects Water use Other environmental impact Production cost Economic impact multiplier CNY/CNY Economic index = value added/ operating cost GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Industrial output impact Social well-being
Inorganics substances Amount of water and water depletion potential Different effects Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size Economy growth Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating costs, land prices, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production
17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f, 42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49, 18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
Employment impact multiplier people/ 10000 CNY Probability, Reversibility and Monitorability of every social impact
Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and development opportunities to rural communities, human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of the company, corruption and legal system, Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related), Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
39, 35, 10, 2, 32, 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh 3, 11, 56 46 2, 8, 22 47, 56 1, 2, 7, 56
46, 47 48
Notes: a fossil fuel consumption; b freshwater and terrestrial; c soil organic carbon; d terrestrial and aquatic; e volatile organic compounds; f non-renewable energy consumption; g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial; h respiratory inorganic effects; j net energy yield; l net carbon emission reduction; m cancer, non-cancer, respiratory.
environmental impacts associated with biomass production, and the net impact of the entire biomass supply chain. The review highlights the relative lack of attention paid to economic impacts within LCSA, and the range of options available to practitioners who do wish to incorporate some economic factors. Within the LCSA studies considered, economic impacts tended to be restricted to a single impact category, rather than representing different types of impacts within the same study. In part, this reflects the relative novelty of incorporating economic factors into LCSA work; at the same time, it may reflect upon the challenges with incorporating this type of analysis into a methodology that until recently has focused on environmental factors.
potentially impact the price and supply of food, as well as labor force conditions, especially in developing countries [19]. At the current time, a major challenge with social impacts is that they are difficult to measure in a quantitative or empirical fashion, particularly at a project scale rather than a regional or national level. Socio-economic impacts of biofuel production and usage are taken into account in a number of LCSA studies. In Table 3, seven studies that take an S-LCA approach are presented [3,38,39,78–80,100]. Critical social factors identified within these studies include the need to ensure that benefits associated with biofuel projects accrue at a local level [39], the importance of assessing the impacts of biofuel production on land, food and feed prices, and the anticipated changes in land ownership, and vegetation and crop patterns. The most socially divisive issue related to biofuels has been the potential impacts of increased biofuel feedstock production on food systems, and the need to ensure that biomass production for energy does not endanger food supply [39]. Modern LCSAs, such as those carried out by Ekener-Pedersen et al., in 2014 and 2016 [3,100], now incorporate issues such as human rights, labor situations, health and safety, community and governance impact categories. The main indicators related to social impact categories tend to be gender equity, health-related diseases, forced labour, minimum wages, injuries, large land holdings and corruption. Understanding social sustainability through the LCSA lens may be
3.3.3. Social impacts It has been previously noted that policy plays an important role in developing sustainability criteria, particularly in the USA and EU context. Social sustainability has become a greater concern to policymakers in recent years, and the need to achieve ‘social license’ is now a real issue associated with new biofuel projects. With this in mind, it is important to note that neither the US nor the EU have mandated social sustainability criteria for renewable fuels, even if there is considerable global attention to developing indicators and methodologies capable of evaluating social impacts; in contrast, the RFS does include a number of social measures, as discussed in the next section. Biofuel production can 9
10
Use of Technology, Inputs and Management of Waste
Land Rights
11
12
Conservation
7
Air
Local Food Security
6
10
Rural and social development
5
Water
Human and Labor Rights
4
9
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3
Soil
Legality Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
1 2
8
RSB criteria
n
Production efficiency Social and environmental long-term performance Damages risk for people and environment Good practices implementation Residues, waste and byproduct Existing land right and land use rights
Biodiversity, ecosystem and conservation impact Habitats fragmentation Invasive species monitoring Soil chemical and biological conditions Soil degradation Soil health maintenance Respect of existing water rights Water management plan for efficient use Surface or groundwater depletion Surface and groundwater quality enhancement Air pollution emissions/open air burning
Discrimination Improvement of socioeconomic status of locals Participation of women, youth and indigenous Food security risk assessment
Working conditions, wages and safety Child Labor
Slave or forced labor
Freedom of association
Follow all applicable laws Mitigation, monitoring and evaluation plans Business plan for long-term economic viability GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel (RSB method)
Main indicators for RSB
Land Use, land competition
Particulate Matter Formation Volatile Organic Compounds Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption Ozone Layer Depletion Photochemical Oxidant Formation Soil Organic Carbon
Acidification potential
Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity Water Use
Forest Ecosystem Health Ecological Toxicity Water security (feedstock and process related) Eutrophication potential
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56 48 2 48
Inclusion of small-scale producers Local prosperity, Social well-being On-site food security, Off-site food security Land process, food and feed prices Biodiversity security
2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60 4 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55 2, 24
39 48 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
2, 56 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44 48
8, 39 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 7, 56
7 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Study #s
Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, non-communicable diseases, obesity Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages, forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social wellbeing, integrity of the company Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain
Net Energy Yield Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq]
Governance and legal system corruption Cumulative Energy Demand
LCSA impacts considered
Table 4 Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
2016
Fernandez et al., 2016
Van Dam et al., 2009 Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 Spatari et al., 2005 Adler et al., 2007
Styles and Jones 2007 Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 Kim et al., 2007 Pelletier et al., 2008
Reneuf et al., 2008 Searcy et al., 2008 Kim et al., 2009 Liska et al., 2009 Monti et al., 2009 Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 Bai et al., 2010 Cherubini et al., 2010
Väisänen et al., 2016 Hoefnagels et al., 2010 Hsu et al., 2010
Schumacher et al., 2010 Stephenson et al., 2010 Wang et al., 2012
Brandão et al., 2011 Eranki and Dale 2011 Fazio and Monti 2011 Hussain et al., 2010 Kaliyan et al., 2011
Kauffman et al., 2011 Kimming et al., 2011 Whitman et al., 2011 Budsberg et al., 2012
Buonocore et al., 2012
Goglio et al., 2012 González-García et al., 2012 González-García et al., 2012 Tonini et al., 2012 Wang et al., 2012 Yang et al., 2012 Godard et al., 2013 González-García et al., 2013 Murphy and Kendall 2013 Yang & Chen 2013 Collet et al., 2014
1
2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20
21 22 23
11
24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32
33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
2008 2011 2011 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013
2011
2010 2009 2011 2012
2007 2010 2011 2009 2010
2010 2010 2012
2014 2010 2010
2007 2008 2008 2009 2008 2015 2009 2009
2006 2013 2007 2007
2009 2015 2005 2005
Year of study
LCA # Reference
Table 5 Comparison of the 60 biofuel from biomass papers.
1 ha land, GJ grain output 1 ha of SRC willow 1 ha of willow plantation 1 ha of ag. land use Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven 10 GWh of heat from biomass 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass 1 ha corn stover production Combustion of bioethanol Combusting 1 MJ algae
Combustion of biomass
Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char 1 year supply heat, electricity Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol
1 ha of land for one year 5000 tons/day biorefinery Production of annual crops Production of bioethanol Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol
Energy yield per hectare and year 1 tonne of bioethanol 1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV
1 kg monosaccharide CO2 per MWh electricity 1 kg of dry biomass MJ of Bioethanol GJ energy crops and hectare 1 MJ of fuel 1 km driving amt biomass treated per year 1 MJ butanol produced MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, 1 km traveled by a FFV
SOM, soil nutrient balance 1 km distance (FFV) 1 l bioethanol 1 l bioethanol, 1 l biodiesel 1 ha per year n/s 1 kg Bioethanol 1 kg of crop produced
1 GJ Biodiesel
Functional Unit
EU EU EU EU USA USA EU EU USA China EU
EU
USA EU Canada USA
EU USA EU Canada USA
EU EU EU
USA World USA
Australia USA/Canada USA USA EU India n/s n/s
EU EU USA Canada
Argentina Turkey Canada USA
Argentina
GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 GaBi 4, EDIP 2003 Simapro v7.3 & Aspen-Plus, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, CML Baseline 2001 GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 GHGenius 3.19 GREET, Aspen-Plus GREET, DAYCENT n/s, ICBM GHGenius 3.19 SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, GREET, TRACI n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline 2000 n/s, Input/Output SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 GREET GREET SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 n/s, CML Baseline2000 n/s, IPCC n/s, IPCC n/s, ReCiPe (E)
GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 n/s, ISO 14040 SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET
n/s, n/s n/s, n/s n/s, DAYCENT GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 Baseline n/s, Eco-indicator 95 GHGenius, GREET GREET, DAYCENT GREET, BESS Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Chain Mgmt, LCA Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000
Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 Gabi 4, EDPI GHGenius n/s, DAYCENT
Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H)
Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.1 Ecoinvent v2.0 USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, GaBi Different reports, papers Ecoinvent v2.0
n/s
GREET and IPCC inventory n/s IPCC inventory Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI
Ecoinvent 1.2 n/s Ecoinvent v1.1 IPCC inventory n/s
GREET CONCAWE Ecoinvent .2.0 US LCI, AP 42 PE International GmbH GaBi Database, DEFRA report EMEP/EEA, NREL report
Australian LCI, Ecoinvent 2.0 NREL report EFMA USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.1 Ecoinvent v1.3 IPCC inventory
IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, DEFRA n/s DEAM and other sources GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0
Ecoinvent 3.1, PestLCI n/s Ecoinvent 2.0 IPCC inventory NREL report
LCA database utilized
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
Included primary data
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
(continued on next page)
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Presented sensitivity analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
✓ ✓
3.4. LCSA as a tool to inform the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials In Table 4, the Principles and Criteria defined by the RSB are related to specific LCSA outputs obtained in the 60 studies considered in this review. In particular, each RSB Principle is matched with the studies from which quantitative information can be gleaned in order to inform the Criteria within the Principle. For each Principle, the applicable data that may be taken from the studies reviewed in this paper are presented. It is clear from Table 4 that some of the Principles within the RSB framework are well documented through LCSA, indicating that methodologies are well established and that the necessary data to inform these Principles are available. The Criteria that are best informed include those related to GHG emissions (Principle 3), water management (Principle 9), air pollution and the depletion of non-renewable resources (Principle 10) (see Table 6) (see Table 7) (see Table 8) (see Table 5). Other indicators used in the RSB framework are not well detailed, particularly those under Principle 11 which incorporates indicators related to the use of technology, inputs and management of waste, longterm performance of the system, and good risk management. In fact, no LCSA study considered in this work provided direct measurements of these indicators. While this may simply be a reflection of a lack of interest in exploring these issues through LCSA, this finding may speak to a lack of readily-available data that could support evaluation of these system components. The impacts of rapidly changing technologies on product sustainability, and the importance of waste management to life cycle assessment suggests that this is an area that needs more attention. The lack of LCSA studies that could support Principle 11 may also be an artifact of the study approach, which focused on the outputs of quantitative analysis rather than qualitative assessment. As noted previously, a strength of the RSB framework is the holistic fashion in which various aspects of sustainability are considered, while a strength of the LCSA approach is the scientific rigor which is applied to data collection and analysis. Fig. 4 summarizes the different RSB Principles and the number of existing LCSA studies that might be used to inform the Criteria in each; there is very little data available that has been developed using an LCSA approach that can describe economic and social impacts on a life cycle basis. As discussed previously, this forces the RSB to rely on other types of data; doing so may fail to capture significant impacts that would affect the overall sustainability of a given biofuel system. These are clearly areas where LCSA may be expanded to provide better approximations of overall sustainability, as defined by the RSB.
Ecoinvent v.3.1
✓ ✓ Ecoinvent v2.2
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
one of the most challenging propositions for practitioners, as the data required to inform LCSA tends to be unavailable at the local level; social statistics tend to be presented in aggregate and on a periodic basis (e.g. coinciding with census reports every 4–6 years). The ability of a biofuel proponent to collect data regarding social impacts may be limited by ethical concerns or by practical limitations. In the RSB standard, criteria related to social sustainability tend to focus on actions that can be taken to alleviate potential issues, such as the creation of education, training, and employment programs. These types of activities are not typically captured within LCSA studies today.
CA Levasseur et al., 2017 60
3.5. Practical implications of the study
n/s – included but not specified.
