Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A LCA (life cycle assessment) of the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse
Maria Luiza Grillo Renó a, *, Electo Eduardo Silva Lora a, José Carlos Escobar Palacio a,
Osvaldo José Venturini a, Jens Buchgeister b, Oscar Almazan c
a
Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation, Federal University of Itajubá, Av. BPS 1303, CP 50, Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil
b
Institute of Karlsruhe Technology, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany
c
ICIDCA e Instituto Cubano de Investigaciones de los Derivados de la Caña de Azúcar, Via Blanca y Carretera Central 804, San Miguel del Padrón, A.P. 4036, La Habana, Cuba

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Nowadays one of the most important environmental issues is the exponential increase of the greenhouse
Received 28 February 2010 effect by the polluting action of the industrial and transport sectors. The production of biofuels is
Received in revised form considered a viable alternative for the pollution mitigation but also to promote rural development. The
25 November 2010
work presents an analysis of the environmental impacts of the methanol production from sugarcane
Accepted 7 December 2010
Available online 13 January 2011
bagasse, taking into consideration the balance of the energy life cycle and its net environmental impacts,
both are included in a LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) approach. The evaluation is done as a case study of
a 100,000 t/y methanol plant, using sugarcane bagasse as raw material. The methanol is produced
Keywords:
LCA
through the BTL (Biomass to Liquid) route. The results of the environmental impacts were compared to
Biofuels others LCA studies of biofuel and it was showed that there are significant differences of environmental
Methanol performance among the existing biofuel production system, even for the same feedstock. The differences
Biomass are dependent on many factors such as farming practices, technology of the biomass conversion. With
Thermochemical route relation to the result of output/input ratio, the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse showed to
Cogeneration be a feasible alternative for the substitution of an amount of fossil methanol obtained from natural gas.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The methanol (CH3OH), also known as methyl alcohol, had
proved to be used as fuel, blended with gasoline in internal
combustion engines (85% methanol and 15% gasoline) or as pure
methanol (100% methanol), but the last is still in the research and
development stage. Besides, methanol also serves as a raw material
for chemicals products, such as formaldehyde, acetic acid, and
a wide variety of others chemicals products, including polymers,
paints, adhesives, construction materials, synthetic chemicals and
others [1].
At the time being, it is possible to envisage a wide use of
methanol as an alternative to diesel fuel and in innovative tech-
nologies like the methanol fuel cells. This potential allows to
envisage a growing of the demand in the near future [2].
Today in Brazil, methanol is an important raw material for the
biodiesel production, because it is the main chemical reagent used
in the transesterification process.
The important appeal is that the methanol production from
biomass is a clean route, with low dust air pollutants (SOx, NOx),
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 3536291493.
E-mail address: malureno@yahoo.com.br (M.L.G. Renó).
and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions [3]. This is a positive aspect in
a world that has serious GHG emissions constrains [4].
At the time methanol is produced from natural gas, and since
early 1980s, larger plants, using efficient low-pressure technologies,
are replacing the small less efficient ones. A very intensive R&D work
is being done to develop a new technology, that could allow to obtain
methanol from biomass, through gasification. However, these gasi-
fication techniques are still at a relatively early stage, with no units
operating commercially yet, but several biomass-to-methanol
demonstration projects have been developed recently, such as the
Hynol Project in United States, the BioMeet and Bio-Fuels projects in
Sweden. In Brazil, there is the Raudi-Methanol Project that proposes
the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse [5,6].
The main task of this paper is to carry on an evaluation of the
main environmental impacts of methanol production from sugar-
cane bagasse, using the CML 2001 LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assess-
ment) method within the framework of LCA (Life Cycle
Assessment) methodology. In addition, life cycle energy efficiency
indicators, like the LCE (Life Cycle Efficiency) and the FER (Fossil
Fuel Energy Ratio) were calculated, as well as a comparison of the
environmental impacts results with others LCA studies of biofuel
production was made.
The evaluation study was made through a hypothetic case study
of a methanol plant annexed to an autonomous distillery, which

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.010
 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726 3717

Syngas conditioning: To guarantying an optimum syngas for

Nomenclature methanol synthesis, three parameters must be fixed:

CEST condensing extraction steam turbine a) The CO2/CO ratio.

CFC chlorofluorocarbon b) The H2/(2CO þ 3CO2) relation that must be approximately 1:1
CSFMB comprehensive simulator of fluidized and moving [8]
bed equipment c) Inert gases (N2, CH4) concentration should be minimized.
E energy (MJ)
ELCA exergetic life cycle assessment The CO2/CO ratio and the relation H2/(2CO þ 3CO2) can be
FER fossil fuel energy ratio adjusted through a wateregas-shift reaction; a catalytic one occurs
GHG greenhouse gas at 200e475  C, which converts CO þ steam into H2 and CO2,
HC Hydrocarbons through the equilibrium reaction showed on Eq. (1) [9]:
IEE integral environmental evaluation
ISO international organization for standardization CO þ H2O 5 H2 þ CO2 (1)
LCI life cycle inventory
LCE life cycle efficiency Another parameter to be controlled is the amount of methane in
LCIA life cycle impact assessment the syngas. To get it a steam reforming process is performed, con-
LCA life cycle assessment verting methane to CO and H2 by a steam addition usually
LHV lower heating value (MJ/kg) employing a Ni catalyst at high temperatures, above 830e1000  C,
PM particulate materials Eq. (2) [10].
PM10 particulate material measuring 10 mm or less
PPM one part per million CH4 þ H2O / 3H2 þ CO (2)
TOC total organic carbon
UV-B ultraviolet-B After this, the syngas still have a considerable amount of CO2, part
of which should be removed to get desired value to allow the meth-
anol synthesis. For this partial CO2 removal, physical and chemical
processes are available, the chemical absorption using amines and the
physical absorption, using Selexol are two of them [11].
contains a cogeneration plant. The three installations are con- Methanol synthesis: it proceeds by the hydrogenation of the
nected, since the ethanol plant supply bagasse to the cogeneration carbon oxides over a suitable catalyst (copperezinc) at temperatures
plant and methanol plant, while the cogeneration plant supply the in the range of 200e280  C and pressures of 5e10 MPa [12]. Eq. (3)
methanol and ethanol plant with steam and electricity. presents the main reactions involved in the methanol synthesis [3]:
The size of the ethanol plant corresponds to the Brazilian
standard units, and the methanol plant capacity was based on the CO þ 2H2 4CH3 OH
(3)
available bagasse amount obtainable. CO2 þ 3H2 4CH3 OH þ H2 O
The first one being the so called primary methanol synthesis
2. Methanol from biomass reaction, where a low amount of CO2 in the feed (2e10%) acts as an
initiator of this primary reaction and helps to maintain the catalyst
In principle, any carbonaceous material such as coal, lignite, activity. The stoichiometry conditions of both reactions are satis-
wood waste, agricultural residues and sugarcane bagasse can be fied when R (calculated by Eq. (4)) reaches a value not lower than
used to synthesize methanol. However, in contrast with to meth- 2.03 [13].
anol production from natural gas, the synthesis of methanol from
carbonaceous material needs additional steps to prepare the H2  CO2
R ¼ (4)
biomass for gasification process, followed by cleaning and condi- CO þ CO2
tioning steps. So, the main stages of methanol production from
Methanol purification: The crude methanol from the synthesis
biomass can be summarizing [3]:
process contains water produced during synthesis, as well as other
Pre-treatment: The biomass must be pretreated to meet the
minor co-products. So the methanol purification is achieved by
processing requirements of the gasifier. This process involves
distillation [14].
drying and a adjusting the material size [7].
Gasification: Biomass gasification starts with the thermal treat-
ment of biomass in the presence of sub-stoichiometric oxygen 3. LCA
concentrations in the fluidization gas. At certain temperature the
biomass pyrolyzes, giving a gas stream and a solid residue; being The LCA is a methodology that evaluates the environmental
the composition of the gas stream influenced by the operating impacts of every stage of a product’s life (from cradle to grave), The
conditions of the gasifier. LCA enables the quantitative estimation of the environmental
In particular, gasification with air produces a syngas stream that impacts resulting from all stages in a product life cycle, often
contains large quantities of nitrogen. This nitrogen prejudices including impacts not considered in the more traditional analyses
subsequent processing of methanol; therefore a technology of (e.g. raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate
gasification that uses oxygen as “gasification fluid” is preferred. product disposal, and others). The LCA provides a comprehensive
Gas cleanup: The syngas produced by the biomass gasification view of the various environmental aspects of the product or process
unit contains a wide range of contaminants, so to prevent tar and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in
deposition, heat exchanger fouling, catalysts poisoning and deac- product and process selection in order to support the decision-
tivation problems a gas cleaning system is required; which includes making process [15,16].
particulates, and sulfur removal, and also scrubbing for chlorine The term “life cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of
compounds elimination. a product’s life, from its manufacture, its use, and its maintenance,
3718 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726
up to its final disposal, including the raw material acquisition
required for manufacturing the product.
The ISO 14040 and 14044 describe the international standards
for LCA. According to the ISO 14040, the four stages of an LCA are:
(1) Goal and Scope Definition, (2) LCI (Life Cycle Inventory), (3)
LCIA, and (4) Interpretation [17e19].
The system should be modeled by compiling an inventory of
relevant energy and material inputs and outputs (LCI). In associa-
tion to the LCI results, an evaluation of the potential environmental
impacts is made, by using quantitative characterization indicators
based on an Environmental Model (LCIA). The concept of indicators
is presented in Fig. 1.
In the LCIA, essentially two approaches had been followed;
environmental problem-oriented approaches (midpoint) and
damage-oriented approaches (endpoint). The terms midpoint and
endpoint mean the location of the environmental impact category
indicator. The category indicator can be located at any point
between the LCI results and the category endpoints (where the
environmental effect occurs) [20].
In Fig. 1, an example of the difference between midpoint and
endpoint impact assessment is presented for the impact category of
the stratospheric ozone depletion. The midpoint indicator is charac-
terized by the effect of reducing the ozone concentration in the
stratosphere. Furthermore, all released substances, which has ozone
depletion potential are classified in an impact category and charac-
terized with regard to their quantitative impact in relation to a refer-
ence substance (e.g. kg CFC-11 for stratospheric ozone depletion).
In contrast, endpoint indicators do not assess the potential of an
environmental impact, but the actual damage resulting from the
reduced stratospheric ozone concentration. The resulting effect is an
increasing of UV-B (Ultraviolet-B) radiation that consequently leads
to an increase of skin cancer in humans and therefore damages to the
expectation of life years. Moreover, an increasing of UV-B radiation
has also a harmful impact over the plants and animals, not being
possible to quantify these damages at the moment.
On one hand, endpoint methods have the disadvantage of
applying complex environmental impact concept that is not precise
(shown in Fig. 1). On the other hand, these methods classify the
different environmental aspects in three or four endpoints, such as
human health, ecosystem quality and resources availability, which
supports the decision-making process.
For the selection of LCIA method, there is not an exact specifi-
cation made by ISO (International Organization for Standardization).
Fig. 2. General structure and model of the LCIA method e CML 2001 [21].
Fig. 1. Concept of category indicators according to ISO 14044 [15].
Nevertheless, the selection of impact categories shall reflect
a comprehensive set of environmental aspects related to the pro-
duct system being studied, taking the goal and scope into consid-
eration [17].
This work selects the classical agent of midpoint method,
specifically the CML 2001. This LCIA method was developed by the
Center of Environmental Science of Leiden University, and it
considers the following baseline impact categories: abiotic resource
depletion; global warming; ozone layer depletion; human toxicity;
fresh water, marine aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity; photo-
chemical oxidation; acidification; eutrophication and land
competition [21e25]. The general structure and model of the CML
2001 method (baseline impact categories) is presented in Fig. 2.
The method had been applied in many works about biofuels
[26e28]. In this work the results were normalized, since the
normalization is a procedure needed to show to what extent an
impact category has a significant contribution to the overall envi-
ronmental problem. This is done by dividing the impact category by
a “Normal” value. There are different ways to determine the
“Normal” value, the most common procedure determines the
impact category indicators for a region during a year and, if desired,
dividing this result by the number of inhabitants in that area.
The aforementioned impact categories use European normali-
zation references; which represents the total emissions of Western
Europe countries of the year 1995. The CML normalization refer-
ences have not yet been estimated for Brazilian conditions, but the
methodological work had started [29].
 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726 3719

3.1. LCA of biofuels

The support of sustainable energy innovations has become

a dominant topic in the political agenda of many countries [30], so
there is a special attention to biofuels production and the contri-
bution of them to climate policy and to agriculture and security
energy supplies [31].
In this context the LCA methodology has been conducted to
identify and evaluate the environmental performance of biofuel
production. An example of theses studies is the work [32] that
evaluated the energy efficiency and renewability of bio-ethanol
system and identified the current significant environmental risks
and availability of feedstock in Thailand. The assessment results lead
to a group of recommendations to relevant stakeholders in the bio-
ethanol production chain in order to improve energy and environ- Fig. 3. Case study scheme.
mental performance of bio-ethanol production in Thailand. The
recommended measures include increasing feedstock productivity
by improving soil quality with organic fertilizers, enhancing waste
with high parameters of pressure and temperature. In Fig. 4 the
recycling program from ethanol plants such as biogas recovery. In
scheme of the cogeneration system is given.
addition, promoting the use of renewable fuels in the ethanol plant,
From Fig. 4, it can be observed that cogeneration system is
and implementing energy conservation measures.
composed of three high-pressure steam boilers (6 MPa and 480  C),
As also there is the work [33] that assessed the energy efficiency
two of them producing 330 t steam/h, and the third one
and life cycle study of the bio-ethanol produced in China, con-
275 t steam/h.
cerning the analysis in the energetically relevant input and output
A fraction of this steam is consumed by the milling system
data. The results showed that cassava-based fuel ethanol has
(point 5d), and steams turbines (points 20b, 20a, 16). Another
a positive net energy value, with an energy ratio of around 0.70 MJ/
fraction is consumed by the ethanol process (points 6,7a, 8a),
MJ, which means 7 MJ input to the processing for every MJ of
gasification, and methanol production process (points 5b, 5c).
ethanol output.
The electric power output of the steam turbines (ST1, ST2, ST3) is
Other work [34] that also used the LCA methodology to assess
31 MW, 27 MW and 46 MW, respectively. Electricity is consumed by
the environmental impact and the ELCA (Exergetic Life Cycle
the ethanol process plant, methanol production process, etc; there
Assessment) is the one that account for the exergy input to the
is also 71.2 MW of surplus electricity remaining.
biodiesel production from used cooking oil. The results indicated
For getting the energy and mass balance the case study was
that the transesterification stage causes 68% of the total environ-
simulated using the software GateCycle.
mental impact.
For LCA assessment, it is very important to take into consider-
Finally the work [35], developed a LCA model, with the aim to
ation the atmospheric pollutants released during the bagasse
examine the environmental implications of the production and use
of ethanol from the cellulosic biomass. The obtained results were
compared with the LCA of reformulated gasoline in a functionally Table 1
equivalent automobile. The results show that, life cycle GHG General parameter adopted for case study [11,35e39].
emissions are 57% lower for an ethanol-fueled automobile derived
Value Units
from switchgrass.
Sugarcane milling system
Bagasse % cane (wet basis) 28 %
4. Goal and scope of the case study Bagasse moisture 50 %
Bagasse LHV 7560 kJ/kg
Nowadays, Brazil is the second larger world ethanol producer, Sugarcane milling capacity 1700 t sugarcane/h
with approximately 420 units producing sugar and ethanol, or just Mechanical energy consumption 15 kWh/t sugarcane
Mechanical driver isentropic efficiency 60 %
ethanol from sugarcane in the so called autonomous distilleries [36]. Steam consumption 250 kg/t sugarcane
The case study considers a methanol plant (producing methanol
Cogeneration plant
from surplus bagasse) with a capacity of 656 m3/d annexed to the
Boilers steam production 935 t/ha
hypothetic autonomous distillery that crushes 7.344.000 t sugar- Installed power capacity 104 MW
cane/year (this capacity is similar the Cosan-owned da Barrra Plant Surplus electricity 71.2 MW
from Brazil), with approximately 180 days of sugarcane harvest Boilers bagasse consumption 428.4 t/ha
time [37]. In this model part of the sugarcane bagasse is used in the Pump isentropic efficiency 80 %
Boiler efficiency LHV 80 %
methanol plant, being the other part used by the cogeneration
Steam turbines isentropic efficiency 82 %
plant, that supplies the thermal and electricity demand of the two
plants (autonomous distillery and methanol plant). The scheme of Autonomous distillery
Steam consumption 150 kg/t sugarcane
the case study is showed in Fig. 3, and the Table 1 shows the main Electrical energy consumption 12 kWh/t sugarcane
parameters. Ethanol production 2594 m3/d
The bagasse production in the milling system can be computed Ethanol yield 80 l/t sugarcane
using Table 1 data, getting as result the value of 476 t bagasse/ha, Methanol plant
this bagasse supplies the cogeneration system with 428.4 t/ha and Steam consumption 2.30 kg/kg bagasse
the methanol plant with 47.6 t/ha, which has been computed based Electrical energy consumption 13.85 MW
on results gotten from cogeneration system and methanol yield. Methanol production 656 m3/d
Bagasse consumption 47.6 t/ha
The cogeneration plant is equipped with CEST (condensing/ Methanol yield 0.38 l/kg bagasse
extraction steam turbines), which has high efficiency and operates
3720 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726
Fig. 4. Cogeneration scheme.
burning in the industrial boilers. The main pollutants are solid
particles, carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) [40], as shown in Table 2. The SO2 and NOx emissions
are lower than in the conventional fossil fuels combustion due to
the characteristically low levels of sulfur content of the bagasse and
the low furnace combustion temperatures respectively.
Also, it is important to remember that the carbon emitted in the
form of CO2 form by bagasse combustion had been previously
absorbed by the growing sugarcane, through photosynthesis
process [41].
4.1. Definition of system boundaries
This section discusses the life cycle energy balance of the
methanol production from sugarcane bagasse, considering the
Brazilian conditions and its environmental impacts. The evaluation
includes the stages of sugarcane cultivation, harvesting, trans-
portation and industrial transformation stages. Fig. 5 illustrates the
system boundaries. LCA ends at methanol production plant, neither
including the stages of distribution and final use, nor the
manufacturing of methanol production plant.
The functional unit chosen for this study is 1 kg of produced
methanol that facilitates the inventory stage (input/output). In this
work, the energy inputs consider: the fossil fuel used in the agri-
cultural stage, sugarcane transport, fertilizers and pesticides
production, sugarcane harvesting; steam and water consumed in
sugarcane milling; electricity and steam consumed during the
methanol production. While the output, refers to the emissions
released by the agricultural machinery (tractors and trucks), during
harvesting, sugarcane burning, bagasse combustion in the cogen-
eration system, gasification and methanol synthesis.
Based on previously described considerations, the LCI is
computed. The main input and output data for each stage of
Table 2
Emissions of bagasse-fired boilers (wet basis) [40].
Pollutants Value (kg/t bagasse)
PM (Particulate Materials) 7076
CO2 707.6
NOx 5.443  101
Polycyclic organic matter 4.536  104
methanol production were collected from bibliography references.
Agriculture data were obtained from the works in Refs. [42e44].
Data of sugarcane transportation were taken from the works in
Refs. [43,46e48].
Data for bagasse pre-treatment stage are from the work in Ref.
[49]. For the gasification process, as there are few input/output data
in published references, it was used the commercial software
CSFMB (Comprehensive Simulator of Fluidized and Moving Bed
Equipment). This software can be used to simulate gasification
processes, enabling the determination of a series of information;
such as flow rates of gases and solids leaving the equipment, carbon
conversion, consumption of electricity, steam and oxygen. As the
software does not compute the emissions of the gasification
process data were obtained from the works in Refs. [50,51].
Finally, the data for the methanol synthesis stage (conversion of
syngas to methanol) are from Ref. [12]. In Tables 3 and 4 there is
a summary of input and output data, respectively, for the whole
methanol production process. These data refers to 1 kg of methanol
produced (functional unit).
4.2. Allocation procedures
In this case study, especially the allocation based on energy
content was used in milling stage for the sugarcane bagasse and juice.
So the environmental loads were allocated through the energy
content of each one, where the bagasse represents 49% of the energy,
whiles the juice gets 51%, based on the LHV (lower heating value) [52].
4.3. Results of LCIA
Based on input and output data from Tables 3 and 4, it is possible
to compute the main environmental impacts of methanol produc-
tion. This was done with the use of the SimaPro software version
7.01, a commercial tool to collect, analyze and monitor the envi-
ronmental performance of products and services.
For better visualization of the influence on the environmental
impacts of each stage of methanol production, the process was
divided into the following steps:
Sugarcane production: This stage involves cultivation, harvesting
and transport of sugarcane.
Bagasse to syngas stage: It incorporates the milling process of
sugarcane, as well as the pre-treatment and gasification of bagasse.
 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726 3721

Fig. 5. System boundaries of life cycle assessment.

Methanol production: It refers to syngas conditioning and Also, the abiotic depletion is little expressive (value
methanol synthesis. 5.037  1015 year/functional unit), due to fossil fuel consumption
As additional results, the contribution on environmental during the harvesting and transportation of sugarcane.
impacts of the electricity and steam produced in the cogeneration The methanol production process contributes with larger
plant is showed in the results. intensity on global warming environmental impact, as it is observed
In Fig. 6 the results obtained when applying CML 2001 method in Table 4. This stage emits a considerable quantity of CO2, during
and normalization, through SimaPro 7.01 software are presented. syngas conditioning and methanol synthesis stage, so the normal-
In Fig. 6 it is showed as well that some environmental impacts ized value is 4.17  1014 year/functional unit.
have low contribution, like the fresh water ecotoxicity, terrestrial But for sugarcane cultivation where the carbon dioxide is
ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation, and ozone layer depletion. absorbed during the photosynthesis process by the growing
sugarcane, it results in a negative value of global warming impact
(9.39  1014 year/functional unit).
Table 3 In relation to human toxicity, the “bagasse to syngas stage” pre-
Inputs data of methanol production referred to 1 kg of methanol [11,41e49].
sented a larger contribution compared to another stages, since the
Value Units gasification process emits harmful pollutants, as tar, particles, and ash,
Sugarcane cultivation, harvesting and transportation resulting in a normalized value of 3.17  1014 year/functional unit.
CO2 absorbed 4.22 kg The environmental impact marine aquatic ecotoxicity related to
Fertilizers
the emissions to air, water or/and soil, gets a significant contribu-
Ammonium sulfate, as N 9.4  104 kg
Urea, as N 2.8  103 kg tion of the sugarcane production, because of the large area occu-
Ammonium nitrate phosphate, as N 9.4  104 kg pied to its production, so this stage involves many pollutants
Diammonium phosphate, as N 1.1  103 kg emissions, as shown in Table 4.
Potassium nitrate, as N 5.9  105 kg Other environmental impact is the acidification, being the major
Diammonium phosphate, as P2O5 2.4  103 kg
Superphosphate, as P2O5 1.6  103 kg
acidifying pollutants SO2, NOx and NHx. Sugarcane production
Triple superphosphate, as P2O5 8.7  104 kg present 50% of contribution in this impact.
Phosphate, as P2O5 2.7  104 kg The eutrophication impact refers to the high levels of macro-
Potassium chloride, as K2O 1.1  102 kg nutrients (example: nitrogen and phosphorous). These macronu-
Potassium sulfate, as K2O 1.2  104 kg
trients are present in additional fertilizers applied in sugarcane
Potassium nitrate, as K2O 1.2  104 kg
Vinasse from sugarcane 10.60 kg production, so this stage contributes with larger intensity (69%).
Lime 3.7  102 kg Finally, the “land competition” impact involves three means
Diesel 1.5  102 l [53,54]:
Land use 1.049 m2
Transport, tractor 2.8  102 t km
1. When there is an area (e.g. ha) that is possibly a reserve and this
Sugarcane milling
is transformed in an area of crop.
Water 3.7  102 m3 2. When there is an area of food crop, but this is destined for
Steam (conditions: 369  C and 2.2 MPa) 1.76 kg conversion in biofuels, not to food.
Sugarcane 7.04 kg 3. When there is an ecofriendly crop (crop that inflicts with
a minimal impact on the environment) and this is converted to
Pre-treatment
Electricity 1.1  101 kWh
a crop not ecofriendly.
Bagasse 2.0 kg
In number 2 it is included the case study of present work. The
Gasification mathematical formula for computing this impact consists of two
Electricity 1.43 kWh parts; one describing transformation and other the occupation, as
Oxygen 5.5  101 kg
well as the possibilities of impacts on biodiversity in some areas
Steam (conditions: 435  C and 2.27 MPa) 1.79 kg
and life support functions. So, alternatives for minimizing the “land
Syngas conditioning þ methanol synthesis competition” impact are to increase the yield of food crop, as well
Electricity 9.3  102 kWh as energy yield of biofuel (GJ/ha), or liters of biofuel per hectare.
Steam (conditions: 165  C and 0.68 MPa) 1.73 kg Also, the creation and establishment of regulating policies that
Syngas 4.20 kg
guarantee the control of the land destined to the production of
3722 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726

Table 4 (output per kg of methanol) and the energy consumed (input per kg
Outputs data of methanol production referred to 1 kg of methanol [11,41e46,48,49]. of methanol) [56,57].
Value Units The energy consumed represents the primary energy (Eprimary)
Sugarcane cultivation, harvesting and transportation that has not undergone any anthropogenic conversion or trans-
Truck emissions from diesel combustion engines formation. While the energy produced refers to fuel energy content
CO2 6.58 g (Efuel) in terms of the LHV.
NOx 5.4  102 g
Two indicators can measure the life cycle energy efficiency [58];
CO 1.24  102 g
Fine particles 1.3  103 g one is the LCE, defined as the following ratio, Eq. (5):
Organic carbon 2.5  104 g
Nitrate 2.8  103 mg Efuel
LCE ¼ (5)
Silicon 8.4  103 mg Eprimary þ Efuel
Ammonium 9.2  103 mg
Sulfate 1.3  102 mg The other is the FER, defined as the ratio of fuel energy content
Alkanes 1.1  104 g
by energy fossil (Efossil) consumed during the methanol production
Olefins 1.2  104 mg
Aromatics 9.8  102 mg process, Eq. (6):
Formaldehyde 1.5  104 g
Acetaldehyde 2.9  104 g Efuel
FER ¼ (6)
Propanal 9.8  102 g Efossil
Acetone 1.5  104 g
Aromatic acids 1.4  102 mg
Tractor emissions from diesel consumption If the FER is less than 1 the fuel is classified as non-renewable,
CO2 30 g since more fossil energy is required to produce it than the energy
HC 9.9  102 g
available in the final renewable fuel product. Therefore, these two
CO 2.7  101 g
NOx 6.8  101 g relations are the indicators of the techno-economical and envi-
SOx 4.8  102 g ronmental feasibility when different raw materials for biofuels
PM10 7.2  102 g production are compared. As well as these indicators can point to
Emissions from soil under sugarcane cultivation
the best type of culture for methanol production in a specific
N2O from denitrificationa 1.37 g
N2 from denitrification 2.28 g
geographical and economic scenario. The results of the two indi-
NH3 from volatization 3.6  101 g cators are shown in Table 5.
Emissions to air from pre-harvest sugarcane burning In Table 5, it is possible to observe the low value of LCE (0.58).
N2O 4.0  102 g The main cause of this is the high demand of primary energy
NOx 2.51 g
(biomass energy) in the production chain (15.12 MJ) for producing
CH4 6.8  101 g
SOx 3.1  101 g 1 kg of methanol. From Table 3, the demand of bagasse for
NMVOC 1.54 g producing 1 kg of methanol is 2 kg, which is still a high value, due to
Emissions to water the low efficiency of the existing technologies of biomass
Phosphorous 2.8  102 g conversion.
Nitrate 1.48  101 g
In the case of the FER, it is possible to conclude that only 1 MJ of
Gasification fossil fuel energy is needed to produce 9.4 MJ of methanol, being
Ash 40.7 g a real advantage of this methanol production route. Table 6 shows
Tar 16.8 g the FER for different biofuels and fossil fuels [58].
Particulates 4.18 g Also from Table 6 it is possible to observe that the FER value is
Alkalis 6.5  101 g
considerably higher for the biofuels production. The cause is that
SOx (PPM) 5 PPM
NOx (PPM) 58 PPM the main energy source of the biofuel production is from a renew-
TOC (PPM) 400 PPM able origin [59].

Syngas conditioning þ methanol synthesis

Residual gas (g) 90 g
4.5. Comparison of the results with other studies of LCA
CO (g) 1.12 g
CH3OH (VOC) (g) 6.49  102 g This item has the goal of comparing the results not normalized
Others VOC (g) 2.48  102 g with others similar studies of the LCA of biofuel, and then analyzing
CH4 (g) 2.34  101 g
the main differences and likeness among the values for the main
CO2 (g) 1830 g
NOx (g) 9.28  101 g environmental impacts. Table 7 presents the results not normalized
PM10 (g) 9.3  101 g gotten for 1 kg methanol (functional unit).
SO2 (g) 5.24  101 g The results of LCA of this work were compared with others
Slag (g) 410 g studies, such as the work in Ref. [32] that conduced the LCA study of
a
Denitrification is the biological reduction of nitrate to N2O and N2 by facultative the ethanol from sugarcane with a system boundary that involves
heterotrophic bacteria called denitrification. four stages of ethanol production: sugarcane farming and har-
vesting, sugar milling, ethanol conversion (by fermentation tech-
nology), and transportation during each stage.
biofuels is important. It is an attempt to avoid a larger increase in the
The CML 2 method was applied and the environmental impacts
degradation of the environment by the accelerated growth of this
results showed that sugarcane farming influences a greater number
market, assuring the necessary land quotes for food production [55].
of them (e.g. photochemical oxidation, acidification, human
toxicity, and eutrophication), like the results of environmental
4.4. Results of life cycle energy efficiency impacts of this case study.
However, there are many differences between the methanol and
In relation to the life cycle energy efficiency, it takes into account ethanol production technology, as for instance the fermentation
for methanol production the relation between the energy produced process presents low emission, unlike the methanol synthesis and
 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726 3723

Fig. 6. Life cycle impact assessment results.

Table 5
Energetic relation of methanol production system. presented a value two times larger than the value of acidifi-
cation computed for the methanol production.
Life cycle efficiency (LCE) 21 MJ/(21 þ 15.12) MJ 0.58
Fossil fuel energy ratio (FER) 21 MJ/2.22 MJ 9.4 4.6. Critical considerations of the LCIA results

4.6.1. Influence of the methodological LCA gaps

gasification process, so these stages affect the environmental
impacts of methanol production, as shown in Fig. 6.
Other work [60] realized an LCA analysis of biodiesel from
soybean, with the consideration of the following stages: agricultural
phase, soybean oil extraction, refining (oil production) and trans-
esterification of soybean oil. The CML 2001 method was applied, and
the main differences of the results when they are compared are:
- The case study of this work presents a value of human toxicity
impact approximately two times larger than the work [60]. The
main cause is that gasification of sugarcane bagasse emits
many particulates;
- The eutrophication impact gotten in biodiesel production is ten
times larger than methanol production. This result is due to
high consumption of fertilizers during soybean cultivation, as
monoammonium phosphate (5 kg/ha) and triple superphos-
phate (10.5 kg/ha);
- During the biodiesel production process there is a high fossil
energy consumption, compared to methanol production, then
it affects the environmental impacts, as the acidification that
Even though LCA is a powerful tool to assess the environmental
impacts of products/services, some limitations are related to the
LCA methodological approach; among them the quality and avail-
ability of data that influence the results significantly [61]. Besides,
the great amount of detailed data the LCA required, so it can
discourage some practitioners from using it as a decision-making
support tool.
Other limitation of the LCA methodology, especially for biofuel
production is related to the competition between the land use for
biomass production and the land use for food products [59]. For
minimizing these problem; some alternative approaches had been
suggested; such as the IEE (Integral Environmental Evaluation),
proposed by Riedacker [62] that includes the concepts of territorial
efficiency and takes into account the required area to satisfy the
basic needs of the population.
Furthermore, LCA focuses on the environmental aspects of
products, and says nothing about their economic, social and other
Table 7
Results not normalized of environmental impacts for 1 kg methanol.

Table 6 Impact category Unit Value

Fossil Fuel Energy Ratio for different biofuels and fossil fuels [58]. Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 7.971  104
Acidification kg SO2 eq 7.946  103
System Fossil fuel energy ratio Eutrophication kg PO3 1.598  103
4 eq
Biomass to H2 14e29 Global warming (100 year) kg CO2 2.284
Natural gas to methanol 0.44 Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 8.846  108
Coal to methanol 0.34e0.44 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.406
Biomass to methanol 12e26 Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 9.618  103
Biomass to ethanol via syngas 16 Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 22.37
Biomass to mixed alcohols 8e13 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 4.336  104
Natural gas to olefins 0.31 Land competition m2a 9.542  101
Gasoline 0.83 Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 4.560  104
3724 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726
very important characteristics. Therefore, LCA cannot replace the
decision-making process itself.
4.6.2. Influence of allocation procedure
System expansion, subdivision and allocation based on physical,
causal relationships apparently have a potential for providing
accurate information on the consequences of the actions. However,
further research work is always required to quantify this potential.
Other allocation procedures proposed in ISO 14044 [17] do not
result in information about the consequences of human actions.
Therefore, when the choice for the allocation approach is not
expected to be important for any decision based on LCA results; it is
recommended to use the most easily applicable allocation method.
On the other hand, when the allocation can be important for
a decision-making process, it is recommended that the allocation
should be avoided through subdivision, or the allocation must be
based on the physical relationships [63].
In this case study the allocation is important for a decision-
making process, so the allocation based on the physical relationships
was selected, considering that in many case studies of biofuels, the
mass or energy of the co-products as a basis for allocation have been
successfully applied [56,64e67], as a consequence the allocation
based in energy content was chosen in this study.
4.6.3. Influence of normalizations references
The normalization results carry uncertainties caused by a combi-
nation of uncertainties in emission data and in characterization
factors. The highest level of uncertainty applies to emission data that
are extrapolated from emissions in a limited number of countries
(where Brazil is not included). The largest uncertainties with respect
to characterization factors are probably due to modeling of heavy
metals, resulting in uncertainties in the corresponding toxicity-
related characterization factors [68]. Since the emission data for
heavy metals have a high component of uncertainty, the relative
importance of the role of heavy metals with respect to different
toxicity-related impact categories is still very difficult to assess.
The most important overall cause of uncertainty in emission
data probably correspond to the absence of toxic release invento-
ries in most countries. The absence of characterization factors for
some substances, adds further uncertainty to the results of the
normalization. However, the main problem for this work is the
absence of Brazilian normalizations references, which are not yet
being estimated in Brazil.
5. Conclusions
The methanol production from sugarcane bagasse is a promising
alternative for the substitution of significant amount of fossil
methanol obtained from natural gas. It can also improve the
output/input ratio of others biofuel productions that uses methanol
as raw material, such as the biodiesel, since methanol is responsible
for about 43% of the fossil energy consumed during the palm oil-
derived methyl ester life cycle [69].
The obtained value of FER for methanol from sugarcane bagasse
is higher than that obtained for methanol from coal and natural gas.
The high demand of sugarcane bagasse for syngas production
that is required for methanol synthesis can be reduced with further
technology developments, in biomass conversion process through
gasification route.
Other alternative for supplying the demand of bagasse is
applying the sugarcane trash in addition to bagasse as alternative
fuel, in the cogeneration system and the methanol synthesis. Typi-
cally the amount of trash represents about 15% of the total biomass,
which is equivalent to about 10e15 t/ha of dry matter. The integra-
tion of a BIG-GT (Biomass Integrated Combined Cycle Gasification-
Gas Turbine) technology with the autonomous distillery is also
a promising option. In this technology, the bagasse with trash is
gasified, after the gas produced undergoes to adequate cleaning
system, and then the gas is burned in a gas turbine. The hot flue gas
goes to a heat recovery steam generator that produces steam. This
steam is supplied to distillery where is added to the steam generated
by conventional boilers, producing electric/mechanical power and
heat to the distillery and methanol plant [70].
In relation to environmental impacts, the results showed that in
the productive process stages they have different weights, as for
instance is the gasification and methanol synthesis that have
significant pollutants emissions (ash, tar, particulates, carbon
dioxide, and others), which results in larger contributions to some
environmental impacts, such as: human toxicity and global
warming. To minimizing these impacts, a more advanced gas
cleaning system, such as metal filters, candle filters, sorbents,
catalytic tar cracker, or CO2 capture system could be applied in the
methanol synthesis process.
The sugarcane agricultural production has a significant partici-
pation on eutrophication environmental impact and acidification,
due to the consumption of additional fertilizers in sugarcane
cultivation, as well as SOx and NOx emissions through the use of the
fossil fuel in sugarcane transportation. For reducing the eutrophi-
cation impact it is necessary to minimize the use of fertilizers that
has in its composition nitrogen and phosphorous, or to introduce
actions to avoid the N and P components to get in contact with the
groundwater, lakes and rivers. Solutions for reducing the acidifi-
cation would be the use of more efficient transportations means
that consumes less fossil fuel.
The “land competition” is an impact that can be minimized with
regulation policies that guarantee the control of the land destined
to the production of biofuels, with the purpose of assuring the
necessary land quotes for food production.
Comparing the results of this work with others LCA studies of
biofuels showed that farming biomass is a stage that affects the
environmental impacts results, mainly due to area occupied by the
cultivation, fossil fuel used by transportation, fertilizers and pesti-
cides applied.
Nevertheless the farming biomass has a great advantage with
relation to the global warming impact, because in this stage occurs
the absorption of carbon dioxide, through photosynthesis. Then,
some kind of biofuels can be considered a carbon neutral system,
since the carbon emitted through burning replaces the carbon
absorbed during the growing of the crop. Therefore this is the
overwhelming advantage of biofuels over fossil fuels, besides that,
the farming promotes rural development.
Actually, Brazilian government is funding and encouraging
academic and industrial R&D projects, and is also creating several
research institutions, which aims at improving the sustainability of
the biofuels [71].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge FAPEMIG e Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais, CNPq e Conselho
Nacional de Pesquisa and CAPES e Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa-
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior for the financial support that
allow the performing this study. The authors acknowledge the
reviewers for their comments on the draft version of this paper.
References
[1] Jung EH, Jungh UH, Yang TH, Peak DH, Kim SH. Methanol crossover through
PtRu/nafion composite membrane for a direct methanol fuel cell. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:903e7.
 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726
[2] Rep M, Cornelissen RL, Clevers S. Budgetary assessment of post-CHRISGAS
transportation fuel installation, report no: CHRISGAS March 2009_WP3_D14;
2009.
[3] Hamelinck CN, Faaij AC. Future prospects for production of methanol and
hydrogen from biomass. Journal of Power Sources 2002;1:1e22.
[4] E-lab. Running buses on hydrogen fuel cells: barriers and opportunities.
JulyeSeptember issue. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2000.
[5] Ekbom T. Project BioMeet II e teknisk slutrapport. Available in: http://www.
nykomb-consulting.se; 2003 [accessed 30.05.10].
[6] Audi R, Fiaschi A. Project for renewable fuels production and chemicals products
from biomass. Available in: http://www.int.gov.br; 2005 [accessed 13.06.10].
[7] Boerrigter H. Economy of biomass to liquid (BTL) plants. Netherlands: Energy
Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Available in: http://www.ecn.nl;
2009 [accessed 06.04.09].
[8] Barrañon DCC. Methanol and hydrogen production. Dissertation. Lulea: Lulea
University Technology; 2006.
[9] Huber GW, Lborra S, Corma A. Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass:
chemistry, catalysts and engineering. Chemical Reviews 2006;106:4044e98.
[10] Cifre PG, Brad O. Renewable hydrogen utilization for the production of
methanol. Energy Conversion and Management 2007;48:519e27.
[11] Minteer S. Alcoholic fuels. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
[12] Vaswani S. Development of models for calculating the life cycle inventory of
methanol by liquid phase and conversion production process. Dissertation.
North Carolina: North Carolina State University; 2000.
[13] Katofsky RE. The production of fluid fuels from biomass, report no. 279. Princeton:
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University; 1993.
[14] Adams JF, Sims RH. Methanol production from biomass via gasification at both
the large and small scale. Available in: http://www.energy.massey.ac.nz; 2009
[accessed 20.03.09].
[15] Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection,
design and optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 1999;73:1e21.
[16] Theodosiou C, Koroneos C, Moussiopoulos N. Alternative scenarios analysis
concerning different types of fuels used for the coverage of the energy
requirements of a typical apartment building in Thessaloniki, Greece. Part II:
life cycle analysis. Building and Environment 2005;40:1602e10.
[17] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental
management e life cycle assessment. European Standard EN ISO 14040 and
14044, Geneva; 2006.
[18] Weidema B. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. Journal
of Industry Ecology 2000;4:11e33.
[19] Meyer L, Tsatsaronis G, Buchgeister J, Schebek L. Exergoenvironmental anal-
ysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion system.
Energy 2009;34:75e89.
[20] Heijungs R, Goedkoop M, Struijs J, Sevenster M, Huppes G. Towards a life cycle
assessment method which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and
the endpoint level. Netherlands: Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment. Available in: http://www.pre.nl/download/
recipephase1final.pdf; 2009 [accessed 15.02.10].
[21] Goedkoop M, Oele M, Effting S. SimaPro database manual methods library.
Netherlands: PRÉ Consultants; 2004.
[22] Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J. Environmental impact assess-
ment of agricultural production system using the life cycle assessment
methodology e I theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop
production. European Journal of Agronomy 2004;20:247e64.
[23] Guinée JB. Life cycle assessment e an operational guide to the ISO standards,
report no. 279. Leiden: Center of Environmental Science, Leiden University; 2001.
[24] Hauschild M, Wenzel H. Environmental assessment of products, scientific
background. UK: Chapman & Hall; 1998.
[25] Bauman H, Tillman AM. The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA. Sweden: Studen-
tlitteratur AB; 2004.
[26] Auer S, Haulio M, Lekawska L, Sonnleitner M. Ethanol vs. biogas used as car
fuels. Sweden: Institute of Environmental Strategies Research, KTH; 2006.
[27] Cherubini F, Gerfried J. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,
bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2010;15:53e66.
[28] González-García S, Moreira MT, Feijoo G. Comparative environmental
performance of lignocellulosic ethanol from different feedstocks. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14:2077e85.
[29] Maia de Souza D. Development of a life cycle impact assessment method for
Brazil. Presentation 3rd International conference on life cycle management,
27e29 August, Zürich, Switzerland. Available in: http://www.lcm2007.org/
Presentations.html; 2007 [accessed 10.01.10].
[30] Suurs RAA, Hekkert MP. Competition between first and second generation
technologies: lessons from the formation of a biofuels innovation system in
the Netherlands. Energy 2009;34:669e79.
[31] Henke JM, Klepper G, Schmitz N. Tax exemption for biofuels in Germany: is
bio-ethanol really an option for climate policy? Energy 2005;30:2617e35.
[32] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. Environmental sustainability assessment of bio-
ethanol production in Thailand. Energy 2009;34:1933e46.
[33] Yu S, Tao J. Energy efficiency assessment by life cycle simulation of cassava-based
fuel ethanol for automotive use in Chinese Guangxi context. Energy 2009;34:22e31.
[34] Peiró LT, Lombardi L, Méndez GV, Durany XG. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and
exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA) of the production of biodiesel from
used cooking oil (UCO). Energy 2010;35:889e93.
3725
[35] Sparati S, Zhang Y, Maclean H. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass and corn
stover-derived ethanol-fueled automobiles. Environmental Science and
Technology 2005;39:9750e8.
[36] MAPA. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastacimento [Ministry of
Agriculture, livestock and supply]. Available in: http://www.agricultura.gov.
br; 2009 [accessed 09.07.10].
[37] Nogueira LAH. Bioetanol de cana-de-açúcar: energia para o desenvolvimento
sustentável [Bioethanol from sugarcane: energy for sustaintable develop-
ment]. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES and CGEE Organization; 2008.
[38] UDOP. Associação profissional da indústria da fabricação de álcool, açúcar,
similares e conexos [Professional association of industry production of
alcohol, sugar, and similar relates]. Available in: http://www.udop.com.br;
2009 [accessed 07.09.10].
[39] Foran B, Mardon C. Beyond 2025: transitions to a biomass-alcohol economy
using ethanol and methanol. A consultancy report for the National Dryland
Salinity Program of the Land and Water Resources Research and Development
Corporation; 1999.
[40] Camargo CA. Conservação de energia na indústria de açúcar e álcool [Energy
conservation in the sugar industry and alcohol]. São Paulo: IPT; 1990. Manual
recommendations.
[41] Buckeridge M. Seqüestro de carbono, cana-de-açúcar e o efeito Cinderela
[Carbon sequestration, sugarcane and Cinderella effect]. Available in: http://
www.comciencia.br; 2010 [accessed 03.03.10].
[42] EPA e Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of air pollutant factors.
In: European workshop on allocation in LCA, Center of Environmental Science,
Leiden University; 1994.
[43] Macedo IC, Seabra JA, Silva JR. Green house gases emissions in the production
and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy
2008;32:582e95.
[44] Ecoinvent Centre. Swiss Center for life cycle inventories. Available in: http://
www.ecoinvent.ch/; 2009 [accessed 03.02.10].
[45] Jungbluth N. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy, report no. 17. Swiss Centre
for Life Cycle Inventories; 2007.
[46] Lloyd AC, Cackette TA. Diesel engines: environmental impact and control.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 2001;51:809e47.
[47] Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of air pollutant emission
factors. 5th ed., vol. 1; 1995.
[48] Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK. An environmental life cycle assess-
ment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as
producers of sugar for fermentation. Biomass and Bioenergy
2008;32:1144e55.
[49] Rocha JD. Pré-tratamento da biomassa [Pretreatment of biomass], http://
www.apta.sp.gov.br/cana/anexos/Position_paper_painel1_dilcio.pdf; 2008.
[50] Baker EG, Brown MD, Moore RH, Mudge LK, Elliott DC. Engineering analysis of
biomass gasifier product Prepared for the Biomass Energy Division e US
Department of Energy, Washington; 1986.
[51] Liu H, Gibbs BM. Modeling NH3 and HCN emissions form biomass circulating
fluidized bed gasifiers. Fuel 2003;82:1591e604.
[52] Olivério JL, Ribeiro JE. Cogeneration in Brazilian sugar and bioethanol mills:
past, present and challenges. International Sugar Journal 2006;
108:391e401.
[53] Smith P, Gregory PJ, van Vuuren D, Obersteiner M,, Havlík P, Rounsevell M,
et al. Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 2010;365:2941e57.
[54] Azar C, Larson ED. Bioenergy and land-use competition in Northeast Brazil.
Energy for Sustainable Development 2000;4:64e71.
[55] Escobar J, Lora ES, Venturini O, Yáñez EE, Castillo EF, Almazan O. Biofuels:
environment, technology and food security. Renewable Energy Reviews
2009;13:1275e87.
[56] Malça J, Freire F. Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol
and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of
allocation. Energy 2006;31:3362e80.
[57] Hu Z, Tan P, Yan X, Lou D. Life cycle energy, environment and economic
assessment of soybean-based biodiesel as an alternative automotive fuel in
China. Energy 2008;33:1654e8.
[58] Spath PL, Dayton DC. Preliminary screening e technical and economic
assessment of synthesis gas to fuels and chemicals with emphasis on the
potential for biomass-derived syngas. Colorado, United States: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available in: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy04osti/34929.pdf; 2003 [accessed: 20.08.09].
[59] Benedetto L, Klemes J. The environmental performance strategy map: an
integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2009;17:900e6.
[60] Panichelli L, Dauriat A, Gnansounou E. Life cycle assessment of soybean-based
biodiesel in Argentina for export. International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-
ment 2008;14:144e59.
[61] Luo L, Van der Voet E, Huppes G. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of
bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2009;13:1613e9.
[62] Riedacker A. Why spend a course of EPI? [Pour quoi passer des ACV aux EPI?].
In: Conférence Internationale e Évaluation Environmentale et Énergie,
Quebec, Canada, 2009; personal communication.
[63] Ekvall T, Finnveden G. Allocation in ISO 14041 e a critical review. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2001;9:197e208.
3726 M.L.G. Renó et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 3716e3726
[64] ECOBILAN. Energy and greenhouse gas balances of biofuels’ production chain
in France. Report. France; 2002.
[65] Niederl A, Narodoslawsky M. Life cycle assessment e study of biodiesel from
tallow and used vegetable oil. Graz, Austria: Institute for Resource Efficient
and Sustainable Systems. Available in: http://www.bioenergy.org.nz; 2004
[accessed 15.01.10].
[66] Bernesson S, Nilsson D, Hansson P. A limited LCA comparing large-and-small-
scale production of rape methyl ester (RME) under Swedish conditions.
Biomass and Bioenergy 2004;26:545e59.
[67] Bernesson S, Nilsson D, Hansson P. A limited LCA comparing large-and-small-
scale production of ethanol for heavy engines under Swedish conditions.
Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30:46e57.
[68] Heijungs R, De Koning A, Ligthart T, Korenromp R. Improvement of LCA
characterization factors and LCA practice for metals. Report no.: TNO-report R
2004/347; 2004.
[69] Yáñez EE, Lora ES, Costa RE, Torres EA. The energy balance in the palm oil-
derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases in Brazil and Colombia.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:2905e13.
[70] Pankhurst C. Should sugarcane trash be use as a biofuel for cogeneration or
left in the field for its long-term benefits to soil health and crop productivity?.
Available in: http://www.srdc.gov.au; 2005 [accessed 06.09.10].
[71] Lora EES, Escobar JCP, Rocha MH, Renó MLG, Venturini OJ, Olmo OA. The
issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability
assessments. Energy, in press.