Ethanol production from biomass: Analysis of process efficiency and sustainability

Pergamon

PII:

Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 41 I-418, 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elwier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights merved 0961-9534/96 $15.00 + 0.00 SO%l-%34(%)00037-2

ETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS: ANALYSIS OF PROCESS EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SIMONEBAsnANoNI*t

and NADIA MARCHETnNI*t

*Department of Chemistry, University of Siena, Pian dei Mantellini 44, 53100, Siena, Italy tOIKOS, International Foundation for Ecological Economics, Villa di Basciano, 53010 Quercegrossa, Siena, Italy (Received 15 October 1995; revised 2.5 March 1996; accepted 20 May 1996)

Abstract-Bioethanol production from agricultural raw materials can be carried out to produce liquid fuels and reduce CO1 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and hence its impact on climate. Crop production and transformation processes have been investigated by the traditional energy and carbon analyses and the more recent emergy analysis. The latter is able to account for, on the same basis, both renewable and non-renewable inputs, including goods and labour involved in a process. The combination of such analyses provides a deeper insight into the problems of converting biomass to fuel. In particular it is shown that emergy analysis can evaluate long-term sustainability and comparisons of emergy-based indices can be used to compare efficiency and environmental input between various production systems. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd. Keywords-Bioethanol;

emergy analysis; energy analysis; sustainability.

1. INTRODUCTION

the work performed by the biosphere to drive the whole production process.

This paper reports results from the analysis of various case studies involving the conversion of biomass into ethanol. Aspects such as carbon balance, process efficiency and land requirement were evaluated, to establish the feasibility and ecological sustainability of the conversion processes. In addition to traditional energy analysis defined by IFIAS’ and developed by e.g. Slesse? and Pimentel,3 the concept of emergy analysis, introduced by Odum in the 1980s: was used. Emergy analysis considers different inputs, including energy from renewable and non-renewable sources, as well as the goods, labour and materials involved in a process, on the same physical basis, i.e. the solar equivalent energy (emergy) concentrated to provide each input. It is more than a measure of actual energy input. Emergy is a measure of the overall convergence of energy, time and space needed to make a given resource available. In this study several emergy-based indices were calculated to provide a deeper insight into the feasibility of bioethanol production and of biomass .conversion and use in general. While energy analysis gives indications about the convenience of a process from the short-term human viewpoint, the use of emergy analysis can evaluate long-term sustainability based on JBBII/Z--D

2. THE NECESSITY FOR A “MULTICRITERION” IN THE ANALYSIS OF BIOFUELS

The interface between natural capital and man-made capital is still not fully explored. In the realm of non-equilibrium and irreversible phenomena, the assessment of planetary equilibria is still a matter of endless debate.5 This is why different methods of energy analysis have been proposed to assess the feasibility or sustainability of projects exploiting natural resources. Analyses are very often performed in an incomplete way, focusing on only one aspect of the problem: for example, maximising energy yield, reducing CO, emissions, maximising energy ratios, minimising money cost, increasing jobs, etc. The results of analysis of the same process can be significantly different depending on the method used and on the inputs and outputs identified. Furthermore, the long-term sustainability and the stability of the equilibria between man and the rest of the natural system are often neglected. What is needed is a global, systemic overview which considers the complex network of matter and energy flows driving the whole process. The 411

S. BASTIANONI and N. MARCHETTINI

412

biophysical basis of the process must be identified and investigated in order to understand how the system is developing and its real constraints. In the present study, traditional and innovative methodologies have been used in a joint and parallel way to evaluate the performance and the limiting factors of the process of obtaining ethanol from biomass:6,7 output/input energy ratios, fossil energy input per unit area, CO, balance, land required per unit energy delivered and soil erosion were evaluated together with indices based on Odum’s emergy analysis.

3. THE “EMERGY”

APPROACH

The solar emergy (from now on simply emergy) of a flow or storage is defined as the solar (equivalent) energy directly and indirectly required to generate that flow or storage. The units are solar emjoules (sej). The solar transformity is the emergy per unit flow or unit product and has been proposed as a measure of the position of a given item in the thermodynamic hierarchy of the planet. Transformity has also been suggested as a measure of quality, when a flow or product is the final result of natural selection over time, following LotkaOdum’s Maximum Power Principle.“” Attempts to evaluate environmental and economic products or services in units of energy must recognise that all forms of energy do not have the same “quality”. Human labour, information, technological devices have relatively small energy flows but high emergy flows are required for their formation and maintenance. These are energy flows of higher “quality” in the sense that they have a greater ability to feed back and amplify other flows. It is therefore inaccurate to express the value of different kinds of energy (such as sunlight and fuels) in joules. Traditional energy analysis is an important tool to establish the short-term feasibility of a process (nobody wants to produce a fuel that requires more joules than it yields). Emergy analysis, on the other hand, is also used to establish a longer-term sustainability and a measure of environmental stress. It considers a system with larger boundaries, including all the inputs that contributed to form a product, including environmental inputs that are regarded as “free” in energy analysis. Furthermore the inputs are not considered merely in terms of their energy content, but weighted by

the transformities. In this way emergy accounts for nature’s “labour” necessary to obtain a given product or flow. If an input has a high emergy content, it is likely to be a key factor in the production process. Since much “labour” is required for its renewal (it needs a large amount of space and/or time and/or energy), it may become a limiting factor. Thus emergy analysis is regarded by some as the best alternative for assessing the sustainability of a production process and evaluating environmental contributions to the economy and public policy alternatives.” However, the results of emergy analysis are not always contrary to those of energy analysis; in fact they are complementary, in the sense that they focus on different aspects of a process, all of them necessary for deeper understanding of sustainability problems. In addition to emergy and transformity, several other emergy-based indices can be calculated” which can provide a better insight into particular cases and distinguish the renewable and non-renewable components of the total emergy that drives a process, as well as the “natural” and economic inputs (see Fig. 1). The emergy yield ratio (EYR) is the emergy of an output divided by the emergy of those inputs to the process that are fed back by the economy. Referring to Fig. 1,

This ratio indicates whether a process can compete in supplying a primary energy source for an economy. If the ratio is lower than alternatives, less return is expected to be obtained per unit of emergy invested. The emergy investment ratio (EIR) is the ratio of the emergy fed back by the economy to “natural” (renewable and non renewable) local emergy inputs: EIR = ?--

N+R

This ratio evaluates the emergy input from the economy needed to exploit a unit of local resource, that is, how effective the process is as a utiliser of the economy’s investments in comparison with alternatives. To be economically feasible, the process should have a similar ratio to its competitors. The environmental loading ratio (ELR) is the ratio of purchased and non-renewable indige-

413

Ethanol production from biomass

nous emergy emergy:

to

ELR=

renewable

environmental

v

(see Fig. 1). A large ratio suggests a high technological level in emergy use and/or a high level of environmental stress. Even when the emergy investment ratio is low, the environmental loading ratio can be very high because the process may run on minerals or non-renewable fuels. The empower density, i.e. the emergy flow per unit area, is a measure of the spatial concentration of emergy flow within a process or system. A high empower density can be found in processes in which emergy use is large compared with available area. A high empower density eventually suggests that land is a limiting factor for future economic growth. 4. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS

Emergy calculations are based on the consideration of raw inputs to the process,

generally expressed in joules or grams, multiplied by the value of the transformity of each input. The emergy of an item is calculated by adding the emergies of all the independent inputs used in the production process, as shown in the following formulae: Bi = CTr,E,

Trj = Bj/Ej where Bi is the emergy of product i, Bj the emergy of thejth input, Trj its transformity and Ej the energy content. By definition, the transformity of sunlight is equal to 1, and this assumption avoids the circularity of these expressions. The transformities of products directly driven by solar energy were evaluated; then, using these results, the same procedure was used to obtain the transformities of the results of more complex processes. As an example, the transfor-

TotalEmergyY=R+N+F Emergy Yield Ratio = Y/F Bmergy Investment Ratio = F/(N+R) Environmental Loading Ratio = (F+N)/R Fig. 1. Diagram illustrating cmergy-related indices.