Production of 1 kg butanol 2017
Thailand Prapaspongsa et al., 2017
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59
2017
Production of Bioethanol Production of Bioethanol 1 MJ of Bioethanol Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris Production of 1 kg of lipids Production of 1 kg of lipids Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure n/s Production 1 kg of n-butanol 1 MJ of energy released in the combustion of bioethanol Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel 2014 2008 2013 2016 2017 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2017
World EU EU EU EU EU EU Brazil EU EU EU
Delphi method n/s BioGrace Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3 Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML n/s, IMPACT 2002+ SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint (H) SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008 method SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact 2002 + method
Delphi survey IPCC inventory n/s Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.0 Ecoinvent v2.2 Ecoinvent v.3 Ecoinvent v.3
✓
✓ ✓ Ecoinvent v2.0 n/s n/s SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000 Input/Output model Input/Output model Brazil China Canada 1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel Biodiesel from microalgae Production of Bioethanol 2013 2014 2010
Rocha et al., 2014 Yang et al., 2015 Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin 2011 Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 Lechon et al., 2011 Lindorfer et al., 2014 Collotta et al., 2016 Collotta et al., 2017 Collotta et al., 2017b Collotta et al., 2018 de Azevedo et al., 2017 Ekener et al., 2018 Brito and Martins 2017 Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 45 46 47
LCA # Reference
Table 5 (continued)
Year of study
Functional Unit
Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
LCA database utilized
Included primary data
Presented sensitivity analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
This review suggests that LCSA approaches to impact assessment, while becoming more holistic across all aspects of sustainability, are still not sufficient to completely inform the full range of P&C laid out by the RSB. After assessing the LCSA data developed across the 60 studies considered in this paper, it was clear that RSB Principle 11 is not informed in any way. Three other RSB Principles (1, 6, 7) are only partially addressed, through one or two studies each. While significant LCSA data is available to inform the other Principles, there remain a number of Criteria that are not well covered or absent altogether, as 12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 6 Production phase analyzed in the LCA biofuel from biomass papers. LCA #
Cultivation Input Production
Cultivation
Land use
Inter-operational Transportation
Biomass preprocessing
Biofuel production
Interoperational Storage
Bio-waste and coproduct management
Biofuel usage - use of the final product
Total number of production phases considered
19 4 16 17 35 41 1 3 14 15 18 21 22 32 38 8 24 30 33 36 43 44 45 54 58 59 10 11 20 23 25 27 28 29 31 34 37 39 40 50 52 53 55 56 57 60 2 5 6 42 51 13 26 49 9 12 7 46 47 48
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i
9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
described in Table 4. It should be noted that some P&C are very well detailed, particularly with respect to Principle 3 (greenhouse gas emissions) and Principle 10 (air impacts); there are multiple studies, covering wide geographic areas, which provide useful data and which detail strong methodological approaches to measuring these impacts. It is important to reflect that the RSB does not dictate the use of LCSA to inform each Principle and Criteria within the Standard. Data is available, and the proponents that are working with the RSB to obtain
certification are able to inform each of the criteria. The practical implication of these findings is that much of the data that is being used to inform the RSB is not being generated through an LCSA approach. As discussed previously, this may be a serious issue because of the complex and expansive nature of biofuel production pathways; inputs and outputs to biofuel production may travel great distances, across multiple borders, and may impact a number of different ecological, economic, and social systems across a full life cycle. Extending the LCSA approach 13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Table 7 Environmental, economic and social indicators incorporated in 60 biofuel from biomass studies. n
LCSA impacts considered
Effects
Studies
1
Abiotic depletion
Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
2
Acidification
Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential
3 4 5
Ecotoxicity Energy use Eutrophication
Hazard-weighted concentration Energy depletion potential Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine eutrophication potential
6
Global warning potential
Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential
7
Human toxicity
Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential
8 9
Ionizing radiation Land Use
Ionising radiation potential Agricultural and urban land occupation potential
10 11
Marine toxicity Ozone depletion
Marine ecotoxicity potential Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
12 13
Particulate matter formation Photochemical oxidation
PM10 Concentration Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential
14 15 16 17 18
Respiratory effects Water use Other environmental impact Production cost Economic impact multiplier CNY/ CNY Economic index = value added/ operating cost GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Industrial output impact Social well-being
Inorganics substances Amount of water and water depletion potential Different effects Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size Economy growth
17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f, 42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24, 33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49, 18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
19 21 22
23 24
Employment impact multiplier people/10000 CNY Probability, Reversibility and Monitorability of every social impact
39, 35, 10, 2, 32, 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh 3, 11, 56 46
Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating costs, land prices, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production
2, 8, 22
Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and development opportunities to rural communities, human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of the company, corruption and legal system, Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related), Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
1, 2, 7, 56
47, 56
46, 47, 48
Notes:a fossil fuel consumption;b freshwater and terrestrial;c soil organic carbon;d terrestrial and aquatic;e volatile organic compounds;f non-renewable energy consumption;g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial;h respiratory inorganic effects;j net energy yield;l net carbon emission reduction;m cancer, non-cancer, respiratory.
in a fashion similar to the way that the RSB already treats Principle 3 (related to GHG emissions) – implementing a more rigorous methodology with clearly defined system boundaries, functional units, and data sources – would help to ensure that all upstream and downstream impacts are being captured by the RSB framework. This study also has implications for the practice of LCSA. The RSB brings a holistic overview of sustainability to the table, and the review of existing LCSA studies suggest that there is significant room to expand the number of indicators used within LCSA, particularly to reflect economic and social impacts. The RSB has suggested interesting Criteria to help track social and economic sustainability issues, which may be translated in some cases to indicator sets for use within LCSA. In this way, LCSA could be significantly strengthened and the applicability of these tools to RSB Certification (or to other frameworks for assessing sustainability) would be increased. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that the RSB consider implementing guidelines on a life cycle basis which clearly delineate system boundaries, functional units, and data sources for each of the Principles included in the P&C framework. A potential template for these guidelines exists in relation to Principle 3 (see RSB 2017b). It is also recommended that policymakers seeking to enhance the
sustainability of alternative fuel systems consider the use of LCSA to inform these analyses, and promote the expansion of LCSA to inform critical aspects of economic and social sustainability. 4. Conclusion This work is based on the idea that the LCSA methodology provides the most robust, scientifically-rigorous data to inform our understanding of the sustainability of biofuel systems, and that the RSB has developed one of the most robust certification frameworks for sustainable biofuels. The RSB P&C framework for certifying biofuel systems already includes overt use of life cycle methodologies (Principle 3), and implies a life cycle approach in other areas (Principles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10). The remaining Principles within the P&C framework would likely benefit from the application of a life cycle approach as well. To determine the ability of existing LCSA studies to inform the RSB P&C framework, an assessment of 60 recent LCSA studies was carried out. This review identified some interesting trends. In examining system boundaries used in these studies, it was found that very few LCSA studies considered all aspects of biofuel production systems when assessing sustainability. This is an important finding, as it suggests that 14
15
Use of Technology, Inputs and Management of Waste
Land Rights
11
12
Conservation
7
Air
Local Food Security
6
10
Rural and social development
5
Water
Human and Labor Rights
4
9
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3
Soil
Legality Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
1 2
8
RSB criteria
n
Production efficiency Social and environmental long-term performance Damages risk for people and environment Good practices implementation Residues, waste and byproduct Existing land right and land use rights
Biodiversity, ecosystem and conservation impact Habitats fragmentation Invasive species monitoring Soil chemical and biological conditions Soil degradation Soil health maintenance Respect of existing water rights Water management plan for efficient use Surface or groundwater depletion Surface and groundwater quality enhancement Ari pollution emissions Open air burning
Improvement of socioeconomic status of locals Participation of women, youth and indigenous Food security risk assessment
Freedom of association Slave or forced labor Working conditions, wages and safety Child Labor Discrimination
Follow all applicable laws Mitigation, monitoring and evaluation plans Business plan for long-term economic viability GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel (RSB method)
Main indicators for RSB
Land Use, land competition
Particulate Matter Formation Volatile Organic Compounds Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption Ozone Layer Depletion Photochemical Oxidant Formation Soil Organic Carbon
Acidification potential
Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity Water Use
Water security (feedstock and process related) Eutrophication potential
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Forest Ecosystem Health Ecological Toxicity
On-site food security, Off-site food security Land process, food and feed prices Biodiversity security
Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, non-communicable diseases, obesity Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages, forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social wellbeing, integrity of the company Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain Inclusion of small-scale producers Local prosperity, Social well-being
GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq]
Governance and legal system corruption Cumulative Energy Demand Net Energy Yield Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption
LCSA impacts considered
Table 8 Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60 4 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55 2, 24
48 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
39
14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
48 2 48
1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56
14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44 48
2, 56
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 7, 56
8, 39
7 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Study #s
M. Collotta, et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al.
Fig. 4. Number of studies informing each RSB criterion.
