Life cycle water consumption and withdrawal requirements of ethanol from corn grain and residues

Metrics for a nature-positive world: A multiscale approach for absolute environmental sustainability assessment

Absolute environmental sustainability (AES) metrics include nature's carrying capacity as a reference to provide insight into the extent to which human activities exceed ecosystem limits, and to encourage actions toward restoration and protection of nature. Existing methods for determining AES metrics rely on the frameworks of Planetary boundaries (PB) and Ecosystem Services. This work provides new insight into the relationship between these methods and demonstrates that AES metrics based on the framework of techno-ecological synergy (TES) are better suited to encouraging nature-positive decisions. PB-based AES metrics downscale planetary boundaries or upscale local ecosystem services, but they partition available services among all users across the planet and make limited use of biophysical information. In contrast, TES-based metrics follow a multiscale approach that accounts for local ecosystem services estimated by biophysical data and models, and combine them with downscaled services from multiple coarser scales. These metrics can provide credit to stakeholders for local ecosystem services, thus encouraging ecosystem protection and restoration. Generally, the PB framework focuses on processes of global importance which currently include nine planetary boundaries that are critical for global stability. The TES framework considers ecosystem services from local to global scales and can be used for determining absolute environmental sustainability precisely at any spatial scale. Theoretical analysis shows that TES-based metrics are more general and can be specialized to PB-based metrics under certain conditions. Through case studies at multiple spatial scales and for various ecosystem services, we show that TES-based metrics are more robust, less subjective, and better suited for encouraging transformation to a nature-positive world.

Water Availability for Biorefineries in the Contiguous United States and the Implications for Bioenergy Production Distribution

Renewable biofuel production depends on many factors, including feedstock availability, refinery and shipment infrastructure, and in particular, water availability. This study assesses water requirement and availability for mainstream biorefinery technologies in the contiguous United States (CONUS). The assessment is conducted in newly defined spatial units, namely, biorefinery planning boundaries, considering feedstock availability, transportation cost, and refinery capacity requirement for cost-effectiveness. The results suggest that the total biorefinery water use in the CONUS by 2030 will be low compared to the total water availability. However, biorefinery water requirements can aggravate the water stress situation in many regions, including the Great Plains, California Central Valley, and the upper Columbia-Snake River basin in Washington. Bioenergy productions in these regions can be largely constrained by water. It is projected that biofuel production will concentrate in Northern Plains, Lake States, and Corn Belt regions, which contribute 94.4% of the conventional, 86.1% of biodiesel, and 54.8% of cellulosic biofuel production mandated by the renewable fuel standard. If biorefineries are constrained to use less than 10% of the locally available water, up to 7% of planned cellulosic biofuel production will be affected. Findings from this study can aid the sustainable planning of national bioenergy production.

Water impacts of U.S. biofuels: Insights from an assessment combining economic and biophysical models

Biofuels policies induce land use changes (LUC), including cropland expansion and crop switching, and this in turn alters water and soil management practices. Policies differ in the extent and type of land use changes they induce and therefore in their impact on water resources. We quantify and compare the spatially varying water impacts of biofuel crops stemming from LUC induced by two different biofuels policies by coupling a biophysical model with an economic model to simulate the economically viable mix of crops, land uses, and crop management choices under alternative policy scenarios. We assess the outputs of an economic model with a high-resolution crop-water model for major agricultural crops and potential cellulosic feedstocks in the US to analyze the impacts of three alternative policy scenarios on water balances: a counterfactual 'no-biofuels policy' (BAU) scenario, a volumetric mandate (Mandate) scenario, and a clean fuel-intensity standard (CFS) scenario incentivizing fuels based on their carbon intensities. While both biofuel policies incentivize more biofuels than in the counterfactual, they differ in the mix of corn ethanol and advanced biofuels from miscanthus and switchgrass (more corn ethanol in Mandate and more cellulosic biofuels in CFS). The two policies differ in their impact on irrigated acreage, irrigation demand, groundwater use and runoff. Net irrigation requirements increase 0.7% in Mandate and decrease 3.8% in CFS, but in both scenarios increases are concentrated in regions of Kansas and Nebraska that rely upon the Ogallala aquifer for irrigation water. Our study illustrates the importance of accounting for the overall LUC and shifts in agricultural production and management practices in response to policies when assessing the water impacts of biofuels.

Scenarios for Low Carbon and Low Water Electric Power Plant Operations: Implications for Upstream Water Use

Electric sector water use, in particular for thermoelectric operations, is a critical component of the water-energy nexus. On a life cycle basis per unit of electricity generated, operational (e.g., cooling system) water use is substantially higher than water demands for the fuel cycle (e.g., natural gas and coal) and power plant manufacturing (e.g., equipment and construction). However, could shifting toward low carbon and low water electric power operations create trade-offs across the electricity life cycle? We compare business-as-usual with scenarios of carbon reductions and water constraints using the MARKet ALlocation (MARKAL) energy system model. Our scenarios show that, for water withdrawals, the trade-offs are minimal: operational water use accounts for over 95% of life cycle withdrawals. For water consumption, however, this analysis identifies potential trade-offs under some scenarios. Nationally, water use for the fuel cycle and power plant manufacturing can reach up to 26% of the total life cycle consumption. In the western United States, nonoperational consumption can even exceed operational demands. In particular, water use for biomass feedstock irrigation and manufacturing/construction of solar power facilities could increase with high deployment. As the United States moves toward lower carbon electric power operations, consideration of shifting water demands can help avoid unintended consequences.

A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Liquid Transportation Biofuels in the Pan American Region

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) has been applied to many biofuel and bioenergy systems to determine potential environmental impacts, but the conclusions have varied. Different methodologies and processes for conducting LCA of biofuels make the results difficult to compare, in-turn making it difficult to make the best possible and informed decision. Of particular importance are the wide variability in country-specific conditions, modeling assumptions, data quality, chosen impact categories and indicators, scale of production, system boundaries, and co-product allocation. This study has a double purpose: conducting a critical evaluation comparing environmental LCA of biofuels from several conversion pathways and in several countries in the Pan American region using both qualitative and quantitative analyses, and making recommendations for harmonization with respect to biofuel LCA study features, such as study assumptions, inventory data, impact indicators, and reporting practices. The environmental management implications are discussed within the context of different national and international regulatory environments using a case study. The results from this study highlight LCA methodology choices that cause high variability in results and limit comparability among different studies, even among the same biofuel pathway, and recommendations are provided for improvement.

Life-cycle Water Quantity and Water Quality Implications of Biofuels

Water consumption and water quality continue to be key factors affecting environmental sustainability in biofuel production. This review covers the findings from biofuel water analyses published over the past 2 years to underscore the progress made, and to highlight advancements in understanding the interactions among increased production and water demand, water resource availability, and potential changes in water quality. We focus on two key areas: water footprint assessment and watershed modeling. Results revealed that miscanthus-, switchgrass-, and forest wood-based biofuels all have promising blue and grey water footprints. Alternative water resources have been explored for algae production, and challenges remain. A most noticeable improvement in the analysis of life-cycle water consumption is the adoption of geospatial analysis and watershed modeling to generate a spatially explicit water footprint at a finer scale (e.g., multi-state region, state, and county scales) to address the impacts of land use change and climate on the water footprint in a landscape with a mixed biofuel feedstock.

Life cycle water use of energy production and its environmental impacts in China

The energy sector is a major user of fresh water resources in China. We investigate the life cycle water withdrawals, consumptive water use, and wastewater discharge of China's energy sectors and their water-consumption-related environmental impacts, using a mixed-unit multiregional input-output (MRIO) model and life cycle impact assessment method (LCIA) based on the Eco-indicator 99 framework. Energy production is responsible for 61.4 billion m(3) water withdrawals, 10.8 billion m(3) water consumption, and 5.0 billion m(3) wastewater discharges in China, which are equivalent to 12.3%, 4.1% and 8.3% of the national totals, respectively. The most important feature of the energy-water nexus in China is the significantly uneven spatial distribution of consumptive water use and its corresponding environmental impacts caused by the geological discrepancy among fossil fuel resources, fresh water resources, and energy demand. More than half of energy-related water withdrawals occur in the east and south coastal regions. However, the arid north and northwest regions have much larger water consumption than the water abundant south region, and bear almost all environmental damages caused by consumptive water use.

Regional water implications of reducing oil imports with liquid transportation fuel alternatives in the United States

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is among the cornerstone policies created to increase U.S. energy independence by using biofuels. Although greenhouse gas emissions have played a role in shaping the RFS, water implications are less understood. We demonstrate a spatial, life cycle approach to estimate water consumption of transportation fuel scenarios, including a comparison to current water withdrawals and drought incidence by state. The water consumption and land footprint of six scenarios are compared to the RFS, including shale oil, coal-to-liquids, shale gas-to-liquids, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. The corn scenario is the most water and land intense option and is weighted toward drought-prone states. Fossil options and cellulosic ethanol require significantly less water and are weighted toward less drought-prone states. Coal-to-liquids is an exception, where water consumption is partially weighted toward drought-prone states. Results suggest that there may be considerable water and land impacts associated with meeting energy security goals through using only biofuels. Ultimately, water and land requirements may constrain energy security goals without careful planning, indicating that there is a need to better balance trade-offs. Our approach provides policymakers with a method to integrate federal policies with regional planning over various temporal and spatial scales.

Unintended consequences of bioethanol feedstock choice in China

Economic, energy, and environmental impacts of 11 types of bioethanol feedstock in China were evaluated using a mixed-unit input-output life cycle assessment model. Corn grain and wheat grain had higher negative economic, energy, and environmental impacts. Sweet sorghum, cassava, sugar beet, and sugarcane showed better economic performance but increasing negative energy and environmental impacts. Cellulose-based feedstocks in general showed positive economic, energy, and environmental performance; but may lead to increasing negative impacts on freshwater use, global warming, toxicity, and aquatic ecotoxicity. Sugarcane-based bioethanol had the potential to provide positive economic, energy, and environmental impacts in China. Scrap paper-derived ethanol could also become promising under significant government support.

Assessing county-level water footprints of different cellulosic-biofuel feedstock pathways

While agricultural residue is considered as a near-term feedstock option for cellulosic biofuels, its sustainability must be evaluated by taking water into account. This study aims to analyze the county-level water footprint for four biofuel pathways in the United States, including bioethanol generated from corn grain, stover, wheat straw, and biodiesel from soybean. The county-level blue water footprint of ethanol from corn grain, stover, and wheat straw shows extremely wide variances with a national average of 31, 132, and 139 L of water per liter biofuel (L(w)/L(bf)), and standard deviation of 133, 323, and 297 L(w)/L(bf), respectively. Soybean biodiesel production results in a blue water footprint of 313 L(w)/L(bf) on the national average with standard deviation of 894 L(w)/L(bf). All biofuels show a greater green water footprint than the blue one. This work elucidates how diverse spatial resolutions affect biofuel water footprints, which can provide detailed insights into biofuels' implications on local water sustainability.