The carbon-nitrogen nexus of transportation fuels

The carbon-nitrogen nexus of transportation fuels The advocation of a biobased economy has created a compelling case for consideration of biofuels as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels. However, biofuels must be evaluated on multiple criteria to ensure they truly are an improvement over the fossil fuels they are to replace. This study evaluates the carbon (C) footprint (emissions – sequestration) and reactive nitrogen (Nr) emissions footprint of two fossil fuels, two first generation biofuels, and eight cellulosic fuels, many with process inputs allocated multiple ways to allow for different valuation of inputs and products. For both C and Nr results, fossil and first generation fuels were often the worst options, while cellulosic fuels look notably better, often in both criteria. For most fuels, there is a trade-off between a low C footprint and low Nr emissions footprint, which is investigated throughout the entire nutrient cycles here. Biofuels usually have lower C footprints and higher Nr emissions due to intensive farming processes, while fossil fuels have a high C footprint and lower Nr emissions. However, cellulosic fuels from feedstocks with low farming inputs switchgrass and low intensity high diversity grassland, or from waste feedstocks, such as municipal solid waste and newsprint have low C and Nr footprints, making them better options for transportation fuels. However, just because these fuels have smaller C and Nr footprints than other fuels does not imply they are absolutely sustainable. The capacity of ecosystems to supply ecosystem services should also be considered before sustainability claims are made. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Cleaner Production Elsevier

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-carbon-nitrogen-nexus-of-transportation-fuels-oP9lCJ6PmV
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0959-6526
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.090
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The advocation of a biobased economy has created a compelling case for consideration of biofuels as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels. However, biofuels must be evaluated on multiple criteria to ensure they truly are an improvement over the fossil fuels they are to replace. This study evaluates the carbon (C) footprint (emissions – sequestration) and reactive nitrogen (Nr) emissions footprint of two fossil fuels, two first generation biofuels, and eight cellulosic fuels, many with process inputs allocated multiple ways to allow for different valuation of inputs and products. For both C and Nr results, fossil and first generation fuels were often the worst options, while cellulosic fuels look notably better, often in both criteria. For most fuels, there is a trade-off between a low C footprint and low Nr emissions footprint, which is investigated throughout the entire nutrient cycles here. Biofuels usually have lower C footprints and higher Nr emissions due to intensive farming processes, while fossil fuels have a high C footprint and lower Nr emissions. However, cellulosic fuels from feedstocks with low farming inputs switchgrass and low intensity high diversity grassland, or from waste feedstocks, such as municipal solid waste and newsprint have low C and Nr footprints, making them better options for transportation fuels. However, just because these fuels have smaller C and Nr footprints than other fuels does not imply they are absolutely sustainable. The capacity of ecosystems to supply ecosystem services should also be considered before sustainability claims are made.

Journal

Journal of Cleaner ProductionElsevier

Published: Apr 10, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off