4.8 Article

Policy Implications of Uncertainty in Modeled Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biofuels

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 132-138

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es1024993

关键词

-

资金

  1. Climate Decision Making Center (CDMC) in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy
  2. National Science Foundation [SES-0345798]
  3. Carnegie Mellon University
  4. Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation
  5. Bertucci Fellowship
  6. Energy Foundation
  7. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0949710] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biofuels have received legislative support recently in California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and the Federal Energy Independence and Security Act. Both present new fuel types, but neither provides methodological guidelines for dealing with the inherent uncertainty in evaluating their potential lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions reductions are based on point estimates only. This work demonstrates the use of Monte Carlo simulation to estimate life-cycle emissions distributions from ethanol and butanol from corn or switchgrass. Life-cycle emissions distributions for each feedstock and fuel pairing modeled span an order of magnitude or more. Using a streamlined life-cycle assessment, corn ethanol emissions range from 50 to 250 g CO(2)e/MJ, for example, and each feedstock-fuel pathway studied shows some probability of greater emissions than a distribution for gasoline. Potential GHG emissions reductions from displacing fossil fuels with biofuels are difficult to forecast given this high degree of uncertainty in life-cycle emissions. This uncertainty is driven by the importance and uncertainty of indirect land use change emissions. Incorporating uncertainty in the decision making process can illuminate the risks of policy failure (e.g., increased emissions), and a calculated risk of failure due to uncertainty can be used to inform more appropriate reduction targets in future biofuel policies.

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

4.8
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