LCSA approaches to impact assessment have not trended towards being able to provide holistic measures of biofuel production impacts, but rather have focused on isolated components of the production system to answer specific questions. This in turn means that fewer studies are available in the literature that can be used as exemplars for biofuel producers, and indeed implies that our current state of knowledge when it comes to the impacts of biofuel production is curtailed by a lack of holistic work on the subject. While there may be relatively few studies in the literature that can comment on holistic biofuel production impacts, the fact that individual LCSA studies do exist that cover all production phases related to biofuel production does suggest that the LCSA approach can usefully be applied to satisfy criteria within the RSB. While this is currently in fact specified under Principle 3 of the RSB standard, it is suggested that the life cycle approach could be implemented across other Principles and Criteria within the RSB to improve the quality of data and ensure that RSB certification is capturing the impacts of all aspects of the biofuel production system. It is clear from this analysis, however, that LCSA studies that can assess economic or social sustainability are rare, and that the types of data generated by these studies are still insufficient to fully support the RSB P&C framework. Of the 60 LCSA studies that were assessed, the majority (54 studies) provided quantitative assessments of environmental sustainability, across a wide range of indicators. By comparison, only 7 studies provided quantitative analyses of economic sustainability, and only 7 studies provided data on social sustainability. Only two of these studies considered a combination of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. This review suggests interesting new avenues for development of LCSA approaches to evaluating sustainability. The RSB P&C framework incorporates novel methodologies for assessing the economic and social impacts of biofuel production systems. These approaches include proactive programs in education, training, and employment, and may serve as useful indicators within LCSA. Future exploration of these opportunities is warranted in order to better incorporate economic and social impacts into the LCSA tool. While this study has focused on biofuel production systems, the types of indicators considered could support better sustainability assessments for a wide variety of products and processes. This review also provides insight into ways in which the RSB P&C could be improved, to better incorporate a life cycle approach and to strengthen the value of certification using the RSB methodologies.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Ontario Ministry of Research Innovation (Ontario Research Fund). Additional funds were provided via a National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant and through the Canada Research Chairs Program. Finally, the authors thank BioFuelNet Canada for funding support and access to data during the writing of this paper. References [1] Janzen HH. Carbon cycling in earth systems - a soil science perspective. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2004;104:399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.040. [2] International Energy Agency. Oil information overview. 2018. [3] Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G. Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 2014;73:416–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.034. [4] European Parliament. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. Off J Eur Union 2009;140:16–62. https://doi.org/10. 3000/17252555.L_2009.140.eng. [5] Environment Canada Inquiry Centre. Canada's emissions trends. 2011. EN81-18/ 2013E-PDF. [6] United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris agreement. 21st conf parties. 2015. p. 3. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9. [7] Wiebe K, Croppenstedt A, Raney T, Skoet J, Zurek M, Tschirley J, et al. Environmental impacts of biofuels. Biofuels Prospect Risks Oppor 2008:55–71. [8] Pieprzyk B, Kortluke N, Rojas Hilje P. The impact of fossil fuels. 2009. [9] Hertwich EG, van der Voet E, Tukker A. Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production. Priority Products and Materials; 2010. [10] Kazamia E, Smith AG. Assessing the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Trends Plant Sci 2014;19:615–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.08.001. [11] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification : a global overview. Energy Policy 2011;39:1630–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039. [12] Diop D, Blanco M, Flammini A, Schalifer M, Kropiwicka MA, Markhof MM. Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for Development. 2013. [13] Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Dennis JS. The environmental and economic sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:9612–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104. [14] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2018. 2018https://doi.org/10. 1787/weo-2018-en. [15] Eurobserver. Biofuels barometer 2018https://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/biofuelsbarometer-2018/. [16] Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A. A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy 2016;59:516–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2016.09.009. [17] Schnepf R, Yacobucci BD. Renewable fuel standard (RFS): overview and issues. 2010. [18] Mondou M, Skogstad G. The regulation of biofuels in the United States. European Union and Canada; 2012. p. 1–33.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al. [19] Cambero C, Sowlati T. Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives - a review of literature. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014. 04.041. [20] Nuffield Council on bioethics. Biofuels: Ethical Issues 2011;44:1–226http:// nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Biofuels_ethical_issues_FULLREPORT_0.pdf, Accessed date: 23 April 2019. [21] Ciroth A, Finkbeiner M, Hildenbrand J, Klöpffer W, Mazijn B, Prakash S, et al. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability A ssessment: making informed choices on products. 2011. DTI/1412/PA. [22] Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T. From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3. [23] RSB A. Guide to RSB Certification. Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2016. [24] Haugen HM. Coherence or forum shopping in biofuels sustainability schemes? Nordic J Human Rights 2015;33(1):52–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131. 2015.1000052. [25] Winickoff DE, Mondou M. The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: the case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Soc Stud Sci 2017;47(1):7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716667855. [26] Van Schoubroeck S, Van Dael M, Van Passel S, Malina R. A review of sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.007. [27] Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 2007;17:675–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1890/05-2018. [28] Usda. USDA agricultural projections to 2024. United States Dep Agric; 2015. p. 97. [29] Lonza L, Hass H, Maas H, Reid A, Rose K. EU renewable energy targets in 2020: analysis of scenarios for transport fuels. 