4.7 Article

Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 578-587

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.059

Keywords

Lignocellulosic bioethanol; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle costing environmental and economic performance; E10; E85; Conventional gasoline

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) 1001 - the Support Program for Scientific and Technological Research Projects [110Y261]
  2. Bogazici University - Scientific Research Projects [09R103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this paper is to conduct Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Life Cycle Costing (ELCC) studies for lignocellulosic bioethanol blends [E10 and E85 (10% and 85% by volume of bioethanol with gasoline, respectively)] and conventional gasoline (CG). To compare the environmental performance and economic advantage of the selected fuel blends, the impact potentials and the cost of fuel applications per kilometer by a middle size car was evaluated. According the LCA results, one kilometer driven by E10 and E85 fueled vehicles could reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 43% and 47% and ozone layer depletion emissions by 3% and 66%, respectively, relative to CG. However, shifting from gasoline to bioethanol increases the emissions that contribute to eutrophication and photochemical ozone depletion. In terms of acidification potential, E85 shows a more favorable result relative to E10 and CG. According to the ELCC analysis, E85 fuel use provides a 23% lower driving cost relative to CG based on a-1 km driving distance. The results showed that E85 seems to be the best alternative in terms of both GHG emission and fuel production cost reduction compare to CG. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available