Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mauritius

NOx, SOx, NH3, CO, and hydrocarbons emitted from producing/using fertilizers/pesticides, transport, burning coal/bagasse, and energy production were main contributing factors to HOFP, EOFP, and TAP.

“Moreover, NOx, SOx, NH3, CO, and hydrocarbons were given off on producing and using fertilizers and pesticides, transport, burning coal and bagasse, and energy production were the main contributing factors to the following: HOFP, EOFP, and TAP, as shown in Table 8 (Brizmohun et al. 2015, Costa et al. 2018, Ghani and Gheewala 2018, Ruiz et al. 2018).”

Raw materials (coal, natural gas, oil) for producing diesel and chemical products were main contributing factors to FFP.

“Finally, the raw materials used (coal, natural gas, and oil) for producing diesel and chemical products were the main contributing factors to FFP (Table 8)”

Bioethanol from sugarcane had greater environmental impact in terms of HOFP, EOFP, and TAP than agave.

“The higher amount of NOx given off and greater consumption of these feedstocks (i.e., coal, pesticides, and fertilizer) in sugarcane meant that bioethanol from this raw material had a greater environmental impact in terms of HOFP, EOFP, and TAP than agave (Figure 6 and Table 8)”

On producing energy, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, diesel, coal, and compost, pollutants such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde were given off, damaging environment in HTPc and HTPnc.

“Moreover, on producing energy, fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, diesel, coal, and compost (background processes), pollutants such as nickel, cadmium, chromium, and formaldehyde (that damaged the environment in terms of HTPc and HTPnc) were given off (Brizmohun et al. 2015).”

These led to a greater impact on FEP than agave.

“all of which led to a greater impact on FEP than agave did (Figure 6 and Table 8)”