2011. https://doi.org/10.2788/74948. [30] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2014. 2014 https://www.iea.org/weo/. [31] Bourguignon D. EU biofuels policy. Eur Parliam Res Serv 2015;10. [32] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry milling. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:5250–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. 2007.09.034. [33] Bai Y, Luo L, Van Der Voet E. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol as transport fuel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:468–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-010-0177-2. [34] United Nations Conference on Environment and development. Authoritative and non-legally binding statement of principles for the conservation and sustainable management of all types of forests. 1992. [35] The Montreal Process. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. 1995. Hull, Quebec. [36] Barnett B. An evaluation of the UK's use of SFM standards to procure solid woody biomass for electricity generation using sustainability bioenergy criteria. BiofuelsUK 2016;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1118775. [37] FSC. Principles and criterias for forest stewardship. 2015. [38] Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel in Spain: comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish production versus Argentinean imports. Energy Sustain Dev 2016;33:36–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005. [39] van Dam J, Faaij APC, Hilbert J, Petruzzi H, Turkenburg WC. Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina. Part A: potential and economic feasibility for national and international markets. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1710–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.009. [40] Daylan B, Ciliz N. Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel. Renew Energy 2016;89:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.059. [41] Spatari S, Zhang Y, Maclean HL. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:9750–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ es048293. [42] Styles D, Jones MB. Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:759–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.05.003. [43] Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 2008;42:989–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9155-x. [44] Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK. An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1144–55. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.012. [45] Searcy E, Flynn PC. Processing of straw/corn stover: comparison of life cycle emissions. Int J Green Energy 2008;5:423–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15435070802498010. [46] Kim S, Dale BE, Jenkins R. Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14:160–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-008-0054-4. [47] Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, et al. Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of cornethanol. J Ind Ecol 2009;13:58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008. 00105.x. [48] Monti A, Fazio S, Venturi G. Cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment in perennial energy crops. Eur J Agron 2009;31:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.04. 001. [49] Portugal-Pereira J, Nakatani J, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Life cycle assessment of conventional and optimised Jatropha biodiesel fuels. Renew Energy 2016;86:585–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.046. [50] Cherubini F, Jungmeier G. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2. [51] Väisänen S, Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Havukainen M, Soukka R, Luoranen M. Carbon footprint of biobutanol by ABE fermentation from corn and sugarcane. Renew Energy 2016;89:401–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.016. [52] Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A. Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1661–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.014. [53] Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A. Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. Ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:5289–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100186h. [54] Schumacher B, Oechsner H, Senn T, Jungbluth T. Life cycle assessment of the conversion of Zea mays and x Triticosecale into biogas and bioethanol. Eng Life Sci 2010;10:577–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201000069. [55] Wang M, Han J, Dunn JB, Cai H, Elgowainy A. Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environ Res Lett 2012;7:45905. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/ 4/045905. [56] Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R. Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2323–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009. 10.019. [57] Eranki PL, Dale BE. Comparative life cycle assessment of centralized and distributed biomass processing systems combined with mixed feedstock landscapes. GCB Bioenergy 2011;3:427–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01096.x. [58] Fazio S, Monti A. Life cycle assessment of different bioenergy production systems including perennial and annual crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:4868–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.014. [59] Hussain MM, Dincer I, Reddy BV. A comparative life cycle assessment of bio- and conventional fuels in a Canadian province. Int J Energy Res 2010;35:795–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1742. [60] Kaliyan N, Morey RV, Tiffany DG. Reducing life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol by integrating biomass to produce heat and power at ethanol plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010. 11.035. [61] Kauffman N, Hayes D, Brown R. A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel production from a hectare of corn. Fuel 2011;90:3306–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fuel.2011.06.031. [62] Kimming M, Sundberg C, Nordberg Å, Baky A, Bernesson S, Norén O, et al. Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants - a comparative life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1572–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2010.12.027. [63] Whitman T, Yanni S, Whalen J. Life cycle assessment of corn stover production for cellulosic ethanol in Quebec. Can J Soil Sci 2011;91:997–1012. https://doi.org/10. 4141/cjss2011-011. [64] Budsberg E, Puettmann ME, Volk T a, Johnson L. Life-cycle assessment for the production of bioethanol from willow biomass crops via biochemical conversion *. For Prod J 2012;62:305–13. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-12-00022.1. [65] Buonocore E, Franzese PP, Ulgiati S. Assessing the environmental performance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: a life cycle assessment perspective. Energy 2012;37:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.032. [66] Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M. LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;42:33–42. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.021. [67] González-García S, Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J, Murphy RJ. Life cycle assessment of two alternative bioenergy systems involving Salix spp. biomass: bioethanol production and power generation. Appl Energy 2012;95:111–22. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.022. [68] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Murphy R. Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 2012;421–422:210–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.041. [69] Tonini D, Hamelin L, Wenzel H, Astrup T. Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:13521–30. https://doi.org/10.1021/ es3024435. [70] Wang L, Templer R, Murphy RJ. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three management options for waste papers: bioethanol production, recycling and incineration with energy recovery. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:89–98. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.130. [71] Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S. Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:3671–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203641p. [72] Godard C, Boissy J, Gabrielle B. Life-cycle assessment of local feedstock supply scenarios to compare candidate biomass sources. GCB Bioenergy 2013;5:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01187.x. [73] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Murphy RJ. Life cycle assessment of potential energy uses for short rotation willow biomass in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:783–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0536-2. [74] Murphy CW, Kendall A. Life cycle inventory development for corn and stover production systems under different allocation methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;58:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.008. [75] Yang Q, Chen GQ. Greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol production in China. Ecol Model 2013;252:176–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.011.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
M. Collotta, et al. [76] Collet P, Lardon L, Hélias A, Bricout S, Lombaert-Valot I, Perrier B, et al. Biodiesel from microalgae - life cycle assessment and recommendations for potential improvements. Renew Energy 2014;71:525–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene. 2014.06.009. [77] Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, Renó MLG, et al. Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: a meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:435–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.036. [78] Yang Y, Zhang B, Cheng J, Pu S. Socio-economic impacts of algae-derived biodiesel industrial development in China: an input-output analysis. Algal Res 2015;9:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.02.010. [79] Mukhopadhyay K, Thomassin PJ. Macroeconomic effects of the ethanol biofuel sector in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2822–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2011.03.021. [80] Ribeiro BE, Quintanilla MA. Transitions in biofuel technologies: an appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2015;92:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.006. [81] Lechon Y, Cabal H, Sáez R. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the adoption of the EU Directive on biofuels in Spain. Effect of the import of raw materials and land use changes. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2374–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.036. [82] Lindorfer J, Fazeni K, Steinmüller H. Life cycle analysis and soil organic carbon balance as methods for assessing the ecological sustainability of 2nd generation biofuel feedstock. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;5:95–105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.seta.2013.12.003. [83] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Alberti M, Busi L, et al. Environmental assessment of Co-location alternatives for a microalgae cultivation plant: a case study in the city of kingston (Canada). Energy Procedia 2016;95:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.007. [84] Collotta M, Busi L, Champagne P, Romagnoli F, Tomasoni G, Mabee W, et al. Comparative LCA of three alternative technologies for lipid extraction in biodiesel from microalgae production. Energy Procedia 2017;113. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2017.04.061. [85] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Leite GB, Busi L, et al. Comparative LCA of flocculation for the harvesting of microalgae for biofuels production. Procedia CIRP 2017;61:756–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir. 2016.11.146. [86] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G. Wastewater and waste CO2 for sustainable biofuels from microalgae. Algal Res 2018;29. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.algal.2017.11.013. [87] de Azevedo A, Fornasier F, da Silva Szarblewski M, de Souza Schneider RDC, Hoeltz
M, de Souza D. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from cattle manure. J Clean Prod 2017;162:1021–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.141. [88] Ekener E, Hansson J, Larsson A, Peck P. Developing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting - tested on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels. J Clean Prod 2018;181:337–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.211. [89] Brito M, Martins F. Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel 2017;208:476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.050. [90] Guerrero AB, Muñoz E. Life cycle assessment of second generation ethanol derived from banana agricultural waste: environmental impacts and energy balance. J Clean Prod 2018;174:710–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.298. [91] Prapaspongsa T, Musikavong C, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel production in Thailand: impacts from modelling choices, co-product utilisation, improvement technologies, and land use change. J Clean Prod 2017;153:435–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.130. [92] Levasseur A, Bahn O, Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Marinova M, Vaillancourt K. Assessing butanol from integrated forest biorefinery: a combined techno-economic and life cycle approach. Appl Energy 2017;198:440–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2017.04.040. [93] International Standards Organization. EN ISO 14040:2006 - environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. 2007. [94] RSB. RSB. Principles and criteria. Reference code RSB-STD-01-001 (version 3.0). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017. [95] RSB. RSB. Standard for advanced fuels. Reference code RSB-STD-01-010 (version 2.1). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2018. [96] RSB. RSB GHG Calculation Methodology. Reference code RSB-STD-01-003-01 (version 2.3). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017. [97] Shapouri H, Duffield J a, Wang M. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. Energy Policy 2002;35:1414–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.007. [98] Sheehan J, Aden a, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M, et al. Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol 2003;7:117–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819803323059433. [99] Mcaloon A, Taylor F, Yee W. Determining the cost of producing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. Natl Renew Energy Lab 2000;2008:44. NREL/ TP-580-28893. [100] Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M. Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2016:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-0161058-0.
18