You are on page 1of 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661
www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

A comparison of the environmental benefits of bagasse-derived
electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-cycle basis
Tyron Botha, Harro von Blottnitz
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Upper Campus, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

Abstract
The energetic utilisation of agricultural residues is considered to be an important element in any strategy to achieve renewable
energy targets. In the approximately 80 cane-sugar producing countries there is potential to make better use of the fibrous residue
known as bagasse. Subject to improved energy efficiency, sugar producers could supply energy either as ‘‘green’’, co-generated
electricity, or as fuel ethanol through cellulose hydrolysis followed by fermentation. This paper compares their projected
environmental benefits from a life-cycle perspective, using South African data. Mass and energy analyses were prepared for the two
systems and a base case (producing sugar with current methods), relative to the annual sugarcane production on one hectare. In
both cases, the environmental burdens avoided by replacing an equivalent amount of fossil energy were included. The results
obtained confirm that for all the impact categories considered, both ‘‘bioenergy’’ products result in environmental benefits. The cogeneration option results in lower energy-related emissions (i.e. lower global warming, acidification and eutrophication potentials),
whereas the fuel ethanol option is preferred in terms of resource conservation (since it is assumed to replace oil not coal), and also
scores better in terms of human and eco-toxicity if assumed to replace lead-bearing oxygenates.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bagasse; Ethanol; Co-generation; Life-cycle assessment

1. Introduction
Renewable energy remains high on the agenda of
environmentally sustainable development, even though
no new targets were agreed on at the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Internationally, some of the most promising options to make
sizeable inroads to renewable energy targets lie in the
utilisation of agricultural residues, amongst which the
sugar industry fibrous residue known as bagasse has for
some time been attracting much attention (see, e.g.,
Beeharry, 1996, 1999; Bhatt and Rajkumar, 2001;
Kadam, 2001; Mohee and Beeharry, 1999; UN Bioenergy Primer, 2000). Often, the immediate opportunity
considered is the generation of ‘‘green’’ electricity 
Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 650 2512;
fax: +27 21 650 5501.
E-mail address: hvb@chemeng.uct.ac.za (H. von Blottnitz).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.12.017

through co-generation at sugar-mill boilers. An emerging alternative is the utilisation of this cellulosic
feedstock for bio-commodity production (Lynd et al.,
1996), where fuel ethanol is considered as the prime
possible energy product. In countries, which still use
lead additives in gasoline, there are short- to mediumterm market opportunities arising from their phase-out.
This is the case in many developing countries, e.g. in
Africa (Thomas and Kwong, 2001), and in India
(Kadam, 2002; Prakash et al., 1998). Fuel ethanol, in
contrast to electricity, can also be traded across
continents, and notably between the South and the
North.
The sugar industry currently produces some 1100
million tons of sugarcane per year in some 80 developing
countries (UN Bioenergy Primer, 2000). The largest
producers are India and Brazil, harvesting of the order
of 275 million tons of sugarcane each (Macedo, 1998;
Prakash et al., 1998). Per kilogram of sugar produced,

The objective of the LCA. this problem is overcome. and it has been reported that there exists a large potential to do this in a number of African countries (Thomas and Kwong. in addition to octane enhancing tetra-ethyl lead. Processing of the by-product molasses to ethanol is an option utilised by some sugar producers. The objective of this paper is to explicitly compare. and with current practice.. production of ancillary materials. 2001). ‘‘green’’ electricity is assumed to replace coal-based electricity.. The life-cycle energy balance and concomitant greenhouse gas reductions for ethanol produced from this resource should generally be positive (Macedo.. In addition. as the crop growing. For the purposes of the comparison. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 the milling of the cane also results in about 0. but depending on processing choices. 1996. the cumulative fossil energy demand might at times be only marginally lower than that of liquid fossil fuels (von Blottnitz et al. is to compare the projected environmental performance of two bagasse-derived bioenergy products with each other.3 kg of molasses as secondary product. In the bioenergy context. (b) Basis for comparison: The three systems to be compared (see the description below) yield a different ‘‘basket of products’’. which is used to provide the energy requirements of the process. In order to evaluate the options at the concept design stage. 2003) investigating the applicability of novel process systems design tools in the design of bioenergy processes.25 kg of fibrous residue (dry basis). 2004). from a life-cycle basis. Goldemberg et al. Botha. 2001. 2655 In the context of the present study. 2001. would replace some of the gasoline itself. Several authors have predicted that through modifications to improve the energy efficiency of existing mills the amount of bagasse becoming available for processing could be significantly enlarged (Beeharry. 1997). ‘‘tops and trash’’ brought to the mill with the cane would provide further biomass feedstock for processing. By expanding the systems to include augmented production of equivalent amounts of each product by the conventional route (electricity from coal. 2. 2001). (b) researchers in LCA uses for bioenergy systems.65 t of wet cane. The target audience for this study consists of (a) decision makers in the sugar-processing industry. Bhatt and Rajkumar. being the average annual sugarcane harvest in South Africa in 2001 (SASA. Prakash et al. the use . This yields a reference flow of 64. conversion to an energy product and use of the energy product are not necessarily free of environmental impacts themselves. it is also possible to use sugarcane as an ‘‘energy crop’’ for primary conversion to fuel ethanol. 1997. as presented here. Brentrup et al. gasoline from petroleum).g. However.. 1998). H. Bagasse is generally incinerated at the sugar mill and used to raise process steam for meeting its energy needs. As an alternative to sugar production. missing in its context was a comparison with the option of electricity generation. drawn from published sources or from average industry flowsheets.. 1998. 2001). Detailed modelling of all processes at a later stage of process development would lead to improved accuracy in the LCA results. using South African data. which accounts for over 90% of South African generation. a number of such studies have been published (Beeharry. However. it is essential that the benefits of bioenergy schemes be investigated from a life cycle perspective. The scope of the LCA is defined by the following considerations: (a) Level of detail: The comparisons are based on generic technologies. which conclusively showed that ethanol production would be preferred to current practices of bagasse incineration and on-field burning. such studies have generally indicated that electricity generation from biomass is preferred to liquid fuels production. Kaltschmitt et al. known as bagasse. in a developing country context..ARTICLE IN PRESS T. The study presented here addresses this comparison. The three processing systems compared have in common the functionality of deriving value to the sugarcane crop. the environmental merits of using excess bagasse for either of these purposes. A major feature of any renewable energy product is the degree to which it can reduce environmental impacts associated with the use of the fossil energy that it will replace. which disallows a direct comparison. which is still added to 80% of fuel sold in the country. Where comparative. input/output mass and energy analyses were used. Goal and scope of the study The life-cycle assessment (LCA) summarised here was developed as part of a dissertation (Botha. 2002). which is added to fuel in the range of several percent. The only work of this nature that has explicitly considered lead replacement in gasoline as part of the environmental benefits of a bagasse utilisation strategy was that of Kadam (2002). where the practice of on-field burning is still prevalent. Fuel ethanol. and since the use of these products is assumed to be independent of the production processes. but is not the aim of this comparison. and (c) policy makers concerned with increased biomass usage for energy provision. Large-scale experience has been made with this in Brazil since the early 1970s and this fuel can now be produced at prices competitive with gasoline derived from crude oil (e. Schlamadinger et al. and about 1. the functional unit is set as the ‘‘basket of products’’ that can be derived from the sugarcane harvested from one hectare of land in one year. who need to be aware of the implications of generating products other than sugar. The three expanded systems thus all produce an identical set of products.

we also include an indicative comparison of the three systems by means of the ‘‘eco-indicator 95’’ in this analysis. In this paper. as discussed in the interpretation of inventory results. H. we include all of the above except photochemical smog formation. 1 kWh produced by either means is assumed to be fully equivalent. For the road transport of the harvested cane stalks an average travelling distance to and from the mills of 50 km (one-way distance) was used. human health impacts. lime) is also included in the assessment. In the base case. to include the production of an equivalent quantity of electricity from coal and of gasoline from crude oil (which is not entirely representative of South African practices given that a third of liquid fuels is produced from coal through gasification and F–T synthesis). not included. no coal is supplemented other than for start up purposes. and all ancillary production systems (notably those for fertiliser and diesel fuel) are equivalent for all three options and could thus be omitted in the comparison. Description of systems The options compared in this LCA are ‘‘green’’ electricity co-generation from excess bagasse and bioethanol production via dilute acid hydrolysis of the surplus bagasse. it is assumed that resource use and emissions associated with coal-based electricity generation are avoided. The production of major ancillary materials for the processing operations (e. This option would require improvements in the sugar mill steam economy and in boiler efficiency. representative of current sugar production in South Africa for sites without co-production of chemicals. Published studies of a similar nature were consulted for input to various processes where no local data could be found. Sugarcane processing data was obtained from a local milling company (Reid. 2003) within which this study was developed. The unit processes involved. Since in the case representing current production practices there is neither electricity export nor ethanol production. In the case of electricity. The production of the sugarcane and its transportation to the sugar mill. the system studied is expanded. Raw sugar is the primary product and molasses a secondary product that is sold for further processing. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 and end-of-life parts of their life cycles would be identical and may thus be omitted in the comparative LCA. and the delineation of the studied system. TEAMs. describing the systems studied. In the absence of any other weighting method suitable for the South African context of the study. this was done by subtraction. sulphuric acid. However. the omission of all of the identical life-cycle stages post the sugar mill gate means that the assessment presented here is only cradle to gate. As stated in the goal definition above. Whilst generally affirmative of the study. the equivalence proposed by Kadam (2002) is used. local and regional acid deposition. and are thus included. the production of capital equipment is. where necessary. These are compared to a base case. as well as the use of land and of non-renewable resources. Botha. Bagasse is consumed internally for process heat requirements. For several of the process inputs. 2002). there is no production of ethanol from bagasse. eutrophication. critique in the peer review questioned the inclusion of coal mining within the system boundaries (whilst electricity use was placed outside) and the use of relative rather than absolute carbon indicators. (d) Environmental issues included: Environmental concerns associated with energy use typically are contributions to global climate change. whilst for the case of fuel ethanol. including the production of major inputs (fertiliser and fuel) are included in the study despite being identical. Beeharry (1996) analysed these options in the context of the Mauritian sugar industry and . the comparison is relative to the amount of sugarcane produced annually on one hectare of land in South Africa.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2656 T. ecotoxicity. and were adjusted. to allow for certain performance indicators to be calculated and compared to those published for other bioenergy systems elsewhere. In line with common LCA practice. In the option of additional generation of electricity for export. (2001). assuming the use of 28 t trucks. The fertiliser used is assumed to be calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN). (e) Data quality: The data used was collected from numerous sources. however. 1. Based on heating values. and no export of electricity from the sugar mill power plant. this yields an equivalence of 1 kg of gasoline to 0. These issues will thus receive special consideration in the following section. (c) System boundaries: Whilst the expanded systems mentioned in the previous paragraph would describe full cradle-to-grave life cycles. are shown in Fig. photochemical smog formation. as shown in Fig. 1. and land use and biodiversity issues. The steam is raised using bagasse as a feedstock only.633 kg of ethanol. generic cradleto-gate inventories were sourced from the LCA software used. 2002). viz. The avoided impacts of coal mining and coalbased electricity generation are thus accounted for. 3. they are required for the calculation of a life-cycle carbon indicator. using steam to drive the cane knives and shredders.65 t. All systems for which data was sourced from literature were checked for consistency.g. and the amount required is based on production statistics published by Brentrup et al. The sugar mill data used is based on a conventional Fletcher–Smith mill (Reid. 64. (f) Peer review: This important element of life-cycle assessment was addressed through the independent examination of the dissertation (Botha. The agricultural operations.

. and complemented by database information on generic production processes for the . General system diagram for the comparison of energetic uses of bagasse in sugarcane processing. is enzymatic hydrolysis. 1996) is generally expected to require another decade of R&D work. and refined. followed by fermentation of the sugars to ethanol (Kadam. 4. assumptions were made and documented in order to complete the investigation. SASA 2001). An alternative process. which can be avoided through the use of fuel ethanol. 1996). but not yet commercialised. predicted that as much as 60–180 kWh of electric energy becoming available for export per ton of cane processed. the one modelled here is dilute acid hydrolysis to break down the cellulose and hemicellulose fractions of the bagasse. published studies (Bhatt and Rajkumar. fermentation & purification Combustion in ICE Cane sugar system: Residue Road transport Bagasse Sugar mill Ammonia production Fossil fuels system: Electricity Sugar Molasses Coal-electricity system: Auxilliary systems: Sulphuric acid production Mobility Production of leaded gasoline & diesel. 2002. H.16 t remain for further processing. Assumptions were checked for consistency (mass and energy balance. e. considered by many researchers to hold greater potential. 2001. The primary reason here is to account for the tailpipe emissions of lead. crude oil extraction. Lynd et al. Where no data or literature sources were available. Data is therefore available only from process models. carbon balance). Cuzens and Miller. the sugar mill energy efficiency must be improved in order to yield excess bagasse for further processing. For the co-production of bioethanol at a sugar mill. the use of the fuel ethanol (in a vehicle internal combustion engine) and that of standard leaded gasoline are also included in the system boundaries. the value of 106 kWh/t would be a goal achievable in about a decade. EPA.g. and the unit processes databases available in the databases supplied with the LCA Software package TEAMs. electricity generation Fig. 1996. The data describing the various systems were then transferred into the LCA software. Processing of cellulosic feedstock’s such as bagasse has been much researched. Kadam.3 t of wet bagasse per ton of cane processed. 2004). incl. however its cost-competitive realisation in a so-called ‘‘consolidated bio-processing plant’’ (Lynd et al. (2004). In contrast to the co-generation option where the use of the generated electricity was not included in the analysis (it can be assumed to be identical in all option studied). As with the previous option. This delineation of system boundaries is equivalent to those used in recent studies. where a value of 74 kWh per ton of cane processed was achieved in 2002 (von Blottnitz and Ramjeawon. 2002. The major unit process data were first compiled on a spreadsheet.ARTICLE IN PRESS T. 0. by Kadam (2002) and by Sheehan et al. and that some energy will remain for electricity export. a plant in which bagasse can be hydrolysed. 2002). transport and refining Sugar mill power plant Agricultural operations 2657 Fertiliser production Lime production Coal mining. and the ethanol distilled is needed. 1. Based on the Mauritian experience. 1997. Data collection and modelling results The data needed for this assessment were collected from industry sources (Reid.. Consistent with Kadam (2002) we assume that the ligneous residue (LR) from hydrolysis can be used in a bagasse-type boiler to supply the energy requirements of both the optimised sugar mill and the ethanol plant. Different process options are being considered. the sugars fermented. Botha. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 Ethanol production system: Gasoline use system: Bagasse hydrolysis. Our study assumes that of the initial 0. resulting in 106 kWh of exported electricity per ton of cane processed.

H. Cr VI) (s) Iron (Fe) (s) Sulphur (S) Waste (hazardous) Waste (total) Waste: radioactive Molasses Sugar Units Base case ‘‘Green’’ Bioethanol electricity kg kg kg 6.05 7. either as (a) for air emissions.4 8286 63056 g kg 61.67 0.9 6556 422.76 0.70 g 2021 917 2394 g g g 0. in ground) (r) Natural gas (in ground) (r) Oil (in ground) Water used (total) Outputs: (a) Carbon dioxide (CO2.65 644 0.2 7.99 g 19809 12786 9956 g 31.02 2. 2002).59 7. The ratio was defined by Mann and Spath (1997) as follows:    fC out CC % ¼ 100 1  .57 0.085 2247 68273 5.45 0. in terms of resources used. The most important assumptions that were made in the calculation of the life-cycle inventory are:      The boilers achieve an 80% efficiency for the conversion of the LHV of the feed material to steam (Bhatt and Rajkumar. 1996).38 0.10 63.86 0.8 t of sugar per 65 t of harvested cane (SASA. according to US EPA specifications (EPA.76 0. and to carry out the life-cycle impact assessment (discussed in the next section).03 98.18 0.06 25. green) (a) Hydrocarbons (except methane) (a) Lead (Pb) (a) Methane (CH4) (a) Nitrogen oxides (NOx as NO2) (a) Nitrous oxide (N2O) (a) Particulate emissions (a) Sulphur oxides (SOx as SO2) (w) COD (chemical oxygen demand) (w) Lead (Pb++. To interpret the carbon flows in the inventory.0010 g g kg kg kg t t 0. both the ‘‘green’’ electricity and bio-ethanol systems exhibit carbon closures of greater . The yield of ethanol by the acid hydrolysis process is 186 kg/t of dry bagasse fed into this process (Kadam.5%.59 7.70 16.65 2.8 2.64 0.0011 0. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 2658 inputs from background industrial processes (electricity.44 30.8 2.02 2.13 0. Pb+ 4 ) (w) Nitrates (NO 3) (s) Calcium (Ca) (s) Carbon (C) (s) Chromium (Cr III.04 31.20 29.0263 541.025 kg 63.50 t 16. (w) for liquid effluents.9 3331 t 0.6 1.65 1. resulting in an overall conversion efficiency of fuel energy to electricity of 30% (Bhatt and Rajkumar.71 5.21 2116 0. This is the case Table 1 Major reference flows for the three options Bagasse (t) Sugar (t) Molasses (t) Ethanol (kl) Electricity (kW h) Reference flow Functional unit Base case ‘‘Green’’ electricity Bioethanol 0 7.11 0.0 1167 0. Table 1 shows the key reference flows in the three systems. used to indicate the degree of renewability of energy systems. The LCA software was used to complete the life-cycle inventory.29 0. rC out where fC out is the fossil carbon exiting the system and. sulphuric acid). diesel.27 0. As shown in Table 3. The latter are classified according to the receiving medium.66 0.07 g g g g g 0.ARTICLE IN PRESS T.846 0.79 38.59 7.76 especially for some of the burdens associated with coalbased electricity generation.90 0.76 0. 2001).21 4.1 1641 200. The lower heating value (LHV) of dry bagasse was estimated at 16 MJ/kg and that of dry ligneous residue 18 MJ/kg based on the value cited by Cuzens and Miller (1997).02 6.149 20705 53585 334.0011 0. fossil) (a) Carbon dioxide (CO2.93 5.83 kg litre 212. use can be made of the concept of the carbon closure. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to verify the effect of all major assumptions. Botha.13 0. Particulate (PM10) emissions were calculated assuming the use of a wet scrubber.8 2.81 3858 0.2 2100 65 t wet cane Utilisation of resources from 1 ha cultivated land Table 2 Summarised life-cycle inventories Flow Inputs: (r) Coal (in ground) (r) Lignite (in ground) (r) Limestone (CaCO3. lime.00 2. rC out is the renewable carbon exiting the system.98 10.91 5. and also for production of leaded gasoline from crude oil and its use. Negative numbers arise in some of the inventories where the environmental burdens associated with the replaced fossil energy systems are larger than those associated with the production of the basket of products forming the functional unit for the study. The efficiency of conversion of steam to electricity is 37. It summarises the environmental ‘‘burdens’’ of the systems studied.22 2. 2001).43 0. Table 2 presents a summary of the life-cycle inventory obtained for the three systems. 2001).6 0 0 5. and wastes arising.6 0 6900 5.2 7. or (s) for solid wastes.70 14. All systems produce 7.

and is shown in Table 4. A developing country context was set where co-generated electricity would replace coal-based generation. This is a result of the fossil carbon savings for the two systems in the form of replaced coal and crude oil. whilst the liquid fuel option would be preferred in terms of resource depletion and toxicity concerns. Lower toxicity midpoint indicators for the bioethanol option are largely a result of the avoided airborne lead emissions.4E-12 8903 77270 1.5E-12 6954 18210 1. the electricity option would be preferred on energy and carbon balance indicators and energy industry associated impacts (acidification and eutrophication). A set of such indicators was evaluated using standard assessment methods available in LCA software. PO4 g t kg eq. In this paper. The bioethanol option outscores the other two systems in the depletion of non-renewable resources (NRR). This result derives from the large weighting of human toxicity effects in this method. 20 years) Eco-indicator 95 g eq. H.05E-02 871 9470 667 1. Full carbon balances for the three systems are as shown in the Appendix. Both bagasse utilisation options outperform the base case.4E-12 8152 4105 8. The base case exhibits a high carbon closure due to very little fossil carbon utilised for the production of sugar. The weighted crude oil and coal savings in the bioethanol system are higher than the coal-based savings in the ‘‘green’’ electricity option. Since readily available technologies were used in the assessment. H+ frac. Both the generation of electricity and the production of ethanol were shown to improve the environmental profile of the industry. a summary was presented of a life-cycle assessment comparing the production of two alternative energy products from resulting excess bagasse. if energy efficiency can be improved on sugar mills. CO2 millipoints 2103 1. The reason for the lower NRR score is the scarcity of crude oil with respect to that of coal. it can be concluded that in the near term the environmentally preferred option is electricity Table 4 Life-cycle impact assessment results Impact method Units Base case ‘‘Green’’ electricity Bioethanol Air acidification (CML) Depletion of non renewable resources (CML) Eutrophication (CML) Human toxicity (CML) Terrestrial eco-toxicity (CML) IPCC-greenhouse effect (direct. and production of fuel ethanol would facilitate a phase-out of gasoline lead additives. For the conversion technologies modelled. Botha. 5.93E-03 2021 27745 . The categories in which ‘‘green’’ electricity appears the better option can be traced back to lower net emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx). Life-cycle impact assessment Within an LCA. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 than unity. where ethanol replaces the lead in gasoline.ARTICLE IN PRESS T. 6. It is standard practice to calculate so-called ‘‘midpoint’’ indicators for those impact categories deemed relevant in the context of the study. This is explained by a high energy demand in the ethanol production step. human toxicity and terrestrial eco-toxicity. of reserve g eq. The figures in bold in Table 4 represent the best score for each indicator. sulphur dioxide Table 3 Carbon closure for the three options relative to sugar production with no cradle-to-gate fossil fuel inputs System Carbon closure (%) Base ‘‘Green’’ electricity Bioethanol 98 124 112 2659 (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Conclusion A significant amount of biomass-based renewable energy could be provided by the sugar industry in many countries in the near future. These result mainly from the electricity credits gained in this system. The results show that the ‘‘green’’ electricity and bioethanol options each score best in three impact categories (not including the overall indicator). an impact assessment may be carried out in order to obtain insights into the environmental problems which result from the resource uses and emissions compiled in the inventory. The overall indictor used (eco-indicator 95) ranks the bioethanol option as having the best environmental performance of the three options evaluated.01E-02 6980 2153 1652 2. The bioethanol system offsets fossil carbon use to a lower extent than the ‘‘green’’ electricity scenario. Such environmental problems are generally better understood than the numbers appearing in the inventory table.

55 8.039 0.012 0.039 0.49 4.000 0.016 0.50 0. and by the SA Canegrowers Association.000 0. Acknowledgements This study was made possible by funding from Eskom’s TES Programme.6) CO2 (LR & bagasse burning + Ferm.180 0. H.196 Credits Oil Coal Fossil Oil Coal Lime stone 0.016 0.200 2.33 0. as well as Grant number 2053398 of the South African National Research Foundation.6) CO2 (bagasse burning) 8.009 124 112 .ARTICLE IN PRESS T.006 0.8) Molasses (2.004 0.039 0.000 0.002 0.31 8.196 Credits Oil Coal Fossil Oil Coal Lime stone 0.36 In Renewable Field uptake— growing cane 8.36 In Renewable Field uptake— growing cane 8.034 0.198 0.49 4.018 0.49 4. Botha.119 0.012 0.) Ethanol Biogas methane 3.193 98 0.06 8.667 1.01 0.193 Carbon closure (%) Diesel production Electricity production Ammonia production Lime production Transport 0.. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 2660 co-generation except in cases where a lead additive phase-out comes as a result of fuel ethanol use where large toxicity reduction make this option more attractive.024 Diesel production Electricity production Ammonia production Lime production Transport Sulphuric acid production 0. Appendix Carbon balances for the three sugarcane processing options (units in tons) Base case ‘‘Green’’ electricity In Renewable Field uptake— growing cane Out Sugar (7. We would also like to acknowledge the information provided by Illovo Sugar Ltd.217 0.017 1.180 0.8) Molasses (2.31 Out 8.017 0.017 0.36 Sugar (7. It can also be concluded that the emerging alternative technology for ethanol production from ligno-cellulosic feedstocks (in the form of enzymatic hydrolysis) would need to be significantly more energy efficient than the dilute acid hydrolysis route studied here.55 8.559 0.002 0.004 0.36 Sugar (7.193 Out 0.36 Fossil Oil Coal Lime stone Diesel production Electricity production Ammonia production Lime production Transport 0.209 0.27 0.004 0.27 0.119 0.8) Molasses (2.27 0.009 2.36 Bioethanol 3.228 Credits Oil Coal 8.226 2.004 0.119 0.6) CO2 (bagasse burning) 3.

... K. Bhatt.A.P. 221–233. Ramjeawon. Walsh. 1996. von Blottnitz. Biomass and Bioenergy 14 (1). 2001. Bhat. Theka.. 2002. Proceedings (on CD) of the National Association for Clean Air Annual Conference. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances in bio-ethanol production and utilisation in Brazil (1996). Botha. Thomas. 23–25 October. European Journal of Agronomy 14. J. Biomass and Bioenergy 11 (6). 441–449. Ethanol learning curve—the Brazilian experience. 2004. 1997. Life cycle analysis of biofuels under different environmental aspects. J. A.R. Brentrup.P. 1999.T. 2003. F. 121–134. Aden.htm Schlamadinger. Reid. Beeharry. Sugar estimates.. Bioenergy primer. L. H.. M.L. United Nations Development Programme. 2002.. Bohlin. 285–290.epa. Dissertation. R... F. 301–304. B.. Bagasse combustion in sugar mills. 371–384. H. SASA. 77–81. R.. Ethanol as a lead replacement: phasing out leaded gasoline in Africa. K.ARTICLE IN PRESS T.M. Biomass and Bioenergy 17. J.. Sheehan.gov/ttn/chief/ ap42/ch01/final/c01s08. 2001. Telzer. Acid hydrolysis of bagasse for ethanol production. the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Applied Biochemistry and Biochemistry 741–761. Cuzens. Kadam. 2001. 1707–1719.. Killian. Biomass and Bioenergy 12.. Likely features of a mature biomass ethanol technology. Mapping of combined heat and power systems in cane sugar industry. S. Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. Biomass and Bioenergy 26.. EPA. von Blottnitz / Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2654–2661 References Beeharry. I. Mohee. Energy Policy 29. Extended sugarcane biomass utilisation for exportable electricity production in Mauritius.. Life cycle analysis of compost incorporated sugarcane bioenergy systems in Mauritius.. Carbon balance of sugarcane bioenergy systems. T.org.. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Wyman. Biomass and Bioenergy. N.. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems.S. V. R. Lucon. 1997.sasa. Reinhardt.za/industryadmin/estimates... University of Cape Town. 2002. R. Illovo Sugar.. Kwong.. 2661 Macedo. Kaltschmitt. G.. O. Applied Thermal Engineering 21..pdf Goldemberg. 361–370. T. A.. Lammel.Sc.. Environmental benefits on a life cycle basis of using bagasse—derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate in India. C. Lynd. R. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2004. Gustavsson... 2002. M. Henham... L. Using life cycle assessment to inform policy relating to energy products from the sugar industry: a review of studies from Mauritius and South Africa. . A. Nastari. J. Spath. http://www.. J. M.C. 359–375.. Bio-ethanol as octane enhancing fuel additive in Southern Africa: an examination of its ‘‘environmental friendliness’’ from a life cycle perspective...K.. Life-cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification Combined-cycle Power System. T. USA. 2001. 117–146. Beeharry. Net energy and gross pollution from bio-ethanol production in India.. Fuel 77 (14). T. Kusters. 73–83. 1133–1143. 1998. 2001. Botha. 1997. M. Paustian. M. Energy Policy 30.... Nelson. 1629–1633. K. Biomass and Bioenergy 20 (5). M. Personal communication. Apps. H. Coelho..P. 2000. Biomass and Bioenergy 136. Elander. Kuhlmann. R. Application of life cycle assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet production with different forms of Nitrogen fertilizers. E.. http://www. Renewable Energy 102 (3). P.L. Prakash..... M. J. I. J. 2004. H. P.. Rajkumar.. the South African Sugar Association.. 1996. 1996. Botha. Miller. 1998. 1997. Durban. R. Brenner. NREL/TP-430-23076. von Blottnitz. submitted for publication. Mann.