3.9 Article

Energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with small-scale farmer sugarcane cropping systems and subsequent bioethanol production in Japan

期刊

NJAS-WAGENINGEN JOURNAL OF LIFE SCIENCES
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 43-53

出版社

ROYAL NETHERLANDS SOC AGR SCI
DOI: 10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.003

关键词

Life cycle assessment; sugarcane; small-scale farming; high latitude; bioethanol

资金

  1. NARO Agricultural Research Center [320c0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fossil fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions were estimated in cropping systems of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) and the subsequent production of ethanol in order to evaluate the feasibility of bioethanol production by small-scale farmers in the Tanegashima Island, one of the major areas of sugarcane production in Japan. The current cropping system and an alternative system were compared using Life Cycle Assessment and the results are discussed in relation to a comparable study in Brazil. Results showed that energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 6.89-7.22 MJ L-1 and 0.617-0.667 kg CO2-eq L-1 of ethanol respectively. The process of fertilizer production consumed the most energy and emitted the greatest amount of greenhouse gas among all components considered. Fertilizer production was followed by manufacturing agricultural machinery, field operations for harvest and the transport of sugarcane to the mills. The replacement of chemical fertilizers with organic materials therefore provides the greatest scope to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The energy output/input ratio of the bioethanol production was calculated to vary between 3.2 and 3.5; this range is considerably lower than the value of 8.3 obtained from sugarcane in Brazil, but these positive values still indicate that small-scale farmers could act as viable energy producers in this region of Japan. (C) 2015 Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

3.9
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