Environmental Life Cycle

Assessment
CEE 12-714 / EPP 19-714
Lectures 9 and 10: MODELING SYSTEMS WITH
MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS AND PRODUCTS

February 14 and 19, 2018

 Administrivia
2
Average scores
• HW2 returned HW1: 81.7%
 Q1: 6.7/8 HW2: 88.7%
 Q2: 13.5/15
 Q3: 5.9/7
 Q4: 18.1/20
 Formatting: 8.9/10
 Overall: 53.2/60
 Carefully review grader feedback

2
 ISO 14040: Section 7
ISO 14044: Section 6
Critical Review Slide ~85 from Lecture 5
3

• ISO requires Critical Review if making

comparative assertions for public release
 Checking for “ISO compliance”
 Methods used are scientifically/technically valid
 Data used are appropriate/reasonable
 Interpretations reflect the limitations identified and goal
of the study
 Study report is transparent and consistent
• Chance for inconsistencies, errors, etc. to be
found
HW2.Q4 asked you to assess the Gleick
LCA with respect to “External Review” 3
 Lecture 3 covered
Sensitivity analysis different ways to attack
sensitivity analysis.
Lightbulb example was
a good model for
handling changing
material and fuel costs
(HW2.Q2b and
HW2.Q3)…

4
Example of successful solution
• Other approaches were
accepted
• Clear labeling of axes, figures,
lines
• Appropriate formatting of
numbers
• Logical results
• Either figure would have been
sufficient 5
 Administrivia
6

• HW3 due this Thursday, Feb 22nd

 Significant figures are important
 Watch your formatting – make it easy for grading!
 Comma format large numbers
 $ signs if relevant
 Page numbers and headers
 Last assignment with formatting points
• SimaPro
 Log out when done to preserve class bandwidth
 SimaPro workshop today, 1:30-2:30, CEE Classroom (A7F)
 Come with laptop and VMware software loaded
 Not mandatory

6
More administrivia
• Next lecture, we dive into LCA treatment of
uncertainty – read Ch. 7 and supplemental
material as directed in Canvas

7
 Group projects
8

• Proposals due no later than Feb 26

 Submit sooner if you want earlier feedback
 I will provide feedback to you ASAP

• Canvas project deliverables opened, see for

additional details and rubrics
• Schedule team meetings with me to discuss
your draft proposals (optional)
 Team 4, Wednesday, 1 pm

8
Course trajectory
1. Introductions 10. Uncertainty
2. Life cycle thinking 11. Input-output LCA
3. Quantitative methods and 12. Process-matrix LCA
life cycle cost analysis
13. Hybrid LCA
4. ISO LCA framework
14. Impact assessment
5. Critical review
15. Structural path analysis
6. LCA data sources
16. Professional responsibility
7. Life cycle inventory
17. Carbon footprinting
8. SimaPro
18. LCA for big decisions
9. Handling multifunction
19. Project presentations
systems

9
 ISO 14040: Figure 1

Phases of an LCA
10

• Goal and scope

definition

• Inventory

• Impact assessment

• Interpretation
10
 ISO 14040: 5.3
ISO 14044: 4.3
Life Cycle Inventory (focus on 4.3.1-
4.3.3 for now)
11

11
Multifunction
systems
(What does this mean?)
12
 Structure of a Process-based LCA
Model
13

13
 Typical Unit Processes
14

• For 1 product... Emission(s)

Input(s) from
Product
Technosphere
+
Function

Inputs from Nature

• With only one product, obvious and direct connection

between that product and its input and output flows
14
 Eye on the ball…
15

• Our goal is collecting data / building models to

quantitatively account for energy, environmental
effects passing through system, and assign
them to particular functions

15
 Multifunction systems
16

• May be multiple products / co-products

• More importantly, may have multiple functions

16
 Then what?
17

• The data will still be “overall at the total process

level”
• But we inevitably want it by function and/or
product

17
 ISO 14044:2006, 4.3.4.2

ISO Ranks Three Options

18

• Disaggregation
 ISO prefers
• System expansion
 “Changing the rules” by redefining the system
boundary to avoid allocation
 ISO encourages when disaggregation can’t be done
• Allocation
 Attributing the input and output flows via some
mathematical relationship to the various products
 ISO does not prefer

18
 Disaggregation
19

• Zoom in as far as the data will let you

• Does more granularity let you isolate functions?

19
 Do the data let you do Aggregated

this?
20

Emission(s)

Input(s) from Product 1/Function 1

Technosphere

Inputs from Nature

Disaggregated
Emission(s)

Input(s) from Product 2/Function 2

Technosphere

Inputs from Nature

20
 Model Process Emissions
Feedstocks
or A+B+C → D+E Products
Intermediates

Energy + “Other” Reactant

6 kg
O2
2 kg
Mass Balance
Fuels

A 10 kg
10 kg D
4 kg
B
5 kg E
C 6 kg
5 kg
wastewater
7 kg
CO2
1 kg
pollutant

Note: 28 kg going into the process, and 28 kg coming out. 21

Used with permission from Mike Griffin (CMU)
 Model Process Emissions
Feedstocks
or A+B+C → D+E Products
Intermediates

Energy + “Other” Reactant

6 kg
O2 Disaggregation
2 kg
Fuels

A 10 kg
10 kg D
4 kg
B
5 kg E
C 6 kg
5 kg
wastewater
7 kg
CO2
1 kg
pollutant

Even though we’d generally care about inputs AND outputs, will focus on outputs here
22
 Model Process Emissions
Feedstocks
or A+B+C → D+E Products
Intermediates

Energy + “Other” Reactant

6 kg
O2 Disaggregation
2 kg
Fuels

A 10 kg
10 kg D
4 kg
B
5 kg E
C 6 kg
5 kg
wastewater
7 kg
CO2
1 kg
pollutant

Even though we’d generally care about inputs AND outputs, will focus on outputs here
23
24
18 kg in, 18 kg out, mass balance maintained 25
10 kg in, 10 kg out, balance maintained 26
Summary of normalized outputs for disaggregated processes 27
Model Process Emissions
Feedstocks
or A+B+C → D+E Products
Intermediates

Energy + “Other Reactant”

3 kg Check: Disaggregation is mass

O2
1 kg balanced (28 kg)
Fuel
10 kg s
A 10 kg
D
4 kg
B 6 kg CO2
1 kg wastewater
3 kg 1 kg
O2 pollutant
1 kg
Fuels
B 1 kg
4 kg
5 kg
E
C 1 kg
CO2
5 kg wastewater 28
 Disaggregation challenge?
29

• Data at this fine level of detail may not exist

• Processes may be too intertwined to pull apart

• ISO suggests “system expansion” as the fallback

approach
• If system expansion isn’t possible, ISO
grudgingly identifies “allocation” as an option
 Different allocation methods give different results
 Caveats, documentation, sensitivity analyses

29
That’s enough for today
• Keep reading!
• Get your teams off to a great start!

• Remember my three guidelines for success…

30
 Allocation Basics
31

• Need to assign inputs and/or outputs to the

various products of the system
 If only one product, don’t need to allocate!
 Must be documented/justified
 Generally method (math) is simple – deriving allocation
factors
 ***Original in/out must equal sum of allocated values
• Use sensitivity analysis to assess effect of
alternative allocations

31
 Allocation Steps (from ISO)
32

1) Try to avoid allocation!

 Disaggregation?
 System expansion?
 If not feasible, then…
2) Allocate by partitioning inputs/outputs to
products based on “underlying physical
relationships”
 Mass, volume, heat content, etc.
 Allocate proportionately.

32
 Allocation Steps (cont.)
33

3) If allocation cannot be based on physical

characteristics, other methods can be used
 e.g., by economic value (this is NOT a default
choice of method)
 How much is A worth vs. B?

• Generally use consistent allocation across

system (not ‘picking and choosing’ for each)
• Special rules for recycling, etc. we will see later

33
Now, assume processes for D and E cannot be
disentangled… disaggregation is not an option

How could we allocate the wastewater, CO2 and pollutant

to the 2 different products on a mass basis?
34
Mass Allocation Factors:
Product D – 10 kg/14 kg = 0.71
Product E – 4 kg/14 kg = 0.29 35
Always check for
conservation of 𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑊𝑊 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝐷 =
mass! 6 𝑘𝑔 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐷&𝐸 ∗ 0.71 = 4.3 𝑘𝑔 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐷

Product D Product E Sum of

Product mass (kg) 10 4 allocated
Mass allocation factor 0.71 0.29 flows
Flows:
Wastewater (kg) 6 4.3 1.7 6
CO2 (kg) 7 5.0 2.0 7
Pollutant (kg) 1 0.7 0.3 1
36
Allocation
Thought Example

• How would we allocate

energy use to each
fruit?
• What are options?

• Similar but not

identical to what’s in
the book
37
 Start with basic... Truck full of oranges
38

• Would our “choice of

allocation method”
matter here?

• This is just
normalization

38
 Basic Allocation Example
39

• Imagine we were doing an LCA of pineapple

• Truck is a process to carry fruit to market. Inputs are fuel,
etc. Outputs are air emissions, etc.
• Given: 2 gal gasoline/trip, only visible fruit
• How much gas allocated to each unit of pineapple? Each
unit of watermelon?
39
 Allocation Data – Small Group Work
40

Unallocated flow is 2 gallons of gasoline

Metric Pineapple Watermelon

Number of items 4 12
Mass 2 pounds each 5 pounds each
Economic Value $2 per pound $0.80 per pound

Don’t forget to validate that sum of allocated factors

across all = 1 !

This example excludes the baby!

40
 Allocation Data – Small Group Work
41

Unallocated flow is 2 gallons of gasoline

What are the functional units?
Metric Pineapples Watermelons Pineapple Watermelon
allocation allocation
fraction fraction
Number of 4 12
items
Mass 2 pounds 5 pounds each
each
Economic $2 per $0.80 per
Value pound pound

Don’t forget to validate that sum of allocated effect across all = 1 !

41
 Put formally..
42

• We allocate unit process flows to products via a

derived allocation factor (on right hand side)
relevant to each product

 Where
 i are flows
 j are the coproducts (indexed k through n)
 wj is the unit parameter of the co-product j (e.g., mass per
unit)
 m is the number of units

42
 Allocation Basic Results
43

Allocation Pineapple Watermelon P Alloc. W Alloc.

Metric (P) (W) Fraction Fraction
Number of items 4 12 1/16th 1/16th

Mass 2 pounds 5 pounds each 1/34 5/68

each
Economic Value $2 per $0.80 per 1/16 1/16
pound pound

• To allocate gas use, multiply 2 gals * fraction

• Validate: check the fractions sum to 1.
1 1
 Number or Economic Value: 4 ∗ + 12 ∗ =1
16 16
1 5 4 30
 Mass: 4 ∗ + 12 ∗ = + =1
34 68 34 34
43
Sample calculation – Mass allocation
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
𝑥 = 2 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 ∗
𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒
2 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠
𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒
2 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 5 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 =
𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒
∗4 𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 + 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛
∗12 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛
2 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 (𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒)
2 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 ∗ =
68 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 (𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑)

1 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
2 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 ∗ = 0.059
34 𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒

Similarly, for watermelon:

5 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
2 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 ∗ = 0.147
68 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛

44
 Sample calculation – check mass
balance
2 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
0.059 𝑔𝑎𝑙 0.147 𝑔𝑎𝑙
= ∗ 4 𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 + ∗ 12 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛
𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛

= 0.236 + 1.76 gal diesel

= 2.0 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙

45
 Appropriateness of Methods
46

• ISO doesn’t specify which allocation method

(e.g., mass, energy) to use

• Only says if you can’t avoid, try physical

relationship first
 Mass might make most sense (why?)
 You can choose not to avoid (i.e., be lazy and just pick
allocation)

 HOW TO DECIDE?

46
 Allocation – Sensitivity Analysis
47

• Does our choice of allocation method matter?

 Ex: if we chose mass-based allocation in our model,
what would our allocation be?
 How different would it be for number or economic value?
• The sensitivity analysis is overall, not just focused
on this one small piece
 Imagine we were doing full energy LCA of pineapples...
How we allocated gasoline in this small process likely
negligible overall. That is what matters.

47
48
 Allocation in US LCI
Diesel 0.2188 kg
LPG 0.0266 kg
Refinery Gasoline 0.4213 kg
Crude oil
Refinery output OR RFO 0.0489 kg
1.0184 kg Bitumen 0.0372 kg
1.0 kg
Kerosene 0.0910 kg
How to express this in terms of just one Pet. Coke 0.0596 kg
of the outputs? How much of crude oil Ref. gas 0.0451 kg
is needed for a liter of diesel? Coproduct 0.0515 kg
Look at handout.
Find Crude oil, Refinery output, Diesel
values

49
50
51
 Slightly expanded
equation now…
Allocation in US LCI
52

𝑘𝑔 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑖𝑙
? =
𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
1.018 𝑘𝑔 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑖𝑙 0.2188 𝑘𝑔 1 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡
∗ ∗ =
1 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 0.252 𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
0.884 𝑘𝑔 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙

52
Search NREL LCI for “refining”

53
Results

In SimaPro, you will see “processes” for the specific refinery products.
They have the allocated values and note the underlying unit process as
source.
54
 Avoiding Allocation
55

• Allocation is easy, but not preferred because we

are making assumptions about physical
relationships rather than digging into the process

• What we’ll discuss next is system expansion,

which is a way to avoid allocation by considering
the multiple products and functions more
broadly.

55
When disaggregation isn’t feasible…
• Common finding that data don’t exist in enough
detail to support disaggregation
 But worth a look!
• ISO says... try “System Expansion” next
 You may be able to shift your system boundary to
isolate your targeted function

56
 What is System Expansion?
57

• Typically easiest to motivate and explain in

context of a comparison of systems

Source for these Figures: Tillman 1994 (see textbook)

57
 System expansion
58

• Add an appropriate process to have comparable

functions
• Note: scope is now different (iterate through
SDP)

58
 “Avoided burden”
59

• OR, subtract a process to give comparable functions

• Note: this is still “system expansion” even though we are

subtracting a process
59
System expansions
• Modeled systems provide same functions
• Additional functions may represent identical or
alternate products, technologies or production
processes
• Consider alternative technology assumptions for
system expansion in sensitivity analysis
• The determining product controls production
volumes; dependent product cannot control it
 Determining product may or not be target of the LCA
 Only the dependent product can be expanded for.
60
61
Step 1: Set up the products and emissions as an “equation”

10 kg D + 4 kg E = 6 kg wastewater + 7 kg CO2 + 1 kg pollutant

62
Step 2: Identify alternative competitive way of producing E in
the market:
1 kg E’ = 0.25 kg wastewater + 1 kg CO2 + 0.1 kg pollutant

Step 3: Scale E’ to match the production of 4 kg of E in the

original process:
4 kg E’ = 1 kg wastewater + 4 kg CO2 + 0.4 kg pollutant
63
 Step 4: Adjust (add / subtract) equivalent alternative production
for your product, find net flows:

10 kg D + 4 kg E = 6 kg wastewater + 7 kg CO2 + 1 kg pollutant

-( 4 kg E’ = 1 kg wastewater + 4 kg CO2 + 0.4 kg pollutant)
10 kg D*+ 0 kg E = 5 kg wastewater + 3 kg CO2 + 0.6 kg pollutant

Bottom line: the only product we’ve “made” is 10 kg of Product D

64
Summary of adjusted flows on
original mass (not per unit) basis

65
Summary of adjusted flows per single
functional unit basis (per kg product)

If disaggregation is “right”, what about others?

Note effect of using

mass allocation
unit results
66
 Back to Refinery Process
67

• Products of refineries are part of many LCAs

• Refineries consume up to 7% of US energy
(Wang)
• How they are modeled is significant
• Refineries themselves are very complex
(hundreds of unit processes)

67
 Refinery Allocation Issues
68

• 80% of refinery-consumed energy comes from

refinery by-products:
 Refinery gas
 Petroleum coke
 LPG
 Fuel Oil
• If we can’t do system expansion (subtract out all
but one product), should we use:
 Disaggregation?
 Allocation by Mass, Energy, or Economic Value?

68
 The refinery as a black box

Electricity
69

Steam
Fuel
Residual oil
Diesel
Kerosene
Crude Oil Gasoline
LPG
Others

• Ratio of diesel to gasoline mass output is about 1:2

• Ratio of market value was about 1:3 in 2004 but varies (now
1.2:1 as of 2/12/2018)
• Impact on emissions?
• Alternative approach: compare mass and energy content
allocation
69
 Refinery
Flow Sheet
70

Crude oil

Energy
inputs

Gasoline

Wang 2004
Allocation of energy use in
petroleum refineries to
petroleum products -
Implications for life-cycle
energy use and emission
inventory of petroleum
transportation fuels
70
71
 Zooming in
further, can
see some of
the heat
Atmospheric inputs
distillation

Vacuum
distillation

72
 Electricity
Steam
Fuel
Residual oil
Diesel
Kerosene
Crude Oil Gasoline
LPG
Others

73
74
Wang’s conclusions
• “The results from this study reveal that product-
specific energy use based on the refinery
process-level allocation differs considerably from
that based on the refinery-level allocation.”

75
What about a biorefinery?
Corn-derived ethanol
• Important bio-fuel
• Studied by USDA in 2002
• Studied 2 major processes (dry mill and wet mill)
• How much energy does it take to make corn
ethanol?
• Is it worth doing (net energy value)?

77
 Corn Wet Mill

Shapouri 2002
78
 Corn Dry Mill

Shapouri 2002
79
Analysis
• Inventory of energy used to grow, transport,
process raw materials and coproducts
• How to assign energy requirements between
ethanol and other coproducts?
 Mass
 Energy content
 Market value
 Replacement value, in this case energy credit (i.e.,
system expansion)
 soybean meal for DDGS and corn gluten meal and feed
 soybean oil for corn oil

80
 𝐵𝑇𝑈
Energy value of ethanol (@83,961 )
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡

Table 7, Shapouri 2002

81
CO2 – Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

Source: AmeriWest Energy Corp

82
Previous Studies
• Suebsiri et al: “Net Storage is 18.6 million tonnes
of CO2…”
• Khoo et al, also find net storage of CO2 from
EOR Projects.
• Aycaguer et al: EOR process “could provide a
significant means to storing CO2 underground.”
• Limited system boundaries, ignore important life
cycle emissions

83
 In Essence…

CO2 In

Oil Out CO2

BUT….
Out

Oil Out

84
 The Life Cycle of EOR System
“This study assesses the
overall life cycle emissions
associated with sequestration
via CO2-EOR under a
number of different scenarios
and explores the impact of
various methods for
allocating CO2 system
emissions and the benefits
of sequestration.”

CCS=Carbon capture system

Jaramillo, 2008
85
 5 EOR Case Studies
SACROC
Northeast Unit - Ford Joffe
Weyburn
Case Purdy Kelly Geraldine Viking
Unit
Unit Snyder Unit Unit
Field
Project Lifetime (yrs) 9 21 8 17 15

Incremental Oil
Recovered 36 402 13 23 130
(million STB)

Total CO2 Purchased

6.2 87.5 2.37 3.6 20
(million metric tons)

Implied Electricity
Generation 7.0 99.7 2.7 4.1 22.7
(million MWh)
Jaramillo, 2008
86
Jaramillo, 2008
87
Jaramillo, 2008
88
Who is responsible for these
emissions?
• Electricity and oil are produced within the system
boundary
• Some CO2 is injected underground
• Currently, electricity generators and oil
producers are claiming the CO2 credit
 Double counting the benefit

89
Allocation Methods
• Physical allocation
 By energy content of products
 By economic value
 By Mass

• System Expansion
 Which is the primary product?
 What is the secondary displacing?

90
91
 Difference between
Overall System Results net emissions and
“current emissions”
is 60 million MT
SACROC Unit Ford CO2e, ~2/3 of the
Northeast Joffe Viking Weyburn
Field - Kelly Snyder Geraldine
CO2 injected
Purdy Unit Unit Unit
Field Unit
Net Emissions (million
metric tons CO2e)
19 220 7 12 69
EOR
System CO2 Injected in Field
(million metric tons 6.2 88 2.4 low carbon
3.6 electricity
20
CO2e) and Saudi crude oil
Current Oil, Current that actually results in
Electricity Emissions
(million metric tons
24 280 8.6 increases
15 in CO842
emissions, more than
Emission CO2e)
offsetting any stored
from Oil &
IGCC and Canadian SCO carbon
Electricity
Produced
(In-Situ) (million metric 30 330 10 17 98
tons CO2e)
with other
Sources Low Carbon Electricity
and Saudi Arabian Oil
(million metric tons
19 210 6.8 12 68
CO2e)
92
Next
• Uncertainty (the topic)
 Read Chapter 7

• HW 3 due Thursday, Feb 22

• Group project proposals due Monday, Feb 26

93
 References (see Canvas for pdf)
94

• Shapouri, H., J.A. Duffield, and M. Wang. 2002. The Energy

Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy
Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 813.
• Wang, M., Lee, H., & Molberg, J. (2004). Allocation of energy
use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products:
Implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory
of petroleum transportation fuels. International Journal of Life
Cycle Analysis , 9 (1), 34-44.
• Jaramillo, P., W. M. Griffin, and S. T. McCoy. 2009. Life Cycle
Inventory of CO2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System.
Environmental Science & Technology 43:8027-8032.

94