Cited by 71Bioenergy crop production and managementBiofuel production and bioconversionEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Lifecycle greenhouse gas implications of US national scenarios for cellulosic ethanol production

Open access
Scown, Corinne D, Nazaroff, William W, Mishra, Umakant, Strogen, Bret, Lobscheid, Agnes B, Masanet, Eric, Santero, Nicholas J, Horvath, Arpad +1 more·2012·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set an annual US national production goal of 39.7 billion l of cellulosic ethanol by 2020. This paper explores the possibility of meeting that target by growing and processing Miscanthus × giganteus . We define and assess six production scenarios in which active cropland and/or Conservation Reserve Program land are used to grow to Miscanthus . The crop and biorefinery locations are chosen with consideration of economic, land-use, water management and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction objectives. Using lifecycle assessment, the net GHG footprint of each scenario is evaluated, providing insight into the climate costs and benefits associated with each scenario's objectives. Assuming that indirect land-use change is successfully minimized or mitigated, the results suggest two major drivers for overall GHG impact of cellulosic ethanol from Miscanthus : (a) net soil carbon sequestration or emissions during Miscanthus cultivation and (b) GHG offset credits for electricity exported by biorefineries to the grid. Without these factors, the GHG intensity of bioethanol from Miscanthus is calculated to be 11–13 g CO 2 -equivalent per MJ of fuel, which is 80–90% lower than gasoline. Including soil carbon sequestration and the power-offset credit results in net GHG sequestration up to 26 g CO 2 -equivalent per MJ of fuel.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 37 · Cited by 71

Authors
Scown, C. D., Nazaroff, W. W., Mishra, U., Strogen, B., Lobscheid, A. B., Masanet, E., Santero, N. J., Horvath, A., & McKone, T. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Scown, Corinne D
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2012-01-24
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
014011
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2164097483
Cited by
71
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
22.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC03-?, AC03-76SF00098, DEAC03-76SF00098)
  • Energy Biosciences Institute
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (DE AC03 76SF00098)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
cellulosic ethanol, Miscanthus × giganteus, greenhouse gas emissions, life cycle assessment, indirect land use change, soil carbon sequestration, biorefinery, Conservation Reserve Program, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, land use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review