See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286234884

Life Cycle Assessments of LanzaTech Ethanol Production: Anticipated

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cellulosic and Waste Gas Feedstocks

Article in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · December 2015

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215

CITATIONS READS

101 9,792

5 authors, including:

Robert Handler David R Shonnard

Michigan Technological University Michigan Technological University
77 PUBLICATIONS 2,344 CITATIONS 192 PUBLICATIONS 5,503 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Evan Griffing Andrea Lai

Wichita State University 5 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS
29 PUBLICATIONS 523 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Handler on 14 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Life Cycle Assessments of Ethanol Production via Gas Fermentation:

Anticipated Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cellulosic and Waste Gas
Feedstocks
Robert M. Handler,*,† David R. Shonnard,† Evan M. Griffing,‡ Andrea Lai,§ and Ignasi Palou-Rivera§
†
Sustainable Futures Institute, Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931,
United States
‡
Environmental Clarity, 2505 Fauquier Lane, Reston, Virginia 20191, United States
§
LanzaTech, 8045 Lamon Avenue Suite 400, Skokie, Illinois 60077, United States

ABSTRACT: LanzaTech has developed novel microbial bioreactor systems capable of direct gas fermentation to produce
ethanol from carbon-containing gases. In this study, a life-cycle assessment method is used to quantify the global warming
potential of several scenarios for producing renewable ethanol with the LanzaTech process. Scenarios considering ethanol
produced from steel mill waste gases or biomass (corn stover, forest residue, or switchgrass, via gasification) have been
considered, using input data from peer-reviewed literature, government reports, life cycle inventory databases, and LanzaTech
process engineering estimates. Using standardized life-cycle assessment methods, ethanol produced via LanzaTech fermentation
appears to result in greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 60% lower than that of conventional fossil gasoline, with biomass-
based ethanol achieving close to 90% emission reductions. Results indicate that the LanzaTech gas fermentation technology can
be a viable alternative for producing next-generation biofuels that satisfy United States Renewable Fuels Standard policies
concerning fuels with a reduced greenhouse gas emissions footprint.

■ INTRODUCTION
The United States continues to depend on petroleum for
transportation fuels, which accounted for roughly 28% of the
country’s energy-related CO2 emissions in 2012.1 Roughly one-
third of petroleum fuels used in the United States are imported,
warranting a continued focus on domestic energy production as
a means to improve domestic economic and energy security.2
Several solutions are being developed to deal with the
environmental, economic, and social challenges caused by
continued use of polluting fossil transportation fuels from
imported and domestic sources. The most widely adopted
emissions reduction strategy is the production of alternative
liquid transportation fuels (ethanol and biodiesel, among
others) made from renewable feedstocks. These fuels are
compatible as blendstock with existing transportation infra-
structure as minor components of the final fuel mix, generally
10 or 15% for ethanol, and have benefitted from existing
agricultural production systems to generate large quantities of
feedstock.
Ethanol is the predominant alternative liquid transportation
fuel. It has successfully been integrated into the national fuel
system and is offered in a range of blend ratios with petroleum
gasoline. Corn-based ethanol has been touted as a domestic
energy success story, with measurable impacts on environ-
mental metrics and rural economies.3,4 While corn-based
ethanol currently comprises the large majority of domestic
renewable fuel production, scientists and policy makers
continue to develop plans for transitioning to a new array of
renewable transportation fuels that improve upon the environ-
mental benefits of corn ethanol while reducing concerns about
the environmental impact of large-scale biofuels production,
such as competition for land and water resources, especially for
irrigated crops, the impact on the price of food; and the
resulting decline in genetic diversity, among others.5−8 Biofuels
relying on nonfood crops, agricultural residues, or other wastes
would alleviate some of these concerns. An increasing portion
of the renewable fuels requirement in the United States is due
to come from nonstarch sources and qualify as advanced (50%
reduction) or cellulosic (60% reduction) biofuels, depending
on their level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions
compared to petroleum sources.9 These “second-generation”
biofuels based on agricultural residues promise to lower GHG
emissions associated with liquid transportation fuels, but
ongoing life cycle studies will be required to ensure that
environmental concerns associated with expansion of conven-
tional agriculture are also mitigated.10
One example of an advanced, second-generation biofuel is
that produced by LanzaTech. LanzaTech has developed novel
fermentation processes to convert carbon monoxide and
hydrogen-containing gases into valuable fuel and chemical
products, including ethanol, 2,3-butanediol, acetic acid,
isopropanol, acetone, butanol, succinic acid, and isoprene.
Process inputs can be low-value or waste gases from industries
such as steel manufacturing, oil refining, and chemical
production, as well as gases generated by gasification of forestry
and agricultural residues, municipal waste, natural gas, and coal.
Special Issue: Sustainable Manufacturing
Received: September 1, 2015
Revised: December 3, 2015
Accepted: December 7, 2015

© XXXX American Chemical Society A DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 1. LanzaTech process block diagram. Light gray areas indicate potential coproduct unit operations, which are possible but not included in this
LCA study.
In doing so, waste carbon streams are captured and functionally
recycled into new, useable products. Fermentation products can
be used directly or thermochemically converted to drop-in fuels
and chemical products, such as jet fuel, olefins, and other
commodity chemical intermediates. These processes have the
potential to produce fuels meeting the EPA emissions criteria
for next-generation biofuels, while utilizing a diverse range of
feedstocks. LanzaTech has successfully demonstrated its gas
fermentation technology at a 300 TPA demonstration plant
with Baosteel in Shanghai, China, and is currently operating a
second demonstration plant with Shougang Steel at Caofeidian,
China. These plants can utilize a range of mill gases including
basic oxygen furnace (BOF), blast furnace, COREX, and coke
oven gas. Both demonstration plants have exceeded nameplate
capacity and met performance targets. LanzaTech also owns
and operates the Freedom Pines Biorefinery in Soperton,
Georgia. The facility has biomass handling and gasification
equipment, and pilot-scale testing of biomass-based fuel and
chemical production is expected by the end of 2015.
Initial life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies on the environ-
mental impact of steel mill waste gas conversion to ethanol in
China have been described in the literature,11 indicating the
potential for a low-emission fuel product. This article updates
data for steel mill gas conversion to ethanol, based on design
improvements from LanzaTech’s scale-up work and application
of the technology to a domestic United States market, and
presents initial LCA results for ethanol produced from biogenic
(corn stover, forestry residues, and switchgrass) feedstocks.
GHG emissions are tabulated for each stage of the ethanol life
cycle and are compared to conventional transportation fuels
and other ethanol production pathways.
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Article
■ GOAL AND SCOPE
The goal of this study is to determine overall greenhouse gas
emissions from fuel ethanol production using the LanzaTech
process and to compare its environmental burdens to the
petroleum-derived gasoline life cycle GHG emissions. Our
functional unit for this analysis will be one megajoule (MJ,
lower heating value) of final ethanol (EtOH) fuel product,
because energy content is a reasonable predictor of perform-
ance in engines and this is a commonly used basis of
comparison for different fuels.
To arrive at a comprehensive GHG emissions assessment of
ethanol production by the LanzaTech process, our analysis
takes a cradle-to-grave approach. A detailed inventory of
processing inputs was developed from LanzaTech’s commercial
plant design in collaboration with LanzaTech process
engineers. Production of all required inputs, including
chemicals and energy, are included in the analysis, in addition
to transport of ethanol product prior to use. All emissions of
gases from the bioreactor and anaerobic digestion of settled
solids are included, assuming that any methane in the emissions
is converted to CO2 through flaring. Final combustion of the
ethanol product is also included.
Scenarios. Four different fuel ethanol production pathways
are examined as part of this study. The BOF gas scenario uses
carbon-containing BOF gas as the carbon-containing fermenta-
tion feed gas. Three biomass-based scenarios are also included,
which use corn stover, switchgrass, and forest residue as
carbon-containing feedstocks, and are labeled accordingly. In
the biomass-based scenarios, solid biomass feedstock materials
are converted to syngas via a gasification process, and the
syngas is used as the fermentation feed gas. The resulting
different fermentation feed gases in each scenario are utilized in
the LanzaTech process for the production of ethanol.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
LanzaTech Process Overview. Key steps in the
LanzaTech process are gasification, gas handling, fermentation,
and product recovery. A graphical depiction of the LanzaTech
process is shown in Figure 1. First, in the case of biomass
feedstocks, gasification produces an input gas and excess heat
is used to generate steam and electricity. Next, in the gas
handling step, carbon monoxide-containing gas streams, such
as waste or byproduct gases from industrial processes or
gasified biomass residues, are deoxygenated and compressed for
use as the primary input to the fermentation. The treated gas is
fed to a biological reactor for fermentation in which
proprietary microorganisms suspended in a liquid nutrient
solution utilize CO as both a carbon and energy source. If
present in the input gas blend, H2 can also be utilized by the
microorganisms as a supplemental energy source. The microbes
secrete fermentation products such as ethanol, 2-3 butanediol,
and acetic acid into the surrounding broth. Fermentation broth
continuously withdrawn from the bioreactor is sent through a
steadfast distillation-based separation system for product and
coproduct recovery. The fermentation can be tailored to
produce a range of valuable chemical coproducts which, if
recovered, processed, and transported to market, would be
considered in the overall life cycle as well. For the purposes of
this study, the process under analysis is one in which
production of ethanol is maximized, with minimal coproduct
creation and no coproduct recovery.
Waste streams are minimized and recycled internally within
the process as much as possible. Biological solids (spent
microbial biomass) are filtered out of the distillation waste
stream and sent to anaerobic digestion, and a portion of the
filtered stream is used to make up fresh media (a water and
nutrient mixture) that is fed continuously to the LanzaTech
microbes. In this way, process water within the system is
recycled back to the fermentation bioreactor. The remaining
liquid wastes are treated on-site via anaerobic digestion. The
biogas from anaerobic digestion is mixed with a portion of the
reactor vent gas to increase the gas energy density, enabling the
use of the mixed gas for internal steam or power generation.
Vented gas from the fermentation bioreactor is scrubbed,
oxidized, and released to the atmosphere with a GHG
emissions penalty. Generated utilities are mostly used to offset
utility needs; however, in the biomass-based scenarios involving
biomass gasification, excess electricity is exported to the grid.
Fermentation Gas Generation. The scenario using
industrial waste gas (BOF gas scenario) is based on steel mill
basic oxygen furnace gas. In 2011, global production of steel
was 1.5 billion tons/yr. Of this, 1.1 billion tons were from the
blast furnace/BOF route.12 In steel-making, carbon from coal,
natural gas, and/or oil is used to reduce iron ore into iron metal
according to the following reaction:
Fe2O3 + 3C → Fe + 3CO
This reaction takes place in the blast furnace (BF) and
produces molten iron or pig iron with high carbon content
(typically 3.5−4.5%). This iron is then processed in a basic
oxygen furnace. The BOF controls the amount of carbon left in
the final steel product by blowing pure oxygen over the hot
metal.13 The oxygen reacts with carbon in the pig iron and
carries it away as a carbon-rich gas residue that is 50−60% CO,
10−20% CO2, and 20−30% N2. A portion of these gases may
be used on-site to generate heat. In Europe, about 25% of all
BOF steel mill gases are flared in lieu of being used for heat or
power generation.14 On a global basis, a much higher
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Article
percentage is flared, and this percentage is highly variable by
region. In the United States, recent surveys indicate that BOF
steel mill exhaust gases are not currently utilized by any United
States mills, but they may represent a significant opportunity
for heat and fuel recovery, offsetting significant portions of the
cumulative GHG emissions burden for steelmaking.15 Lanza-
Tech is focusing commercial development of this technology
on situations where BOF gas is underutilized because these
scenarios present the greatest opportunity for adding value to
current steel mill operations by turning this low-value gas
stream with variable composition and flow rates into a
consistent source of high-value fuels and chemicals. For the
purposes of this study, the prior fate of BOF exhaust gas is
assumed to be flaring, where all carbon contained in the BOF
gas is converted to CO2 and released to the environment. Due
to this assumption, the input gas stream appears in the cradle-
to-gate LCA as a GHG emissions credit in the LanzaTech
process, as it is being removed from this prior fate of immediate
flaring release to the environment. Quantitative results of this
assumption are illustrated in Table 2. Emissions of all carbon-
containing gases are counted in the GHG emissions profile of
the fuel at every downstream processing stage. In this scenario,
the LanzaTech process is envisioned to be an independent
plant colocated with an existing steel mill. This colocation
eliminates any need for transporting feedstock gas to the
LanzaTech bioreactor.
The other three scenarios involve the production and use of
carbon-containing gases from biomass sources (corn stover,
switchgrass, and forest residue). Data surrounding the
production of corn stover comes from the GREET model
developed by Argonne National Laboratory16 and includes
inputs of materials and energy related to fertilizer use,
collection, 50 miles of truck transport, and carbon stock
changes associated with direct and indirect land-use change. In
this case, the GREET model assumes that using corn stover as a
feedstock for transportation fuels would lead to small increases
in carbon stocks on the landscape (negative CO2 emission, or
CO2 credit) as corn-growing land becomes more productive
and less land is utilized for corn production.17
Switchgrass production data also comes from the GREET
model16 and includes inputs related to cultivation, harvesting,
50 miles of transport, and any land-use change effects.
Switchgrass involves larger assumptions of fertilizer use
compared to corn stover and also contains a small CO2
emission factor for land-use change as a result of increased
switchgrass cultivation.
Life-cycle input data for forest biomass has been incorpo-
rated from a detailed study of the Consortium for Research on
Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) group, which
focuses on whole tree thinning operations in the Southeast
region of the United States and residue grinding data from the
Pacific Northwest.18 Biomass from forest residues is generally
produced from thinning operations in managed forests or when
nonmerchantable timber (tops and branches) are separated in a
commercial harvest. Unlike the agricultural biomass scenarios,
no land-use change effects or additions of fertilizer to increase
biomass productivity are assumed in this study for forest
biomass. Biomass collection, processing, and 90 miles of truck
transport are assumed to occur using machinery typical to the
increasingly mechanized forest products industry in the specific
region.
Gasification of biomass streams in all cases was modeled
according to parameters outlined in a National Renewable
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Energy Laboratory study.19 Gasification of biomass results in a
stream of hot syngas (CO and H2 gases), which is cooled via
heat integration with downstream unit operations that require
heat inputs. After cooling, the syngas can be fed into the
LanzaTech fermentation system. This syngas stream typically
has a composition of 30−35% CO, 40−45% H2, 10% CO2, and
other trace gases. Gasification may require a small amount of
input natural gas to heat incoming biomass to gasification
temperatures as the process begins, but at steady-state the
process is self-sustaining, where gasification of complex
molecules into smaller molecules liberates enough energy to
heat incoming biomass and maintain the process.
Gas Fermentation. The LanzaTech process considered
here converts carbon-containing input gas into ethanol. The
fermentation process can accommodate a range of input gas
compositions and is tolerant of typical gas contaminants such as
sulfur, which minimizes pretreatment requirements. The
LanzaTech microbes utilize CO as both a carbon and energy
source. If present in the input gas blend, H2 can be utilized by
the microorganisms as a supplemental energy source.
In addition to the input carbon as gas, a fermentation media
including macro- and micronutrients for the organism is fed
into the bioreactor. The LanzaTech process is a continuous
fermentation, meaning that media is continuously fed into the
bioreactor while fermentation broth (containing ethanol,
fermentation coproducts, and spent biomass) is removed at
an equal rate. Trace amounts of other coproducts, besides
ethanol, are also produced in the fermentation process. The
ratio of ethanol to coproduct and identity of the coproducts can
be varied substantially by modifications to the process.
Product Separation. Product separation proceeds through
a distillation process that has been modified to suit specific
LanzaTech operating conditions. Distillation energy require-
ments are in good agreement with standard models of the
conventional distillation process in an integrated distillation
sequence followed by dehydration, which require 2.0−2.5 tons
of steam per ton of ethanol, given the specific titer of the
LanzaTech fermentation broth.20−22 Settled solids, composed
of biomass from the fermentation organism, and other organics
from the fermenter are separated from the product stream and
sent to an anaerobic digestion unit. The LanzaTech process
considered here does not make any attempt to recover the trace
amount of chemical coproduct, although modified product
recovery units designed to separate ethanol from representative
coproducts such as butanediol have been utilized successfully in
separate LanzaTech trials.
Product Transport and Use. Ethanol is assumed to be
transported 100 km by truck prior to use, based on prevalence
of steel mill facilities and gasoline blending terminals in the
eastern half of the United States. Ethanol will be used as a
blended fuel component, with CO2 emissions on combustion as
predicted by stoichiometry (1.91 kg CO2/kg EtOH, 71.4 g
CO2eq/MJ EtOH).
Utility Consumption. Specific inputs of electricity and
steam are withheld here to protect LanzaTech confidentiality,
but resulting GHG emissions are aggregated together as
“utilities” in the LCA results. Utility inputs for all scenarios are
electricity and medium-pressure steam, though specific require-
ments are slightly different in the BOF gas scenario versus
biomass feedstock scenarios. Though utility inputs are
important sources of environmental impacts, the LanzaTech
process takes advantage of many opportunities for utility
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Article
integration within the host site and opportunities to take
advantage of internally produced steam and electricity.
Within the context of steel mill operations, there will likely
be an excess of low-quality steam suitable for the LanzaTech
process available onsite, from coke oven gases, blast furnace
gases, or BOF gases.23 In the BOF gas scenario, biogas from the
anaerobic digestion of bioreactor soluble and solid metabolites
and vented fermentation reactor gas are combined and
combusted to produce steam, which supplies steam in sufficient
quantities to satisfy the needs of ethanol distillation and gas
treatment. Required electricity comes from the off-site
electricity grid. The mix of generation sources for the United
States electricity grid is variable between regions and over time,
and for this assessment the default United States grid
assumptions from Ecoinvent life cycle inventory database
version 2 were used,24 which includes a combination of coal
(49%), nuclear (19.6%), natural gas (17.3%), oil (3.3%), and
renewables (9.6% including hydropower) as the primary
sources of electricity generation. This grid mix results in a
conservative electricity generation profile, with emissions that
could be improved or worsened based on changing the grid mix
to reflect the most current situation in regions of the United
States or other countries, as discussed in Results and
Discussion.
Biomass gasification produces a stream of hot syngas (∼900
°C).19 The sensible heat from this gas stream can generate
steam, ∼0.5 tons steam per ton syngas, which can be used
directly in industrial processes or used to make electricity. This
source of utilities is a significant benefit to the biomass-based
scenarios, where all utilities can be generated internally with the
productive use of sensible heat, including both steam heat
(gasifier, gas treatment, ethanol distillation units) and power
(gasifier, fermentation reactor units). The LanzaTech process is
currently modeled assuming conversion efficiencies in a
combined heat and power (CHP) system of 85% from syngas
to steam and 35% from steam to electricity. Of the total
amount of steam produced in the biomass-based scenarios from
biomass gasification, 30% of the steam is used as process heat,
and the rest is used to generate power for internal process use
and to export as excess electricity. Exported electricity is
assumed to displace the need for electricity from the United
States grid and a credit for displaced electricity use is attributed
to the process. Roughly 20% of the power that is produced is in
excess of internal use and can be exported to the grid in the
biomass-based scenarios. Electricity requirements for gas
compression are roughly 50% lower in the biomass feedstock
cases because biomass syngas is produced at pressure, while the
BOF exhaust gas is assumed to enter the system close to
atmospheric pressure.
In all scenarios, the combustion of biogas produced through
anaerobic digestion and bioreactor vent gas is assumed in this
study to be used on-site to generate steam and/or electricity,
using the same CHP efficiency assumptions as stated previously
for biomass gasification-derived steam and electricity. This gas-
based generation also results in a small displacement credit for
excess electricity in all analyzed scenarios.
■ METHODS AND INVENTORY
Input Data. Inputs for the model LanzaTech facility have
been tabulated on the basis of 1000 kg of EtOH production,
which is then normalized by the ethanol production from the
facility and the energy content per unit of ethanol (26.8 MJ/
kg). Input data is summarized below, along with comments on
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
 Table 1. Input LCA Data, on the Basis of 1000 kg/h of EtOH Production
requirement item used for LCAa BOF gas scenario corn stover scenario switchgrass scenario forest residue scenario comments
utilities (steam electricity, medium voltage, United States Grid, Steam, for provided to account for generated internally generated internally generated internally generated from cooling hot syngas in biomass
and electricity) chemical processes process requirements scenarios; accounting for internal credit from
biogas produced through anaerobic digestion
Gasification Inputs
biomass input 2870 kg 2870 kg 2670 kg Dry weight basis
process water 2.19 m3 2.19 m3 2.03 m3
Fermentation Inputs
net gas inputb CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) 2.12 × 103 kg 2.15 × 103 kg 2.15 × 103 kg 2.15 × 103 kg Assuming all CO and CH4 converted to CO2 via
flaring
bioreactor nu- calcium chloride, iron(III) chloride, superphosphate, provided to account for provided to account for provided to account for provided to account for stand-ins for chloride salts, metal chlorides, P
trient inputsc ammonia, organic chemicals stoichiometric require- stoichiometric require- stoichiometric require- stoichiometric require- requirement, N requirement, vitamins
ments of bioreactors ments of bioreactors ments of bioreactors ments of bioreactors
cooling water water, decarbonised, at plant 6453 kg 7340 kg 7340 kg 7280 kg makeup water assuming 1% loss due to evaporation
and blowdown
fermentation tap water, at user 2554 kg 1250 kg 1250 kg 1250 kg makeup water due to reaction losses, media outflow
process water with solids
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

sulfatreat magnetite, at plant 1.86 kg 1.86 kg 1.86 kg 1.86 kg stand-in for mixed-metal oxide sorbent (sulfur
removal)
wastewater treat- treatment, sewage whey digestion, class 4 1293 kg 1470 kg 1470 kg 1450 kg stand in for treatment of waste from anaerobic
ment digestion, comparable organic carbon content
treatment of bio- anaerobic treatment of solid, liquid waste (biomass, ethanol, 49.9 kg C converted to 54.8 kg C converted to 54.8 kg C converted to 54.8 kg C converted to LanzaTech internal process model to account for
solids etc.), conversion of biogas to CO2 upon combustion; CO2 and CH4; CO2 and CH4; CO2 and CH4; CO2 and CH4; anaerobic digestion of settled solids, and power
released in anaerobic digestion emissions 183.1 kg CO2eq 200.9 kg CO2eq 200.9 kg CO2eq 200.9 kg CO2eq generation from anaerobic digestion

E
transport of transport, lorry >32 t, EURO5 100 km 100 km 100 km 100 km transport of EtOH 100 km to blender
EtOH
combustion of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) 1.91 × 103 kg 1.91 × 103 kg 1.91 × 103 kg 1.91 × 103 kg based on stoichiometry
Ethanol
a
Ecoinvent database24 unless otherwise noted. bRefers to BOF gas or gasified biomass input stream, minus bioreactor vent gas emissions. cNutrient inputs are used to create optimal production in the
reactor. These are used to control environmental conditions or used by the microorganism as nutrients.
Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
the source and structure of the data (Table 1). For the biomass-
based scenarios, slightly less process water is required for the
forest residue scenario compared to the other scenarios because
of differences in feed gas composition resulting from biomass
stoichiometry. Process water and cooling water are differ-
entiated in the fermentation inputs (Table 1) because of
different levels of pretreatment assumed for the water streams,
as more dissolved solids are removed from the cooling water
prior to use. Wastewater treatment of liquids from the
anaerobic digestor is modeled using a template from the
Ecoinvent database (sewage whey digestion) that most closely
matches the organic carbon content of the LanzaTech
bioreactor, in order to accurately reflect emissions from the
wastewater treatment process. Settled solids from the
LanzaTech fermentation bioreactor are sent to anaerobic
digestion, where biogas is produced with a 40:60 composition
of CO2:CH4. After biogas conversion, the biogas stream is
combusted to produce energy, and complete conversion of all
CH4 to CO2 is assumed before the biogas is released to the
atmosphere. Transportation of ethanol is assumed to be
performed using a 32 t truck with updated emissions controls
(class 4 in European system used in Ecoinvent) and a payload
of roughly 7 t.
Impact Assessment. Environmental impacts of the
production and use of material and energetic inputs listed in
Table 1 were included as part of this assessment through use of
the Ecoinvent 2.1 database24 or other literature sources as
stated in Table 1. Global warming impacts were calculated
using the IPCC 2007 GWP 100a method in SimaPro LCA
software, version 7.3.25 In this method, CO2 has a global
warming potential (GWP) of 1, CH4 = 25, and N2O = 298. A
full accounting of the GWP of all climate-active chemicals,
including solvents and refrigerants used in upstream processes,
is included in the impact assessmemt method using inventory
elements from the Ecoinvent database in SimaPro 7.3, and
these impacts are combined into CO2-equivalents (CO2eq) as a
single metric of greenhouse gas emission impacts. As a
comparison standard, results are presented alongside equivalent
environmental impact assessments for conventional gasoline.
Data for petroleum gasoline greenhouse gas emissions is based
on national inventories from Argonne National Laboratory,
which report average GHG emissions of 94 g CO2eq/MJ.26
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Carbon Accounting. The LanzaTech process model
described above relies on previously accepted process engineer-
ing assumptions for gasification, product recovery, and waste
treatment. Carbon mass flows and other material flows are fully
accounted for in the process model, and emissions of carbon
are accounted for in all stages of the process. As mentioned
previously, the BOF gas scenario assumes that the BOF gas
utilized in this process would have been flared, with oxidation
of all carbon to CO2, before being released to the atmosphere.
The quantitative effect of this assumption is that BOF gas
modeled in our process, with a carbon content of 32.4%, would
be producing a GHG emission penalty of (324 kg C/ton BOF
gas) × (44 kg CO2/12 kg C) = 1188 kg CO2/ton BOF gas
(Table 2). This level of GHG emissions is now credited to the
feedstock for avoiding flaring emissions and entering the
LanzaTech process, with subsequent emissions attributed to the
process for carbon emissions that occur throughout the process,
up to and including ethanol combustion. The assumptions
regarding biomass-based scenarios are somewhat different in
F DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Article
nature but have a similar impact on the ethanol life cycle. As
biomass grows it removes carbon from the atmosphere, and the
biomass feedstock is given credit for this carbon removal. Based
on the assumed carbon content of the biomass, this translates
to (461 kg C/ton corn stover) × (44 kg CO2/12 kg C) = 1690
kg CO2 per ton of corn stover, which appears in the life cycle as
a GHG emissions credit for removing carbon from the
atmosphere (Table 2). As in the BOF gas scenario, subsequent
emissions of carbon throughout the process are accounted for
in the life cycle, throughout all stages of the process. In all
scenarios, a small amount of carbon exits the system boundary
in wastewater treated off-site, as well as CO2 from combusted
anaerobic digestor biogas, which are both accounted for as well.
A large majority (>95%) of the carbon entering the system as
BOF gas or biomass exits the system either as carbon in ethanol
or combusted vent gas from the bioreactor, similar to current
sugar fermentation reactors. The apparent carbon-use efficiency
of the LanzaTech process varies from the BOF scenario to the
biomass-based cases because of the composition of carbon
entering the reactor, but in both cases between 20 and 40% of
the carbon entering the system as feedstock exits in the ethanol
product.
Implications of Feedstock Choice. The LanzaTech
fermentation process is robust and can use a variety of
carbon-containing gas feedstocks, and we explore the
implications of feedstock choice in this paper. In Table 2 we
Table 2. GHG Credits and Emissions Associated with
Feedstock Choice
corn forest
item BOF gas stover switchgrass residue
carbon content (percent 32.4%a 46.1%b 46.1%b 49.6%b
carbon by weight)
GHG emissions credit from −1188 −1690 −1690 −1819
feedstock gas incorporation
into LanzaTech process
(kg CO2eq/ton feedstock)
GHG emissions due to 0 94.3c 124.8d 59.7e
feedstock procurement
(kg CO2eq/ton feedstock)
a
BOF gas parameters from LanzaTech customer surveys, dry weight
basis. bBiomass carbon content from LanzaTech processing estimates.
c
Corn stover procurement burdens (including land-use change) from
GREET model estimates.16 dSwitchgrass procurement burdens
(including land-use change) from GREET model estimates.16 eForest
residue procurement burdens from CORRIM research study.18
compare the GHG emissions credits for incorporating each
feedstock into the LanzaTech process (on the basis of carbon
contents) and the GHG emissions associated with supplying
the particular feedstock. There are clear differences among all
four modeled scenarios on the assumed burdens associated
with supplying feedstock to the process. As mentioned above, it
is assumed that LanzaTech operations colocated with steel
production can acquire and incorporate BOF exhaust gas with
no additional effort compared to current steel mill operations;
therefore, no GHG emissions are attributed to feedstock
collection and transportation. In the biomass feedstock
scenarios, there are differences in the GHG emissions burden
of biomass feedstocks, most notably for switchgrass which has a
larger associated GHG emissions burden due primarily to the
assumption of increased fertilizer application and resulting soil
N2O emissions.16 It is clear that in all cases, however, that the
embodied GHG emissions associated with feedstock procure-
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

ment activity are much less than the GHG emission credits biomass-based scenarios, because feedstock GHG emissions
associated with incorporating this renewable or waste carbon in credits and bioreactor vent gas are the two largest flows of
the LanzaTech process, as described in the previous section. carbon in the process and their magnitude far outweighs other
This analysis of the feedstock procurement stage alone does not GHG emissions shown in the life cycle. In the biomass-based
tell the entire story of ethanol produced from these feedstocks, scenarios, biomass feedstocks entering the process are credited
as carbon is released at later stages of the ethanol production for removing carbon from the atmosphere, but subsequent
process. Therefore, a thorough carbon accounting of the full emissions of carbon are accounted for at later stages of the
process was completed to track inputs and emissions of carbon process. Utility consumption (electricity and steam) accounts
from the process at all stages of the life cycle. for a large portion of GHG emissions in the ethanol life cycle
LCA Results. Greenhouse gas emissions data for the entire for the BOF gas scenario, while other inputs to the process
ethanol life cycle are presented in Table 3. In the BOF gas (nutrients, chemicals, water) result in a relatively minor
contribution (Table 3). Production and combustion of biogas
Table 3. GHG Emissions for LanzaTech Scenarios from anaerobic digestion of organic bioreactor waste results in a
GHG emissions (g CO2eq/MJ ethanol)
small amount of electricity that can be used on site, but
combustion of the biogas also results in GHG emissions that
BOF corn forest are accounted for. Accounting for all inputs to the BOF gas-
scenario gas stover switchgrass residue
based life cycle in the BOF gas scenario, we estimate a total
net gas useda −79.0 −80.2 −80.2 −80.2
GHG emissions result for LanzaTech ethanol of 31.4 g CO2eq/
feedstock procurement 0.0 11.2 14.9 6.6
MJ. This emissions total is small enough relative to the life cycle
utilities (heat and power)b 28.8 −6.3 −6.3 −8.1
GHG emissions for petroleum gasoline (67% emissions
other inputsc 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.3
reduction) that this scenario would produce ethanol that
anaerobic digestor 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.5
emissions meets the same emissions reductions targets given to cellulosic
waste treatmentd 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 biofuel according to EPA guidelines.9 Compared to the prior
ethanol transport 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 LCA study results of the LanzaTech process,11 GHG emissions
ethanol combustion 71.4 71.4 71.4 71.4 for the BOF are lower in this case than in the prior study, 31.4 g
net EtOH GHG emissions 31.4 8.0 11.7 1.5 CO2eq/ MJ in this case compared to 40.7 g CO2eq/ MJ when
% reductione 67% 92% 88% 98% steam generation was provided internally. Several methodo-
a
Net gas used refers to the net GHG emissions of the credits logical differences exist between these two studies to explain the
associated with utilizing different feedstocks, combined with the GHG different LCA results, most notably the reliance of the prior
emissions of vent gas that is released in the fermentation reactor work on electricity provided from the GHG-intensive Chinese
(Figure 1). bIncludes credits for electricity and steam generated electricity grid and reliance on older LanzaTech process models
through combustion of anaerobic digestion biogas. cRefers to with lower assumed ethanol yields.
nutrients, water, chemicals, etc. outlined in Table 1 dIncludes Specific aspects of the life cycle change for the biomass-based
wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal. eCompared to scenarios, but the overall result is quite encouraging. As
petroleum gasoline standard reference defined above (94 g CO2eq/
MJ fuel)
mentioned in Table 2, GHG emissions associated with
feedstock procurement are incorporated into these scenarios,
resulting in emissions ranging from 6.6−14.9 g CO2eq/MJ
scenario, a large credit is granted for removing BOF gas from its ethanol. The burdens associated with feedstock procurement
assumed prior fate, flaring and release into the atmosphere. are more than made up for by the benefits associated with
This credit is in part negated by large emissions observed in the biomass gasification, namely, the on-site coproduction of heat
system from the bioreactor vent gas, but the combination of and power that eliminates utility consumption throughout the
these two items, presented as “net gas used” in Table 3, is still entire process and even results in a small excess of electricity
quite large. This type of carbon accounting is repeated for the which is credited as displacing the use of United States grid

