Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Global Warming Impact of E85 Fuel Derived from Forest Biomass: A Case Study from Southern USA

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study estimates global warming impact (GWI) of E85 fuel needed to run a small passenger car for its average lifetime, i.e., 241,402 km (150,000 miles). The ethanol needed for the production of E85 fuel was derived from an intensively managed slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantation in the southern USA. We assumed that only pulpwood and harvesting residues obtained at the time of harvesting were used for ethanol production. A suitable system boundary was defined and a detailed life-cycle assessment was undertaken to determine GWI of all the steps present within the system boundary. Results indicate that the overall GWI of the E85 fuel was about 76% less than an equivalent amount of gasoline needed to run a small passenger car for its average lifetime. Within the system boundary, the GWI of the ethanol production stage was highest followed by the stage of E85 fuel consumption in a small passenger car. A need exists to evaluate impacts of utilizing forest biomass for E85 fuel production on forest ecology and traditional forest biomass-based industries.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Smith et al. [13] do not report separate values of annual removal of growing stock from timberlands for NIPF and NIP landowners. However, NIPF landowners own about 60% of timberlands in the southern region. Therefore, it can be easily deduced that NIPF landowners are major suppliers of roundwood products at the national level.

  2. We recognize that there exists a large variation in fuel economies. Therefore, we have used conservative estimates in this study.

  3. Inputs (kilograms per liter of ethanol): biomass (4.242), lime (0.057), water (15.232), ammonia (0.106), diesel (0.019), and sulfuric acid (0.202). Outputs (kilograms per liter of ethanol): ethanol (0.795), gypsum (0.132), ash (0.328), lignin (2.542), methane (0.070), and CO2 (5.545).

  4. We interviewed four NIPF landowners and three loggers to estimate total use of energy and material inputs in slash pine management.

  5. Both, Franklin Associates Environmental Database and TRACI Database are available in the SimaPro software.

  6. In order to accommodate dinitrogen oxide (N2O, a GHG released due to the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers) emissions at the forest site, a conversion equation of E = 0.013 × F was taken where E = emission (kg N2O–N) and F = fertilizer application (kilograms of N per hectare per year) [38]. The quantities of N2O emissions were converted into CO2 equivalent using 100-year global warming potential.

  7. We have considered credits for the carbon sequestered in the biomass as we are considering GHG tailpipe emissions for E85 fuel.

References

  1. USEIA (2011) US crude oil imports by country of origin. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011

  2. USEIA (2011) US product supplied for crude oil and petroleum products. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011

  3. USEIA (2011) Crude oil production. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm. Accessed 18 July 2011

  4. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  5. USEIA (2011) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases: Program fuel and energy source codes and emission coefficients. United States Energy Information Administration. Available from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Accessed 18 July 2011

  6. Energy Independence and Security Act (2007). 7 H.R.

  7. RFA (2011) Ethanol industry statistics. Renewable Fuels Association. Available from http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics. Accessed 18 July 2011

  8. Mitchell D (2008) A note of rising food prices. Policy research working paper # 4682. Development Prospects Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C

  9. Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14(1):65–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(30):11206–11210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Perlack R, Wright L, Turholllow A, Graham R, Stokes B, Erbach D (2005) Biomass as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National laboratory, United States Department of Energy/United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C

  12. Walsh M, Perlack R, Turhollow A, Ugarte DdlT, Becker D, Graham R et al (2000) Biomass feedstock availability in the United States: 1999 State level analysis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0719/ML071930137.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2011

  13. Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007: A technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment, General Technical Report WO-78. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, United States.

  14. Vogt KA, Andreu MG, Vogt DJ, Sigurdardottir R, Edmonds RL, Schiess P et al (2005) Societal values and economic return added for forest owners by linking forests to bioenergy production. J For 103(1):21–27

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kluender RA, Walkingstick TL (2000) Rethinking how nonindustrial landowners view their lands. South J Appl For 24(3):150–158

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mengak MT, Guynn DC Jr (2003) Small mammal microhabitat use on young loblolly pine regeneration areas. For Ecol Manag 173(1–3):309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Covington WW, Fule PZ, Moore MM, Hart SC, Kolb TE, Mast JN et al (1997) Restoring ecosystem health in Ponderosa Pine forests of the Southwest. J For 95(4):23–29

    Google Scholar 

  18. ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles, and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  20. Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: Implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3170–3176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Siry J (2002) Intensive timber management practices. In: Wear D, John J (eds) Southern forest resource assessment, general technical report SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 327–340

    Google Scholar 

  22. Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Fox TR (2007) Historical patterns of forest fertilization in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2004. South J Appl For 31(3):129–137

    Google Scholar 

  23. NREL (1999) Fact sheet Ford Taurus: Ethanol-fueled sedan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR, Lal P (2009) Cellulosic ethanol production in the United States: Conversion technologies, current production status, economics, and emerging developments. Energy Sustain Dev 13(3):174–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kadam KL (2002) Environmental benefits on a life cycle basis of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in India. Energy Policy 30(5):371–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kadam K (2000) Environmental life cycle implications of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in Mumbai (Bombay) NREL Report # NREL/TP-580-28705. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Bush T, Marinescu M (2011) Quantifying GWI of wood pellet production in the Southern United States and its subsequent utilization for electricity production in the Netherlands/Florida. Bioenergy Research 4(3):180–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Quintero JA, Montoya MI, Sánchez OJ, Giraldo OH, Cardona CA (2008) Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: Comparative analysis for a Colombian case. Energy 33(3):385–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. WSTB (2008) Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. Water Science and Technology Board, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tchobanoglous G, Burton F, Stensel H, Eddy M (2003) Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bessette R, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (2002) Energy efficiency and industrial boiler efficiency: An industry perspective. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jurado F, Cano A, Carpio J (2003) Modelling of combined cycle power plants using biomass. Renewable Energy 28(5):743–753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Yin R, Pienaar LV, Aronow ME (1998) The productivity and profitability of fiber farming. J For 96(11):13–18

    Google Scholar 

  34. TMS (2011) Southeastern average stumpage prices—US $/ton Timber Mart South. Available from http://www.timbermart-south.com/prices.html. Accessed 18 July 2011

  35. Faustmann M (1995) Calculation of the value which forestland and immature stands possess for forestry (republication of the original article—1849). J For Econ 1(1):7–44

    Google Scholar 

  36. Franklin Associates (2011) Life Cycle Services. Prairie Village, Kansas.

  37. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2002) TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. IPCC (2006) Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In: Eggleston H, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  39. Spatari S, Zhang Y, MacLean HL (2005) Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9750–9758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(2):464–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to all people (landowners, loggers, transport managers, etc.) who gave their time for this study. We also acknowledge help of forest extension agents and professionals in providing access to various data sources. We are also grateful to the funding support provided by the Alumni Doctoral Fellowship (University of Florida) and Yale Climate and Energy Institute’s Postdoctoral Fellowship (Yale University).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, Room # 125 Kroon Hall 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Puneet Dwivedi

  2. School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Robert Bailis

  3. The Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Janaki Alavalapati

  4. The Department of Geography and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Tyler Nesbit

Authors
  1. Puneet Dwivedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Bailis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janaki Alavalapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tyler Nesbit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Puneet Dwivedi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dwivedi, P., Bailis, R., Alavalapati, J. et al. Global Warming Impact of E85 Fuel Derived from Forest Biomass: A Case Study from Southern USA. Bioenerg. Res. 5, 470–480 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9179-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9179-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation