kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The modelling approach determines the carbon footprint of biofuels: the role of LCA in informing decision makers in government and industry
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8101-8928
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Resources, Energy and Infrastructure.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4865-3401
2021 (English)In: Cleaner Environmental Systems, E-ISSN 2666-7894, Vol. 2, p. 100027-Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Concerns over climate change have led to the promotion of biofuels for transport, particularly biodiesel from oilseed crops and ethanol from sugar and starch crops. However, the climate-change mitigation potential of the various biofuels estimated in published studies tends to vary significantly, questioning the reliability of the methods used to quantify potential impacts. We investigated the values published in the European Commission’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and recalculated the climate-change impacts of a range of biofuels using internally-consistent attributional and consequential modelling approaches to enable comparison of these approaches. We conclude that the estimated results are highly dependent on the modelling approach adopted, to the detriment of the perception of the robustness of life cycle assessment as a tool for estimating the climate-change impacts of biofuels. Land use change emissions are a determining parameter which should not be omitted, even if modelling it introduces a large variability in the results and makes interpretation complex. Clearer guidelines and standardization efforts would be helpful in the harmonization of LCA practice, so that the results can be more useful, robust and reproducible.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2021. Vol. 2, p. 100027-
Keywords [en]
attributional LCA, carbon footprint, climate change mitigation, consequential LCA, indirect land use change (iLUC), life cycle assessment (LCA)
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-294603DOI: 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100027Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85124830813OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-294603DiVA, id: diva2:1555182
Note

QC 20210607

Available from: 2021-05-18 Created: 2021-05-18 Last updated: 2026-03-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopushttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789421000192

Authority records

Brandao, MiguelAzzi, Elias Sebastian

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brandao, MiguelAzzi, Elias Sebastian
By organisation
Sustainable development, Environmental science and EngineeringResources, Energy and Infrastructure
In the same journal
Cleaner Environmental Systems
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 381 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf