Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon Footprint as a Single Indicator in Energy Systems: The Case of Biofuels and CO2 Capture Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, Volume 2

Part of the book series: EcoProduction ((ECOPROD))

  • 1826 Accesses

Abstract

The energy sector is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions, in both the transport and electricity subsectors. Taking into account the current context of the energy sector, relevant case studies concerning biofuels and CO2 capture in power plants are defined and inventoried to evaluate their carbon footprints; the suitability of these carbon footprints as single indicators is then discussed. The methodological framework proposed in the Life Cycle Assessment standards is followed. The fuel systems evaluated involve second-generation biofuels from short-rotation poplar biomass: (i) synthetic fuels (gasoline and diesel) produced via biomass pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading and (ii) hydrogen produced via biomass gasification and biosyngas processing. Four case studies of coal power plants with CO2 capture technology are also evaluated, including post-combustion CO2 recovery through chemical absorption, membrane separation, cryogenic fractionation, and pressure swing adsorption. Inventory data for the analysis are based on process simulation, robust databases, and scientific literature. The carbon footprints calculated show a promising life-cycle global warming performance of the energy products evaluated. However, conflicting results are found when evaluating other impact categories. Therefore, decisions and recommendations based solely on carbon footprints only capture a partial picture of the environmental performance, although different levels of risk are associated with the use of carbon footprints as single indicators, depending on the type of systems and products under evaluation. The use of multi-indicator approaches is recommended because the inclusion of additional impact categories leads to a more comprehensive evaluation of the environmental performance of energy product systems, thus facilitating a more sensible decision-making process oriented towards environmental sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ADP:

Abiotic depletion potential

AP:

Acidification potential

CCS:

CO2 capture and storage

CCU:

CO2 capture and utilization

CED:

Cumulative non-renewable energy demand

CF:

Carbon footprinting

CFB:

Circulating fluidized bed

CO2 eq:

Carbon dioxide equivalent

DEA:

Data envelopment analysis

EEA:

European Environment Agency

EP:

Eutrophication potential

FU:

Functional unit

GCC:

Gas and char combustor

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

GWP:

Global warming impact potential

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCI:

Life cycle inventory analysis

LCIA:

Life cycle impact assessment

MEA:

Monoethanolamine

ODP:

Ozone layer depletion potential

PAS:

Publicly available specification

POFP:

Photochemical oxidant formation potential

PSA:

Pressure swing adsorption

RED:

Renewable energy directive

SMR:

Steam methane reforming

TS:

Technical specification

WGS:

Water-gas shift

References

  • Aspen Technology (2013) Aspen Plus®. http://www.aspentech.com/products/aspen-plus.aspx. Accessed 10 Oct 2013

  • British Standards Institution (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran MA (2007) Studying the effect on system preference by varying coproduct allocation in creating life-cycle inventory. Environ Sci Technol 41:7145–7151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R et al (2007) Life cycle inventories of energy systems: Results for current systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries, ecoinvent report No. 5. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006) Biofuels in the European Union—a vision for 2030 and beyond. European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2009) EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009. EEA, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 5 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan J, Kalnes TN, Alward M et al (2011) Life cycle assessment of electricity generation using fast pyrolysis bio-oil. Renew Energ 36:632–641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Ass 14:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis—contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ et al (2007) Overview and methodology, ecoinvent report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasol CM, Gabarrell X, Antón A et al (2009) LCA of poplar bioenergy system compared with Brassica carinata energy crop and natural gas in regional scenario. Biomass Bioenerg 33:119–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Schryver A de, Oele M et al (2010) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R et al (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A (2010) Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:1661–1694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GW, Iborra S, Corma A (2006) Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass: chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chem Rev 106:4044–4098

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency (2012) World Energy Outlook 2012. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2006a) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (2013) ISO/TS 14067:2013 Greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D (2010) Life cycle assessment of mussel and turbot aquaculture: application and insights. University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010a) Carbon footprint of canned mussels from a business-to-consumer approach—a starting point for mussel processors and policy makers. Environ Sci Policy 13:509–521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Vázquez-Rowe I, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010b) Further potentials in the joint implementation of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Sci Total Environ 408:5265–5272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Dufour J (2012) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from free fatty acid-rich wastes. Renew Energ 38:155–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Peters JF, Dufour J (2012a) Life cycle assessment of transportation fuels from biomass pyrolysis. Fuel 97:812–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Peters JF, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour J (2012b) Well-to-wheels comparison of the environmental profile of pyrolysis-based biofuels. In: Krautkremer B, Ossenbrink H, Baxter D et al (eds) Proceedings of the 20th European biomass conference and exhibition. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Florence, pp 2195–2198

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Sanz A (2013a) Contrasting the life-cycle performance of conventional and alternative diesel fuels. In: Silva C, Rivera A (eds) Diesel fuels: characteristics, performances and environmental impacts. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 153–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J (2013b) Life-cycle assessment of Fischer–Tropsch products from biosyngas. Renew Energ 59:229–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren D, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour J (2013c) Environmental and thermodynamic evaluation of CO2 capture, transport and storage with and without enhanced resource recovery. Energy 50:477–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A, Yuan J (2013) Comparing life cycle assessments of different biofuel options. Curr Opin Chem Biol 17:439–443

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khoo HH, Tan RBH (2006) Life cycle investigation of CO2 recovery and sequestration. Environ Sci Technol 40:4016–4024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl M, Iribarren D, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour J (2013) Life cycle assessment of bioethanol from microalgae. In: Krautkremer B, Ossenbrink H, Baxter D et al (eds) Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Florence, pp 1818–1822

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 46:4100–4108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mata TM, Martins AA, Caetano NS (2010) Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:217–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merrild H (2009) Indicators for waste management: how representative is global warming as an indicator for environmental performance of waste management?. Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondal MK, Balsora HK, Varshney P (2012) Progress and trends in CO2 capture/separation technologies: a review. Energy 46:431–441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pehnt M, Henkel J (2009) Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. Int J Greenh Gas Con 3:49–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment—part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Ass 13:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment—part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Ass 13:374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidheiny S (1992) Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber A, Zapp P, Kuckshinrichs W (2009) Environmental assessment of German electricity generation from coal-fired power plants with amine-based carbon capture. Int J Life Cycle Ass 14:547–559

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sinden G (2009) The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J Life Cycle Ass 14:195–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh B, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Comparative life cycle environmental assessment of CCS technologies. Int J Greenh Gas Con 5:911–921

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spath P, Aden A, Eggeman T et al (2005) Biomass to hydrogen production detailed design and economics utilizing the Battelle Columbus Laboratory indirectly-heated gasifier. NREL, Golden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Susmozas A, Iribarren D, Dufour J (2013) Life-cycle performance of indirect biomass gasification as a green alternative to steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 38:9961–9972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swain PK, Das LM, Naik SN (2011) Biomass to liquid: a prospective challenge to research and development in 21st century. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:4917–4933

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe I, Iribarren D (2014) Life-cycle benchmarking approaches oriented towards energy policy making: Launching the CFP+DEA method. J Clean Prod (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe I, Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Combined application of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodological approach for the assessment of fisheries. Int J Life Cycle Ass 15:272–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (2012) VDI guideline 4600: cumulative energy demand (KEA) —terms, definitions, methods of calculation. VDI, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P et al (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for LCA? J Ind Ecol 12:3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Regional Government of Madrid (S2009/ENE-1743) and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (CTQ2011-28216-C02-02 and ENE2011-29643-C02-01). The authors would like to thank Jens F. Peters and Ana Susmozas for valuable scientific exchange.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Analysis Unit, Instituto IMDEA Energía, 28935, Móstoles, Spain

    Diego Iribarren & Javier Dufour

  2. Department of Chemical and Energy Technology, ESCET, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933, Móstoles, Spain

    Javier Dufour

Authors
  1. Diego Iribarren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Dufour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Iribarren .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eco-design Consultant, Global Sustainability Services, SGS Hong Kong Limited, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

    Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Iribarren, D., Dufour, J. (2014). Carbon Footprint as a Single Indicator in Energy Systems: The Case of Biofuels and CO2 Capture Technologies. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, Volume 2. EcoProduction. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-75-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation