Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment of the production of gasoline and diesel from forest residues using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion

  • LCA FOR AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND BIOBASED INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Renewable gasoline and diesel can be produced through integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion (IH2) using renewable feedstocks such as woody biomass from logging residues. This study assesses the potential environmental impacts of IH2 process fuels manufactured in Ontonagon, Michigan, to determine their environmental impacts and if these manufactured fuels will meet Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) requirements. The energy return on investment (EROI) is also calculated for comparison to other renewable fuels.

Methods

A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was conducted using regional forestry, timber harvest, and transportation data from the region. Regional geographic data was used to determine service areas that may provide woody biomass. The service areas were then developed into inventory data based upon the type and distribution of potential woody biomass feedstocks. Survey data from loggers in the region were used to ensure that harvest types were allocated in accordance with regional activity. Remaining inventory items were derived from existing data in the literature or existing life cycle inventory databases. This study uses a functional unit of one megajoule of gasoline or diesel produced using the IH2 process and assessed several environmental indicators as well as EROI.

Results and discussion

Fuels produced generate approximately 88% less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to petroleum fuels given RFS assumptions. Manufacturing and transportation of feedstocks accounts for 92.19% of energy used in production giving a calculated EROI of 4.19 and 4.31 per kilogram of diesel and gasoline, respectively. Pessimistic estimates of soil organic carbon (SOC) loss result in GHG emissions that are approximately 83% lower. If a 1:0.5 displacement ratio of IH2 fuels is considered, the GHG emissions are about 76% lower without SOC loss and 66% lower with. This study demonstrates that while environmental impacts and EROI are sensitive to site selection and SOC estimates, there is a sufficient GHG emission reduction such that IH2 fuels are capable of meeting regulatory requirements.

Conclusions

Fuels produced at the facility result in a reduction in GHG emissions, but better site selection may result in less fuel being used in transportation. Reducing the quantity of electricity needed in n-th–generation facilities would also reduce environmental impacts while improving the EROI. The energy mix used to supply IH2 facilities should also be considered during the planning process. Finally, future research may be needed to ensure feedstocks recovered from logging operations match expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas D, Handler R, Hartsough B, Dykstra D, Lautala P, Hembroff L (2014) A survey analysis of forest harvesting and transportation operations in Michigan. Croat J For Eng 35(2):179–192

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ 13(5):687–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2012) Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) TRACI version 2.1 (No. EPA/600/R-12/554) (pp. 1–24). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100HN53.pdf

  • Boundy RG, Diegel SW, Wright LL, Davis SC (2011) Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 4. United States. doi: https://doi.org/10.2172/1050890

  • Buchholz T, Luzadis VA, Volk TA (2009) Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. J Clean Prod 17:S86–S98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships. (2014) All Roads (v17a) (Version 15a). Lansing, MI: State of Michigan. Retrieved from http://gis-michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/all-roads-v17a

  • Covington WW (1981) Changes in forest floor organic matter and nutrient content following clear cutting in northern hardwoods. Ecology 62(1):41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta A, Sahir A, Tan E, Humbird D, Snowden-Swan J, Meyer P, Lukas J (2015) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbon fuels thermochemical research pathways with in situ and ex situ upgrading of fast pyrolysis vapors (Technical Report No. NREL/TP-5100-62455, PNNL-2382 3) (pp. 1–275). National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23823.pdf

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program (Regulatory Impact Analysis No. EPA420- R- 07–004). Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/420r07004.pdf

  • ESRI. (2015) ArcGIS 10.3.1 for Desktop. Redlands, CA: ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). Retrieved from https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/about-arcgis/overview

  • Evans AM, Perschel RT, Kittler BA (2013) Overview of Forest Biomass Harvesting Guidelines. J Sustain Forest 32(1–2):89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2011.651786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan J, Gephart J, Marker T, Stover D, Updike B, Shonnard DR (2016) Carbon footprint analysis of gasoline and diesel from forest residues and corn stover using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4(1):284–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gomiero T (2015) Are biofuels an effective and viable energy strategy for industrialized societies? a reasoned overview of potentials and limits. Sustainability 7(7):8491–8521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomiero T, Paoletti MG, Pimentel D (2010) Biofuels: efficiency, ethics, and limits to human appropriation of ecosystem services. J Agr Environ Ethic 23(5):403–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford MC, Hall CAS, O’Connor P, Cleveland CJ (2011) A new long term assessment of energy return on investment (EROI) for U.S. oil and gas discovery and production. Sustainability 3(10):1866–1887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall AC, Balogh S, Murphy JD (2009) What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have? Energies 2(1):25–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall CAS, Dale BE, Pimentel D (2011) Seeking to understand the reasons for different energy return on investment (EROI) estimates for biofuels. Sustainability 3(12):2413–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall CAS, Lambert JG, Balogh SB (2014) EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energ Policy 64:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handler RM, Shonnard DR, Lautala P, Abbas D, Srivastava A (2014) Environmental impacts of roundwood supply chain options in Michigan: life-cycle assessment of harvest and transport stages. J Clean Prod 76:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen DE (2016) Michigan timber industry, 2010 (Resource Update No. FS-78) (p. 5). Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50686

  • Hill J, Tajibaeva L, Polasky S (2016) Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard. Energ Policy 97:351–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photoprogramm Eng Rem S 81:345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework (International Standard No. ISO 14040) (p. 20). Geneva: ISO. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html

  • Janda K, Kristoufek L, Zilberman D (2012) Biofuels: policies and impacts. Agr Econ-Czech 58(8):372–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for united states tree species. Forest Sci 49(1):12–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Curtis PS (2001) Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecol Manag 140(2):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Knoepp J, Swank W, Shan J, Morris L, Van Lear D, Kapeluck P (2002) Effects of forest management on soil carbon: results of some long-term resampling studies. Environ Pollut 116:S201–S208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2005) Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecol Manag 220(1):242–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LTS (2016) DATASMART LCI Package (US-EI SimaPro® Library). Retrieved from https://ltsexperts.com/services/software/datasmart-life-cycle-inventory/

  • Maleche E, Glaser R, Marker T, Shonnard D (2013) A preliminary life cycle assessment of biofuels produced by the IH2 ™ process. Environ Prog Sustain 33(1):322–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marker TL, Felix LG, Linck MB, Roberts MJ (2011) Integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion (IH2) for the direct production of gasoline and diesel fuels or blending components from biomass, part 1: Proof of principle testing. Environ Prog Sustain 31(2):191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marker T, Roberts M, Linck M, Felix L, Ortiz-Toral P, Wangerow J, Tan E (2012) Biomass to gasoline and diesel using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion (Technical Report). Gas Technology Inst, Des Plaines Retrieved from https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1059031

    Google Scholar 

  • Markevičius A, Katinas V, Perednis E, Tamašauskienė M (2010) Trends and sustainability criteria of the production and use of liquid biofuels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(9):3226–3231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meerman JC, Larson ED (2017) Negative-carbon drop-in transport fuels produced via catalytic hydropyrolysis of woody biomass with CO2 capture and storage. Sustain Energ Fuel 1(4):866–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2018a) Commercial Forests Summary (No. IC4171) (pp. 1–2). Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/IC4171_CommercialForestSummary_185969_7.pdf

  • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2018b) Michigan Forestry Best Management Practices for Soil and Water Quality (No. IC4011). Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/IC4011_SustainableSoilAndWaterQualityPracticesOnForestLand_268417_7.pdf

  • Murphy DJ, Hall CAS, Powers B (2011) New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol. Environ Dev Sustain 13(1):179–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2012) U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/lci/

  • Nave LE, Vance ED, Swanston CW, Curtis PS (2010) Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. Forest Ecol Manag 259(5):857–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, van Ypserle JP (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (R. K. Pachauri & L. Meyer, eds.). Retrieved from https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/37530/

  • Peckham SD, Gower ST (2011) Simulated long-term effects of harvest and biomass residue removal on soil carbon and nitrogen content and productivity for two Upper Great Lakes forest ecosystems. GCB Bioenergy 3(2):135–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PRé (2018) SimaPro Database Manual: Methods Library (No. Version 4.1) (pp. 1–69). Retrieved from https://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/manuals/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf

  • PRé Consultants (2018) SimaPro (Version 8.5). Retrieved from https://simapro.com/

  • Resende FLP (2016) Recent advances on fast hydropyrolysis of biomass. Catal Today 269:148–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger WH (2018) Are wood pellets a green fuel? Science 359(6382):1328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skone TJ, Gerdes K (2008) Development of baseline data and analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels (No. DOE/NETL-2009/1346). National Energy Technology Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Life%20Cycle%20Analysis/NETL-LCA-Petroleum-based-Fuels-Nov-2008.pdf

  • Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA (2006) Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States (Gen. Tech. Rep. No. NE-343) (p. 216). Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station

  • Solomon BD (2010) Biofuels and sustainability. Ann Ny Acad Sci 1185(1):119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2014) Determining long-term chipper usage, productivity and fuel consumption. Biomass Bioenerg 66:442–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SynSel (2017) Executive Summary. SynSel. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577c12f72e69cf891843178f/t/5a2f319371c10bb717802dce/1513042327738/Executive+Summary+12-11-17+.pdf, pp 1-2

  • SynSel (n.d.) Ontonagon SynSel: Site Qualification Guide. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577c12f72e69cf891843178f/t/597e82e403596eab18ae2099/1501463354067/Ontonagon+Site+Qualification+Guide+NON-Conf.pdf

  • TV6 & FOX UP (2018). SynSel bio-refinery plant coming to Ontonagon [News Segment]. TV6 News. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L3gjykrAbI

  • Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2016a) Criteria and indicators for a bioenergy production industry identified via stakeholder participation. Int J Sust Dev World 23(6):526–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2016b) Use of a participatory approach to develop a regional assessment tool for bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenerg 94:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Elgowainy A, Benavides PT, Burnham A, Cai H, Dai Q, Lee D-Y (2018) Summary of Expansions and Updates in GREET® 2018. Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL, USA

  • Wilkerson EG, Perlack RD (2011) Resource assessment, economics and technology for collection and harvesting. In Renewable Energy from Forest Resources in the United States. Routledge, vol 12:69–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y (2016) Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J Clean Prod 127:274–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q, Goldstein KR, Mihelcic JR (2009) A review of life cycle assessment studies on renewable energy derived from forest resources. In: Renewable Energy from Forest Resources in the United States, vol 12. Routledge, London and New York, pp 163–195

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge Robert Handler and David Shonnard (Michigan Technological University, Sustainable Futures Institute) for their feedback and providing access to SimaPro, Matthew Kelly (Michigan Technological University) for the feedback in preparing the woody biomass estimates, and Stas Zinchik (Michigan Technological University) for the assistance in preparing the explanation of the IH2 process. The author would also like to thank the reviewers and editor for their kind feedback on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    Robert Zupko

Authors
  1. Robert Zupko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Zupko.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Yi Yang

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 64 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 29 kb)

ESM 3

(XLSX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zupko, R. Life cycle assessment of the production of gasoline and diesel from forest residues using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1793–1804 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01616-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01616-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation