4.7 Article

Water footprints of bioethanol cropping systems in Uruguay

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 252, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106870

关键词

Bioenergy; Green water; Gray water; Soil erosion; Intensification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioenergy is the most widely used form of renewable energy, but understanding water consumption and pollution is crucial for determining its water demand. Uruguayan policy emphasizes the use of bioenergy to decarbonize energy sources. The water footprint of four different bioethanol cropping systems varies, with switchgrass having the lowest water usage per hectare and per liter of ethanol.
Bioenergy is the most widely used type of renewable energy. However, an assessment of water consumption and pollution is necessary to determine the water demand of this energy source. The Uruguayan public policy to decarbonize energy sources highlighted the use of bioenergy. In this regard, we analyzed the water footprint (WF) of four bioethanol cropping systems: (1) maize-wheat-sorghum rotation without harvested crop residues (MWS), (2) maize-wheat-sorghum rotation with harvested crop residues (MWS-R), (3) continuous sweet sorghum (Ss), and (4) switchgrass (Sw). In order to assess the WF of bioethanol production, green (WFgreen) and gray (WFgray) components of crop production were calculated by considering the different volumes of water involved in evaporation, rainfall, and fertilizer pollution. Annual cropping systems (i.e., MWS, MWS-R, Ss) had the largest WFs (23.1-30.9 m(3) L-ethanol(-1)). Switchgrass had the lowest values per hectare and per liter of ethanol (12,735 m(3)(ha yr)(-1) and 3.8 m(3) L-ethanol(-1), respectively). The volume required to assimilate phosphorous (P) and nitrogen (N) fertilizers played a significant role in bioethanol cropping systems. In annual systems, WFgray was the main fraction (87%) of total WF (WFT). Averaged across all cropping systems, WFgray related to P was 13 times larger than WFgray related to N.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据