Table 4. Sensitivity Analysis Results for Key Parameters in LanzaTech Process

percent change in overall life cycle GHG emissionsa
BOF gas corn stover
% change % change % change % change
parameter base case low case high case (low) (high) (low) (high)
ethanol transport 100 km 50 km 500 km −1% 9% −4% 35%
distance
electricity grid 214 g CO2eq/MJ elec. b
190 g CO2eq/MJ elec. c
290 g CO2eq/MJ elec. d
−9% 33% 8% −28%
emissions
biogas methane 0% − 2% − 5% − 23%
emissions
utility consumption current 10% reduction 10% increase −9% 9% −20% 49%
biomass procurement current 10% reduction 10% increase − − −14% 14%
impacts
media requirements current 10% reduction 10% increase −1% 1% −2% 2%

a
As compared to 31.4 g CO2eq/MJ (BOF gas) and 8.0 g CO2eq/MJ (Table 3). bCorresponds to United States average medium voltage electricity
grid in Ecoinvent v2 database. cCorresponds to most current U.S. EPA assessment of current generation mix.27 dCorresponds to Chinese electricity
grid GHG emissions as reported in 2011.11

G DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
electricity. Demands of other inputs including bioreactor
nutrients and process water are similar compared to the BOF
scenario, reflecting the minor changes associated with different
feedstock composition. The resulting life-cycle GHG emissions
for ethanol produced from biomass gasification in all biomass-
based scenarios are quite low, achieving 88−98% reductions in
GHG emissions compared to fossil petroleum gasoline. Many
LCA studies exist for ethanol production from biomass
feedstocks, which all rely on different assumptions that make
direct comparison challenging. Life-cycle GHG emissions
results within the well-described GREET model14 for ethanol
produced by fermenting corn stover (33 g CO2eq/MJ),
switchgrass (36 g CO2eq/MJ), and forest residue (15 g
CO2eq/MJ) are all higher than corresponding LCA results for
scenarios described here, suggesting that LanzaTech biomass-
based ethanol can achieve a low GHG emissions profile relative
to common ethanol production technologies assumed for these
feedstocks.
Additionally, combined process and cooling water con-
sumption within the LanzaTech combined gasification−
fermentation process for corn stover (0.40 kg/MJ ethanol),
switchgrass (0.40 kg/MJ ethanol), and forest residue (0.39 kg/
MJ ethanol) are also lower than water consumption estimates
at the ethanol production stage reported in the GREET model
(0.65, 0.65, and 0.50 kg/MJ ethanol, respectively).14 Water
consumption within the BOF gas scenario are lower than all
biomass-based scenarios, 0.34 kg/MJ ethanol.
Sensitivity Analysis. To illustrate the extent to which the
LCA results presented here are dependent on certain key
assumptions, a sensitivity analysis was performed on the life
cycle inputs to the BOF gas and corn stover scenarios. Key
input assumptions in the BOF gas and corn stover scenarios
were varied to illustrate the impacts of potential variability in
the life cycle. The sensitivity analysis results are presented in
Table 4. Parameters included in the sensitivity analysis are (1)
ethanol transport distance, (2) GHG emissions associated with
the electricity grid, (3) fugitive methane emissions from biogas
production, (4) consumption of utilities, (5) impacts associated
with biomass procurement, and (6) consumption of
fermentation reactor media inputs. Transport distance was
reduced to 50 km for the low cases but increased to 500 km in
the high cases to represent long-distance transport from
relatively remote ethanol facilities. The GHG emissions profile
associated with the United States electricity grid represented in
Ecoinvent is calculated to be 214 g CO2eq/MJ electricity using
the IPCC 100a method used in this study. The Low case for
this parameter represents the GHG emissions for a recent
electricity generation mix using data from the U.S. EPA,27
which most notably involves a reduction in coal usage (from 49
to 37%) and an increase in natural gas (from 17% to 30%)
usage compared to the Ecoinvent grid used in the base case
scenarios. A high case for this parameter was established by
using data relating to the Chinese electricity grid, which uses a
larger proportion of GHG emissions-heavy fuels like coal and
oil. A high case was created in regards to fugitive methane
emissions from biogas production by assuming that 2% of
methane produced in anaerobic digestion escapes into the
atmosphere without being converted to CO 2 during
combustion. For parameters 4−6, the low and high cases
were created by assuming a 10% reduction or increase in the
parameter, respectively, as an illustration of uncertainty in these
areas. For each scenario that was created in the sensitivity
analysis, the parameter under consideration was modified
H DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
Article
according to the low and high case assumptions. The overall
LCA result was then recalculated, and the new result was
compared to the base case result from Table 3 in terms of
percent change to the overall GHG emissions. This process was
repeated for the BOF gas and corn stover scenarios.
Importantly, none of the scenarios explored resulted in life
cycle GHG emissions that would make the final ethanol
product miss qualifying as an advanced biofuel under U.S. EPA
guidelines. However, results of the sensitivity analysis can
provide a few insights on the developments of this process and
provide commercial developers with a sense of the important
factors that should be considered. Excessive transport distance
for ethanol product can influence the overall GHG emissions
result, but only by ∼5 g CO2eq/MJ in absolute terms. Changes
in the electricity grid emissions profile had opposite impacts in
the BOF and corn stover scenario, because in the BOF gas
scenario the process is relying on inputs of imported electricity,
while in the corn stover case the excess electricity is being
supplied to the grid, making it more favorable to displace the
prior use of electricity from a dirtier grid. Small amounts of
fugitive methane emitted from the anaerobic digestor can have
an outsized influence on overall GHG emissions due to the
relatively large global warming potential of methane compared
to CO2, so this process should be designed and maintained with
proper attention. Utility consumption had a surprising effect on
the corn stover case, because an increase in utility consumption
ultimately reduces the amount of excess electricity that may be
exported to the grid for a displacement credit in this process.
The goal of this life cycle assessment was to understand the
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol produced from
the LanzaTech process. This analysis was based on estimates
provided by LanzaTech of a model facility utilizing either BOF
exhaust gas or one of several biomass streams as the incoming
feedstock. Because input feedstocks were treated as avoided
waste streams (BOF gas) or renewable sources of carbon, large
credits were granted for carbon entering the system boundary.
Gasification of biomass into syngas for use in the LanzaTech
process has the added benefit of colocated utility production,
which results in more favorable LCA results for the biomass
scenarios, despite the small added burdens associated with
growing and procuring biomass feedstocks.
As a result of this analysis, several recommendations can be
made to guide future study and development of LanzaTech
fermentation technology. The large volumes of gas entering and
exiting the bioreactors will require careful monitoring, as these
two gas streams are significantly larger than all other sources of
greenhouse gases in this life cycle analysis. Several assumptions
surrounding biomass procurement have been made, using
thorough yet generalized assumptions. As with any biofuels
study, site-specific feedstock studies to verify biomass yields,
growth inputs, harvest efficiency, and transport burdens will
strengthen the current analysis and the overall field of study.
Important assumptions have been made surrounding utility
generation and use, and deviations from these standard
assumptions could affect the resulting greenhouse gas balance
in a negative manner (e.g., using electric power exclusively from
coal) or a positive manner (use of cleaner alternatives such as
wind or hydropower, or system integration to reduce steam
use). These variables will likely change from situation to
situation and will require specific LCAs for the different
operating conditions to verify GHG savings. The LanzaTech
process can be tailored to produce different coproducts
alongside ethanol at different ethanol:coproduct ratios, which
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
can be optimized according to market conditions or other
factors. This flexibility will require additional study to
determine the implications of simultaneous chemical produc-
tion on the environmental footprint of the LanzaTech process,
under different schemes for allocating environmental burdens
between products. The LanzaTech process can enable fuel
production with substantially reduced GHG emissions from
either BOF exhaust gas from steel mills or gasified biomass, as
this study demonstrates. This offers a substantial opportunity to
both produce low-carbon fuels and reduce global GHG
emissions.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Tel.: 906-487-3612. E-mail: rhandler@mtu.edu.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A portion of this work was funded by a 2011 award from the
U.S. Department of Energy to LanzaTech and Michigan
Technological University (Award DE-EE0005-356).
■ REFERENCES
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/
sources/transportation.html. 2014.
(2) U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook
2015. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo. U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C, 2015.
(3) Wang, M. Q.; Han, J.; Haq, Z.; Tyner, W. E.; Wu, M.; Elgowainy,
A. Energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic
ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes. Biomass
Bioenergy 2011, 35 (5), 1885−1896.
(4) Swenson, D.; Eathington, L. Determining the regional economic
values of ethanol production in Iowa considering different levels of local
investment. Part A: Developing a modeling and measurement structure;
Iowa State University, Department of Economics: Ames, IA, 2006.
(5) Fargione, J. E.; Cooper, T. R.; Flaspohler, D. J.; Hill, J.; Lehman,
C.; Tilman, D.; McCoy, T.; McLeod, S.; Nelson, E. J.; Oberhauser, K.
S. Bioenergy and Wildlife: Threats and Opportunities for Grassland
Conservation. BioScience 2009, 59 (9), 767−777.
(6) Pimentel, D.; Marklein, A.; Toth, M. A.; Karpoff, M. N.; Paul, G.
S.; McCormack, R.; Kyriazis, J.; Krueger, T. Food Versus Biofuels:
Environmental and Economic Costs. Human Ecology. 2009, 37 (1), 1−
12.
(7) Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R. Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for
Food Crops and Land.Working Paper, Installment 9 of Creating a
Sustainable Food Future. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
2015. http://www.worldresourcesreport.org.
(8) Solomon, B. D. Biofuels and sustainability. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
2010, 1185, 119−134.
(9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation of Fuels and
Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0161; FRL-8903-1] Fed. Reg. 2009, 74 (99), 24908.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm.
(10) Lark, T. J.; Salmon, J. M.; Gibbs, H. K. Cropland expansion
outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2015, 10 (4), 044003.
(11) Ou, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, X. Life-cycle analysis of
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of gas-to-liquid fuel pathway
from steel mill off-gas in China by the LanzaTech process. Frontiers in
Energy 2013, 7 (3), 263−270.
(12) World Steel. Iron Production 2011; World Steel Association,
2012. www.worldsteel.org.
I DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
View publication stats
Article
(13) Stubbles, J. The Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (BOS) Process. www.
steel.org/Making-Steel/How-Its-Made/Processes/Processes-Info/
The-Basic-Oxygen-Steelmaking-Process.aspx (accessed March 2015).
Steelworks, Online Resource for Steel; American Iron and Steel
Institute.
(14) Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the Steel Institute VDeh.
Steel’s Contribution to a Low-Carbon Europe 2050: Technical and
Economic Analysis of the Sector’s Abatement Potential. http://www.
eurometal.net. 2013.
(15) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available and Emerging
Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Iron
and Steel Industry. http://www3.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/ironsteel.pdf.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, 2012.
(16) Argonne National Laboratory. GREET 2014 Life-cycle Model.
Center for Transportation Research, Energy System Division. 2014.
greet.es.anl.gov.
(17) Taheripour, F.; Tyner, W. E.; Wang, M. Q. Global Land Use
Changes due to the U.S. Cellulosic Biofuel Program Simulated with
the GTAP Model. https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-luc_ethanol.
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 2011.
(18) Johnson, L.; Lippke, B.; Oneil, E. Modeling Biomass Collection
and Woods Processing Life-Cycle Analysis. Forest Products Journal
2012, 62 (4), 258−272.
(19) Dutta, A.; Talmadge, M.; Hensley, J.; Worley, M.; Dudgeon, D.;
Barton, D.; Groenendijk, P.; Ferrari, D.; Stears, B.; Searcy, E. M.;
Wright, C. T.; Hess, J. R. Process Design and Economics for Conversion of
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Thermochemical Pathway by Indirect
Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis; NREL/TP-5100-51400;
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 2011; p 187.
(20) Ingledew, W. M. The Alcohol Textbook; A Reference for the
Beverage, Fuel and Industrial Alcohol Industries; Ethanol Technology
Institute, Nottingham University Press: United Kingdom, 2009.
(21) Cardona, C. A.; Sánchez, O. J. Fuel Ethanol Production: Process
Design Trends and Integration Opportunities. Bioresour. Technol.
2007, 98 (12), 2415−57.
(22) Madson, P. W.; Monceaux, D. A. Fuel ethanol production. In
The Alcohol Textbook, 3rd ed.; Jacques, K. A., Lyons, T. P., Kelsall, D.
R., Eds.; Nottingham University Press: Nottingham, U.K., 1999;
Chapter 17.
(23) Johnson, I.; William, T.; Choate, W. T.; Davidson, A. Waste
heat recovery: Technology and opportunities in US industry. http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/intensiveprocesses/pdfs/
waste_heat_recovery.pdf. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial Technologies Program;
Prepared by BCS, Inc., 2008.
(24) Frischknecht R.; Althaus H. J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.;
Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Jungbluth N.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.;
Spielmann, M. Overview and Methodology, Final report Ecoinvent, v2.0
No. 1. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2004.
(25) PRé - Project Ecology Consultants. SimaPro, version 7.2. http://
www.pre.nl.
(26) Elgowainy, A.; Han, J.; Cai, H.; Wang, M.; Forman, G. S.;
DiVita, V. B. Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission intensity
of petroleum products at US refineries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48
(13), 7612−7624.
(27) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions and
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), eGRID 2012
Summary Tables. http://www2.epa.gov/energy/egrid.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX