Cited by 11Environmental Impact and SustainabilityAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesBioeconomy and Sustainability Development

Biofuels Induced Land Use Change Emissions: The Role of Implemented Land Use Emission Factors

Open access
Taheripour, Farzad, Mueller, Steffen, Emery, Isaac, Karami, Omid, Sajedinia, Ehsanreza, Zhuang, Qianlai, Wang, Michael·2024·Sustainability

Abstract

Biofuels’ induced land-use change (ILUC) emissions have been widely studied over the past 15 years. Many studies have addressed uncertainties associated with these estimates. These studies have broadly examined uncertainties associated with the choice of economic models, their assumptions and parameters, and a few bio-physical variables. However, uncertainties in land-use emission factors that represent the soil and vegetation carbon contents of various land types across the world and are used to estimate carbon fluxes due to land conversions are mostly overlooked. This paper calls attention to this important omission. It highlights some important sources of uncertainty in land-use emissions factors, explores the range in these factors from established data sources, and compares the influence of their variability on ILUC emissions for several sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) pathways. The estimated land-use changes for each pathway are taken from a well-known computable general equilibrium model, GTAP-BIO. Two well-known carbon calculator models (CCLUB and AEZ-EF) that represent two different sets of emissions factors are used to convert the GTAP-BIO estimated land-use changes to ILUC emissions. The results show that the calculated ILUC emissions obtained from these carbon calculators for each examined SAF pathway are largely different, even for the same amortization time horizon. For example, the ILUC emissions values obtained from the AEZ-EF and CCLUB models for producing jet fuel from corn ethanol for a 25-year amortization period are 24.9 gCO2e/MJ and 15.96 gCO2e/MJ, respectively. This represents a 60% difference between the results of these two carbon calculators for the same set of land-use changes. The results show larger differences for other pathways as well.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su16072729

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Current EU approaches for calculating GHG emission savings are often criticized for potentially overestimating savings, particularly due to inadequate handling of ILUC emissions for crop-based biofuels and use of default emission factors that may not accurately reflect the GHG footprint associated with feedstock geographical origin and specific supply chain logistics.

    “Current EU approaches are often criticized for potentially overestimating savings, particularly due to the inadequate handling of ILUC emissions for crop-based biofuels and the use of default emission factors that may not accurately reflect the GHG footprint associated with feedstock geographical origin and specific supply chain logistics [104,266,267].”

    From Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [266]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Current Methods for Life-Cycle Analyses of Low-Carbon Transportation Fuels in the United States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  2. Paltsev, S.; Reilly, J.; Jacoby, H.; Eckaus, R.; McFarland, J.; Babiker, M. The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4; Report 125; MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, USA: 2005.
  3. Qudsia, J.E.; Paltsev, S.; Kicklighter, D.W.; Winchester, N.W. Are Land-Use Emissions Scalable with Increasing Corn Ethanol Mandates in the United States?; Report 295; Report-MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, USA: 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taheripour, F., Mueller, S., Emery, I., Karami, O., Sajedinia, E., Zhuang, Q., & Wang, M.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • WSP USA, Inc., Seattle, WA 98154, USA
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Taheripour, Farzad
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-03-26
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
2729
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393181176
Cited by
11
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Federal Aviation Administration (13-C-AJFEPU)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Keywords
biofuels, sustainable aviation fuel, corn ethanol, carbon accounting, uncertainty

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