JARQ 46 (1), 41 – 57 (2012) http://www.jircas.affrc.go.

jp LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

REVIEW
A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

Poritosh ROY1*, Ken TOKUYASU1, Takahiro ORIKASA2,

Nobutaka NAKAMURA1 and Takeo SHIINA1*
1
National Food Research Institute, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (Tsukuba,
Ibaraki 305-8642, Japan)
2
School of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Miyagi University (Sendai, Miyagi 982-
0215, Japan)

Abstract
Liquid biofuels are widely recognized alternatives to fossil fuel not only to combat the global warm-
ing potential, but also to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels to facilitate economic development. The
production and use of lignocellulosic liquid biofuel have been emphasized because it is highly repro-
ducible and does not compete with food. This study summarizes the LCA studies on lignocellulosic
ethanol produced from various biomass resources focusing on energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission and other impact categories, and the production cost to discuss their potential environmen-
tal and socioeconomic impacts. Numerous efforts have been made to evaluate the life cycle of ligno-
cellulosic ethanol with LCA methodologies and deals with feedstock, energy paths, conversion tech-
nologies, allocation methods, utilization of by-products etc. to determine the environmental impacts
as well as the production cost. The environmental benefits are reported in most of the studies except
for few examples. A wide variation was observed in the reported production cost of ethanol, which is
dependent on the feedstock, conversion technologies, allocation methods and plant sizes. Onsite en-
zymes production/purchase appeared to be the main hotspot, demands a vigorous study to improve
their productivity and reduce costs. Another promising alternative for compensating production
costs seem to be the generation of valuable coproducts and integration of ethanol production process-
es (ethanol and energy). Reviewed literature indicates that despite the environmental benefits of eth-
anol produced from lignocellulosic biomass, its economic viability remains doubtful at present, even
if highly optimistic assumptions are made for the cost calculation, especially in the case of enzyme.
Hence, the biotechnological revolution is must for the sustainability of bioethanol, especially in the
field of enzymes and microorganisms. Moreover, the adaptation of innovative technologies and re-
newable energy policy may help limit costs, but careful consideration of land use changes and soil
quality is required to avoid any loss of productivity.

Discipline: Biofuel
Additional key words: GHG emissions, rice straw, enzymatic saccharification

tions to seek clean and renewable substitutes. Liquid bio-

Introduction fuels (bioethanol and biodiesel) are widely recognized al-
ternatives to fossil fuel. It is known that renewable
GHG emissions, which have dramatically prolifer- energy not only reduces the reliance on foreign oil and
ated due to tremendous energy use, have resulted in glob- improves energy security, but also provides significant
al warming, perhaps the most serious problem that hu- environmental benefits and enlarges rural economies69,115.
mankind faces today. The growing concerns about The first generation biofuels are produced from food or
climate change, rising costs of fossil fuel and the geo-po- feed grains, thus compete with food or feed and contrib-
litical uncertainty associated with uninterrupted energy ute to higher food prices. Accordingly, the production of
supply have motivated individuals, organizations and na- second generation biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass

*Corresponding authors: e-mail [email protected], [email protected]

Received 21 January 2011; accepted 27 May 2011.

41
T. Shiina et al.

has been emphasized, because it does not compete with Organization for Standardization, ILCAJ: Institute of
food or feed 22,47,52,99,141. Life Cycle Assessment, Japan etc.), and LCA practitio-
The life cycle GHG emissions of various forms of ners. Consequently, consensus has been achieved on an
bioenergy and their ability to reduce GHG emissions overall LCA framework and a well-defined inventory
vary widely, and are dependent on land use changes, methodology59. The method has rapidly developed into
choice of feedstock, agricultural practices, refining and an important tool for authorities, industries, and individ-
conversion processes with differing socioeconomic and uals in environmental sciences. The UNEP (United Na-
environmental impacts. It is thus essential to evaluate the tions Environment Programme)-SETAC initiative in-
environmental impact and the economic feasibility of lig- cludes methods to evaluate the environmental impacts
nocellulosic-based bioethanols. Environmental aware- associated with water consumption and land use65. A
ness influences the way in which legislative bodies such common methodological framework (“Version Zero”)
as governments will guide the future development of the has also been developed by the Global Bioenergy Part-
lignocellulosic-based ethanol industry. Life cycle assess- nership (GBEP) Task Force on GHG Methodologies that
ment (LCA) is a tool for evaluating the environmental ef- could be applied to the LCA of bioenergy production and
fects of a product, process, or activity throughout its life compared to the full lifecycle of its fossil fuel equivalent
cycle or lifetime, known as a ‘from cradle to grave’ anal- to improve the transparency and acceptance of the re-
ysis. Although several researchers have compiled LCA sults41. The LCA methodology consists of four compo-
studies of lignocellulosic ethanol to discuss some of the nents: Goal definition and scoping, Inventory analysis,
key issues: energy pathways, system boundaries, func- Impact assessment and Interpretation. Figure 1 shows
tional units, allocation methods, utilization of coproducts the stages of an LCA60. The purposes of an LCA can be:
etc.14,23,24,42,63,77,81,88,111,132, some recent advances in LCAs of (1) comparison of alternative products, processes or ser-
lignocellulosic bioethanol remain to be reported. There- vices; (2) comparison of alternative life cycles for a cer-
fore, this study aims to compile recent LCA studies of tain product or service; (3) identification of parts of the
lignocellulosic bioethanol, and discuss the energetic, en- life cycle where the greatest improvements can be made.
vironment and socioeconomic aspects of the bioethanol
industry. 1. Goal definition and scoping
Goal definition and scoping defines the purpose of
LCA Methodology the study, the expected product of the study, system
boundaries, functional unit (FU) and assumptions. The
Although the concept of LCA evolved in the 1960s system boundary of a system is often illustrated by a gen-
and there have been several efforts to develop its method- eral input and output flow diagram. All operations that
ology since the 1970s, it has attracted considerable atten- contribute to the product life cycle, process, or activity
tion from those engaged in environmental science fields fall within the system boundaries. The purpose of the FU
since the 1990s, which has seen the LCA concept promot- is to provide a reference unit to which the inventory data
ed, sponsored and developed by various national and in- are normalized and its definition depends on the environ-
ternational organizations (SETAC: Society of Environ- mental impact category and aims of the investigation.
mental Toxicology and Chemistry, USEPA: United States The functional unit is often based on the mass (kg) or vol-
Environmental Protection Agency, ISO: International ume (L) of the product under study, however the distance
(km), land area (ha), energy (MJ) and economic values of
products are also used.

Life cycle assessment framework 2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis

Goal and This phase includes all inputs and outputs from the
scope Direct applications:
definition processes. The inputs are energy (renewable and non-re-
- Product development
Interpretation

and improvement newable), water, raw materials etc., while the outputs are
- Strategic planning products and co-products, and emissions (CO2, CH4, SO2,
Inventory - Public policy making
analysis NOx, CO, etc.), water and soil (total suspended solids:
- Marketing
TSS, biological oxygen demand: BOD, chemical oxygen
- Other
demand: COD, adsorbable organically bound halogens:
Impact
assessment AOXs, etc.) and solid waste generation. Nowadays, many
LCA databases exist and can normally be bought togeth-
Fig. 1.  Stages of an LCA60 er with LCA software. Data from databases can also be

42 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

used for processes that are not product specific, such as Distillation &
general data on the production of electricity, coal or pack- Crushing SSF (C6) SSF (C5) purification
aging, although site-specific data are required for product
Pretreatment

Electricity
specific data. Enzyme & yeast Anhydrous

Heat
production Ethanol
3. Impact assessment

Heat
The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aims to un- Turbine Boiler Residues
derstand and evaluate environmental impacts based on Electricity National
inventory analysis, within the framework of the goal and grid Coproduct
Fuel
scope of the study. In this phase, the inventory results are
assigned to different impact categories, based on the ex- Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the ethanol production
pected types of environmental impacts. Impact catego- process from lignocellulosic biomass using the
ries include global effects (global warming, ozone deple- enzymatic hydrolysis method
tion etc.); regional effects (acidification, eutrophication, SSF: simultaneous saccharification and fermenta-
tion.
photo-oxidant formation etc.); local effects (nuisance,
working conditions, effects of hazardous waste, effects of
solid waste etc.); biodiversity, water and land use effi- stocks for lignocellulosic ethanol, have gained increasing
ciency and impacts on human health (ISO 1025, 2006E60). attention as a renewable energy source. LCA methodol-
ogy has been extensively used to evaluate the life cycle of
4. Interpretation lignocellulosic ethanol. Several studies noted that ligno-
The purpose of an LCA is to draw conclusions that cellulosic ethanol can improve energy security and con-
can support a decision or provide a readily understand- tributes significantly to a reduction of GHG emis-
able LCA result. The inventory and impact assessment sions37,44,81,115,130,132,137. In contrast, the bioenergy system
results are discussed collectively in the case of an LCIA, can release more GHG emissions than its fossil alterna-
or the inventory only in the case of LCI analysis, and sig- tive when the energy used to feed the biomass conversion
nificant environmental issues identified for conclusions process comes from carbon-intensive fossil sources38.
and recommendations consistent with the goal and scope The reduction in GHG emission is reported to be depen-
of the study. This is a systematic technique to identify dent on feedstocks, conversion technology, utilization of
and quantify, check and evaluate information from LCI coproducts and allocation methods67,77,78,115,123.
and LCIA results, and communicate them effectively. Biofuel production is reported to be beneficial in
This assessment may include both quantitative and quali- terms of the reduction of non-renewable energy con-
tative measures of improvement, such as changes in prod- sumption and the global warming impact if biomass from
uct, process, and activity design; raw material use, indus- cropping systems is utilized. However, unless additional
trial processing, consumer use, and waste management. measures such as planting cover crops are taken, the uti-
Cost and profit are the key indicators in decision-making lization of biomass for biofuels would also tend to in-
on an investment, while costs are what producers or con- crease acidification and eutrophication, primarily be-
sumers understand best and an integral part of the deci- cause significant nitrogen and phosphorus related
sion-making process when identifying improvements of a environmental burdens are released from the soil during
product, process or activity, hence LCA results are also cultivation70. Ethanol produced from the lignocellulosic
interpreted in the form of life cycle costing. residues of banana fruit is also reported to be energetical-
ly feasible129. Stolman119 noted that ethanol produced
LCA studies on lignocellulosic bioethanol from grass clippings, corn stalks and other plants using
future techniques is beneficial. The investigated bioen-
The life cycle of lignocellulosic ethanol extensively ergy production processes from sugarcane bagasse re-
evaluated by using LCA methodologies determines the vealed that the cogeneration option results in lower ener-
economic and environmental impacts of different pro- gy-related emissions (i.e. lower global warming,
duction processes. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram acidification and eutrophication potentials), whereas the
of ethanol production process using the enzymatic hydro- fuel ethanol option is preferred in terms of resource con-
lysis method. servation (since it is assumed to replace oil not coal), and
also scores better in terms of human and eco-toxicity if
1. LCA of bioethanol produced from agri-residues assumed to replace lead-bearing oxygenates16.
Agri-residues, known as the most abundant feed- The lignocellulosic (stover) ethanol pathway avoids

43
T. Shiina et al.

86–113% of GHG emissions if E85 is used in fuel flexible emissions if the energy required to generate the process
vehicles instead of gasoline30,108. GHG emissions are re- steam is derived from biomass rather than fossil fuel for
ported to exceed 100%, which may be due to the carbon pretreatment of feedstock, but has inferior performances
neutrality of biomass and the use of residues. Total fossil in terms of acidification, eutrophication, winter smog,
energy is also 102% lower, but emissions of CO, NOx, summer smog, carcinogenic substances, heavy metals,
and SOx increase whereas hydrocarbon ozone precursors ozone layer depletion and solid waste38. The net energy
are reduced108. It is worth noting that biomass combus- ratios (output energy divided by input energy from fossil
tions are assumed to be carbon neutral in all these stud- fuels) of ethanol production systems from high yield rice
ies. Conversely, emissions from stover ethanol are report- plants are also reported to be positive, where rice and its
ed to be 65% lower for the near-term scenario (2010) due residues are used73,98. Koga and Tajima73 also noted that
to the sharing of emissions with corn grains115. Emissions whole rice plant-based ethanol production systems im-
would be about 25–35% lower than the near-term scenar- prove energy efficiency and reduce GHG emission, be-
io if the mid-term scenario (2020) is considered. The use cause straw removals notably mitigate CH4 emissions
of corn stover as a feedstock results in lower GHG emis- from the paddy field. The use of straw for energy (CHP:
sions relative to conventional corn-grain ethanol70,132, al- combined heat and power) in bioethanol production from
though this reduction is dependent on the allocation wheat grains has significant benefits in terms of reduced
method used67,70,132. The carbon intensity of stover-de- global warming and the use of non-renewable energy, but
rived ethanol is reportedly 10–44% that of gasoline67. the eutrophication and atmospheric acidification impact
The corn stover collection emits GHGs after corn har- categories were slightly unfavorable in some cases39.
vesting unless equipment capable of performing a single- Cherubini and Ulgati25 noted that the use of agricultural
pass harvest becomes commercially available108. residues in a biorefinery saves GHG (50%) and reduces
Abiotic resources and ozone layer depletion de- demand for fossil fuels (80%), where the best manage-
crease when gasoline is replaced by stover ethanol fuels ment practices are employed. However, biomass harvest
(E10 and E85), which is not relevant to the allocation rates must be carefully established.
method, however the remaining impacts are larger except Although agri-residues are identified as abundant
the global warming potential (GWP). The GWP reduces lignocellulosic biomass resources, there is debate regard-
when mass/energy allocation is applied, but increases in ing the actual amounts of residues which could be re-
the case of economic allocation77. System boundaries moved from arable soils with no loss of quality, as well as
also cause considerable variation in LCA estimates since the potential tradeoffs in the overall energy chain com-
they not only vary according to start and end points (e.g. pared to the use of fossil energy sources. Gabrielle and
well to tank and well to wheel) but also over space and Gagnaire39 noted that straw (wheat straw) removal had
time in a way that can dramatically affect energy and little influence on environmental emissions in the field,
GHG balances16. The GWP of the lignocellulosic ethanol and incorporating it in soil resulted in sequestration of
plant is noted as significantly (twofold) worse than that of only 5–10% of its C in the long term. It is also noted that
the gasoline refinery, but its improved eco-efficiencies a certain portion of crop residues can be removed to pro-
make it superior in terms of abiotic and ozone layer de- duce bioethanol without degrading the soil quality, de-
pletion potentials79. In contrast, GHG savings from etha- pending on the season, location, tillage and soil types87,94.
nol and Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) blending are Selecting residues that contain relatively high levels of
reported to be positive, even taking into consideration the available cellulose and hemicellulose for removal or re-
modification of the refinery sector included 29. turning suitable crop residues that are rich in refractory
Uihlein and Schebek126 concluded that bio-based compounds may increase the scope for removal of crop
products and fuels from straw may also be associated residues for ethanol production94. Sheehan et al.109 state
with environmental disadvantages due to, e.g. land use or that up to 60% of the stover can be collected and convert-
water eutrophication. The environmental impacts pre- ed to fuel ethanol, however Blanco-Canqui and Lal13 sug-
dominantly result from the provision of hydrochloric acid gested a stover removal rate as low as 25%, beyond which
and, to a smaller extent, from the provision of process soil fertility and structural stability would be negatively
heat. The optional acid and heat recoveries yield envi- affected. Graham et al.46 noted that in current agricultur-
ronmental impacts that are approximately 41% lower than al practice, only 28% of the stover is harvested, and the
those of the fossil counterparts. LCA of lignocellulosic rest is left in the field for soil fertility. Although lignocel-
(straw, waste wood and other agricultural waste) ethanol lulosic biomass is reported to be the most promising feed-
produced by an enzymatic hydrolysis process shows that stock considering its great availability and low cost, the
El0 improves the environmental performance in GHG large-scale commercial production of fuel bioethanol

44 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

from lignocellulosic materials has yet to be implement- driven by a mid-size passenger car, and compared it with
ed4,62, due to challenges and obstacles such as cost, tech- gasoline. The authors noted that fuel ethanol derived
nology and environmental issues needing to be overcome from poplar biomass may help ease the exacerbation of
for the commercial production of lignocellulosic global warming, and depletion of abiotic resources and
ethanol55,122. the ozone layer by up to 62, 72 and 36%, respectively.
Conversely, acidification and eutrophication would inten-
2. LCA of bioethanol from energy crops, woody sify. Tilman et al.123 noted that biofuels derived from low-
biomass and forest residues input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland
Presently, the contribution of energy crops as a pro- perennials can provide more usable energy, greater GHG
portion of total biomass energy is relatively small, but it emission reductions, and less agri-chemical pollution
is set to grow in the near future. The majority of LCA than that of corn grain ethanol. LIHD biofuels are carbon
studies noted that bioenergy from energy crops reduces negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide seques-
GWP and fossil energy consumption when the most com- tration (4.4 t/ha/year of carbon dioxide in soil and roots)
mon transportation biofuels are used to replace conven- is reported to be greater that the release during biofuel
tional diesel and gasoline14,26,50,102,110 in all but a few stud- production (0.32 t/ha/year). LIHD biofuels can also be
ies92,104. In contrast, other environmental aspects such as produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus nei-
acidification and eutrophication increase26, and including ther displace food production nor cause any loss of biodi-
land use change effects in GHG balances, biofuels substi- versity via habitat destruction.
tuting fossil fuels may lead to increased negative im- Switchgrass is reported to be effective at storing soil
pacts104. Pimentel and Patzek92 noted that ethanol pro- organic carbon (SOC), not just near the soil surface, but
duction from switchgrass and woody biomass requires 50 also at depths below 30 cm where carbon is less suscep-
and 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel pro- tible to mineralization and loss76,102,136. Haney et al.54 not-
duced, respectively. In contrast, Cherubini et al.23 be- ed that perennial grass systems had higher SOC and wa-
lieved these limitations could be partially overcome by ter extractable organic C (WEOC) than the annual corn
developing second generation biofuels, produced from system. Among perennial grass systems, switchgrass
various lignocellulosic non-food crops and residues. had the lowest SOC and WEOC. Nitrogen leaching is re-
Estimated GHG emissions from cellulosic ethanol ported to be less for switchgrass than corn, but greater
were 94% lower than those of gasoline, while genetic and than in alfalfa–corn cropping systems128. Monti et al.86
agronomical improvement may further enhance the energy analyzed the energy crops (switchgrass, giant reed and
sustainability and biofuel yield of switchgrass102. Switch- cynara) production in terms of energy and hectares, and
grass fields are reported to be near-GHG neutral depend- compared them with conventional wheat and maize rota-
ing on the agricultural inputs (mainly N fertilization) and tion. This study concluded that on average, 50% lower
subsequent biomass yields. The use of ligneous biomass environmental impacts can be achieved by substituting
residue for energy at a cellulosic biorefinery is the main conventional rotation with perennial crops. The benefits
key to reducing GHG emissions rather than biofuels from are reportedly dependent on biomass yield and the prefer-
annual crops, where processing energy is derived from ence to a specific energy crop strongly depends on
fossil fuels35. Spatari et al.115 noted that emissions from en- weighting sets that may change considerably in terms of
ergy crop (switchgrass) ethanol were 57% in the case of the space and time.
near-term scenario (2010) and lower for an E85-fueled au- It is also concluded that the economic and environ-
tomobile compared to gasoline, on a CO2 equivalent per ki- mental aspects of high yield crop production systems are
lometer basis. Emissions could be 25-35% lower than not necessarily conflicting, whereas under or over supply
those of the near-term scenario if the mid-term scenario of nitrogen fertilizers leads to a decline in resource use
(2020) were considered. Net energy gains per hectare of efficiency18,19,51. Pedersen et al.90 reveal that in the USA,
biofuels are affected by the crop yield, conversion rate, and some long-term breeding of switchgrass has achieved
energy inputs required to produce, deliver and process large yields and may begin to contribute significantly to
feedstock. The yearly net energy gain is reported to be biofuel production. Genetically modified (GM) herbicide
greater in the case of field scale trials on marginal land tolerant energy crops (sugar beet) are reported to be less
than low-input switchgrass grown in small plots102. harmful to the environment and human health than grow-
González-García et al.45 assessed the environmental ing conventional crops, largely due to lower emissions
performance of bioethanol produced from poplar biomass from herbicide manufacture, transport and field opera-
considering three ethanol applications (E10, E85 and tions10. These studies indicate that the social and envi-
E100), addressed the impact potentials per kilometer ronmental co-benefits, including carbon sequestration

45
T. Shiina et al.

opportunities, will be drivers of future energy cropping to contribute to a certain – maybe relatively limited - ex-
uptake, although they must also be ecologically sustain- tent, to an overall sustainable energy supply that will
able, environmentally acceptable and economically com- vary widely between regions, and the sustainability of
petitive with fossil fuels110. biofuel production depends on the amount of land avail-
able. It is reported that direct land use changes, the choice
3. Land, water and other approaches in LCA of of calculation methods, utilization of coproducts and the
bioethanol technical design of production systems all impact on
The global population continues to grow geometri- GHG balances and eutrophication for all biofuels15. The
cally, exerting great pressure on arable land, water, ener- enhanced demand for biofuel crops under the EU Biofuel
gy and biological resources to provide an adequate food Directive has a strong impact on agriculture at a global
supply while maintaining the ecosystem. The availabili- and European level, while the incentive to increase pro-
ty of land on which to grow biofuel crops without affect- duction in the EU tends to increase land prices and farm
ing food production or GHG emissions from land conver- income there and in other regions6.
sion is limited, hence land use efficiency should be The sustainability of biofuels depends on the selec-
maximized to achieve climate change goals. Although tion of land on which feedstocks are grown. Several
lignocellulosic ethanol supply chains are considered fea- competing factors need to be balanced, such as changes
sible for making GHG savings relative to gasoline, an im- in land use (clearing tropical forests or using peatlands
portant caveat is that if lignocellulosic ethanol production for crop cultivation) to negate any of the intended future
uses feedstocks that cause indirect land-use change, or climate benefits, and impacts on biodiversity. In addi-
other resulting significant impacts, any benefit may be tion, developments in the agricultural sector for food and
greatly offset113,114. The effects of land use changes were non-food crops will have important implications for wa-
noted as having a significant influence on the final GHG ter usage and its availability. The opportunity costs and
balance (about 50%)25. rebound effects of land use changes must be addressed
Several studies also noted that converting croplands when considering any decision to assign land to biofuel
or grasslands to produce energy crops may actually lead feedstocks91. Although biomass residues have been iden-
to an increase rather than fall in GHG emissions34,104. tified as a potential feedstock for bioenergy, the global
Brandão et al.17 studied the different land use systems mature forest area will decrease by 24% between 1990
used for energy crops and noted that Miscanthus is the and 2100, due to both population growth and wood bio-
optimal choice in terms of GHG emissions and soil qual- mass demand in developing regions, and may even disap-
ity compared to oilseed rape, short-rotation coppice wil- pear by 2100 in some developing regions, such as Cen-
low and forest residues, but performed worse in the cate- trally Planned Asia, Middle East and North Africa, and
gories of acidification and eutrophication, while oilseed South Asia139.
rape showed the worst performance across all categories. The gross water consumption in the lignocellulosic
Stephenson et al.117 reported that if willows are grown on ethanol production processes are reported to be 28–54 li-
idle arable land in the UK, or in Eastern Europe, and im- ters per liter of ethanol95. The high water consumption
ported as wood chips into the UK to produce ethanol, this results from the process water used in the Ca(OH)2 pre-
saves about 70–90% of GHG emissions compared to fos- treatment, washing of solids prior to enzymatic hydroly-
sil-derived gasoline on an energy basis. In contrast, sis. However, water consumption is reported to be only
Searchinger et al.104 estimated GHG emissions from land- 0.3 L per liter of ethanol produced from agri-residues
use changes by using a global agricultural model and not- (corn stover or wheat straw), because the water require-
ed that corn-based ethanol, instead of achieving 20% sav- ment for crop production was attributed only to grains112.
ings, nearly doubles GHG emissions over 30 years and Ethanol produced using a biochemical or thermochemical
increases GHGs for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass conversion process is expected to reduce GHG and air
also increase emissions by 50%, if grown on U.S. corn pollutant emissions, but involve similar or potentially
lands. It is also reported that the bioelectricity pathway greater water demands and solid waste streams than con-
outperforms the cellulosic ethanol across a range of feed- ventional ethanol biorefineries. Despite current expecta-
stocks, conversion technologies, and vehicle classes; pro- tions, significant uncertainty remains regarding how well
ducing 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% next-generation biofuels will fare in terms of different en-
more emission offsets per unit area of cropland than cel- vironmental and sustainability factors when produced on
lulosic ethanol21. a commercial scale in the U.S.132. Although ethanol pro-
Based on the ecological footprint perspective, duction consumes huge amounts of water, its impact on
Stoeglehner et al.118 noted that biofuels will only be able water resources is seldom included. The land to man ra-

46 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

tio in developing countries is not as favorable as in devel- tion cost of ethanol is reported to be 0.94–1.20 US$/L
oped countries, with far scarcer land resources creating which depends on the ethanol yield72.
serious problems in land resources management and pos- The economic viability, GHG emission and econom-
sibly resulting in land degradation in such developing ic performance of lignocellulosic ethanol under extreme
countries. The use of bioenergy also involves environ- weather conditions are also reported to be dependent on
mental challenges, for instance increased mono-cropping the availability of feedstock (weather condition) and the
practices and greater fertilizer and pesticide use, which use of single or multiple feedstocks74. Wingren et al.96
may jeopardize water and soil quality. Perhaps the main noted that the production cost is also dependent on enzy-
concern over land use change is the risk of large areas of matic processes. The cost of ethanol produced from soft-
natural forests and grasslands being converted to energy wood based on simultaneous saccharification and fer-
crop production, which would not only threaten biodiver- mentation (SSF), and separate hydrolysis and fermentation
sity and ecosystems, but also result in a possible increase (SHF) are reported to be 0.57 and 0.63 US$/L, respective-
in GHG emissions. ly. The main reason for SSF being lower was the lower
capital cost and the overall higher ethanol yield. Major
Cost analysis economic improvements in both SSF and SHF could be
achieved by boosting income from the solid fuel copro­
Costs are what producers, or consumers understand duct, reducing energy consumption and recycling process
best and an integral part of the decision-making process streams. A techno-economic evaluation of the spruce-to-
when identifying potential improvements of a product, ethanol process, based on SO2-catalysed steam pretreat-
process, or activity, hence the use of life cycle costing ment followed by simultaneous saccharification and fer-
(cost analysis of the entire life cycle) as a decision support mentation with various process configurations, achieved
tool in the bioethanol industry. The production cost of an ethanol cost of about 0.38–0.50 €/L. Anaerobic diges-
ethanol is dependent on both technical and economic pa- tion of the stillage with biogas upgrading was a demon-
rameters, such as the cost of feedstocks, choice of feed- strably favorable option in terms of both energy efficien-
stocks, energy consumption, conversion technology and cy and ethanol production cost8,9and the contribution of
efficiency, and the value of coproducts1,2,4,5,31,82,135,137. The enzyme is reported to be 0.04–0.05 €/L9.
production cost of lignocellulosic bioethanol is reported Ballerini et al.5 concluded that technical and eco-
to be considerably higher than the market price of gaso- nomic optimization of the pretreatment step, the total
line5,58,79,89,96,135. Vadas et al.128 noted that net energy pro- substitution of lactose by pentose hydrolysate as the main
duction per hectare is greater for switchgrass than that of carbon source for enzyme production, and the recycling
alfalfa-corn cropping systems, but may not return the po-
tential income to farmers that alfalfa-corn could. The
costs of cellulase and capital are the major expenses when
producing lignocellulosic bioethanol95, while industrial
cellulase contributes about 40–55% of the enzymatic cel-
lulosic ethanol production cost. The estimated costs of
producing ethanol from lignocellulosic residues (verge
grass, wheat milling residues and woody energy crop/
willow) are 0.75–0.99 €/L. The authors noted that the
cellulase cost (assumed 0.51 €/L) would have to be re-
duced at least tenfold and the capital cost by 30% to
achieve ethanol production costs comparable to those of
ethanol from starch crops. It is also noted that the pro-
duction cost of cellulosic ethanol depends on feedstocks
and their composition as well as plant capacity. The esti-
mated production cost varies from about 0.38–0.48
US$/L (plant size: feedstocks consumption is 2000 t/
day)58,105. For the same plant capacity the production cost
of ethanol from corn stover is reported to be 0.71–0.87
US$/L dependent on the assumed scenarios31. The pro- Fig. 3. Economics of ethanol production from wood in
duction cost is noted to be 0.56–0.77 US$/L depending France5
on the feedstock and plant sizes43. The simulated produc-
FF: French Franc, odt: oven dry ton, bbl: barrel

47
T. Shiina et al.

of a fraction of the enzyme, the incorporation of pentose and methanol recycling, an optimal systematic configu-
in ethanol fermentation, and the utilization of by-prod- ration and heat integration, and a high value by-product
ucts all reduce the production cost of lignocellulosic etha- with a plant capacity of 200 MW56. The estimated cost of
nol. The authors also noted that since ethanol from bio- ethanol from wood varies between 0.50–0.76 US$/L de-
mass is tax-exempted, it could compete with gasoline pending on the plant capacity3,40,97.
assuming a crude oil price of around US$50 (Fig. 3). In The reported enzyme cost of lignocellulosic ethanol
contrast, it is noted that with current technology, the pro- varied widely, with the on-site enzyme production/pur-
duction cost of cellulosic ethanol (0.75 $/L) is almost dou- chase cost reported to date perhaps the most contentious
ble compared to the market price of oil (0.48 $/L) and or dubious estimation/prophecy. In the USA, the costs
much of the optimism surrounding cellulosic ethanol has associated with dedicated cellulase production are report-
faded107. The externality (environmental and health) cost ed to be 0.1–0.5 US$/gal ethanol1,2,80,135. It is also predict-
of bioethanol is also reported to be dependent on the ed that in future, less cellulase will be necessary, due to
feedstock75. increased specific enzyme activity: threefold in 2005 and
Hamelinck et al.53 stated that the combined effect of tenfold in 2010135. The present enzyme production cost is
higher hydrolysis-fermentation efficiency (to 68%), lower estimated as 265 $/m3 (1 $/gal), but with recent invest-
specific capital investments, increased scale (5 times) and ments and continuous research efforts, this value may
lignocellulosic and woody biomass feedstock costs re- drop to 130 $/m3 (0.5 $/gal) by 201020,103. The most aston-
duced to about 67% could slash ethanol production costs ishing prediction seems to be of enzyme productivity:
to 59–40% of the current level in 10–20 years or more. 600–2000 FPU/g glucose+Xylose between 2005 to
The production cost is reported to be slightly higher for 2010135, which is subject to considerable doubt. Presently,
wood-produced ethanol compared to that of switch- the enzyme productivity achieved is reported to be 333
grass92. The production costs of bioethanol from energy FPU/g glucose (NFRI, 2010; unpublished data). Con-
crops vary widely due to the complex characteristics of versely, the cost of cellulase is reported to be 0.51 €/L95.
the resource, their site specificity, national policies, labor The reported enzyme cost (production/purchase) is Ca-
costs and efficiency of the conversion technologies, but nadian dollar (CAD) 12/million FPU (enzyme loading: 10
are expected to decline over time110 and it is noted to have FPU/g cellulose)48. These studies reported a wide varia-
clear socioeconomic benefits50. tion of the cost of cellulase, hence the ethanol.
The coproduct revenue and utilization of the excess The key objective of an LCA study is to provide as
solid residue for heat and power production had a consid- complete a portrait as possible of energy consumption,
erable effect on the process economics, and improved environmental impacts, economic viability and their re-
ethanol yield and reduced energy demand resulted in sig- bound effects and hence enable effective planning for a
nificant production cost reductions (0.41–0.50 €/L)100,101. sustainable society. Reviewed LCA studies were ridicu-
Sassner et al.101 also concluded that the utilization of pen- lous to compare due to deferring system boundaries, ob-
tose fractions for ethanol production helped achieve good jectives and functional units. The main categories dis-
process economy, especially in the case of Salix or corn cussed in the LCA studies of lignocellulosic bioethanol
stover. It is also noted that ethanol produced from soft- were energy balance and GHG emissions, soil quality,
wood and sold as a low percentage blend with gasoline land and water use, and production cost. Table 1 repre-
could ultimately be cost competitive with gasoline with- sents a brief summary of the LCA studies concerning en-
out requiring subsidy, but that production from straw ergy balance and GHG emissions, soil quality and land
would generally be less competitive114. Despite the envi- and water use. Table 2 shows a summary of the reported
ronmental benefits of ethanol produced from coppice cost of cellulase and the production cost of ethanol pro-
willow, its economic viability remains doubtful at pres- duced from cellulosic biomass by different authors.
ent117. The author argued that the production cost could
be reduced significantly if the willow were altered by Discussion
breeding to improve its suitability for hydrolysis and fer-
mentation. A techno-economic assessment of lignocellu- In recent years, the production of biofuels (bio-etha-
losic ethanol also revealed that commercial success of pi- nol and bio-diesel) has been increasing rapidly, affecting
lot plants (0.3–67 MW) remains pending, although virtually all aspects of field crop sectors, ranging from
cost-competitive ethanol can be produced with efficient domestic demand and exports to price and the allocation
equipment, optimized operation, cost-effective syngas of land area among crops. Adjustments in the agricultur-
cleaning technology, inexpensive raw material with low al sector are already underway, given the growing inter-
pretreatment cost, high performance catalysts, off-gas est in renewable energy sources to reduce environmental

48 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 Table 1.  A brief summary of some recent LCA studies of lignocellulosic bioethanol deal with energy balance/GHG emissions, land use change and soil quality

Reference Methodology Scope of the study

System boundary Functional unit Energy/GHG Land use change Soil quality Toxicity
14)
Blottnitz and Curran, 2007 Cradle to wheel ha, km ○ ○ ○ ○
Cherubini et al., 200923) Cradle to wheel ha, km ○ ○
25)
Cherubini and Ulgiati, 2010 Cradle to gate year ○ ○ ○ ○
Cherubini and Jungmeier, 201026) Cradle to wheel year ○ ○ ○ ○
Fleming et al., 200637) Cradle to wheel km ○ ○ ○ –
39)
Gabrielle and Gagnaire, 2008 Cradle to gate L ○ ○ ○ –
González-García et al., 201045) Cradle to wheel km ○ – – ○
Luo et al., 200978) Cradle to wheel km ○ – – ○
85)
Mclaughlin et al., 2002 Cradle to grave mg -biomass ○ – – –
Monti et al., 200986) Cradle to gate MJ, ha ○ ○ ○ ○
92)
Pimentel and Patzek, 2005 Cradle to gate ha ○ – – –
Saga et al., 201098) Cradle to wheel ha ○
Schmer et al., 2008102) Cradle to gate ha, year ○ – ○ –
104)
Searchinger et al., 2008 Cradle to gate MJ ○ ○ – –
Searcy and Flynn, 2008106) Cradle to gate kWh, L ○ – – –
Sheehan et al., 2003108) Cradle to grave ha, km ○ ○ ○
115)
Spatari et al., 2005 Cradle to wheel km ○ ○ – –
Spatari et al., 2010116) Cradle to gate L ○ ○ ○ –
117)
Stephenson et al., 2010 Cradle to gate ton ○ ○ – –
UIhlein and Schebek, 2009126) Cradle to gate kg ○ ○ ○ ○
Williams et al., 2009132) Cradle to gate ton, L ○ – – –
136)
Wu et al., 2008 Cradle to wheel km ○ ○ ○ –
Zah et al., 2007140) Cradle to wheel km ○ ○ – ○
Note: considered (○), not considered (-)
LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

49
50
T. Shiina et al.

Table 2.  Summary of the reported cost of ethanol produced from different feedstock

2
Authors Feedstock, feed rate, cost & yield Enzyme Enzyme Cost of ethanol for different cases and years, $/L Remarks
loading cost, $/L
Rate, t/d Cost, $/t L/t 1999 2000 2002 2005 2010 2012

1
Wooley et al., 1999135) *CS, 2000 25.0 257.38– 15–20 FPU 0.079 0.380 – – 0.248 0.217 – Enzyme cost need to be
355.79 reduced ten fold, dollar value
in 1997

McAloon et al., 200084) *CS, 1050 35.0 272.52 – 0.050 0.396 – – – – Little information is available
on enzyme production, dollar
value in 1999

1
Aden et al., 20021) *CS, 2000 30.0 272.52– 12–17 FPU 0.026 – – 0.346 – 0.283 Buying of enzymes, dollar
339.51 value in 2000

1
Aden et al., 20082) *CS, 2000 60.0–46.0 257.38 – 0.085– – – 1.110 0.666 – 0.351 Enzyme cost is assumed, dol-
0.026 lar value in 2002

1
Dutta et al., 201031) *CS, 2000 60.1 – 30–40 mg 0.085 – – – – 0.801 Enzyme cost is assumed, dol-
protein lar value in 2007

1
Eggeman et al., 200532) CS, 2000 35 – 15 FPU 0.039 – – – 0.262– – – Enzyme cost is assumed
0.441

L
Reith et al., 200295) VG, 2000 20 € 152.49 – 0.510 € – – 0.920 € – – – Enzyme cost is assumed

Orikasa et al., 200989) *RS, 200 15000 ¥ 250.0 – – – – Enzyme cost is assumed

3
Barta et al., 20108,9) Spruce, 68.15 254.0–270.0 10 FPU 0.058– – – – – 0.548– – Enzyme cost is assumed
200000a 0.073 0.722

CS: corn stover, RS: rice straw, VG: verse grass, FPU: filter paper unit, 1Plant life: 20 years, 2per g–cellulose, *dilute acid pretreatment, LLime pretreatment, 3Plant life 15 years,
€: cost in Euros, aAnnually

JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

pollution and dependency on foreign oil, which might af- decline in productivity and soil.
fect biodiversity, soil erosion and its quality. Hence, the The LCA results of lignocellulosic ethanol are more
interpretation should be based on agricultural intensity, sensitive to the changes in parameters related to the bio-
socioeconomic aspects, land and water use and soil qual- mass and ethanol yield. The cultivation practices, en-
ity as well as the environmental and socioeconomic im- zyme and ethanol production technologies are the main
pacts of lignocellulosic ethanol. processes, which could significantly affect environmen-
The rate of decomposition of soil organic matter, tal impacts. Although the biofuel industry provides sig-
both that originally in the soil and that added through nificant environmental benefits and enlarges rural econ-
crop residue mulch, is reported to be higher in the tropics omies68,91,115, its negative impacts are also reported 27,28.
than in temperate climates. Jenkinsoin and Ayanaba61 re- Mandatory blending pushes up petrol prices as feedstock
ported that 12 tons biomass/ha/year was insufficient to are not profitable to use in fuel production given current
meet the ecosystem demand for maintenance or seques- technologies6. The production of biofuels from lignocel-
tration of the SOC pool in Ibadan, Nigeria. The amount lulose is also limited by the amount of plant matter which
of corn (Zea mays L.) stover needed to maintain SOC, can be sustainably produced and harvested121. The culti-
which is responsible for favorable soil properties, was re- vation of bioenergy and biofuel crops affects biodiversity
ported at 5.25–12.50 t/ha/year. Johnson64 concluded that more directly, both positively and negatively. The chang-
the minimum above-ground source carbon (MSC) re- es to policy and land use should be addressed, not simply
quirement was 2.5±1.0 ton/ha/year for moldboard plow in terms of species abundance at field level, but also
sites and 1.8±0.44 ton/ha/year for non-tilled and chisel changes to landscape diversity, potential impacts on pri-
plowed sites which is equivalent to 6.25 and 4.50 ton sto- mary and secondary habitats and potential impacts on
ver/ha/year, respectively. Above-ground biomass pro- climate change36. It is also reported that the production of
duction is reported to be 5.46 and 10.00 ton/ha for paddy biofuels is often not competitive with oil unless subsi-
and corn, respectively64,89. It is predicted that removal of dized or benefiting from tax credits that offset those al-
corn stover from soil could decrease nitrogen-related ready provided to the alternatives134.
emissions and also reduce the annual accumulation rates A survey in the USA revealed that only 17% of Io-
of SOC71. These estimates indicate that the need for sto- wa’s farmers currently have interest in harvesting their
ver to maintain SOC, and thus productivity, are a greater corn stover; though 37% are undecided. Farmers who an-
constraint to an environmentally sustainable cellulosic ticipate the negative impacts of corn stover removal on
feedstock harvest than that needed to control water and environmental quality tended to be less interested in har-
wind erosion131. In contrast, Sheehan et al.108 noted that vesting it125. Farmer participation would be the main key
SOC drops slightly in the early years of stover collection in harvesting/supplying corn stover/crop residues for lig-
but remains stable over the 90-year time frame. nocellulosic ethanol in the near future. Jensen et al.62 in-
The various cultivation practices and ethanol pro- vestigated U.S. energy policy and revealed that it focused
duction technologies have different impacts. GHG emis- more on the producer stage of the lignocellulosic ethanol
sions in agriculture, for example, are largely determined life cycle than the landowner or consumer stages, despite
by the emission of nitrous oxide or methane whereas the the need to reflect the requirements of land owners and
ethanol production process by CO2 is a factor of electric- consumers in future renewable energy policy to ensure
ity generation and fermentation. The production of the steady feedstock supplies and the development of a strong
enzyme used for hydrolysis requires substantial fossil lignocellulosic ethanol industry. Farrell et al.35 suggested
fuel or electricity for air compression, which also gener- that the large-scale use of ethanol for fuel would certainly
ates considerable CO2 in the chain78. The recalcitrance of require cellulosic technology. Tilman et al.124 noted that
lignocellulosic biomass still renders the proposed pro- the biofuels policy in the USA has become increasingly
cesses complex and costly, but there are grounds for opti- polarized, and that political influence seems to be trump-
mism: the application of newly engineered enzyme sys- ing science. Harnessing the best available science, con-
tems and the construction of inhibitor-tolerant industrial tinually updated information should be used to evaluate
yeast strains, combined with optimized process integra- the extent to which various biofuels achieve their multi-
tion, promises significant improvements83. The produc- ple objectives. The development of rigorous accounting
tion of ethanol from lignocellulosic materials requires rules is urged to assess the impacts of biofuels on the ef-
considerable research and development before reaching ficiency of the global food system, GHG emissions, soil
an economically viable stage. If crop residues are uti- fertility, water and air quality, and biodiversity36 should
lized in the ethanol industry, there should also be careful be considered in the full life cycle of biofuels production,
consideration to maintain soil organic carbon to avoid a transformation, and combustion124. The ISO series rec-

51
T. Shiina et al.

ommends using methods that reflect the physical rela- er scrutiny of policies designed to expand bioenergy use.
tionship, e.g. the mass and energy content or using other A sustainable liquid biofuel program in developing coun-
relevant variables to allocate, such as the economic value tries may only be feasible if modern energy carriers re-
of products, which is similar to the cost allocation meth- place the present inefficient biomass consumption in ru-
ods in managerial accounting49. The ecoinvent default al- ral areas. Although there are several explanations for the
location includes differentiated allocation factors based contradictory results regarding the sustainability of bio-
on physical–causal relationships, common physical pa- fuels, the socio-economic aspects concerning biofuel
rameters (mass or heating values), and/or the economic production and its rebound effects must be considered,
values of the valuable outputs of the multi-output pro- especially in developing countries.
cess66. However, Singh et al.111 was against the use of al- It is likely that biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass
location based on economic value. A common method- might be an alternative option to reduce GHG emissions
ological framework was developed by the GBEP that and improve energy security in the developed countries
could be applied to the LCA of bioenergy production and where crop residues are known to be abundant, yet the
compared to the full life cycle of its fossil fuel equivalent main constraint is the ethanol production cost. The life
to improve the transparency and acceptance of the cycle GHG emission of various forms of bioenergy and
results. their ability to reduce GHG emissions vary widely, and
The GBEP is also promoting bioenergy activities, are dependent on the land use changes, choice of feed-
especially in developing countries. Lignocellulosic bio- stock, agricultural practices, refining and conversion
mass comes from energy crops/grass, wood, agricultural process and finally the end use practices. GHG emis-
residues and by-products, and forestry residues. Suku- sions may intensify still further if the forest land is
maran et al.120 concluded that despite the abundant bio- cleared to make way for new energy crops127. Commer-
mass residues generated in India as agro-and forest resi- cial biofuel production may target higher-quality lands,
dues, the only feasible feedstock among them would be due to better profit margins and relegate cereals and sub-
the crop residues due to problems in terms of collection sistence crops to low-quality land which will have knock-
and logistics. The residues from major agricultural crops on effects on farm income, government payments and
like rice, wheat and sugar cane are mostly consumed as food prices. Hence, biofuel feedstock must be produced
fodder or used as raw material for paper industries, and through biofuel plantations on agriculturally surplus/
less than 10% are available in surplus, which is also reli- marginal soils or degraded/desertified soils which do not
ant on the weather due to the significant dependence of compete with those dedicated to food crop production, in
Indian agriculture on rainwater for irrigation. Biofuels order to ease pressure on land used for food and feed and
provide about one-third of the total energy in developing avoid any potential conflicts with food production.
countries, and up to 80% of energy in some sub-regions Although lignocellulosic biomass is known to be
of Africa33, while biomass often accounts for more than highly reproducible and does not compete with foods,
90% of total rural energy supplies in developing coun- substantial doubts remain concerning the economic and
tries, including Bangladesh and India11, and biomass re- environmental performance of biofuels92,104,124,138. The
sources are utilized to an extreme and possibly dangerous main bottleneck hampering the sustainability of lignocel-
extent68. In Bangladesh, the household sector consumes lulosic ethanol is its production cost. Wide variation was
80% of total biomass energy and rural households use it observed in both the reported cost of feedstock, enzymes
almost exclusively for cooking. The combination of pop- and microorganisms, and fixed costs, which are depen-
ulation growth with the decreasing per capita land area dent on the plant’s life-span, yearly operating periods and
and growing energy needs puts great stress on the avail- regions, with the reported enzyme cost the most wide-
able biomass resources7, and requires judicious alteration ranging variable. It is also worth noting that most of
of energy consumption patterns93. Despite afforesta- those studies referred to the highly optimistic or futuris-
tion/reforestation initiatives, the Earth’s forest cover is tic enzyme cost reported by the NREL1,84,135, which may
dwindling in various parts of the world (especially in de- or may not be achievable depending on whether a bio-
veloping countries), because supply is outpaced by ever- technological revolution takes place in this sector. In an
growing demand. Therefore, it is hard to imagine how effort to reduce the enzyme production cost, research ac-
biofuels can be produced from lignocellulosic biomass in tivities have also been undertaken to identify alternate
developing countries, meet rural energy demand in the carbon sources instead of commercial cellulose57. It is
form of biomass and avoid deforestation. Concerns over also noted that the characteristics of electricity and bio-
sustainability and perceptions about the negative impacts mass markets and fuel prices are crucial for the future of
of biofuels in particular are growing and prompting clos- this sector12. The reviewed literature indicates that the

52 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

biotechnological revolution is a must for the sustainabili- Report No. NREL/TP-510–32438. http://www.nrel.gov/
ty of bioethanol, especially in the fields of enzymes and docs/fy02osti/32438.pdf.
2. Aden, A. (2008) Biochemical Production of Ethanol from
microorganisms. In addition, strong renewable energy, an
Corn Stover: State of technology model. Golden, CO: Na-
industrial policy to reduce fixed costs and an agriculture tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report No. NREL/TP-
policy might be helpful in reducing feedstock costs, 510–43205. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43205.pdf.
where agriculture is heavily government subsidized. 3. AEA Technology (2003) International resource costs of
Therefore, in-depth studies are required for each stage of biodiesel and bioethanol. Department for Transport, Gov-
the life cycle of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, ernment of United Kingdom, London, UK.
4. Balat, M. (2011) Production of bioethanol from lignocellu-
markets of bioenergy for any investment and commercial
losic materials via the biochemical pathway: A review. En-
production. ergy Con. Manag., 52, 858-875.
5. Ballerini, D. et al. (1994) Ethanol production from lignocel-
Conclusion lulosics: Large scale experimentation and economics. Bio-
resour. Technol., 50, 17-23.
6. Banse, M. et al. (2011) Impact of EU biofuel policies on
This study revealed that environmental impacts and
world agricultural production and land use. Biomass and
the production cost of bioethanol are dependent on feed- Bioenergy, 35, 2385–2390.
stock, conversion technologies, system boundaries, allo- 7. Bari, M.N. et al. (1998) Biomass energy use at the house-
cation methods, the utilization of by-products and the end hold level in two villages of Bangladesh: Assessment of
use characteristics. The reported hotspots reportedly field methods. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15, 171-180.
vary among studies depending on the assumptions, sys- 8. Barta, Z., Reczey, K. & Zacchi, G. (2010a) Techno-eco-
nomic evaluation of stillage treatment with anaerobic di-
tem boundaries and impact categories employed. Al-
gestion in a softwood-to-ethanol process. Biotechnol. Bio-
though environmental benefits are reported in most stud- fuels, 3, 21.
ies, economic viability is doubtful with present 9. Barta, Z. et al. (2010b) Process design and economics of
technologies. Significant variation was observed in the on-site cellulase production on various carbon sources in a
reported production cost of bioethanol, especially en- softwood-based ethanol plant. Enzyme Research, Article
ID734182.
zyme cost. However, the biotechnological revolution is a
10. Bennett, R. et al. (2004) Environmental and human health
must for the sustainability of this sector, especially in the impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-toler-
field of enzymes and microorganisms. Extended national ant sugar beet: a life cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnol. J.,
or international support may enable the prevailing hurdle 2, 272-278.
in this sector to be overcome. In addition, the adaptation 11. Bhattacharya, S.C., Abdul Salam, P. & Sharma, M. (2000)
of innovative technologies and renewable energy policy Emission from biomass energy use in some selected Asian
countries. Energy, 25, 169-188.
(to reduce feedstock cost) may facilitate the production of
12. Blanco, B.I. & Azqueta, D. (2008) Can the environmental
economically viable bioethanol, especially from agri-res- benefits of biomass support agriculture?—The case of ce-
idues where agriculture is heavily subsidized. If crop reals for electricity and bioethanol production in Northern
residues are employed in the bioethanol industry, there Spain. Energy Policy, 36, 357-366.
must be careful consideration of soil quality to avoid any 13. Blanco-Canqui, H. & Lal, R. (2009) Corn stover removal
for expanded uses reduces soil fertility and structural sta-
productivity loss. Finally, the bioethanol industry must
bility. Soil Sci. Soci. Am. J., 73, 418-426.
be vigorously evaluated using LCA methodologies for 14. Blottnitz, H. V. & Curran, M. A. (2007) A review of assess-
any investment and commercial production, and its ments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel
sustainability. from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life
cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod., 15, 607-619.
Acknowledgments 15. Börjesson, P. & Tufvesson, L.M. (2010) Agricultural crop-
based biofuels–resource efficiency and environmental per-
formance including direct land use changes. J. Clean.
This study was supported by a grant from the Minis- Prod., 19, 108-120.
try of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (Rural 16. Botha, T. & Blottnitz, H. V. (2006) A comparison of the en-
Biomass Research Project, BEC-BA260-2). vironmental benefits of bagasse-derived electricity and
fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis. Energy Policy, 34, 2654–
2661.
References
17. Brandão, M., Canals, L.M. & Clift, R. (2011) Soil organic
carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: Implica-
1. Aden, A. et al. (2002) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol tions for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA.
process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 2323-2336.
acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn sto- 18. Brentrup, F. et al. (2004a) Environmental impact assess-
ver. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle

53
T. Shiina et al.

assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA gating the sustainability of lignocellulose-derived fuels for
method tailored to crop production. Eur. J. Agron., 20, 247- light-duty vehicles. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport and
264. Environ., 11, 146-159.
19. Brentrup, F. et al. (2004b) Environmental impact assess- 38. Fu, G., Chan, A. & Minns, D. (2003) Life cycle assessment
ment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose. Int. J. Life Cycle As-
assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application to N sess., 8, 137-141.
fertilizer use in winter wheat production systems. Eur. J. 39. Gabrielle, B. & Gagnaire, N. (2008) Life-cycle assessment
Agron., 20, 265-279. of straw use in bio-ethanol production: A case study based
20. Bryant, C. (2009) Step change in cellulosic ethanol–the fu- on biophysical modeling. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 431-
ture is moving closer. Brussels: World Biofuels Market (re- 441.
ported in110). 40. Galbe, M, & Zacchi, G. (2002) A review of the production
21. Campbell, J.E., Lobell, D.B. & Field C.B. (2009) Greater of ethanol from softwood. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.,
transportation energy and GHG offsets from bioelectricity 59, 618-628.
than ethanol. Science, 324, 1055–1057. 41. Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) (2009) The GBEP
22. Cardona, C. A. & Sa´nchez, O´. J. (2007) Fuel ethanol pro- common methodological framework for GHG lifecycle
duction: Process design trends and integration opportuni- analysis of bioenergy—Version Zero. http://www.global-
ties. Bioresour. Technol., 98, 2415–2457. bioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/2009_
23. Cherubini, F. et al. (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas- events/7th_SC_NY/GBEP_GHG_report_2306.pdf.
based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, 42. Gnansounou, E. (2010) Production and use of lignocellu-
ranges and recommendations. Resour. Cons. Recycl., 53, losic bioethanol in Europe: Current situation and perspec-
434-447. tives. Bioresour. Technol., 101, 4842–4850.
24. Cherubini, F. & Strømman, A. H. (2011) Life cycle assess- 43. Gnansounou, E. & Dauriat, A. (2010) Techno-economic
ment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future chal- analysis of lignocellulosic ethanol: A review. Bioresour.
lenges. Bioresour. Technol., 102, 437-451. Technol., 101, 4980–4991.
25. Cherubini, F. & Ulgiati, S. (2010) Crop residues as raw ma- 44. González-García, S. et al. (2009) Life cycle assessment of
terials for biorefinery systems – A LCA case study. Appl. flax shives derived second generation ethanol fueled auto-
Energy, 87, 47-57. mobiles in Spain. Renew. Sustain. Revs., 13, 1922–1933.
26. Cherubini, F. & Jungmeier, G. (2010) LCA of a biorefinery 45. González-García, S. et al. (2010) Environmental profile of
concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals ethanol from poplar biomass as transport fuel in Southern
from switchgrass. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 15, 53-66. Europe. Renewable Energy, 35, 1014–1023.
27. Colchester, M. et al. (2006) Promised land: Palm oil and 46. Graham, R. L. et al. (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn
land acquisition in Indonesia-Implications for local com- stover supplies. Agron. J., 99, 1-11.
munities and indigenous peoples. Forest Peoples Pro- 47. Gray, K.A., Zhao, L.S. & Emptage, M. (2006) Bioethanol.
gramme, Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, Association for Com- Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 10, 141-146.
munity and Ecology-Based Law Reform (HuMA), and 48. Gregg, D.J., Boussaid, A. & Saddler, J.N. (1989) Techno-
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Indonesia. economic evaluations of a generic wood-to-ethanol pro-
28. Colchester, M. et al. (2007) Land is life: Land rights and oil cess: effect of increased cellulose yields and enzyme recy-
palm development in Sarawak. Forest Peoples Programme cle. Bioresour. Technol., 63, 7-12.
and Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, Indonesia. 49. Guinée, J. B., Heijungs, R. & Huppes, G. (2004) Economic
29. Croezen, H. & Kampman, B. (2009) The impact of ethanol allocation—examples and derived decision tree. Int. J. Life
and ETBE blending on refinery operations and GHG-emis- Cycle Assess., 9, 23-33.
sions. Energy Policy, 37, 5226–5238. 50. Guo, Y. et al. (2010) Optimization and analysis of a bioeth-
30. Davis, S. C., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. & DeLucia, E. H. anol agro-industrial system from sweet sorghum. Renew-
(2009) Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of biofuels. able Energy, 35, 2902–2909.
Trends Plant Sci., 14, 140-146. 51. Haas, G., Wetterich, F. & Köpke, U. (2001) Comparing in-
31. Dutta, A. et al. (2010) An economic comparison of differ- tensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in
ent fermentation configurations to convert corn stover to southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agri.
ethanol using Z. mobilis and Saccharomyces. Biotechnol. Ecosys. Environ., 83, 43-53.
Prog. 26, 64-72. 52. Hägerdal, H.B. et al. (2006) Bioethanol—the fuel of tomor-
32. Eggeman, T. & Elander, R. (2005) Process and economic row from the residues of today. Trends in Biotechnol., 24,
analysis of pretreatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol., 549-556.
96, 2019–2025. 53. Hamelinck, C.N., Hooijdonk, G.V. & Faaij, A.P.C. (2005)
33. FAO (2008) Wood energy. http://www.fao.org/forestry/en- Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic
ergy/en/. performance in short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass
34. Fargione, J. et al. (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel car- and Bioenergy, 28, 384-410.
bon debt. Science, 319, 1235–1238. 54. Haney, R.L., Kiniry, J.R. & Johnson, M.V.V. (2010) Soil mi-
35. Farrell, A. E. et al. (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy crobial activity under different grass species: Underground
and environmental goals. Science, 311, 506-508. impacts of biofuel cropping. Agri. Ecosys. Environ., 139,
36. Firbank, L.G. (2008) Assessing the Ecological Impacts of 754-758.
Bioenergy Projects. BioEnergy Res., 1, 12-19. 55. Hatti-Kaul1, R. et al. (2007) Industrial biotechnology for
37. Fleming, J.S., Habibi, S. & MacLean, H.L. (2006) Investi- the production of bio-based chemicals –a cradle-to-grave

54 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

perspective. Trends in Biotechnol., 25, 119-124. strategy on the economic and environmental performance
56. He, J. & Zhang, W. (2011) Techno-economic evaluation of of thermochemical ethanol production under extreme
thermo-chemical biomass-to-ethanol. Appl. Energy, 88, weather conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 608-616.
1224-1232. 75. Kusiima, J. M. & Powers, S. E. (2010) Monetary value of
57. Hideno, et al. (2011) Production and characterization of cel- the environmental and health externalities associated with
lulases and hemicellulases by Acremonium cellulolyticus production of ethanol from biomass feedstocks. Energy
using rice straw subjected to various pretreatments as the Policy, 38, 2785–2796.
carbon source. Enzyme and Microb. Technol., 48, 162-168. 76. Liebig, M. A. et al. (2005) Soil carbon under switchgrass
58. Huang, H.J. et al. (2009) Effect of biomass species and stands and cultivated cropland. Biomass and Bioenergy,
plant size on cellulosic ethanol: A comparative process and 28, 347-354.
economic analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 234-246. 77. Luo, L., van der Voet, E. & Huppes, G. (2009a) An energy
59. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) analysis of ethanol from cellulosic feedstock-corn stover.
(1997) ISO 14040 Environmental management—Life cycle Renew. Sustain. Rev., 13, 2003–2011.
assessment—Principles and framework. 78. Luo, L. et al. (2009b) Allocation issues in LCA methodolo-
60. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) gy: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int. J.
(2006) ISO 14040: 2006(E) Environmental management Life Cycle Assess., 14, 529-539.
— Life cycle assessment —Principles and framework. 79. Luo, L., van der Voet, E. & Huppes, G. (2010) Biorefining
61. Jenkinsoin, D.S. & Ayanaba, A. (1977) Decomposition of of lignocellulosic feedstock – Technical, economic and en-
the C labeled plant material under tropical conditions. Soil vironmental considerations. Bioresour. Technol., 101,
Sci. Soci. Am. J., 41, 912-915. 5023–5032.
62. Jensen, J. R., Halvorsen, K. E. & Shonnard, D. R. (2010) 80. Lynd, L.R. et al. (2002) Microbial cellulose utilization:
Ethanol from lignocellulosics, U.S. federal energy and ag- fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol. Mol. Biol.
ricultural policy, and the diffusion of innovation. Biomass Rev., 66, 506-577.
and Bioenergy, 35, 1440–1453. 81. Mabee, W. E. & Saddler, J. N. (2010) Bioethanol from lig-
63. Johnson, E. (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting bio- nocellulosics: Status and perspectives in Canada. Biore-
mass footprints right. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 29, sour. Technol., 101, 4806–4813.
165-168. 82. Mabee, W. E. et al. (2006) Update on softwood-to-ethanol
64. Johnson, J. (2006) Minimum C inputs and sustainability of process development. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol, 129, 55-
biomass harvest. http://crops.confex.com/crops/2006am/ 70.
techprogram/P20045.HTM. 83. Margeot, A. et al. (2009) New improvements for lignocel-
65. Jolliet, O. et al. (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage frame- lulosic ethanol. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 372-380.
work of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int. J. Life 84. McAloon, A. et al. (2000) Determining the cost of produc-
Cycle Assess., 9, 394-404. ing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feed-
66. Jungbluth, N. et al. (2005) Life cycle assessment for emerg- stocks, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
ing technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind CO, NREL/TP-580-28893.
power. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 10, 24-34. 85. Mclaughlin, S.B. et al. (2002) High-value renewable energy
67. Kaufman, A. S. et al. (2010) Applying life-cycle assess- from prairie grasses. Environ. Sci. Technol., 36: 2122–
ment to low carbon fuel standards—How allocation choic- 2129.
es influence carbon intensity for renewable transportation 86. Monti, A., Fazio, S. & Venturi, G. (2009) Cradle-to-farm
fuels. Energy Policy, 38, 5229–5241. gate life cycle assessment in perennial energy crops. Eur.
68. Kennes, W., Parik, J.K. & Stolwisk, H. (1984) Energy from J. Agron., 31, 77-84.
biomass by socio-economic groups? A case study of Ban- 87. Nelson, R. (2002) Resource assessment and removal anal-
gladesh. Biomass, 4, 209-234. ysis for corn stover and wheat straw in the eastern and
69. Kim, S. & Dale, B.E. (2002) Allocation procedure in etha- Midwestern United States: Rainfall and wind erosion
nol production system from corn grain I. System expan- methodology. Biomass and Bioenergy, 22, 349-363.
sion. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 7, 237-243. 88. Nigam, P.S. & Singh, A. (2011) Production of liquid biofu-
70. Kim, S. & Dale, B. E. (2005) Life cycle assessment of vari- els from renewable resources. Prog. Energy Comb. Sci., 37,
ous cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bio- 52-68.
ethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29, 426- 89. Orikasa, T. et al. (2009) Effect of ethanol conversion effi-
439. ciency on cost, CO2 emission and energy balance in the
71. Kim, S., Dale, B.E. & Jenkins, R. (2009) Life cycle assess- bioethanol production system from rice straw. J. Jpn. Soci.
ment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States. Int. Agril. Machinery, 71, 45-53.
J. Life Cycle Assess., 14, 160-174. 90. Pedersen, J.F., Vogel, K.P. & Funnell, D. (2005) Impact of
72. Klein-Marcuschamer, D. et al. (2010) Technoeconomic reduced lignin on plant fitness. Crop Sci., 45, 812-819.
analysis of biofuels: A wiki-based platform for lignocellu- 91. Pickett, J. et al. (2008) Sustainable biofuels: Prospects and
losic biorefineries. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 1914–1921. challenges (The Royal Society, London, 2008).
73. Koga, N. & Tajima, R. (2011) Assessing energy efficiencies 92. Pimentel, D. & Patzek, T. W. (2005) Ethanol production us-
and greenhouse gas emissions under bioethanol-oriented ing corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production us-
paddy rice production in northern Japan. J. Environ. Man- ing soybean and sunflower. Nat. Resour. Res., 14, 65-76.
ag., 92, 967-973. 93. Pokharel, S., Chandrashekar, M. & Robinson, J. B. (1992)
74. Kou, N. & Zhao, F. (2010) Effect of multiple-feedstock Interfuel and intermode substitution for cooking. Energy,

55
T. Shiina et al.

17, 907-918. 112. Singh, S. & Kumar, A. (2010) Development of water re-
94. Reijnders, L. (2008) Ethanol production from crop residues quirement factors for biomass conversion pathway. Biore-
and soil organic carbon. Resour. Cons. Recycl., 52, 653- sour. Technol., 102, 1316–1328.
658. 113. Slade, R., Bauen, A. & Shah, N. (2009a) The greenhouse
95. Reith, J. H. et al. (2002) Co-production of bio-ethanol, elec- gas emissions performance of cellulosic ethanol supply
tricity and heat from biomass residues. The 12th European chains in Europe. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 2, 15.
Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for En- 114. Slade, R., Bauen, A. & Shah, N. (2009b) The commercial
ergy, Industry and Climate Protection, Amsterdam, The performance of cellulosic ethanol supply-chains in Europe.
Netherlands, June 17-21. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 2, 3.
96. Roy, P. et al. (2010) Evaluation of the life cycle of bioetha- 115. Spatari, S., Zhang, Y. & MacLean, H.L. (2005) Life cycle
nol produced from rice straw by enzymatic hydrolysis pro- assessment of switchgrass- and corn stover-derived etha-
cess. The Proceeding of the 9th International Conference nol-fueled automobiles. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 9750–
on EcoBalance, Tokyo, Japan, November 9-12. 9758.
97. S&T2 (2004) Economic, financial, social analysis and 116. Spatari, S., Bagley, D.M. & MacLean, H.L. (2010) Life cy-
public policies for fuel ethanol. S&T2 Consultants Inc., cle evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic ethanol conver-
Canada. sion technologies. Bioresour. Technol., 101, 654-667.
98. Saga, K. et al. (2010) Net energy analysis of bioethanol pro- 117. Stephenson, A.L. et al. (2010) The environmental and eco-
duction system from high-yield rice plant in Japan. Appl. nomic sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in
Energy, 87, 2164–2168. the UK. Bioresour. Technol., 101, 9612–9623.
99. Sánchez, O´. J. & Cardona, C. A. (2008) Trends in biotech- 118. Stoeglehner, G. & Narodoslawsky, M. (2009) How sustain-
nological production of fuel ethanol from different feed- able are biofuels? Answers and further questions arising
stocks. Bioresour. Technol., 99, 5270–5295. from an ecological footprint perspective. Bioresour. Tech-
100. Sassner, P. & Zacchi, G. (2008) Integration options for high nol., 100, 3825–3830.
energy efficiency and improved economics in a wood-to- 119. Stolman, M. (2005) Ethanol and the net energy debate.
ethanol process. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 1, 4. www.e2.org/ext/jsp/​controller?docId=8461.
101. Sassner, P., Galbe, M. & Zacchi, G. (2008) Techno-eco- 120. Sukumaran, R.K. et al. (2010) Lignocellulosic ethanol in
nomic evaluation of bioethanol production from three dif- India: Prospects, challenges and feedstock availability.
ferent lignocellulosic materials. Biomass and Bioenergy, Bioresour. Technol., 101, 4826–4833.
32, 422-430. 121. Swana, J. et al. (2010) An analysis of net energy production
102. Schmer, M. R. et al. (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol and feedstock availability for biobutanol and bioethanol.
from switchgrass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 464- Bioresour. Technol., 102, 2112–2117.
469. 122. Tan, K. T., Lee, K. T. & Mohamed, A. R. (2008) Role of en-
103. Seabra, J.E.A. et al. (2010) A techno-economic evaluation ergy policy in renewable energy accomplishment: The case
of the effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-prod- of second-generation bioethanol. Energy Policy, 36, 3360–
ucts refinery options with sugarcane mill clustering. Bio- 3365.
mass and Bioenergy, 34, 1065–1078. 123. Tilman, D., Hill, J. & Lehman, C. (2006) Carbon-negative
104. Searchinger, T. et al. (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for bio- biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass.
fuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from Science, 314, 1598–1600.
land-use change. Science, 319, 1238–1240. 124. Tilman, D. et al. (2009) Beneficial biofuels the food, ener-
105. Searcy, E. & Flynn, P. C. (2010) A criterion for selecting gy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325, 270-271.
renewable energy processes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 125. Tyndall, J.C., Berg, E. J. & Colletti, J. P. (2010) Corn stover
798-804. as a biofuel feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: An Iowa
106. Searcy, E. & Flynn, P.C. (2008) Processing of straw/corn farmer survey. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 1485–1495.
stover: comparison of life cycle emissions. Int. J. Green 126. Uihlein, A. & Schebek, L. (2009) Environmental impacts
Energy, 5, 423-437. of a lignocellulose feedstock biorefinery system: an assess-
107. Service, R. F. (2010) Scaling up alternative energy: Is there ment. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 793-802.
a road ahead for cellulosic ethanol? Science, 329, 784-785. 127. U N Energy (2007) Sustainable bioenergy: A framework
108. Sheehan, J. et al. (2003) Energy and environmental aspects for decision makers. http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/sus-
of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J. Ind. Ecol., 7, 117- dev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf.
146. 128. Vadas, P.A., Barnett, K.H. & Undersander, D. J. (2008)
109. Sheehan, J. et al. (2002) Is ethanol from corn stover sus- Economics and energy of ethanol production from alfalfa,
tainable? Adventures in cyber-farming: a life cycle assess- corn and switchgrass in the upper Midwest, USA. J. Bioen.
ment of the production of ethanol from corn stover for use Res., 1, 44-55.
in a flex fuel vehicle. Draft report for peer review, Colora- 129. Velásquez-Arredondo, H. I., Ruiz-Colorado, A. A. &
do, NREL. Oliveira Junior, S. D. (2010) Ethanol production process
110. Sims, R. E. H. et al. (2006) Energy crops: current status from banana fruit and its lignocellulosic residues: Energy
and future prospects. Global Change Biol., 12, 2054–2076. analysis. Energy, 35, 3081–3087.
111. Singh, A. et al. (2010) Key issues in life cycle assessment of 130. Vliet, V.O.P.R., Faaij, A.P.C. & Turkenburg, W.C. (2009)
ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: Chal- Fischer-Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel per-
lenges and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol., 101, 5003- spective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy
5012. Con. Manag., 50, 855-876.

56 JARQ 46 (1) 2012

 LCA of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass

131. Wilhelm, W. W. et al. (2007) Corn stover to sustain soil or- sis of technologies for passenger cars and light-duty vehi-
ganic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agron. J., cles fueled with biofuels: Application of the GREET Model
99, 1665–1667. to the role of biomass in America’s Energy Future
132. Williams, P. R. D. et al. (2009) Environmental and sustain- (RBAEF) Project. Center for Transportation Research, En-
ability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in ergy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
the US: what do we really know. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, http://www.osti.gov/bridge.
4763–4775. 137. Wyman, C. E. (1994) Ethanol from lignocellulosic bio-
133. Wingren, A., Galbe, M. & Zacchi, G. (2003) Techno-eco- mass: technology, economics, and opportunities. Biore-
nomic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: sour. Technol., 50, 3-15.
comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottle- 138. Wyman, C.E. (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing
necks. Biotechnol. Prog., 19, 1109–1117. cellulosic ethanol. Trends in Biotechnol., 25, 153-157.
134. Woods, J. (2006) Science and technology options for har- 139. Yamamoto, H., Fujino, J. & Yamaji, K. (2001) Evaluation of
nessing bioenergy’s potential. IFPRI, Washington DC, bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-
USA. and-energy model. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21, 185-203.
135. Wooley, R. et al. (1999) Lignocellulosic biomass to etha- 140. Zah, R. et al. (2007) Life cycle assessment of energy prod-
nol—process design and economics utilizing co-current ucts: Environmental assessment of biofuels, EMPA, Bern,
dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis—cur- Switzerland. www.empa.ch/tsl.
rent and futuristic scenarios, Report No. TP-580-26157. 141. Zaldivar, J., Nielsen, J. & Olsson, L. (2001) Fuel ethanol
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden Colorado, production from lignocellulose: a challenge for metabolic
USA. engineering and process integration. Appl. Microbiol. Bio-
136. Wu, M., Wu, Y. & Wang, M. (2008) Mobility chain analy- technol., 56, 17-34.

57