S.BASIUNONIand N.MARCHETIWI

Fig. 2. Energy systems diagram of bioethanol production from sugarcane in South Florida.

of phosphate was calculated to be 6.88 x lo9 sej g- ‘. This means that to produce 1 g of phosphate, 6.88 x lo9 J of solar energy are required, in a direct or indirect way. This includes all the processes required to make it available, from extraction and production to use. Similar procedures were used to obtain all the transformities used in this paper. When different results for the same item were obtained, the average was taken, but the figures were usually very close.

mity

5. REQUISITES

FOR FUEL PRODUCTION BIOMASS

FROM

Fuels obtainable from biomass have been proposed as substitutes for fossil fuels, whose scarcity and cost are likely to increase in the future. This proposal is also related to environmental concerns for climate change, which further encourages the development of cleaner energy technologies. Competition for available land has sometimes been considered, because fertile land is seen as a limiting factor in both food and energy production. It is therefore possible to list some requirements for a biomass fuel to be feasible: 1. the fuel should provide more energy than is required for its production; 2. the fuel should be renewable and its long-term availability should be assured;

3. release of carbon dioxide into the environment from the biofuel production and combustion cycle should be lower than that for an equivalent amount of energy from fossil fuels; 4. land requirement should not be too high, to avoid competition with food production and to preserve wild areas supporting the biosphere’s activity; 5. fuel quality should be clearly assessed in the framework of the thermodynamic hierarchy of the biosphere; value to the user should not be the only criterion, but also cost of production including the unpaid environmental “labour” needed to provide it. These points were assessed by energy analysis (I), emergy analysis (2 and 5), carbon balance (3) and land requirement (4). 6. THE CASE STUDIES

Four processes for production of ethanol from biomass were analysed. Two of the case studies are based on the U.S. production of sugarcane in different environmental situations (Florida-see Fig. 2-and Louisiana).‘“” In Louisiana there is a significant input of fertilisers to maintain soil productivity, whereas the Everglades area of Florida has a rich organic soil but the rate of erosion is very high (1 cm of soil per year).

Ethanol production from biomass

415

Table 1. Emergy analysis of sugarcane in South Florida (per hectare) Unit

Item

units Solar transformity ha-’ yr-’ (sej unit - ‘)

Agricultural production phase 1 sunlight

J 5.40 x 10’) 1.00 2 Rain chemical potential J 4.50 x IO’O 1.82 x 10’ 3 Rain geopotential J 1.10 x 109 1.05 x 10’ 4 Wind J 1.66 x 10” 1.50 x 10’ 5 Surface water (irrigation) J 2.26 x 10”’ 4.85 x 10’ 6 Earth cycle J 1.00 x 10’0 2.55 x IO’ 7 Loss of topsoil J 1.72 x 10” 7.38 x 10’ 8 Phosphate 4.77 x l(r 6.88 x lo9 g 9 Potash 1.91 x 10’ 2.96 x lo9 g 10 Insecticides 7.29 x lo2 1.48 x 1O’O g 11 Pesticides 1.42 x 10’ 1.48 x 10” g 12 Other chemicals 2.03 x 10’ 3.80 x 10’ 13 Diesel : 6.98 x lo9 6.60 x 10’ 14 Lubricants J 3.00 x 108 6.60 x 10’ 15 Human labour 5.20 x 10’ 8.90 x lo6 16 Services : 1.57 x 10’ 1.50 x 10” (A) Sum of local renewable inputs (sum of items 4, 6 and 45% of 5) (B) Sum of all local inputs (sum of items 4, 6, 7 and 50% of 5) (C) Sum of imported inputs (sum of items 8 to 16 and 50% of 5) Total emergy used in the agricultural production (sum of B and C) Product 17 Sugarcane J 2.28 x lOI* 9.12 x 10’ ?? R = renewable resource; N = non-renewable

Ref. for transf. 18 18 18 18 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 18 18 18

Solar emergy (10” sej ha - ’yr - ‘) 0.54 8.18 0.12 24.19 10.95 2.55 127.03 3.28 5.65 0.11 0.21 0.08 4.61 0.20 4.63 23.60 32.21 159.84 47.83 207.67

Type’

J-3 LR LR

9O%El%F L:R L,N N,F N,F N,F N,F N,F N,F N,F lO%R,F lO%R.F

207.67

resource; L = local resource; F = feedback, resource purchased from

outside.

A Brazilian production of ethanol” is the third case considered here, again from sugar-

cane, which is located in the !Xo Paulo region and is part of the programme adopted by the Brazilian government to replace fossil with more ecological fuels. In addition, ethanol production from grapes in Italy is also considered.16 7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Emergy, energy, CO, (produced and avoided) and land requirements were calculated for each of the four case studies. Tables 1 and 2 show the emergy analysis and Table 3 the energy and

carbon balances for bioethanol production from sugarcane in Florida. Similar calculations were performed for the other cases. The results are available on request. Table 4 compares the results of the four case studies. Bioethanol produced from sugarcane in Brazil and Florida had a high output/input energy ratio as shown by line 3, Table 4. Net energy production based on the data presented in this paper ranged from 13.6 to 109 GJ ha-‘, thus requiring 3.08 to 0.38 ha of arable land per tonne of oil equivalent (toe) produced. Bioethanol from grapes showed a negative net energy yield (line 4, Table 4) since wine production requires a large input in the form of

Table 2. Emergy analysis of ethanol production from sugarcane in South Florida (per hectare)

units unit

Item

ha-l yr-’

Solar transformity (sej unit-‘)

Ref. for transf.

Solar emergy (10” sej ha-’ yr-‘)

Type’ 9O%R,F

Ethanol production phase

18 Water (from storage) 19 Steel 20 Cement 21 Transport

J

3.88 x lo9

2.55 x 10’

18

9.91

8

4.40 x 104 5.03 x 10’ 1.21 x 1O’O

2.64 x lo9 7.48 x lo* 6.60 x 10’

11 18 11

1.16 0.38 7.99

;

19.43 227.10

(D) Sum of imported inputs (sum of items 18 to 21) Total emeru~ used (sum of items B, C and D) Product2--

22 Ethanol

. J

1.55 x 10”

‘R = renewable resource; N = non-renewable outside.

1.47 x 10’

227.10

resource; L = local resource; F - feedback, resource purchased from

and N. MARCHETIWI S. BASTIANONI

416

Table 3. Energy and carbon balances of ethanol production from sugarcane in South Florida (per hectare) Item

Gil equivalent (g unit-‘)

Ref. for equivalent

: S J

7.62 x 10’ 4.77 x ,lO’ 1.91 x lo5 7.29 x 10’ 1.42 x 10’ 2.03 x 104 1.35 x lo5 5.83 x 10’ 3.31 x 10’ 1.57 x 10’ 2.28 x lOu

0.32 0.22 1.27 2.17 1.67 1.23 2.60 556.34 263.99

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 17

1.53 x 4.20 x 9.26 x 3.09 x 3.39 x 1.67 x 1.17 x 1.84 x 4.15 x

g g g

4.40 x 10’ 5.03 x l(r 2.35 x 10’

2.20 0.03 1.23

19 19 19

9.68 x 10’ 1.51 x lo3 2.89 x IO5

J

1.55 x 10”

Unit

Units ha-’ yr-’

Oil consumed (g yr-‘)

CO? released (g yr-‘)

Agricultural production phase

Loss of topsoil Phosphate Potash Insecticides Pesticides Other chemicals Diesel Lubricants Human labour Services Sugarcane

g g g g g g g

l@ 10’ 10r 10) l(r 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’

1.12 x 5.22 x 1.44 x 3.17 x 1.06 x 1.16 x 5.70 x 3.99 x 6.30 x 1.42 x

106 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ lo-’ lo5 l(r 10’ lo6

Ethanol production phase

Process machinery Cement Diesel transport sugarcane Ethanol

3.31 x lo5 5.16 x 10’ 9.88 x lo5

Indices

Total applied energy per ha = 4.58 x 10”’J ha- ’yr- ’ (from fossil fuels) Total COr released per ha = 4.86 x 106g ha-’ yr-’ Energy ratio (output/input) for ethanol = 3.38

human labour and fossil fuels. It therefore cannot be used as an energy source, on the basis of the present data. In addition the ratio of CO, released to CO2 avoided in the grape process was > 1, indicating that this is a net source of carbon dioxide rather than a net sink (line 7, Table 4). A low CO, released/CO, avoided ratio was found for bioethanol produced from sugarcane in Louisiana (line 7, Table 4), so its feasibility had to be assessed on the basis of other biophysical parameters. Unfortunately the process demonstrates a low

output/input energy ratio, hardly > 1 (line 3, Table 4). Regarding emergy analysis, it is interesting to note the large contribution ( > 60% of the total) to total emergy of the topsoil erosion for the Florida case (Table 1). As mentioned above, this means that topsoil is very likely to become a limiting factor, especially because it is non-renewable, or very slowly renewable. In the other case studies emergy analysis showed more balanced inputs, even if labour dominated in both the Brazilian and the Italian productions.

Table 4. Results for bioethanol production in selected countries Bioethanol from:

Sugarcane (Brazil)’

Sugarcane (Florida)b

Sugarcane (Louisiana)

5.92 x 10”’ 1.36 x 10” 4.35 4.56 x 10” 1.89 x 106 4.44 x IO6 0.43 0.92

1.55 x 10” 4.58 x 10” 3.38 1.09 x 10” 4.86 x lo6 1.16 x 10’ 0.42 0.38

1.35 x 10” 1.10 x 10” 1.23 2.50 x 10”’ 9.76 x lo6 1.01 x 10’ 0.96 1.67

1.03 x 10J 1.62 3.27 6.07 x 10” 1.61

1.4 x 10’ 3.38

9.30 x 104 1.86 1.57 1.26 x lOI 1.17

Grapes (Italy)d

Energy and carbon analysis

1 Yield (J ha - ’yr - ‘) 2 Applied fossil energy (J ha - ’yr - ‘) 3 Output/input energy ratio 4 Net production of energy (J ha - ’yr - ‘) 5 COr released (g ha-’ yr-‘) 6 CO, avoided by replacinging oil (g ha - ’yr - ‘) 7 CO, released/CO2 avoided 8 Land required per toe (ha toe-‘) Emergy analysis 9 Transformity

(sej J - ‘) 10 Emergy yield ratio 11 Environmental loading ratio 12 Empower density (sej m-3 13 Investment ratio

‘Based ‘Based ‘Based dBased

on on on on

data data data data

from De Carvalho Machedo.” provided by University of Florida.ii from Giampietro and Pimente1.r’ from Scrase et af.16

2.2%0” 0.42

2.37 x 7.71 x 0.31 -5.34 x 8.05 x 1.78 x 4.53

10” 10’0 1O’O lo6 lo6

7.62 x lo-’ 1.22 13.63 1.80 x 10” 4.60

Ethanol production from biomass

When emergy analysis is applied to the production of ethanol from sugarcane, results for the transformities are in the range 0.9 x lo’1.47 x 10’sej J - ‘. In the case of ethanol from grapes, the value of the transformity was more than eight times that resulting from analysis of the Florida case. Transformity measures the amount of solar emergy required to deliver 1 J of product: it is a measure of the environmental work needed to drive the process. Therefore for processes with the same output, the one with the higher transformity is less efficient (in emergy terms). The Italian case also showed very bad figures from the emergy point of view; however, we should consider that the system has been designed with the aim of a higher-level output, i.e. wine. The Louisiana sugarcane production was the most efficient in converting the solar energy that had driven all the processes for ethanol production in joules, since its transformity was the lowest (line 10, Table 4). The figure for environmental loading also showed that this process is more sustainable than alternatives from the emergy viewpoint (line 12, Table 4). Comparison of the other emergy indices showed a better return on investment (emergy yield ratio) for sugarcane in Florida (line 11, Table 4), as well as a low investment ratio. Unfortunately, this is obtained at the price of higher environmental stress (the non-renewable inputs are six times the renewable ones) and economic pressure on the environment (lines 11 and 12, Table 4).

8. CONCLUDING

REMARKS

An overview of different parameters has been provided for analysing the bioethanol production from selected crops in various countries. Traditional methodologies, e.g. energy and carbon balances, as well as the innovative emergy analysis have been adopted. Emergy and emergy-related indices are more suitable for the assessment of the longer-run sustainability. A process may show positive responses from energy and CO, balances, but these approaches should be integrated with an emergy analysis in order to understand the importance of limiting factors, of environmental stress and of efficiency in converting the basic input to the biosphere (solar energy) into actual products. The results based on present data show that

417

we are still far from a sustainable production of biofuels: it seems that biomass energy cannot be a fundamental source of energy in countries showing a high level of energy consumption. On the basis of the present efficiencies, arable land, which is closely related to population and per capita consumption, appears to be the main constraint. An important role of biomass fuels can be that of integrating other sources of energy, and when figures are positive, of saving energy and diminishing greenhouse gas emissions. Better results could be obtained by developing integrated systems in which all outputs of the agricultural process are utilised. In this way, maximum efficiency for carbon can be reached, leaving for food a carbon/nitrogen ratio of about 20/ 1.” We believe that alternative crops and processes can be found to achieve a sustainable production of biomass fuels, and the same methodology should be used to compare alternatives. We think that a joint energy, carbon and emergy evaluation is a suitable biophysical tool for assessing the feasibility and sustainability of such processes. Acknowledgements-Financial support for this research was provided by the European Economic Community, R & D Programme in the Field of Environment, Contract No. EV5V-CT92 (SUSTEE oroiect). We also thank unknown reviewers and‘Dr J. Coombs for very stimulating comments and Steven Loiselle for his precious help in reviewing the paper.

REFERENCES 1. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study, Energy analysis. Workshop Report No. 6, Stockholm, 1974. 2. Slesser, M., Net energy analysis reexamined. Energy Policy 4, 175-177, 1976. 3. Pimentel, D., Energy and land constraints in food protein production. Science 190, 754761, 1975. 4. Odum, H. T., Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 241, 1132-l 139, 1988. Herendeen, R., Needed: examples of applying ecological economics. Ecological Economics 9, 99-105, 1994. Ulgiati, S., Bastianoni, S., Nobili, L. and Tiezzi, E., A thermodynamic assessment of biodiesel production from oil seed crops: energy analysis and environmental loadine. In Proceedinns of XXVII ISATA Conference, pp. 47i489, 1994. - ” Bastianoni, S., Brown, M. T., Marchettini, N. and Ulgiati, S., Assessing energy quality, process efhciency and environmental loading in biofuels production from biomass. In Biomass for Energy, Environmenf, Agriculture and Industry, Chattier, Ph., Beenackers, A. A. C. M. and Grassi, G. (Eds), pp. 2300-2312, 1995. Lotka, A. J., Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8, 147-150, 1922.

418

S. BA~TIANONI and N. MARCHETTINI

9. Lotka, A. J., Natural selection as a physical principle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8,

151-155, 1922. 10. Odum, H. T. and Pinkerton, R. C., Time’s speed regulator: the optimum efficiency for maximum power output in physical and biological systems. American Scientist 43, 331-343, 1955. 11. Odum, H. T., Emergy and Public Policy, Part I-II. Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Wiley, New York, 1995. 12. Ulgiati, S., Odum, H. T. and Bastianoni, S., Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability: an emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73, 215-268, 1994. 13. University of Florida, Farm System Lab, Dept of Food

& Resource Economics, Data Base, 1985. 14. Giampietro, M. and Pimentel, D., Alcohol and biogas

production from biomass. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 9, 213-233, 1990. 15. De Carvalho Machedo, I., The sugarcane agroindustry: its contribution to reducing CO* emissions in Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 3(2), 71-80, 1992. 16. Scrase, J. I., Hall, D. 0. and Stuckey, D. C., Bioethanol from grapes in the European Community. Biomass and Bioenergy S(5), 347-358, 1993. 17. Tiezzi, E., Tempi Storici Tempi Biologici. Garxanti,

Italy, 1982. 18. Brown, M. T. and Arding, J., Transformity Working Paper. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1991. 19. Biondi, P., Panaro, V. and Pellizi, G. (Eds), Le richieste di energia de1 sistema agricolo italiano. ENEA-PFE (Progetto Finahzzato Energetica), Rome, 1989.