Life cycle greenhouse gas impacts of ethanol, biomethane and limonene production from citrus waste

摘要

The production of biofuel from cellulosic residues can have both environmental and financial benefits. A particular benefit is that it can alleviate competition for land conventionally used for food and feed production. In this research, we investigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production of ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate from citrus waste, a byproduct of the citrus processing industry. The study represents the first life cycle-based evaluations of citrus waste biorefineries. Two biorefinery configurations are studied—a large biorefinery that converts citrus waste into ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate, and a small biorefinery that converts citrus waste into biomethane, limonene and digestate. Ethanol is assumed to be used as E85, displacing gasoline as a light-duty vehicle fuel; biomethane displaces natural gas for electricity generation, limonene displaces acetone in solvents, and digestate from the anaerobic digestion process displaces synthetic fertilizer. System expansion and two allocation methods (energy, market value) are considered to determine emissions of co-products. Considerable GHG reductions would be achieved by producing and utilizing the citrus waste-based products in place of the petroleum-based or other non-renewable products. For the large biorefinery, ethanol used as E85 in light-duty vehicles results in a 134% reduction in GHG emissions compared to gasoline-fueled vehicles when applying a system expansion approach. For the small biorefinery, when electricity is generated from biomethane rather than natural gas, GHG emissions are reduced by 77% when applying system expansion. The life cycle GHG emissions vary substantially depending upon biomethane leakage rate, feedstock GHG emissions and the method to determine emissions assigned to co-products. Among the process design parameters, the biomethane leakage rate is critical, and the ethanol produced in the large biorefinery would not meet EISA's requirements for cellulosic biofuel if the leakage rate is higher than 9.7%. For the small biorefinery, there are no GHG emission benefits in the production of biomethane if the leakage rate is higher than 11.5%. Compared to system expansion, the use of energy and market value allocation methods generally results in higher estimates of GHG emissions for the primary biorefinery products (i.e., smaller reductions in emissions compared to reference systems).