Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective

被引:43
|
作者
Collotta, M. [1 ]
Champagne, P. [3 ]
Tomasoni, G. [1 ]
Alberti, M. [1 ]
Busi, L. [1 ]
Mabee, W. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Brescia, Dept Ind & Mech Engn, DIMI, Via Branze 38, I-25123 Brescia, Italy
[2] Queens Univ, Dept Geog & Planning, Mackintosh Corry Hall,68 Univ Ave, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
[3] Queens Univ, Dept Civil Engn, Ellis Hall,58 Univ Ave, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
来源
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Bioenergy; Biofuels; Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA); Life cycle assessment (LCA); Life cycle costing (LCC); Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA); Roundtable on sustainable biomaterials (RSB); Sustainability; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; BIOENERGY PRODUCTION; BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; CELLULOSIC ETHANOL; PRODUCTION SYSTEMS; STOVER PRODUCTION; COMPARATIVE LCA; SOCIAL IMPACTS; WILLOW BIOMASS;
D O I
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change poses challenges across multiple sectors. Biofuels have been touted as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels, but policy guiding this sector must ensure that biomass is obtained in a sustainably. In this context, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) tools have been identified as a means to conduct comprehensive impact evaluations of the biofuel sector. The objective of this work is to highlight key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being assessed using LCSA, and to relate these back to the framework of Principles and Criteria (P&C) developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) to assess the ability of LCSA approaches to effectively inform all Principles within the RSB. 60 LCSA studies, published since 2007, were selected to include a range of biofuel production scenarios, including various technologies and geographic settings. System boundaries and functional units used in these studies were evaluated and compared. The ability of each study to provide quantitative indicators related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability was tabulated. It was found that some RSB Principles can be effectively evaluated using an LCSA approach, including Principle 3 (greenhouse gas emissions) and Principle 10 (air quality). Most other Principles within the RSB P&C framework, however, are only partially addressed, and Principle 11 (technology, inputs, and management of waste) is not informed in any way by existing LCSA. The results suggest that existing LCSA studies, while expanding to consider more economic and social sustainability considerations, are unlikely to cover all aspects of biofuel production systems and are not sufficient to completely inform the full range of RSB Criteria. In the future, LCSA should be further extended to help address critical aspects of sustainability, while the RSB framework should be strengthened to employ a life cycle approach across all Principles.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle sustainability assessment
    Alessandra Zamagni
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012, 17 : 373 - 376
  • [22] Key Issues in Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels
    Singh, Anoop
    Olsen, Stig I.
    Green Energy and Technology, 2012, 62 : 213 - 228
  • [23] Sustainability of insect use for feed and food: Life Cycle Assessment perspective
    Smetana, Sergiy
    Palanisamy, Megala
    Mathys, Alexander
    Heinz, Volker
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 137 : 741 - 751
  • [24] Screening of socio-economic indicators for sustainability assessment: a combined life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis approach
    Iribarren, Diego
    Martin-Gamboa, Mario
    O'Mahony, Tadhg
    Dufour, Javier
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2016, 21 (02): : 202 - 214
  • [25] Screening of socio-economic indicators for sustainability assessment: a combined life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis approach
    Diego Iribarren
    Mario Martín-Gamboa
    Tadhg O’Mahony
    Javier Dufour
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016, 21 : 202 - 214
  • [26] The role of sustainability and life cycle thinking in US biofuels policies
    Soratana, Kullapa
    Harden, Cheyenne L.
    Zaimes, George G.
    Rasutis, Daina
    Antaya, Claire L.
    Khanna, Vikas
    Landis, Amy E.
    ENERGY POLICY, 2014, 75 : 316 - 326
  • [27] Sustainability Assessment of Industrial Production of Pharmaceuticals Through a Life Cycle Assessment Approach
    Mohan, S.
    Sruthy, S.
    JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, 2022, 26 (04)
  • [28] Combining Energy Management Indicators and Life Cycle Assessment Indicators to Promote Sustainability in a Paper Production Plant
    Espinel Blanco, Edwin
    Valencia Ochoa, Guillermo
    Duarte Forero, Jorge
    RESOURCES-BASEL, 2020, 9 (06):
  • [29] Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis
    Heijungs, Reinout
    Huppes, Gjalt
    Guinee, Jeroen B.
    POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY, 2010, 95 (03) : 422 - 428
  • [30] A review of sustainability assessment of geopolymer concrete through AI-based life cycle analysis
    V. Ramesh
    B. Muthramu
    D. Rebekhal
    AI in Civil Engineering, 2025, 4 (1):