2nd Generation biofuels a sure bet? A life cycle assessment of how things could go wrong

Biofuels are heavily debated as to their potential to reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. Life cycle thinking gave rise to formal evaluations of the energy balance of such fuels, which led to the vigorously conducted “corn to ethanol” debates. Just as consensus was building on such evaluations came the “carbon debt” insights, a result of applying consequential Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) backed by advanced economic modeling. Increasingly, hopes have shifted to the 2nd generation biofuels, viewed as a “technological home run”. Could this also backfire? We investigate a simple South African case in which there might not be improvements in environmental performance: a sugar mill sells its bagasse, currently used at low efficiency to provide process heat, to an advanced biofuels producer, and buys an equivalent amount of coal without investing in efficiency improvements. Seven scenarios are generated, ranging from the status quo, where no bagasse is diverted, to 100% bagasse diversion, with one scenario including an energy efficiency improvement in the sugar mill. A consequential LCA is applied to the seven scenarios, covering global warming potential (GWP), non-renewable energy use, aquatic eutrophication and terrestrial acidification. A basic financial analysis of the proposed scenarios shows that they are realistic, with potentially lucrative returns. Results show that diverting bagasse without efficiency improvements from its current use to an ethanol bio-refinery would indeed backfire for all environmental impacts studied. The base case outperforms all the other scenarios, with the 100% bagasse diversion scenario emerging the worst. Investments into energy efficiency are therefore a precondition for diverting cellulosic residues into biofuel production.