Energy intensity and global warming potential of corn grain ethanol production in Wisconsin (USA)

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage207eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue3eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleFood and Energy Securityeng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume2eng
dc.contributor.authorKraatz, S.
dc.contributor.authorSinistore, J.C.
dc.contributor.authorReinemann, D.J.
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-28T14:52:56Z
dc.date.available2020-10-28T14:52:56Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.description.abstractIncreasing demand for renewable alternative fuels, such as ethanol, is driven by decreasing availability of fossil resources and increasing attention to climate change. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the tool used to evaluate environmental impacts, such as energy intensity (EI) and global warming potential (GWP), from ethanol production, but the application of this tool varies greatly. The goals of this study were to enumerate the life cycle EI, net energy value (NEV), and GWP of corn grain ethanol production in Wisconsin, to explore ethanol production scenarios which differ at the treatment of the whole stillage (WS) coproduct, and to evaluate the various solutions to the multifunctionality problem which arises in LCA. In Scenario 1, all suggested solutions to the multifunctionality problem are considered by transforming WS into the animal feed dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). Scenario 2 avoids allocation using an integrated system which recycles the WS with an anaerobic biodigester and a combined heat and power (CHP) plant to provide electricity and steam to the ethanol refinery and returns the residue to the land as fertilizer. Based on the Scenario 1 analysis, we recommend the use of the subdivision (SD) solution to the multifunctionality problem because it enables clear comparisons between different ethanol production systems, it distinguishes between the environmental impacts from ethanol production and coproduct processing and it reduces the number of assumptions in the LCA calculations. From the comparison of both scenarios, we find that recycling the WS into electricity, heat, and fertilizer is the most environmentally beneficial coproduct use because it results in a 54% lower EI and a 67% lower GWP than the processing of WS into DDGS.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/5870
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/4499
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherHoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltdeng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.27
dc.relation.issn2048-3694
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 3.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/eng
dc.subject.ddc333eng
dc.subject.otherAllocationeng
dc.subject.otherDDGSeng
dc.subject.otherEthanoleng
dc.subject.otherLCeng
dc.titleEnergy intensity and global warming potential of corn grain ethanol production in Wisconsin (USA)eng
dc.typeArticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorATBeng
wgl.subjectUmweltwissenschafteneng
wgl.subjectLandwirtschafteng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Kraatz2013.pdf
Size:
1.3 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: