Rspa 20200351

Environmental sustainability
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa of biofuels: a review

Harish K. Jeswani1 , Andrew Chilvers2 and
Adisa Azapagic1
Review 1 Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science,
Cite this article: Jeswani HK, Chilvers A, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Azapagic A. 2020 Environmental sustainability 2 Royal Academy of Engineering, 3 Carlton House Terrace,
of biofuels: a review. Proc. R. Soc. A 476: London SW1Y 5DG, UK

20200351.
AA, 0000-0003-2380-918X
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351
Biofuels are being promoted as a low-carbon
Received: 4 May 2020 alternative to fossil fuels as they could help to
Accepted: 20 October 2020 reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the
related climate change impact from transport.
However, there are also concerns that their wider
Subject Areas: deployment could lead to unintended environmental
chemical engineering consequences. Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA)
studies have considered the climate change and other
Keywords: environmental impacts of biofuels. However, their
findings are often conflicting, with a wide variation
biofuels, carbon footprint, environmental
in the estimates. Thus, the aim of this paper is to
impacts, life cycle assessment, transport, review and analyse the latest available evidence
sustainability to provide a greater clarity and understanding
of the environmental impacts of different liquid
Author for correspondence: biofuels. It is evident from the review that the
outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and
Adisa Azapagic
dependent on many factors, including the type of
e-mail: [email protected] feedstock, production routes, data variations and
methodological choices. Despite this, the existing
evidence suggests that, if no land-use change (LUC) is
involved, first-generation biofuels can—on average—
have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but the
reductions for most feedstocks are insufficient to meet
the GHG savings required by the EU Renewable
Energy Directive (RED). However, second-generation
biofuels have, in general, a greater potential to
reduce the emissions, provided there is no LUC.
Third-generation biofuels do not represent a feasible
option at present state of development as their GHG
emissions are higher than those from fossil fuels.
As also discussed in the paper, several studies show
that reductions in GHG emissions from biofuels are
Electronic supplementary material is available achieved at the expense of other impacts, such as
online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.
c.5208549. 2020 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and
source are credited.
acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and biodiversity loss. The paper also investigates 2
the key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA of biofuels and provides
recommendations to address these issues.
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

..........................................................
1. Introduction
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport have been increasing at a faster rate than
from any other sector [1]. The sector relies heavily on fossil fuels, which accounted for 96.3%
of all transportation fuels in 2018 [2]. Transport is also responsible for 15% of the world’s
GHG emissions and 23% of total energy-related CO2 emissions [1]. To reduce dependence on
petroleum-based fuels, as well as to mitigate climate change, biofuels are viewed widely as
promising alternative transportation fuels.
Biofuels have been used since the early days of the automotive industry. For instance, Rudolph
Diesel tested his first engine on peanut oil [3] after pulverized coal was found to be unsuitable.
Until the 1940s, biofuels were seen as viable transport fuels and bioethanol blends, such as Agrol,
Discol and Monopolin, were commonly used in the USA, Europe and other regions [3]. Further
development of bioethanol ceased after the Second World War as petroleum-derived fuel became
cheaper. During the oil crisis in the 1970s, many countries showed renewed interest in production
of commercial biofuels; however, only Brazil started to produce ethanol at a large scale as part of
the National Ethanol Programme ‘Proálcool’ [4]. During the late 1990s, with the rise in crude oil
prices and concerns over energy security, the USA and many nations in Europe developed policies
in support of domestic biofuel industries [5]. The interest in biofuels further increased in the past
decade with the development of policies on climate change mitigation and strategies to reduce
GHG emissions from the transport sector. More than 60 countries have since launched biofuel
programmes and set targets for blending biofuels into their fuel pools [6]. The most notable are
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) [7] in the USA and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) in
Europe [8].
Owing to these policies, world bioethanol production has increased by 67%, from 67 to 110.4
billion litres, over the decade of 2008–2018 [2]. During the same period, biodiesel production
increased more than threefold, from 12 to 41 billion litres. Currently, biofuels account for about
3.4% of total transportation fuels worldwide [2]. The global production of biofuels is dominated
by the USA and Brazil—producing 69% of all biofuels in 2018—followed by Europe (EU-28) with
9% [9]. Production of bioethanol in the USA is almost exclusively from corn, whereas in Brazil, it
is from sugarcane. In Europe, the main feedstocks are corn, wheat and sugar beet for bioethanol,
while rapeseed and used cooking oil (UCO) are used for biodiesel production [10]. Argentina,
Brazil and the USA also produce significant quantities of biodiesel, predominantly from soya
bean, while Malaysia and Indonesia produce biodiesel from palm oil. Several international
and national organizations have made mid- and long-term projections for global production of
biofuels. These projections provide wide-ranging estimates of potential future increases in liquid
biofuels for transport globally. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that as much as
one-third of all transportation fuel could come from biofuels by 2050 [11], while organizations,
such as the OECD and BP, project approximately a 7% share of biofuels by 2030 [12]. A recent
assessment [13] also suggests that the IEA projections could be impossible to achieve, estimating
the maximum potential of transport biofuels by 2050 to be at least 30% lower than those projected
by the IEA.
Biofuels can be differentiated according to a number of key characteristics, including feedstock
type, conversion process, technical specification of the fuel and its use. Owing to this multitude
of possible distinctions, various definitions are in use for biofuel types. Two commonly used
typologies are ‘first, second and third generation’ and ‘conventional and advanced’ biofuels.
Biofuels produced from food or animal feed crops are referred to as first-generation biofuels.
Since first-generation biofuels are produced through well-established technologies and processes,
such as fermentation, distillation and transesterification, they are also commonly referred to as
cradle to grave (well to wheel)
cradle to gate (well to tank)
3

feedstocks production of biofuels use
..........................................................
1st generation 2nd generation preparation • bioethanol • transport
• cultivation • biodiesel • energy
food crops energy crops • harvesting • biogas • chemicals
• corn • Miscanthus • collection • butanol
• wheat • switchgrass • drying • dimethylether
• sugar beet • poplar • milling/crushing • dimethylfurane
• sugar cane • willow • hydrogen
• palm oil • Jatropha processing • methanol
• rapeseed oil • Camelina • esterification • mixed alcohols
• soya bean oil waste • fermentation • vegetable oil
• sunflower oil • corn stover • Ficher–Tropsch
• straw • gasification
• manure • hydrolysis
3rd generation • methanization by-products
• MSW • glycerine
• food waste • pyrolysis
• microalgae • DDGS
• waste wood • distillation
• purification • electricity/heat
Figure 1. An overview of feedstocks and production processes for different biofuels, also showing the life cycle of fuels from
cradle to gate (well to tank) and cradle to grave (well to wheel). Adapted from [14]. The figure has been simplified and other
feedstocks, production routes, products/by-products and uses are possible. The italic font denotes the focus of this review, i.e.
bioethanol and biodiesel used for transportation. DDGS, dark distillers grain with solids. (Online version in colour.)
‘conventional biofuels’. A key characteristic for second-generation biofuels is that they are derived
from non-food feedstocks, such as dedicated energy crops (e.g. Miscanthus, switchgrass, short
rotation coppice (SRC) and other lignocellulosic plants), agricultural residues, forest residues
and other waste materials (e.g. UCO and municipal solid waste). Biodiesel produced from
microalgae through conventional transesterification or hydro-treatment of algal oil is commonly
known as third-generation biofuel. Second- and third-generation biofuels are often referred to
as ‘advanced biofuels’ as their production techniques or pathways are still in the research and
development, pilot or demonstration phase. In this paper, the terminology ‘first, second and third
generation’ has been selected and followed throughout. An overview of different biofuel types,
their feedstocks and conversion routes can be seen in figure 1.
Biofuels offer both advantages and disadvantages in terms of environmental, economic and
social sustainability [14]. On the one hand, reduction in GHG emissions, energy security and
rural development are the most important drivers for biofuels globally. On the other hand, there
are concerns related to increasing the production of biofuels, such as upward pressure on food
prices, the risk of increase in GHG emissions through direct and indirect land-use change (LUC)
from production of biofuel feedstocks, as well as the risks of degradation of land, forests, water
resources and ecosystems [15]. The use of first-generation feedstocks, such as corn, has become a
particularly contentious issue, largely owing to competition with food production and concerns
over diverting agricultural land into fuel production. A growing demand for agricultural produce
risks an increase in deforestation and use of land with a high biodiversity value to meet this
demand, as well as associated usage of freshwater, fertilizers and pesticides, with negative
consequences on the environment. Some of these issues could be addressed by using second-
generation feedstocks; however, the economic viability of some second generation of biofuels
remains doubtful in the current economic context, largely because of the low oil prices [16–
18]. Third-generation (algal) biofuels could also avoid the issue of food competition and land
use because microalgae can be grown on non-arable land and in wastewater, saline or brackish
water and they grow extremely rapidly. However, the production of biofuels from microalgae is
energy-intensive and at present economically unviable [19].
To encourage sustainable development of biofuels, regulatory policies, such as the RED and
RFS, stipulate various sustainability criteria for biofuels. One of the main criteria is related to life
cycle GHG emissions. The RED stipulates that biofuels should have at least 50% lower emissions
4
than their fossil fuel alternatives for installations in operation before October 2015 and 60% for
installations starting after this date, rising to 65% lower for biofuel plants commencing operation

..........................................................
after 1 January 2021 [8]. RFS requires producers of advanced biofuels to reduce GHG emissions
by at least 50%, while standard biofuels have to achieve a 20% reduction in GHG emissions [7].
The climate change impact related to GHG emissions and other sustainability aspects of biofuels
should be evaluated on a life cycle basis via life cycle assessment (LCA) to avoid shifting burdens
from one part of the life cycle or supply chain to another.
Numerous LCA studies have considered the potential of biofuels to achieve reductions in life
cycle GHG emissions by estimating their potential impact on climate change. However, their
findings are often conflicting, with a wide variation in the estimates. A number of review papers
have also discussed LCA of biofuels, but these focused on a particular aspect, such as a region,
feedstock or type of biofuel. For example, Shonnard et al. [20] reviewed LCA studies of biofuels
in the Pan American region. Morales et al. [21] and Roy et al. [22] concentrated on LCA studies
of lignocellulosic bioethanol, while Menten et al. [23] focused on advanced biofuels. Sieverding
et al. [24] conducted a review of soya bean-based biodiesel and van Eijck et al. [25] reviewed issues
pertaining to biodiesel from Jatropha.
However, a comprehensive review of all types of biofuels is not available in the literature.
Besides, many more LCA studies on biofuels have been published since the publication of the
above-mentioned reviews. Thus, this review paper aims to close this gap by analysing and
synthesizing the latest information concerning LCA of biofuels. The main objective is to provide a
greater clarity and understanding of the environmental sustainability of different liquid biofuels
with the aim of informing future policy. A further objective is to examine the state-of-the-art
knowledge on environmental issues associated with the production and consumption of biofuels.
The next section provides an overview of the reviewed LCA studies in terms of their coverage
with regard to biofuel type, geographical location and their approaches to handling critical
methodological aspects in LCA. Section 3 presents results for the climate change impact, energy
and water use and other environmental issues associated with different types of biofuels. The
key methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in assessing the environmental impacts
of biofuels are investigated and discussed in detail in §4. The paper ends with conclusions and
recommendations on addressing the key issues related to sustainability of biofuels.
2. Study methodology and coverage

A systematic literature search was performed in different databases (Science Direct, Web of
Science, Scopus and relevant academic journals) to identify academic, peer-reviewed studies on
the environmental sustainability of biofuels. To avoid outdated information, the review of the
literature predominantly focused on the articles published in the period from 2009 to 2020. Some
important earlier publications cited frequently in the literature were also taken into account. In
total, 179 articles were primary (original) LCA studies, combining between them 613 assessments
of different types of biofuels, all of which are included in this review. In addition, further
publications focusing on environmental issues not usually included in LCA studies, such as water
footprint, biodiversity and LUC, as well as discussing various methodological aspects were also
reviewed. These studies covered a wide spectrum of first-, second- and third-generation biofuels
produced from more than 20 types of feedstock. Table 1 provides an overview of the LCA studies
related to the types of fuel, feedstock and geographical coverage. Among them, 52% assessed first
generation, 38% considered second generation and the remaining 10% assessed third-generation
biofuels. Regarding the type of biofuel, 56% of studies were for bioethanol and the rest for
biodiesel. Geographically, 36% of studies were based in Europe, 26% in North America, 20% in
Asia, 12% in South America, 4% in Africa and 1% in Australia. An overview of how different
studies approached some critical LCA methodological aspects, including type of LCA, goal and
scope of the study, definition of the functional unit, allocation methods and estimation of the
impacts, is provided below.
Table 1. An overview of the number of LCA studies by biofuel type, feedstock, location and land-use change.
5
location land-use change

..........................................................
North South
fuel type/feedstock Europe America America Asia Africa Australia without with totala
bioethanol—1st gen.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
corn 6 23 0 1 0 0 16 14 30
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
molasses 4 12 0 25 3 4 30 18 48
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
sugar beet 19 1 0 0 1 0 14 7 21
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
sugarcane 0 4 32 1 1 0 28 10 38
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
wheat 39 0 0 0 0 0 28 11 39
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
bioethanol—2nd gen.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
bagasse 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 0 6
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
forest residue 16 7 0 0 0 0 23 0 23
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Miscanthus 14 9 0 0 0 0 16 7 23
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
short rotation coppice 29 2 0 0 0 0 17 14 31

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
stover 12 18 0 0 0 0 27 3 30
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
straw/husk 27 1 0 9 0 0 32 5 37
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
switchgrass 2 17 1 0 0 0 18 2 20
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel—1st gen.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
palm oil 0 0 3 56 0 0 32 27 59
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
rapeseed 19 13 2 0 4 0 24 14 38
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
soya bean 3 10 18 5 3 0 29 10 39
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
sunflower 1 0 2 0 5 0 5 3 8
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel—2nd gen.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Camelina 1 13 0 0 0 0 14 0 14
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jatropha 0 0 7 8 7 0 18 4 22
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
used cooking oil/tallow 17 1 3 5 1 0 27 0 27

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel—3rd gen.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
algae 13 28 4 13 0 2 60 0 60
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
total 223 160 75 124 25 6 464 149 613

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
a The total number of studies or analyses, rather than the number of papers published, as some papers included several studies or analyses.
(a) Type of life cycle assessment: attributional versus consequential

Two general types of LCA studies are distinguished: attributional (ALCA) and consequential
(CLCA). They address different questions and follow different methodologies, and will normally
have very different results. ALCA accounts for impacts directly related to the system of interest,
attributing them to the activities within the system; hence, the term ‘attributional’. For biofuels, it
is used mainly as an ‘accounting’ tool for estimating environmental impacts of various activities in
the supply chain, comparisons of alternative systems and identification of environmental hotspots
that can be targeted for improvements. CLCA, in addition to direct, also examines potential
indirect consequences of the system under study by considering various ‘what if’ scenarios that
could arise owing to this system; examples include changes in demand for the product of interest
or technological improvements. For instance, CLCA can consider potential impacts of biofuel
6
feedstock cultivation on other land-using sectors and the effect this might have on the food
production system and LUC elsewhere in the global economy [26,27]. As such, CLCA is more

..........................................................
suited for policy applications.
CLCA is still under development and, consequently, most of the LCA studies on biofuels found
in the literature are attributional. Nevertheless, both the ALCA and CLCA are considered in this
review.
(b) Goal and scope of studies

Goal and scope definition is an important initial step in LCA studies as the specific
methodological approaches depend strongly on the specific goal, scope and question being
addressed. The goal and scope of the study influence the definition of the system boundary and
determine what activities and life cycle stages will be considered [28]. LCA studies of biofuels
have addressed a wide range of goals and research questions, including:
— What are the environmental impacts of the biofuel system under examination?
— How do biofuels compare with fossil fuels?
— What are the environmental hotspots in the life cycle of particular biofuel systems under
study?
— What are the improvement options to optimize the supply chain under study?
— What are the environmental implications of biofuel policies?
Although the ISO 14040 LCA standard [28] requires clear definition of the goal and scope, a
lack of or unclear definition of goal and scope is a common problem in LCA studies of biofuels.
This can also mean that the study method and rationale can be unclear, making comparability of
results difficult [29].
Two types of system boundaries were used in the reviewed LCA studies of biofuels: ‘cradle
to gate’ (or ‘well to tank’) and ‘cradle to grave’ (or ‘well to wheel’); figure 1. However, the
latter system boundary is more appropriate as it is important to include the use of fuels to
enable comparisons of biofuels with their fossil substitutes, since the combustion performance
and associated emissions of biofuels can significantly differ from their fossil substitutes for the
same type of vehicle [30,31]. Around half (48%) of the LCA studies reviewed considered a cradle
to grave system boundary to compare environmental impacts of biofuels with fossil fuels, while
the rest were from cradle to gate. Other inconsistencies include the omission in some studies of
various inputs (such as enzymes, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and co-products. These differences
are often important enough to influence the results significantly.
(c) Functional unit

In LCA, the term ‘functional unit’ describes the function of the system under study and represents
the unit of analysis on which the study is based. The choice of the functional unit is driven by
the goal of the study and must be representative of the system(s) studied and their main purpose
(function). Biofuels regulations, such as the RED [8] and RFS [7], use the energy content of biofuels
(MJ) as the functional unit. While this functional unit was often used in the reviewed literature,
others include the distance travelled by a vehicle (vehicle. km) [21,32], volume (litre) [33,34]
and mass (kilogram or tonne) [17,35] of biofuels. Some studies also used the mass of biofuel
feedstock [36,37], agricultural land area [38,39] and annual operation of refinery [40]. The use of
such a wide array of functional units makes comparisons of LCA studies challenging.
(d) Allocation methods

Biofuel production processes often produce several co-products, such as animal feed, heat,
electricity and biochemicals. Therefore, to determine the impacts from the biofuel of interest, it
is necessary to allocate the impacts between the biofuel and its co-products. The ISO 14040 and
7
14044 standards recommend that, if possible, allocation should be avoided through subdivision
of processes, or by system expansion. The latter involves expanding the system boundary to

..........................................................
include alternative ways of producing the co-products. The production system is then credited
for displacing production of the co-products in the alternative systems by subtracting their
impacts from the impacts of the biofuel production system. Hence, this method is also known
as ‘substitution’ or the ‘avoided burden’ approach. If allocation cannot be avoided, the impacts
can be apportioned between the biofuel and the co-products using allocation factors based on
physical or economic relationships. Mass and energy content of biofuels and co-products are
often used to derive allocation factors based on physical relationships. Economic allocation is
based on the assumptions that the market prices are the driver for the production process and
the impacts are apportioned in proportion to the economic value (cost or price) of the biofuel and
the co-products. In LCA of biofuels, the most common approaches used to allocate the impacts
are system expansion and allocation by the energy content. This perhaps reflects the regulatory
requirements in the USA and Europe: RFS [7] prefers system expansion, while the RED [8] favours
allocation based on the energy content of biofuels.
(e) Land-use change

LUC is an important source of GHG emissions that contributed 660 ± 290 Gt CO2 to the
atmospheric CO2 in the period from 1750 and 2011 [41]. The majority of LUC is driven by
demand for food, fibre and fuel [42]. Converting natural vegetation or forest to cultivate biofuel
feedstocks releases a significant amount of carbon from soil and plant biomass, creating a ‘carbon
debt’ that can take years to repay [43,44]. Furthermore, cultivation of biofuel feedstocks on
land that has high soil carbon content, such as peat land, leads to a considerable increase in
GHG emissions [45]. Besides increasing GHG emissions, changes in land use can have other
environmental consequences, such as soil erosion, nutrient depletion, water consumption and
loss of biodiversity [46]. LUC related to biofuels can occur in two ways: direct (DLUC) or
indirect (ILUC). DLUC refers to the direct transformation of previously uncultivated areas (such
as grasslands and forests) into croplands for biofuel feedstock production. ILUC occurs when
additional demand for biofuel feedstock induces displacement of food and feed crop production
to new land areas previously not used for cultivation. Only 25% of the reviewed LCA studies took
LUC into account.
(f) Environmental impacts

GHG emissions and savings in comparison to fossil fuels are the centre of attention in most
LCA studies on biofuels. Other environmental impact categories considered in biofuel LCA
studies include acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity and eco-
toxicity. However, the number of studies that have assessed a wider set of impact categories is
still limited: of the 179 (primary) LCA studies reviewed, only 40% of such studies were found in
the literature. These are discussed in the next section, starting with the climate change impact, or
global warming potential (GWP) as often referred to in LCA, and following on to discuss energy
and water use, biodiversity and other impacts.
3. Environmental impacts of biofuels

(a) Global warming potential
For this impact, the LCA studies present contradictory results, ranging from favourable to
unfavourable, even for the same type of feedstock. This is a result of the differences in the
assumptions, data sources, allocation methods and LUC. The influence of these aspects is
discussed in detail in §4. The GWP of biofuels reported in the reviewed LCA studies is
120 3rd quartile
A=8
A = 12 8
n = 16
n = 30
A = 16
100 n = 24

2nd quartile
GWP (g CO2 eq. MJ–1)
..........................................................
A=8 A = 18 A = 13 A=4
A = 11 n = 32 n = 29 n=5
n = 28 n = 14
80
average
60 A = 15
n = 28
fossil fuel (reference)
40
EU RED requirement (50%

20 reduction) for installations
in operation before Oct
2015
0 EU RED requirement (60%
corn wheat sugarcane sugar beet molasses palm oil rapeseed soya bean sunflower reduction) for installations
in operation after Oct 2015
bioethanol biodiesel
Figure 2. GWP of first-generation biofuels without land-use change. Based on data from [24,32,34,47–118]. For the box
plot legend, see electronic supplementary material, figure S1 and for the data used to plot this graph, see electronic
supplementary material, figure S2. ‘Fossil fuel (reference)’ is the average carbon intensity of petrol and diesel supplied in the
EU (94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) as specified in the RED [8]. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found in the literature and ‘n’ denotes
the total number of analyses. (Online version in colour.)
300 A = 10 A=8
n = 27 3rd quartile
A=3 n = 10
n = 18 A = 10
250 n = 14
2nd quartile
GWP (g CO2 eq. MJ−1)
200
average
A=4 A=2
150 n = 11 n=3
A=4 A=4
n = 14 fossil fuel (reference)
n = 10 A=2
100 n=7
EU RED requirement
50 (50% reduction) for
installations in operation
before Oct 2015
EU RED requirement
0 (60% reduction) for
corn wheat sugarcane sugar molasses palm oil rapeseed soya beansunflower installations in operation
beet after Oct 2015
Figure 3. GWP of first-generation biofuels with land-use change. Based on data from [32,35,48,51,56,58,62–64,66–
72,79,86,87,91,108,116,119–127]. For the box plot legend, see electronic supplementary material, figure S1 and for the data used
to plot this graph, see electronic supplementary material, figure S3. ‘Fossil fuel (reference)’ is the average carbon intensity of
petrol and diesel supplied in the EU (94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) as specified in the RED [8]. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found
in the literature and ‘n’ denotes the total number of analyses. (Online version in colour.)
summarized in figures 2–6 and discussed below for different types of biofuel. For further details,
see electronic supplementary material, figures S1–S7.
(i) First-generation biofuels

As first-generation biofuels may involve LUC, which in turn can affect significantly the total GWP,
the results reported in the literature are discussed first for the cases without and then with LUC.
3rd quartile
150 A = 17 A = 11 9
n = 37 n = 30
2nd quartile

..........................................................
100
A = 13 A=7 A=8
n = 31 A = 11 n = 23 n = 20 A=5
n = 23 n=6 average
50

0
EU RED requirement
(50% reduction) for
–50 installations in operation
before Oct 2015
EU RED requirement
(60% reduction) for
installations in operation
–100 after Oct 2015
short rotation forest Miscanthus switchgrass straw/ corn bagasse
coppice residue husk stover
Figure 4. GWP of second-generation bioethanol. Based on data from [17,18,33,34,40,66,68,119,120,102,104,105,115,117,128–163].

The negative values are due to the credits for co-products, such as heat and chemicals. For the box plot legend, see electronic
supplementary material, figure S1 and for the data used to plot this graph, see electronic supplementary material, figure S4.
‘Fossil fuel (reference)’ is the average carbon intensity of petrol and diesel supplied in the EU (94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) as specified in
the RED [8]. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found in the literature and ‘n’ denotes the total number of analyses. (Online
version in colour.)
120 3rd quartile

A=4
n = 14
100
A = 14 2nd quartile
n = 22
80
A = 18
n = 27
60 average
40
20
0 EU RED requirement (50% reduction)
for installations in operation before Oct
–20 2015
EU RED requirement (60% reduction)

–40 for installations in operation after Oct
Jatropha Camelina used cooking 2015
oil/tallow
Figure 5. GWP of second-generation biodiesel. Based on data from [20,47,89,90,97,108,164–189]. The negative values are due
to the credits for co-products. For the box plot legend, see electronic supplementary material, figure S1 and for the data used
to plot this graph, see electronic supplementary material, figure S5. ‘Fossil fuel (reference)’ is the average carbon intensity of
petrol and diesel supplied in the EU (94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) as specified in the RED [8]. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found
in the literature and ‘n’ denotes the total number of analyses. (Online version in colour.)
GWP without land-use change. As can be observed in figure 2, the GWP of first-generation
bioethanol from different food crops vary considerably, ranging from 3 to 162 g CO2 eq. MJ−1
(see electronic supplementary material, figure S2). Figure 2 also shows that the average GWP of
bioethanol is lower than that of petrol for all the feedstocks (23–59 versus 94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ).
However, only bioethanol from sugarcane can meet the RED requirement of 60% reduction
in GHG emissions relative to petrol. The average reductions in emissions from the other four
feedstocks—corn, wheat, molasses and sugar beet—are not sufficient to meet this requirement.
The main reasons that bioethanol from sugarcane can meet the 60% reduction requirement are
800 3rd quartile
A = 27 10
n = 60
2nd quartile
600

..........................................................
average
400
200
EU RED requirement (50% reduction) for
installations in operation before Oct 2015
0
EU RED requirement (60% reduction) for
installations in operation after Oct 2015
–200
–400
micro-algae
Figure 6. GWP of microalgae biodiesel. Based on data from [19,85,97,113,141,167,190–209]. The negative values are due to
the credits for co-products and avoided processes, such as wastewater treatment. For the box plot legend, see electronic
supplementary material, figure S1 and for the data used to plot this graph, see electronic supplementary material, figure S6.
‘Fossil fuel (reference)’ is the average carbon intensity of petrol and diesel supplied in the EU (94 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) as specified in
the RED [8]. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found in the literature and ‘n’ denotes the total number of analyses. (Online
version in colour.)
relatively lower inputs of agro-chemicals and higher yields of sugarcane crops as well as the
credits for electricity produced as a co-product in a biorefinery.
The GHG emissions for first-generation biodiesel also show a large variation across the LCA
studies, with the GWP ranging between 3 and 111 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 (electronic supplementary
material, figure S2). However, as shown in figure 2, the average GWP of biodiesel from all the
feedstocks considered is lower than that of fossil diesel. Nevertheless, only biodiesel from palm
oil meets the RED requirement for 60% reduction of the GWP relative to diesel (average value).
Rapeseed and soya bean also come close to fulfilling this requirement, but sunflower biodiesel
cannot meet even the 35% reduction.
The large variability in the GWP of first-generation biofuels shown in figure 2 is due to several
reasons. For example, the LCA study on corn ethanol and soya bean biodiesel production in China
found that the GWP of corn ethanol and soya bean biodiesel were 40 and 20% higher than petrol
and diesel, respectively, owing to the relatively higher use of fertilizers, higher process energy
consumption and the coal-dominated energy mix of China [47]. Low or no GHG savings (0–20%)
compared to the fossil fuels were reported for South African sugar beet bioethanol as well as
rapeseed, soya bean and sunflower biodiesel due to water scarcity affecting crop yields [48,49].
On the other hand, owing to higher yield and lower farming inputs, soya bean biodiesel produced
in Brazil, the USA and Argentina achieve more than 60% GHG savings relative to the fossil
fuels [50]. Studies on palm [51,52], rapeseed [53,54] and sunflower [55] biodiesel have also found
the significant effect on GHG emissions of different locations, farming practices and usage of
fertilizers. In the case of palm oil, the emissions vary with the options for handling of methane
emissions from the treatment of palm oil milling effluent [56]. The influence of the fuel used in
the biorefinery was noted in the case of wheat ethanol, with the GHG savings varying from 4
to 85% depending on whether straw or distillers’ dried grains are used as a fuel [57]. Similarly,
another study on molasses-based ethanol found that the use of bagasse instead of fuel oil would
reduce GHG emissions of bioethanol from 112 to 51 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 [58]. A number of studies on
biofuels from different feedstocks have also found that the emissions are highly influenced by the
utilization of by-products and the allocation method [52,59–62]. The effects of allocation methods
and other factors are discussed in more detail in §4.
GWP with land-use change. As shown in figure 3, if LUC is involved and considering the
11
average GWP values, bioethanol cannot meet the 60% GHG reduction requirement regardless
of the type of feedstock [62,63,119,120]. The increasing demand for bioethanol from sugarcane in

..........................................................
Brazil has led to a continuous expansion of land used for sugarcane cultivation [44,210]. If this
involves deforestation of tropical rainforest, the GWP of bioethanol from sugarcane can be up to
60% higher than that of petrol [58]. Similarly, expansion of soya bean cultivation in Central and
South America is driving both direct and indirect LUC [121,211]. Furthermore, palm cultivation
in Malaysia and Indonesia is associated with deforestation and drainage of peat lands. As a
consequence, biodiesel from palm oil on peat and forest lands can have 3–40 times higher GHG
emissions than diesel [64]. A recent study assessing the LUC impact of biofuels consumed in
Europe [212] also found that the GWP of palm oil and soya bean diesel are almost two times
higher than that of diesel. The same study also estimated the GWP of biodiesel from rapeseed
and sunflower to be 20 to 40% higher than from conventional diesel (figure 3).
The significant variability shown in figure 3 for the GWP related to LUC is due to several
reasons. For instance, some studies considered only ILUC [62,63,119,120] or DLUC [58,65–67],
while others included both [68,122]. Furthermore, some studies applied partial equilibrium
models and counterfactual (what if) scenarios to estimate ILUC emissions [62,119], whereas others
used ILUC factors recommended by the US EPA [120]. The former tended to obtain higher ILUC
emissions (34–155 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) [62,119,123] than the latter (5–16 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 ) [63,68,122].
For DLUC, several studies focused only on soil organic carbon (SOC) changes [65,122],
but others also considered changes in the carbon stock related to the removal of biomass,
both above and below the ground [58,67,68]. DLUC emissions also depend on the type of
converted land and its previous use. For example, studies assuming palm oil cultivation on
tropical forest and/or peat land in Malaysia and Indonesia estimated DLUC emissions in the
range of 150–530 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 [64,69,70,124]. On the other hand, studies on palm oil in
Colombia and Thailand considered increase in the carbon stock due to LUC, assuming that
the expansion of oil palm cultivation would occur in shrublands, savannahs, paddy fields and
other agricultural lands [52,56,71]. In the case of sugarcane, molasses and soy, LUC emission
reported in the literature varied from 30 to 200 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 depending on the previous land
use [35,58,69,72,121].
(ii) Second-generation biofuels

Figures 4 and 5 indicate that in most of the studies, the GWP of second-generation biofuels
is considerably lower than that of fossil fuels. However, there is a large variation among
different studies and feedstocks, with the values ranging from −115 to 173 g CO2 eq. MJ−1
for bioethanol and −88 to 150 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 for biodiesel (see electronic supplementary
material, figures S4 and S5). These variations reflect the diversity of feedstocks and production
routes, technology assumptions and methodological differences. Furthermore, some studies
also considered emissions from ILUC [119] and SOC sequestration [68,128] associated with the
production of SRC and perennial grasses as well as the reductions in SOC with removal of
agricultural residues used as biofuel feedstocks [68,129]; for further discussion on SOC, see
§4f. It should also be noted that the uncertainties related to technologies plays a particularly
important role in the assessment of advanced biofuels as these are yet to be fully commercialized.
Therefore, the quality of the available data is not as robust as in the case of the well-established
first-generation biofuels.
In general, lignocellulosic bioethanol from agricultural and forest residues has a lower GWP
than bioethanol from energy crops ( figure 4). This is largely due to N2 O emitted during the
cultivation of energy crops, related to the use of fertilizers. The latter are avoided in the case
of residues as they are assumed to have no environmental burdens, which are all allocated
to the original crop from which the waste is derived. In lignocellulosic bioethanol studies, the
residual lignin is assumed to co-generate heat and power to meet the energy needs of the process,
with surplus electricity exported to the grid. The biofuel production system is thus credited for
avoiding the GHG emissions from the equivalent amount of grid electricity. For some feedstocks
12
(SRC, forest residue, straw and corn stover), the credits for electricity generation and other co-
products are higher than the total emissions from the biofuel production. Consequently, these

..........................................................
studies report negative GWP, indicating the avoidance (saving) of GHG emissions. Some studies
on energy crops also considered the increase in the carbon stock on the land that was converted
to produce these crops, which led to the total net-negative GHG emissions [68,119]. On the other
hand, harvesting of agricultural and forest residues can result in reduction of the land carbon
stock [213–215], thus increasing GHG emissions [214,215]; however, most of the studies did not
account for these changes. In the case of bioethanol from agricultural residues, other factors, such
as the consideration of agricultural emissions [115], pre-treatment methods [130] and source of
energy for the biorefinery [33,131], have a significant influence on GHG emissions.
While the LCA literature on second-generation bioethanol covers a wide range of feedstocks,
the studies of biodiesel are more limited, focusing largely on three feedstocks: Jatropha, Camelina
and UCO/tallow. As can be seen in figure 5, the GWP of Jatropha and Camelina varies
widely because of variations in the yield in different regions and differences in processes and
assumptions, especially with respect to co-product allocation. For example, the yield of Jatropha
oil seeds varies in different studies by a factor of 30, from 0.4 to 12 t ha−1 yr−1 [25]. The influence
of allocation is also significant: using system expansion according to the US EPA methodology
results in the GWP of Jatropha biodiesel of −88 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 , while energy allocation as per the
RED approach leads to GHG emissions of 15–20 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 [20].
Although a majority of the studies of biodiesel from UCO report that GHG savings are greater
than the RED reduction target of 60%, some studies also estimate that the GHG savings from
this type of biodiesel are not sufficient to meet the target (figure 5). This is due to some specific
assumptions. For example, Intarapong et al. [90] considered pyrolysis for conversion of UCO to
biodiesel, which is more energy-intensive than transesterification. Similarly, another study [47]
assumed only a 5% biodiesel production yield, which is very low compared to more than 90%
considered in other studies. Furthermore, Escobar et al. [171], who used consequential LCA
methodology, considered indirect impacts, such as changes in the production of palm oil, soya
bean and animal feed, found that the GWP of UCO biodiesel would be only 25% lower than that
of diesel if ILUC and other indirect market impacts are considered.
(iii) Third-generation biofuels

In total, 27 LCA studies have estimated the GWP of third-generation algal biodiesel. However,
they have all used very different approaches, process designs, system boundaries, methodologies
and assumptions for feedstocks, nutrients and co-product management. As a result of the
variation in these choices, the GWP differs widely between the studies, ranging from −2400 to
2880 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 (figure 6; electronic supplementary material, figure S6). These results would
suggest that microalgae diesel can either reduce or increase GHG emissions significantly, relative
to diesel, depending on the assumptions. However, a majority of the studies conclude that, at
present state of development, algal biodiesel has higher life cycle GHG emissions than that of
fossil diesel. The main reasons for higher emissions include lower algal yield [19,190] and high
energy use in the cultivation, harvesting and drying stages [191–193].
Some studies which reported the high savings of GHG in comparison to diesel are based on
the best-case assumptions that may not be feasible for large-scale implementation. These include
the use of CO2 from cement plants as a feedstock [216], cane sugar as a nutrient/feedstock [217]
and recycling of nutrients from anaerobic digestion plants [194] or wastewater [190].
(b) Energy use

Various indicators have been used in LCA studies to quantify energy use in the life cycle of
biofuels, including fossil energy consumption, primary, secondary or cumulative energy demand
and net energy ratio [218]. However, many focused on fossil energy consumption, given that
A = 18
1.0 13
A = 13 A = 33 A = 14 A = 19 n = 45
n = 16 n = 53 n = 20 n = 29 3rd quartile
fossil energy use (MJ MJ−1) 0.8

..........................................................
0.6 2nd quartile
0.4
average
0.2
–0.2
–0.4
first generation second first generation second third generation
generation generation (× 10)
Figure 7. Fossil energy use in the life cycle of biofuels. Based on data from [17–19,40,47,48,54,55,57,58,60,68,76,77,80,
85,89,92,93,95,96,98,108,113–115,120,121,129,132,133,136,138,139,143,144,147,152–154,156,159,161,162,164–167,169–171,175,176,
179–181,187,190–192,195–199,204,206,208,219–223]. For the box plot legend, see electronic supplementary material, figure
S1 and for the data used to plot this graph, see electronic supplementary material, figure S7. The value for third-generation
biodiesel should be multiplied by 10 to obtain the actual value. ‘A’ refers to the number of LCA articles found in the literature
and ‘n’ denotes the total number of analyses. (Online version in colour.)
energy security and reducing dependence on fossil fuels are key objectives of national policies on
biofuels, in addition to climate change mitigation.
As indicated in figure 7, most of the studies estimate that the fossil energy consumption for
first- and second-generation biofuels is below 0.5 MJ MJ−1 . However, there is a wide variation
across different types of biofuel, ranging from 0.04 to 0.86 MJ MJ−1 for first generation and from
−0.57 to 0.87 MJ MJ−1 for second-generation biofuels (see electronic supplementary material,
figure S7), where negative values are due to energy credits for co-products, such as electricity and
heat. These variations are due to several factors, including differences in feedstock productivity,
agricultural practices, conversion technologies and allocation methods. The results are also
affected by the assumption on the type of energy (biomass or fossil) used in the conversion
process.
The range of estimates for fossil fuel demand in the life cycle of algal biodiesel is even wider,
ranging from 0.15 to 40.5 MJ MJ−1 (figure 7; electronic supplementary material, figure S7). Like
the GWP, the reasons for these variations are technological uncertainties and the diversity of
potential feedstocks and production systems. However, most studies agree that algal biofuels
are not energetically viable because of high energy requirements for pumping, dewatering, lipid
extraction and thermal drying [141,191,224–226]. In general, algae cultivation in raceway ponds
has lower energy demand than photo-bioreactors, with some studies suggesting that the former
can have energy demand below 1 MJ MJ−1 [225].
(c) Water use

Water use in the production of feedstocks can be high, particularly for first-generation
biofuels [5,227,228]. This is of concern where requirements for irrigation water for certain
feedstocks might compete with water used for other purposes, such as food production. With
increased agricultural biomass production for biofuels, the total global water consumption could
increase significantly by 2050 [229] and, in areas that are already water stressed, additional water
demand has a potential to substantially increase the overall environmental impacts of biofuels.
140
14
blue water consumption (m3 GJ–1) 120

..........................................................
100
80
60
40
22.9
20 8.7 7.4 3.3 3.3
0.8 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.9
0
sugarcane
rapessed
palm oil
wheat
maize
sugar beet
average EU
soya bean
sunflower
average EU
Figure 8. Blue water consumption for biofuels consumed in Europe. Based on data from [232]. Data labels represent the average
values. (Online version in colour.)
Water use is usually not included in LCA studies of biofuels, but there are numerous studies
that have specifically focused on this aspect of biofuels production. Most of these provide a
volumetric usage of water, such as the amount of green (soil moisture) and blue (surface)
water. This is not sufficient to assess local environmental impacts of water consumption as
these are highly dependent on the level of water availability in the local area and the specific
characteristics of the hydrological cycle, even if the quantity used is the same for a particular
product [230]. Furthermore, consideration of green water results in very large total water use for
most agricultural crops. Since the local hydrological cycle may in reality be affected little by the
use of green water in agriculture, inclusion of green water could overestimate the actual impact
of water use for biofuels [231].
A more recent study [232] that assessed the water footprint of first-generation biofuels
consumed in Europe suggests that blue water consumption of biofuels is very diverse, depending
on the underlying crop and country (figure 8). Bioethanol from sugar beet and wheat has
lower water consumption because many countries produce crops using little or no irrigation. By
contrast, the production of bioethanol from corn in Portugal consumes 86 m3 GJ−1 . Furthermore,
while no irrigation is needed to cultivate crops for biodiesel in the UK, Poland and Germany,
in Spain, on average 90 m3 of irrigation water is consumed to produce 1 GJ of crop-based
biodiesel [232].
As indicated in figure 8, the average blue water consumption of bioethanol and biodiesel
consumed in Europe is 3.3 m3 GJ−1 and 1.9 m3 GJ−1 , respectively—this is 40 and 60 times higher
compared to their respective fossil alternatives. If regional water stress is taken into account,
as opposed to just the volume of water consumed, biofuels have water footprints a factor of
55–246 higher than fossil fuels [232]. This is a result of a large share of water consumption in
the production of biofuels occurring in relatively water-stressed countries.
The blue water consumption of algae-based biofuels depends on the geographical location,
production systems and conversion routes [233]. For example, the blue water consumption for
biofuels produced in a closed photo-reactor in the Netherlands is estimated at 8 m3 GJ−1 , while it
can be as high as 193 m3 GJ−1 if algae are cultivated in open pond systems in Hawaii [233]. There
is also a difference between dry and wet conversion, with the blue water consumption being
higher for the latter.
(d) Biodiversity 15
Biofuels have the potential to contribute to loss of biodiversity through habitat loss and

..........................................................
degradation, excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution, over-exploitation and
unsustainable use of land, as well as the cultivation of invasive alien species used as
feedstocks [234]. The impact of biofuel production on biodiversity depends on the feedstock used
and scale of production, management practices and LUC [235].
Intensive cultivation and use of agro-chemicals in the feedstock production for first-generation
biofuels can create direct threats for local biodiversity [236,237]. LUC resulting from increased
biofuel production exacerbates the risk of losing biodiversity through the direct loss of wildlife
habitats, such as tropical rainforests [5,15].
Compared to first generation, second-generation biofuels are considered to have fewer
negative impacts on biodiversity and could even have a positive effect [238]. For plant-based
lignocellulosic feedstocks, this is because of their long growth cycle, low requirement for
fertilizers and pesticides and less human intervention needed during the growth period. For
example, large-scale SRC willow can provide benefits for some bird species, butterflies and
flowering plants [239]. Furthermore, if degraded land is used for cultivation of feedstocks,
the diversity of species might be enhanced. Similarly, perennial grasslands used for biomass
production may enhance avian diversity, including migratory species. However, large energy
crop monocultures can be detrimental to local biodiversity, particularly through habitat loss
and the expansion of invasive species [5]. Eucalyptus, switchgrass and some Miscanthus species
exhibit some traits of invasiveness [240].
The use of forest and agricultural residues as biofuel feedstock is expected to have a lower
negative impact on biodiversity than dedicated energy crops [238]. Some of the impact on
biodiversity associated with the use of forestry residues includes reduction in the amount
of decaying wood—a niche habitat—and disturbance of wildlife caused by increased forest
access. Excessive removal of agricultural residue from fields would also be a concern as it may
increase weed growth, which could lead to the increased use of herbicides and thus affect local
biodiversity.
For algal biofuels, the impact on biodiversity is uncertain. The large-scale cultivation of
algae can bring significant risk to coastal biodiversity through invasion by algal species of
coastal shallow ecosystems, such as mud flats, salt marshes, mangroves, sea grass bed and coral
reefs [236].
Although the biodiversity loss is identified as one of the current key environmental concerns,
it is only seldom included as an impact category in LCA studies of bioenergy systems [241].
Preserving biodiversity or avoiding biodiversity loss from biofuels is one of the criteria in
sustainability certification schemes. However, biodiversity loss is difficult to measure and there
are no standard ways of identifying and measuring systems that promote biodiversity.
(e) Other environmental impacts

The LCA studies on biofuels have used different impact assessment methods to estimate
the other environmental impacts. Therefore, it is difficult to compare them and provide a
meaningful range of impacts for different biofuels. Furthermore, the studies differ in scope,
with some considering the cradle-to-gate and others cradle-to-grave system boundary. Results
of the latter studies also depend on assumptions regarding the type of vehicle in which biofuels
are used. Nonetheless, several studies suggest that reduction in GHG emissions from biofuels
compared to fossil fuels is carried out at the expense of other impacts, such as acidification and
eutrophication [32,54,76,81,83,88,121,129,139,148,216,242–244].
These two impacts are compared in table 2 for different feedstocks relative to fossil fuels. As
can be seen, first-generation bioethanol has up to three times higher acidification and 3–20 times
higher eutrophication. Similarly, first-generation biodiesel has 30–70% higher acidification and
3–14 times greater eutrophication than the fossil alternative. These impacts are largely due to the
use of fertilizers and associated emissions of acid gases and nutrients to air and water.
Table 2. Acidification and eutrophication of biofuels relative to fossil fuels.
16
a a
biofuel type feedstock acidification eutrophication source

..........................................................
first generation
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
bioethanol corn 1.4–3 4.4–20 [242]

..................................................................................................................................................................
wheat 3 5 [76]
..................................................................................................................................................................
sugar beet 1.4–1.8 6–15 [83]

..................................................................................................................................................................
sugarcane 2 2.8 [81]

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel rape seed 1.3–1.7 3.1–5 [32,54]

..................................................................................................................................................................
soya bean 1.3–1.7 4–5 [121]

..................................................................................................................................................................
palm oil 1.3 14 [88]

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
second generation
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
bioethanol short rotation coppice 0.45 1.2 [139]

..................................................................................................................................................................
switchgrass 1.1 3.2 [148]

..................................................................................................................................................................
straw 1.6–3 2–3.6 [129]

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel used cooking oil 0.2 0.63 [243]

..................................................................................................................................................................
Jatropha 1 1 [244]
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
third generation
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
biodiesel algae 2.6–3 2.1–3.2 [216]

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
a The values represent the ratio of impacts from biofuels over fossil fuels and are dimensionless.
Lignocellulosic bioethanol from SCR performs better for acidification, but bioethanol from
switchgrass and straw is worse than petrol for both impact categories. However, biodiesel from
UCO has lower acidification and eutrophication than fossil diesel. These two impacts are also
higher for algal biodiesel than for the fossil equivalent [216]. However, as mentioned earlier,
the absence of full-scale plant data, large variability in production parameters and various
assumptions lead to high uncertainty in the LCA estimates for algal biofuels [197].
4. Discussion
While many studies on biofuels have examined multiple scenarios and conducted sensitivity
analyses, only a few have conducted comprehensive uncertainty analyses [63,197,245],
demonstrating that the variability in results can be large. It is also clear from the findings
discussed above that the outcomes of LCA studies are highly situational and dependent on many
factors, including assumptions, data variation and gaps, models, methodology and software tools
used. The outcomes of the study are also affected by the choice of allocation method, system
boundaries and the cut-off criteria for auxiliary inputs. Especially in relation to GWP, there are
significant uncertainties in models for estimating soil N2 O emissions, direct and indirect LUC
and the extent and duration of changes in soil and vegetation carbon stocks. The effects of these
aspects on LCA results are discussed below.
(a) Data
The problems related to data availability and quality are inherent to LCA. It is always preferable to
use site-specific inventory data for developing LCA models of biofuels. However, data availability
is often limited, particularly for second- and third-generation biofuels that, along with the
associated process technologies, are still under development. As such, the use of unrepresentative
data or assumptions to fill data gaps becomes a source of uncertainty [29]. There is also a great
deal of technical, spatial and temporal variability associated with agronomic practices, such as
fertilizer inputs, cultivation intensities and yields, as well as with biofuel conversion processes.
17
LCA results are highly sensitive to variations in crop yields, use of nitrogen fertilizer and energy
sources for biofuel conversion processes. Original and measured field data are still scarce and

..........................................................
many studies rely on secondary data. There is also a room for improvement in existing LCA
databases and a need to develop better, open access databases with common assumptions. Many
data in common usage are reportedly out-of-date and finding new data is often difficult and
time-consuming.
(b) Methodological approaches

As mentioned earlier, ALCA and CLCA are different techniques that follow different
methodologies and will normally have very different results that must be interpreted carefully
based on the goal and scope of the study. For example, Searchinger et al. [246] found that using
ALCA resulted in a 20% saving in GHG emissions from US corn ethanol compared to petrol.
However, following a CLCA approach and considering the increase in output required by the US
Energy Independence and Security Act lead to a 47% increase in emissions relative to petrol. This
increase was related to LUC induced by higher prices of corn, soya bean and other grains as a
consequence of the additional demand for corn for ethanol production.
As also mentioned earlier, CLCA is more suited for policy applications. However, the use of
CLCA for policy is still in infancy and its application to biofuels is controversial and subject to
criticism [29,247]. One of the main reasons is that consequential analysis is highly complex, being
dependent on future projections, formulation of possible ‘what if’ scenarios and counterfactual
circumstances, economic models of relationships between demand for inputs, price elasticities,
supply and market effects of co-products, all of which can be highly uncertain [26,248,249]. There
is also a real challenge in defining meaningful scenarios for how the world would develop with
a biofuels policy or production in place. This is true for individual feedstocks all the way up
to the economic and energy system models incorporated into CLCA studies. Therefore, caution
should be exercised with the interpretation of CLCA results [249]. Furthermore, unlike ALCA,
there is still no internationally agreed methodology for CLCA, making it difficult to carry out and
compare different studies.
(c) Allocation methods

Allocation is one of the most controversial issues in LCA. Both system expansion and allocation
are subject to shortcomings: for system expansion, the difficulty is to estimate various substitution
effects (similar to the related consequential issues in CLCA), while different allocation methods
produce very different results. For instance, allocation by mass could result in the majority
of impacts being allocated to the co-products rather than the biofuel which is the main
(economic) product, while allocation by product cost/price leads to changes in the estimates
of environmental impacts over time with variations in costs/prices without any other changes
in the system. Several studies considered more than one allocation approach and found that
the results were highly affected. For instance, some authors [17,132] showed that biofuels had
significantly lower environmental impacts when using system expansion instead of allocation.
In some cases, system expansion can lead to the negative values, suggesting net savings in
environmental impacts, including in GHG emissions. However, studies assessing uncertainty in
LCA of biofuels showed that system expansion also results in higher uncertainties [63,65]. Other
authors found that environmental impacts were higher if economic allocation was used instead
of mass and energy allocation [250]. For some biofuels, the co-products are sufficiently substantial
that choice of allocation procedure can tip the balance between net benefit and net impact.
(d) Emissions of soil nitrous oxide

Emissions of N2 O arise from application of nitrogen fertilizer and decomposition of organic
matter in soil. N2 O is a potent GHG with a GWP 265 times higher than CO2 [41]; hence, its
emission can have a significant effect on the GHG balance of biofuels. The N2 O emissions are
18
particularly significant for first-generation biofuel crops since fertilization rates are larger for
these than for second-generation biofuels from perennial energy crops, which are usually grown

..........................................................
without fertilizers, except during the initial establishment of the crop [251,252].
LCA studies often use the ‘Tier 1’ methodology developed by the Intergovernmental Panel
for Climate Change (IPPC) to estimate N2 O emissions from fertilizers [253]. According to this
method, 1–1.5% of nitrogen in synthetic fertilizer applied to crops is emitted as N2 O [253]. Since
in reality, the occurrence and level of N2 O emissions depend on many factors, including soil
characteristics and local weather following fertilizer application on the soil, the default IPCC
emission factors represent an uncertain estimate [23]. For example, a study by Crutzen et al. [254]
suggested that N2 O emissions in feedstock production can be three to five times higher than
those estimated based on the IPCC methodology. Inclusion of these variable N2 O rates leads to
dramatically different estimates of GHG emissions in the life cycles of biofuels. For instance, for
corn ethanol, the nitrogen conversion of 5% instead of 1.5% could change its GHG savings relative
to petrol from around 40% to zero [255].
Conversely, a recent study in the UK concluded that N2 O emissions averaged across arable
land in the UK are below those determined by following the IPCC guidelines [256]. Compared to
the default IPCC emissions factor of 1% (of the amount of nitrogen applied), direct N2 O emissions
from soil related to the use of fertilizers on crops for first-generation biofuels were estimated to
be, on average, 0.46% of the nitrogen applied. However, the study noted that any one instance of
fertilizer application is subject to interacting effects of rainfall and soil type, such that fertilizer-
induced emissions could also be larger than the default IPCC emission factors in the wetter
regions of the UK. Thus, in summary, the estimates of N2 O emissions are highly variable and
uncertain and should be treated with caution when interpreting the results.
(e) Land-use change

An increasing global demand for biofuels highlighted the potential for the competition for land
between cropland and natural ecosystems. Early LCA studies on biofuels, which excluded LUC,
concluded that first-generation biofuels, such as corn ethanol, had lower GWP than petrol [257].
However, when attempts were made to account for the LUC effects of the expansion of first-
generation biofuels, these findings came under question [43,246]. Since then, several other studies
have cast doubt on the ability of first-generation biofuels to meet mandatory GHG savings targets
if LUC is involved [119,258].
From an LCA perspective, DLUC is relatively straightforward and easy to include in the
assessment, although the uncertainty remains high. However, estimating ILUC related to biofuels
remains difficult, complex and highly uncertain [259,260]. The latter is exemplified by that fact
that estimates of GHG emissions from ILUC range widely, from very small to very large [261].
For instance, a study on the ILUC associated with US corn ethanol found that the ILUC emissions
varied from 10 to 340 g CO2 eq. MJ−1 [262]. For these reasons, the effects of ILUC and how
to account for them in assessing the sustainability of biofuels are key areas requiring further
research and consensus building [42,260]. Part of the challenge is constructing and analysing
credible counterfactual scenarios. Another challenge is the economic (equilibrium) models used
for consequential modelling [247,263] and the assumed yield-price elasticities for crops [26]. ILUC
models make various assumption to estimate how much indirect change might be induced up to
20 years into the future under prescribed scenarios. Therefore, such estimates would only apply
for the assumed conditions and must be interpreted with caution [264]. The lack of transparency
in ILUC models, many of which are proprietary, is also problematic.
There is an ongoing question about how policymakers should respond to the growing evidence
on ILUC from biofuel production. The blanket application of ‘ILUC factors’ according to feedstock
type is unpopular as it offers producers no opportunity to improve the performance of their
individual supply chains [265]. Moreover, there are many other drivers of LUC besides biofuels,
such as demand for food and timber, urban development and infrastructure, leading some to
19
argue that it is unfair to consider ILUC only for biofuels [247,266].

..........................................................
(f) Soil organic carbon
SOC is one of the largest carbon pools in the terrestrial ecosystem [267]. Its balance is affected
because of agricultural activities and LUC. Depending on various soil characteristics and
agricultural practices, soil can act as either a sink or a source of carbon emissions. Soils may
lose SOC by mineralization through cultivation, emitting CO2 to the atmosphere. Alternatively,
SOC may increase through cropping or from repeated addition of crop residues or organic
manures [268].
When biomass is left to decay in the soil, a part of the carbon in the biomass is sequestered into
soil. Therefore, assuming biomass would have otherwise been left to decay in the soil, harvesting
it decreases SOC and this may affect significantly the GHG balance of a biofuel [269,270]. For
example, a study that included the effects of the removal of corn residue across the US corn belt
concluded that the GWP of corn stover ethanol may exceed that of conventional petrol [271].
Another study on wheat-straw ethanol suggested that there is only a 30% probability that its GHG
emissions will be 35% lower than that of petrol if SOC changes are included in the analysis [272].
A study on sugarcane ethanol claimed that the GHG balance of sugarcane ethanol could be
significantly higher if the impacts on SOC from pre-harvest burning were considered [210]. The
burning of biomass in the field, which is often carried out prior to a sugarcane harvest to help
manual harvest, means that far less crop residues are left on the land to be incorporated into the
soil.
Changes in SOC can also have a major influence on GHG emissions from LUC associated
with biofuel feedstock production [267,273]. For example, reversal of grassland, woodland and
perennial crops back to arable lands could reduce soil carbon by 0.6–1.7 t C ha−1 yr−1 , which
would be emitted to the atmosphere as CO2 (2.2–6.2 t ha−1 yr−1 ). On the other hand, cultivation
of perennial energy crops, such as SRC and Miscanthus, could sequester CO2 from the atmosphere
into the soil at the rate of 2.2 t CO2 ha−1 yr−1 [267]. However, the sequestration potential is very
site-specific and highly dependent on former and current agronomic practices, previous land use,
as well as climate and soil characteristics [17,40,267,274–276]. Therefore, quantifying changes in
SOC storage is an important factor in estimating GHG emissions of biofuels [277]. However, most
LCA studies do not account for potential SOC changes from biomass cropping systems. This
is probably due to inherent complexity of soil science, the high degree of intra- and inter-site
variability, substantial data uncertainties and the challenges of linking biomass feedstock supply
to specific soils [46]. Furthermore, there is no consensus in LCA on how to account for SOC change
of agricultural activities and delayed GHG emissions [278]. However, the work on developing
models to estimate SOC emissions related to biofuels is ongoing [273–275].
(g) Biogenic carbon

In the context of biofuels, the term biogenic carbon refers to CO2 that is sequestered from the
atmosphere during the growth of feedstocks and subsequently released during the combustion of
the biofuel. ‘Carbon neutrality’ is achieved when CO2 sequestered and subsequently released are
in balance. However, carbon neutrality cannot be claimed if there is a potential imbalance or a time
delay between the amount of CO2 taken up during feedstock growth and the amount released
through biofuel production and use. Since many bioenergy products—including annual crops
and perennial grasses—have relatively short lifespans, carbon neutrality is commonly assumed
in LCA standards and regulations. Hence, most LCA studies of biofuels assume that biogenic
CO2 emissions, both from end-use combustion and the burning biomass to produce energy for
conversion processes, are fully balanced by CO2 uptake during feedstock growth. While this
assumption is reasonable for fuels from annual crops and perennial grass feedstocks, it is open to
challenge in relation to biofuel production from feedstocks with harvest cycles of more than a few
years—such as longer-lived lignocellulosic feedstocks from forestry [26,279]. For such feedstocks,
20
it is important to consider the balance of carbon sequestered during feedstock growth versus that
which is emitted during biofuel production and use, together with the overall time profile of

..........................................................
biogenic carbon storage, emission and re-sequestration [279].
Different approaches to account for the temporal impact of carbon emissions are suggested
in the literature; for example, carbon payback period, carbon discounting and time-integrated
accounting of biogenic carbon [279,280]. Where accounting for the carbon storage in other,
more long-lived bio-based products is required, there are various standards and methods [46]
and these contain significant procedural differences. For example, GHG Protocol [281], PAS
2050 [282] and ISO 14067 [283] require reporting of emissions and removal of GHG emissions from
biogenic carbon sources, while regulations the RED [8] and RFS [7] do not require such reporting.
Furthermore, the time between the production of the product (storage of biogenic carbon) and
its end of life (release of biogenic carbon), referred to as ‘delayed emissions’, varies among the
standards. For instance, in PAS 2050 [282], all emissions that occur within a 100-year period are
quantified and treated as if they occurred at the beginning of the time period. By contrast, ISO
14067 [283] makes a distinction between emissions released within and after the first 10 years.
(h) Other environmental impacts

Production and use of biofuel generate emissions of various air pollutants, including particulate
matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Unburned hydrocarbons, VOCs and NOx are precursors for the formation of
summer smog and ground-level ozone. These pollutants are associated with increased morbidity
and mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and certain cancers [284,285]. Air
quality modelling studies show that life cycle emissions of some pollutants may be higher for
biofuels when compared with fossil fuels, largely resulting from the emissions associated with
feedstock production and biofuel processing [284,286]. For example, in the case of sugarcane
ethanol in Brazil, burning of straw in fields is the common practice in certain areas and is the
predominant source of PM [284,286]. Studies on health impacts of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil
suggest that there is strong evidence that burning straw in sugarcane fields causes substantial
respiratory diseases, such as asthma and pneumonia, in sugarcane fieldworkers and local
populations [284,286–289]. These effects are often ignored in LCA studies.
In cradle-to-grave LCA studies, assessing impacts of vehicular exhaust emissions is another
challenge as they are affected by many different parameters, including the type of engine and
how it is run (the operational drive cycle), vehicle age and maintenance, the quality of the
base fuel and exhaust after treatment [290]. Vehicular exhaust emissions of bioethanol blends
vary with blend strength. However, in general, lower bioethanol blends (E5–E15) have lower
CO and PM emissions compared to petrol [290,291]. Beer et al. [291] suggest that lower PM
emissions from low-ethanol blends used in spark-ignition vehicles have slight health benefits
over petrol. However, they lead to significantly higher emissions of acetaldehyde, which is one of
the precursor VOCs involved in ground-level ozone formation. Similarly, higher ethanol blends
(E85) lead to comparable, or slightly lower, levels of PM, NOx and CO emissions than petrol, but
5–10 times higher acetaldehyde emissions [290,292,293].
Compared to fossil diesel, biodiesel has generally lower exhaust emissions of PM, CO,
hydrocarbons and VOCs, but higher NOx emissions [294,295]. These differences are small for 5–
20% biodiesel blends and would lead to negligible or non-measurable impacts on air quality [294],
but increase with higher blends [290]. On the other hand, Larcombe et al. [296] argue that, despite
having lower PM emissions, biodiesel exhaust emissions could potentially be more harmful to
human health because of higher proportion of ultra-fine particles (less than 100 nm diameter)
compared to diesel exhaust. This is due to the fact that smaller particles remain suspended in
the air for longer, are more easily inhaled and are able to penetrate more deeply into the lungs.
However, other assessments on the potential human health implications of biodiesel suggest that
the use of biodiesel fuel blends compared to fossil diesel results in minimal changes in health
impacts [294,295]. Thus, the topic of human health impacts from biofuels remains open to debate,
21
requiring further research and evidence.
Besides air pollution, production of liquid biofuels could affect human health directly through

..........................................................
water and soil pollution and occupational hazards [284]. However, these effects are scarcely
discussed in the literature and should be explored further to understand whether there are risks
that need to be addressed.
5. Conclusion and recommendations

LCA is widely used as a tool to estimate GWP and other environmental impacts of biofuels.
However, as evident from this review, the estimates vary widely among the studies owing to a
wide range of methodological choices in LCA and various uncertainties. Despite this, the existing
evidence base is instructive. Firstly, it shows that, if no LUC is involved, first-generation biofuels
can—on average—have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but GHG savings for most of the
feedstocks are not sufficient to meet those required by the RED. Secondly, in general, second-
generation biofuels have a greater potential than first generation to reduce GHG emissions, again
provided there is no LUC. However, the development of second-generation biofuels will take time
and is likely to depend on the continued support of first-generation fuels to give the industry the
confidence to invest. Thirdly, it is also clear that, at present state of development, third-generation
biofuels from algae are unlikely to make a contribution to the transport sector as their GHG
emissions are higher than those from fossil fuels. Moreover, they are unproven and expensive
to produce and, as such, the algal feedstock will continue to be restricted to high-value markets,
such as cosmetics and dietary supplements.
LCA is a complex tool that lies at the interface between science, engineering and policy. Despite
this complexity, it is often perceived as a tool that can give a definitive answer to multifaceted
questions. As the findings in this review demonstrate clearly, there are no definitive answers.
Even focusing only on the GWP of biofuels—one of the main drivers for their development—
brings with it a host of uncertainties. Moreover, almost every aspect related to biofuels is
dynamic in nature across different scales, which adds to the complexity. Examples include
changes in soil carbon content over time (micro-scale); time needed to replace vegetation used
as feedstock for biofuels (meso-scale); and development of global biofuel supply chains (macro-
scale). Considering these dynamic aspects and their interconnections presents a considerable
challenge. There are also significant uncertainties in the models for estimating direct and indirect
LUC, changes in SOC stocks and N2 O emissions. It is important to recognize these limitations
and interpret the results accordingly.
In addition to the environmental impacts, there are many other sustainability issues that must
be considered when assessing the sustainability of biofuels. These include: costs of production
and competitiveness with fossil fuels; food, energy and water security; employment provision;
rural development; and human health impacts. It is essential that the sustainability aspects of
biofuels be evaluated on a life cycle basis across full supply chains to avoid shifting the burdens
from one part of the life cycle or supply chain to another. It is also important to note that LCA
and wider sustainability assessments are of little use if the results cannot be trusted. Therefore,
strong auditing of biofuel supply chains is vital to prevent negative socio-economic effects as
well as to ensure traceability of the fuels and to mitigate the risk of fraud. Moreover, improving
transparency, data availability and sharing are key if LCA is to be trusted and useful for policy.
This could be achieved through development of open national and global databases, in a similar
way that national inventories have been developed for GHG reporting under the Kyoto Protocol.
It is also important to ensure that the data and models from different disciplines that are used
in LCA preserve reasonable levels of transparency, rigour and robustness to avoid misuse and
misinterpretation.
ALCA studies, which account for the direct impacts, should follow the ISO 14040 and
14044 standards more rigorously. For CLCA, both methodological and practical aspects need
improvements. For the former, further work is required towards the standardization of CLCA
methodology. As part of that, there is a need to improve development of counterfactual (what if)
22
scenarios and ILUC models. Involvement of multiple stakeholders can help to build consensus on
the definition of the scenarios and to improve the transparency of ILUC models, their assumptions

..........................................................
and the associated uncertainty. In addition to improving the CLCA methodology, much work
is required in its application in practice. Specifically, there is a need to validate ILUC models
with empirical evidence; empirical methods to test alternative hypotheses also require attention.
Further work is also needed on the development of models and empirical evidence of changes
in soil and plant carbon stocks as well as emissions of nitrous oxide related to the application of
fertilizers. Research is also needed on estimations of biogenic carbon, particularly changes in the
forest carbon stock that may be affected by an increase in biofuels demand.
It is also important to take into account that biofuels do not exist in isolation but are part of
much wider systems, including energy, agriculture and forestry. Like other production systems
with which they interact, biofuels impact on various ecosystem services, such as land, water and
food. It is, therefore, essential to take an integrated, systems view to developing future policy to
ensure that biofuels are not disadvantaged relative to other sectors or that progress made in this
sector is not undone by unsustainable practices in others. Analysis and, ultimately, policies based
on ecosystem services and natural capital at a landscape level are needed to make the best overall
use of land. This would, in turn, optimize ecosystem services, such as carbon storage, biodiversity,
reductions of agricultural run-off and increases in water quality and flood risk management.
Complete value chains rather than single bioenergy products should be analysed together to
understand the interactions across sectors and land uses with the goal of identifying opportunities
where collective benefits can be realized.
Data accessibility. This article does not contain any additional data.
Authors’ contributions. H.K.J.: literature review, analysis and presentation of results, paper writing. A.C.: literature
reivew, paper drafting. A.A.: conceptualization, supervision, paper writing.
Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding. The study was funded by Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS),
Department for Transport and Research Councils UK.
Acknowledgements. This review was originally carried out as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering study
on Sustainability of liquid biofuels and subsequently fully updated as part of a Research Councils UK project
(EP/K011820/1). The suggestions and comments by members of the Academy’s expert working group, the
Academy’s Engineering Policy Committee as well as external stakeholders are gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Sims R et al. 2014 Transport. In Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change contribution
of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
(eds O Edenhofer et al.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2. IEA. 2019 Renewables 2019. Paris. See https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2019.
3. Michael K, Steffi N, Peter D. 2011 The past, present, and future of biofuels—biobutanol as
promising alternative. In Biofuel production—recent developments and prospects (ed. MA dos
Santos), pp. 451–486. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
4. Soccol CR, Vandenberghe LPS, Costa B, Woiciechowski AL, de Carvalho JC, Medeiros ABP,
Francisco AM, Bonomi LJ. 2005 Brazilian biofuel program: an overview. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 64,
897–904.
5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013 Biofuels and the sustainability challenge: a global
assessment of sustainability issues, trends and policies for biofuels and related feedstocks. Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
6. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2016 Innovation outlook: advanced liquid
biofuels. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: International Renewable Energy Agency.
7. EPA. 2010 Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis
(EPA-420-R-10-006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. See www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
renewablefuels/regulations.htm
8. European Commission. 2018 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
23
Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Brussels,
Belgium: Official Journal of the European Union.

..........................................................
9. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). 2019 Renewables 2019—
Global status report. See https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_
full_report_en.pdf.
10. OECD/FAO. 2019 OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2019–2028. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
11. IEA. 2011 Technology roadmap: biofuels for transport. Paris, France: International Energy
Agency.
12. Timilsina GR. 2014 Biofuels in the long-run global energy supply mix for transportation. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20120323. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0323)
13. Searle S, Malins C. 2015 A reassessment of global bioenergy potential in 2050. GCB Bioenergy
7, 328–336. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12141)
14. Azapagic A, Stichnothe H. 2011 Assessing sustainability of biofuels. In Sustainable
development in practice: case studies for engineers and scientists, 2nd edn (eds A Azapagic,
S Perdan). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
15. UNEP. 2009 Towards sustainable production and use of resources: assessing biofuels.
United Nations Environment Programme. See https://www.resourcepanel.org/file/560/
download?token=04PkF6fe.
16. Roy P, Dutta A. 2013 Life cycle assessment of ethanol derived from sawdust. Bioresour.
Technol. 150, 407–411. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.057)
17. Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Dennis JS. 2010 The environmental and economic
sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour. Technol. 101,
9612–9623. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104)
18. Daystar J, Treasure T, Gonzalez R, Reeb C, Venditti R, Kelley S. 2015 The NREL biochemical
and thermochemical ethanol conversion processes: financial and environmental analysis
comparison. Bioresources 10, 5096–5116. (doi:10.15376/biores.10.3.5096-5116)
19. Passell H et al. 2013 Algae biodiesel life cycle assessment using current commercial data.
J. Environ. Manage. 129, 103–111. (doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.055)
20. Shonnard DR, Klemetsrud B, Sacramento-Rivero J, Navarro-Pineda F, Hilbert J, Handler
R, Suppen N, Donovan RP. 2015 A review of environmental life cycle assessments of
liquid transportation biofuels in the Pan American region. Environ. Manage. 56, 1356–1376.
(doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0543-8)
21. Morales M, Quintero J, Conejeros R, Aroca G. 2015 Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic
bioethanol: environmental impacts and energy balance. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 42,
1349–1361. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.097)
22. Roy P, Tokuyasu K, Orikasa T, Nakamura N, Shiina T. 2012 A review of life cycle
assessment (LCA) of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Jarq-Jpn Agric. Res. Q. 46,
41–57. (doi:10.6090/jarq.46.41)
23. Menten F, Cheze B, Patouillard L, Bouvart F. 2013 A review of LCA greenhouse gas
emissions results for advanced biofuels: the use of meta-regression analysis. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 26, 108–134. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.021)
24. Sieverding HL, Bailey LM, Hengen TJ, Clay DE, Stone JJ. 2015 Meta-analysis of soybean-
based biodiesel. J. Environ. Qual. 44, 1038–1048. (doi:10.2134/jeq2014.07.0320)
25. van Eijck J, Romijn H, Balkema A, Faaij A. 2014 Global experience with jatropha cultivation
for bioenergy: an assessment of socio-economic and environmental aspects. Renew. Sustain.
26. Sanchez ST, Woods J, Akhurst M, Brander M, O’Hare M, Dawson TP, Edwards R, Liska AJ,
Malpas R. 2012 Accounting for indirect land-use change in the life cycle assessment of biofuel
supply chains. J. R. Soc. Interface. 9, 1105–1119. (doi:10.1098/rsif.2011.0769)
27. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F. 2014 Using attributional life cycle assessment to
estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 73–83.
(doi:10.1111/jiec.12074)
28. ISO. 2006 ISO 14040:2006 environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and
framework. London, UK: BSI.
29. McManus MC, Taylor CM, Mohr A, Whittaker C, Scown CD, Borrion AL, Glithero NJ,
Yin Y. 2015 Challenge clusters facing LCA in environmental decision-making—what we
can learn from biofuels. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1399–1414. (doi:10.1007/s11367-015-
24
0930-7)
30. Singh A, Pant D, Korres NE, Nizami A-S, Prasad S, Murphy JD. 2010 Key issues in life cycle

..........................................................
assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and perspectives.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 5003–5012. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.062)
31. Wiloso EI, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR. 2012 LCA of second generation bioethanol: a review and
some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5295–5308.
(doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.035)
32. Iriarte A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X. 2012 Transition towards a more environmentally
sustainable biodiesel in South America: the case of Chile. Appl. Energy. 91, 263–273.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.09.024)
33. Sreekumar A, Shastri Y, Wadekar P, Patil M, Lali A. 2020 Life cycle assessment of ethanol
production in a rice-straw-based biorefinery in India. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 22,
409–422. (doi:10.1007/s10098-019-01791-0)
34. Mandade P, Bakshi BR, Yadav GD. 2015 Ethanol from Indian agro-industrial lignocellulosic
biomass—a life cycle evaluation of energy, greenhouse gases, land and water. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 20, 1649–1658. (doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0966-8)
35. Kesieme U, Pazouki K, Murphy A, Chrysanthou A. 2019 Attributional life cycle assessment
of biofuels for shipping: addressing alternative geographical locations and cultivation
systems. J. Environ. Manage. 235, 96–104. (doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.036)
36. Prasara-A J, Grant T. 2011 Comparative life cycle assessment of uses of rice husk for energy
purposes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 493–502. (doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0293-7)
37. Moghaddam EA, Ahlgren S, Hulteberg C, Nordberg A. 2015 Energy balance and global
warming potential of biogas-based fuels from a life cycle perspective. Fuel Process. Technol.
132, 74–82. (doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.12.014)
38. Garba NA, Duckers LJ, Hall WJ. 2014 Climate change impacts on life cycle greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions savings of biomethanol from corn and soybean. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19,
806–813. (doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0680-3)
39. Lim S, Lee KT. 2011 Parallel production of biodiesel and bioethanol in palm-oil-based
biorefineries: life cycle assessment on the energy and greenhouse gases emissions. Biofuels
Bioprod. Biorefin.-Biofpr. 5, 132–150. (doi:10.1002/bbb.271)
40. Cherubini F, Jungmeier G. 2010 LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,
bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 53–66.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2)
41. IPCC. 2013 Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to
the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
42. Harris ZM, Spake R, Taylor G. 2015 Land use change to bioenergy: a meta-analysis
of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 82, 27–39. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.
2015.05.008)
43. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. 2008 Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238. (doi:10.1126/science.1152747)
44. Mello FFC et al. 2014 Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat. Clim. Change
4, 605–609. (doi:10.1038/nclimate2239)
45. Borjesson P, Tufvesson LM. 2011 Agricultural crop-based biofuels—resource efficiency and
environmental performance including direct land use changes. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 108–120.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.001)
46. Pawelzik P et al. 2013 Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-
based materials—reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations. Resour. Conserv.
Recycling. 73, 211–228. (doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.006)
47. Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S, Guo Q. 2009 Energy consumption and GHG emissions of six
biofuel pathways by LCA in (the) People’s Republic of China. Appl. Energy. 86, S197–S208.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.045)
48. Stephenson AL, von Blottnitz H, Brent AC, Dennis JS, Scott SA. 2010 Global warming
potential and fossil-energy requirements of biodiesel production scenarios in South Africa.
Energy Fuels 24, 2489–2499. (doi:10.1021/ef100051g)
49. Tomaschek J, Oezdemir ED, Fahl U, Eltrop L. 2012 Greenhouse gas emissions and abatement
costs of biofuel production in South Africa. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 4, 799–810.
(doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01154.x)
50. Knoope MMJ, Balzer CH, Worrell E. 2019 Analysing the water and greenhouse gas
25
effects of soya bean-based biodiesel in five different regions. GCB Bioenergy 11, 381–399.
(doi:10.1111/gcbb.12558)

..........................................................
51. Harsono SS, Prochnow A, Grundmann P, Hansen A, Hallmann C. 2012 Energy balances
and greenhouse gas emissions of palm oil biodiesel in Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy 4, 213–228.
(doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01118.x)
52. Prapaspongsa T, Musikavong C, Gheewala SH. 2017 Life cycle assessment of palm
biodiesel production in Thailand: impacts from modelling choices, co-product
utilisation, improvement technologies, and land use change. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 435–447.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.130)
53. Gallejones P, Pardo G, Aizpurua A, del Prado A. 2015 Life cycle assessment of first-
generation biofuels using a nitrogen crop model. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 1191–1201.
(doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.061)
54. Gonzalez-Garcia S, Garcia-Rey D, Hospido A. 2013 Environmental life cycle assessment for
rapeseed-derived biodiesel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 61–76. (doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0444-5)
55. Iriarte A, Villalobos P. 2013 Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance of sunflower
biodiesel: identification of its key factors in the supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 73,
46–52. (doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.014)
56. Castanheira ÉG, Freire F. 2017 Environmental life cycle assessment of biodiesel produced
with palm oil from Colombia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 587–600. (doi:10.1007/
s11367-016-1097-6)
57. Martinez-Hernandez E, Ibrahim MH, Leach M, Sinclair P, Campbell GM, Sadhukhan J. 2013
Environmental sustainability analysis of UK whole-wheat bioethanol and CHP systems.
Biomass Bioenergy 50, 52–64. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.01.001)
58. García CA, Fuentes A, Hennecke A, Riegelhaupt E, Manzini F, Masera O. 2011 Life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico.
Appl. Energy. 88, 2088–2097. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.072)
59. Soam S, Kumar R, Gupta RP, Sharma PK, Tuli DK, Das B. 2015 Life cycle assessment of fuel
ethanol from sugarcane molasses in northern and western India and its impact on Indian
biofuel programme. Energy 83, 307–315. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.025)
60. Tsiropoulos I et al. 2014 Life cycle assessment of sugarcane ethanol production in India
in comparison to Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1049–1067. (doi:10.1007/s11367-014-
0714-5)
61. Weinberg J, Kaltschmitt M. 2013 Greenhouse gas emissions from first generation
ethanol derived from wheat and sugar beet in Germany—analysis and comparison
of advanced by-product utilization pathways. Appl. Energy. 102, 131–139. (doi:10.1016/
j.apenergy.2012.06.047)
62. Styles D, Gibbons J, Williams AP, Dauber J, Stichnothe H, Urban B, Chadwick DR,
Jones DL. 2015 Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass
energy options within an arable crop rotation. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 1305–1320.
(doi:10.1111/gcbb.12246)
63. Yan X, Boies AM. 2013 Quantifying the uncertainties in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
for UK wheat ethanol. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015024. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015024)
64. Hassan MNA, Jaramillo P, Griffin WM. 2011 Life cycle GHG emissions from Malaysian oil
palm bioenergy development: the impact on transportation sector’s energy security. Energy
Policy 39, 2615–2625. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.030)
65. Kim S, Dale BE. 2009 Regional variations in greenhouse gas emissions of biobased products
in the United States—corn-based ethanol and soybean oil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 540–546.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0106-4)
66. Muñoz I, Flury K, Jungbluth N, Rigarlsford G, Canals LM, King H. 2014 Life cycle assessment
of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
19, 109–119. (doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0613-1)
67. Walter A, Dolzan P, Quilodrán O, de Oliveira JG, da Silva C, Piacente F, Segerstedt A.
2011 Sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in Brazil considering land
use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic aspects. Energy Policy 39, 5703–5716.
(doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.043)
68. Wang M, Han J, Dunn JB, Cai H, Elgowainy A. 2012 Well-to-wheels energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US
use. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045905. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905)
69. Reinhard J, Zah R. 2009 Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel
26
consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 17(Suppl. 1),
S46–S56. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.05.003)

..........................................................
70. Meijide A et al. 2020 Measured greenhouse gas budgets challenge emission savings from
palm-oil biodiesel. Nat. Commun. 11, 1089. (doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14852-6)
71. Prapaspongsa T, Gheewala SH. 2017 Consequential and attributional environmental
assessment of biofuels: implications of modelling choices on climate change mitigation
strategies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 1644–1657. (doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1355-2)
72. Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ. 2008 Biogenic greenhouse gas emissions linked to the life cycles
of biodiesel derived from European rapeseed and Brazilian soybeans. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
1943–1948. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.012)
73. Canter CE, Dunn JB, Han J, Wang Z, Wang M. 2016 Policy implications of allocation methods
in the life cycle analysis of integrated corn and corn stover ethanol production. Bioenergy Res.
9, 77–87. (doi:10.1007/s12155-015-9664-4)
74. Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, Cassman KG. 2009
Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol.
J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 58–74. (doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00105.x)
75. Kauffman N, Hayes D, Brown R. 2011 A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel production
from a hectare of corn. Fuel 90, 3306–3314. (doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.06.031)
76. Belboom S, Bodson B, Léonard A. 2015 Does the production of Belgian bioethanol fit with
European requirements on GHG emissions? Case of wheat. Biomass Bioenergy 74, 58–65.
(doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.005)
77. Buchspies B, Kaltschmitt M. 2016 Life cycle assessment of bioethanol from wheat
and sugar beet discussing environmental impacts of multiple concepts of co-product
processing in the context of the European Renewable Energy Directive. Biofuels 7, 141–153.
(doi:10.1080/17597269.2015.1122472)
78. Elsgaard L, Olesen JE, Hermansen JE, Kristensen IT, Borgesen CD. 2013 Regional greenhouse
gas emissions from cultivation of winter wheat and winter rapeseed for biofuels in Denmark.
Acta Agric. Scand. B 63, 219–230. (doi:10.1080/09064710.2012.751451)
79. Wang L, Quiceno R, Price C, Malpas R, Woods J. 2014 Economic and GHG emissions analyses
for sugarcane ethanol in Brazil: looking forward. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 40,
571–582. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.212)
80. Souza SP, Seabra JEA. 2014 Integrated production of sugarcane ethanol and soybean
biodiesel: environmental and economic implications of fossil diesel displacement. Energy
Convers. Manage. 87, 1170–1179. (doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.015)
81. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A. 2013 Comparative LCA of ethanol versus
gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 647–658.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0465-0)
82. Seabra JEA, Macedo IC, Chum HL, Faroni CE, Sarto CA. 2011 Life cycle assessment of
Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin 5,
519–532. (doi:10.1002/bbb.289)
83. Bessou C, Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, Mary B. 2013 Using a crop model to account for the effects
of local factors on the LCA of sugar beet ethanol in Picardy region, France. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 18, 24–36. (doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0457-0)
84. Halleux H, Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Germain A. 2008 Comparative life cycle assessment of
two biofuels ethanol from sugar beet and rapeseed methyl ester. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13,
184–190. (doi:10.1065/lca2008.03.382)
85. Souza SP, Gopal AR, Seabra JEA. 2015 Life cycle assessment of biofuels from an integrated
Brazilian algae-sugarcane biorefinery. Energy 81, 373–381. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.050)
86. Abdul-Manan AFN. 2017 Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market
effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP). Energy
Policy 104, 56–65. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.041)
87. Malca J, Coelho A, Freire F. 2014 Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-
based biodiesel: alternative cultivation systems and locations. Appl. Energy. 114, 837–844.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.048)
88. Arpornpong N, Sabatini DA, Khaodhiar S, Charoensaeng A. 2015 Life cycle assessment of
palm oil microemulsion-based biofuel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 913–926. (doi:10.1007/
s11367-015-0888-5)
89. Arvidsson R, Persson S, Froling M, Svanstrom M. 2011 Life cycle assessment of
27
hydrotreated vegetable oil from rape, oil palm and Jatropha. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 129–137.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.008)

..........................................................
90. Intarapong P, Papong S, Malakul P. 2016 Comparative life cycle assessment of diesel
production from crude palm oil and waste cooking oil via pyrolysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 40,
702–713. (doi:10.1002/er.3433)
91. Pehnelt G, Vietze C. 2013 Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 15, 429–479. (doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9387-z)
92. de Souza SP, Pacca S, de Ávila MT, Borges JLB. 2010 Greenhouse gas emissions and energy
balance of palm oil biofuel. Renew. Energy 35, 2552–2561. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.028)
93. Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH. 2009 Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production from palm
oil in Thailand. Appl. Energy 86(Suppl. 1), S209–S214. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.05.013)
94. Ukaew S, Beck E, Archer DW, Shonnard DR. 2015 Estimation of soil carbon change from
rotation cropping of rapeseed with wheat in the hydrotreated renewable jet life cycle. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 20, 608–622. (doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0863-1)
95. Garrain D, Herrera I, Lechon Y, Lago C. 2014 Well-to-tank environmental analysis of a
renewable diesel fuel from vegetable oil through co-processing in a hydrotreatment unit.
Biomass Bioenergy 63, 239–249. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.035)
96. Kalnes TN, Koers KP, Marker T, Shonnard DR. 2009 A technoeconomic and environmental
life cycle comparison of green diesel to biodiesel and syndiesel. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy
28, 111–120. (doi:10.1002/ep.10319)
97. Hou J, Zhang P, Yuan X, Zheng Y. 2011 Life cycle assessment of biodiesel from soybean,
jatropha and microalgae in China conditions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 5081–5091.
(doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.048)
98. Spinelli D, Jez S, Pogni R, Basosi R. 2013 Environmental and life cycle analysis of a biodiesel
production line from sunflower in the Province of Siena (Italy). Energy Policy 59, 492–506.
(doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.009)
99. Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT. 2009 Life cycle assessment of palm
biodiesel: revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl. Energy. 86, S189–S196.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.014)
100. Herrmann IT, Jørgensen A, Bruun S, Hauschild MZ. 2013 Potential for optimized
production and use of rapeseed biodiesel. Based on a comprehensive real-time LCA
case study in Denmark with multiple pathways. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 418–430.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0486-8)
101. Acquaye AA et al. 2011 Identification of ‘carbon hot-spots’ and quantification of GHG
intensities in the biodiesel supply chain using hybrid LCA and structural path analysis.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 2471–2478. (doi:10.1021/es103410q)
102. Buchspies B, Kaltschmitt M. 2018 A consequential assessment of changes in greenhouse
gas emissions due to the introduction of wheat straw ethanol in the context of European
legislation. Appl. Energy. 211, 368–381. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.105)
103. Klein BC, Chagas MF, Watanabe MDB, Bonomi A, Maciel FR. 2019 Low carbon biofuels and
the New Brazilian National Biofuel Policy (RenovaBio): a case study for sugarcane mills
and integrated sugarcane-microalgae biorefineries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 115, 109 365.
(doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109365)
104. Maga D, Thonemann N, Hiebel M, Sebastião D, Lopes TF, Fonseca C, Girio F. 2019
Comparative life cycle assessment of first- and second-generation ethanol from sugarcane
in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 266–280. (doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1505-1)
105. Vera I, Hoefnagels R, van der Kooij A, Moretti C, Junginger M. 2020 A carbon footprint
assessment of multi-output biorefineries with international biomass supply: a case study for
the Netherlands. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 14, 198–224. (doi:10.1002/bbb.2052)
106. Alexiades A, Kendall A, Winans KS, Kaffka SR. 2018 Sugar beet ethanol (Beta vulgaris L.):
a promising low-carbon pathway for ethanol production in California. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
3907–3917. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.059)
107. Ratthanaphra D, Suwanmanee U. 2019 Uncertainty analysis of environmental sustainability
of biodiesel production using Thai domestic rare earth oxide solid catalysts. Sustain. Prod.
Consump. 18, 237–249. (doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.01.001)
108. Chen R, Qin Z, Han J, Wang M, Taheripour F, Tyner W, O’Connor D, Duffield
J. 2018 Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of biodiesel in the
United States with induced land use change impacts. Bioresour. Technol. 251, 249–258.
28
(doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.031)
109. O’Keeffe S, Majer S, Drache C, Franko U, Thrän D. 2017 Modelling biodiesel production

..........................................................
within a regional context—a comparison with RED Benchmark. Renew. Energy 108, 355–370.
(doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.024)
110. Cerri CEP et al. 2017 Assessing the greenhouse gas emissions of Brazilian soybean biodiesel
production. PLoS ONE 12, e0176948. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176948)
111. Esteves EMM, Esteves VPP, Bungenstab DJ, Araújo OdQF, Morgado CdRV. 2018
Greenhouse gas emissions related to biodiesel from traditional soybean farming
compared to integrated crop-livestock systems. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 81–92. (doi:10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.12.262)
112. Renouf MA, Pagan RJ, Wegener MK. 2011 Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane
products with a focus on cane processing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 125–137.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0233-y)
113. Cox K, Renouf M, Dargan A, Turner C, Klein-Marcuschamer D. 2014 Environmental life
cycle assessment (LCA) of aviation biofuel from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane
molasses. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin.-Biofpr. 8, 579–593. (doi:10.1002/bbb.1488)
114. Gabisa EW, Bessou C, Gheewala SH. 2019 Life cycle environmental performance and energy
balance of ethanol production based on sugarcane molasses in Ethiopia. J. Cleaner Prod. 234,
43–53. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.199)
115. Rathnayake M, Chaireongsirikul T, Svangariyaskul A, Lawtrakul L, Toochinda P. 2018
Process simulation based life cycle assessment for bioethanol production from cassava, cane
molasses, and rice straw. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 24–35. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.152)
116. Papong S, Rewlay-ngoen C, Itsubo N, Malakul P. 2017 Environmental life cycle assessment
and social impacts of bioethanol production in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 254–266.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.122)
117. Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. 2013 A comparative LCA of rice straw utilization for fuels and
fertilizer in Thailand. Bioresour. Technol. 150, 412–419. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.015)
118. Khatiwada D, Silveira S. 2011 Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol in Nepal.
J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1471–1485. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.012)
119. Tonini D, Hamelin L, Alvarado-Morales M, Astrup TF. 2015 GHG emission
factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass
substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 208, 123–133.
(doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.052)
120. Zhang Y, Kendall A. 2017 Life cycle performance of cellulosic ethanol and corn
ethanol from a retrofitted dry mill corn ethanol plant. Bioenergy Res. 2017, 183–198.
(doi:10.1007/s12155-016-9776-5)
121. Panichelli L, Dauriat A, Gnansounou E. 2009 Life cycle assessment of soybean-based
biodiesel in Argentina for export. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 144–159. (doi:10.1007/
s11367-008-0050-8)
122. Dunn JB, Mueller S, Kwon H-Y, Wang MQ. 2013 Land-use change and greenhouse
gas emissions from corn and cellulosic ethanol. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 51. (doi:10.1186/
1754-6834-6-51)
123. Tonini D, Astrup T. 2012 LCA of biomass-based energy systems: a case study for Denmark.
Appl. Energy 99, 234–246. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.006)
124. Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ. 2008 Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based greenhouse
gases. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 477–482. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.054)
125. Harding KG, Dennis JS, von Blottnitz H, Harrison STL. 2008 A life-cycle comparison between
inorganic and biological catalysis for the production of biodiesel. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1368–1378.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.07.003)
126. Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M. 2016 Life cycle assessment of
biodiesel in Spain: comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish production versus
Argentinean imports. Energy Sustain. Dev. 33, 36–52. (doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005)
127. Hansen S. 2007 Feasibility study of performing an life cycle assessment on crude palm
oil production in Malaysia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 50–58. (doi:10.1065/lca2005.
08.226)
128. Guo M, Littlewood J, Joyce J, Murphy R. 2014 The environmental profile of bioethanol
produced from current and potential future poplar feedstocks in the EU. Green Chem. 16,
4680–4695. (doi:10.1039/C4GC01124D)
129. Wang L, Littlewood J, Murphy RJ. 2013 Environmental sustainability of bioethanol
29
production from wheat straw in the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 715–725.
(doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.031)

..........................................................
130. Zhao Y, Damgaard A, Xu Y, Liu S, Christensen TH. 2019 Bioethanol from corn stover—
global warming footprint of alternative biotechnologies. Appl. Energy. 247, 237–253.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.037)
131. Liu C, Huang Y, Wang X, Tai Y, Liu L, Liu H. 2018 Total environmental impacts of biofuels
from corn stover using a hybrid life cycle assessment model combining process life cycle
assessment and economic input–output life cycle assessment. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
14, 139–149. (doi:10.1002/ieam.1969)
132. Jeswani HK, Falano T, Azapagic A. 2015 Life cycle environmental sustainability of
lignocellulosic ethanol produced in integrated thermo-chemical biorefineries. Biofuels
Bioprod. Biorefin.-Biofpr. 9, 661–676. (doi:10.1002/bbb.1558)
133. Budsberg E, Crawford J, Gustafson R, Bura R, Puettmann M. 2015 Ethanologens vs.
acetogens: environmental impacts of two ethanol fermentation pathways. BiomassBioenergy
83, 23–31. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.08.019)
134. Brynolf S, Fridell E, Andersson K. 2014 Environmental assessment of marine fuels:
liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J. Clean. Prod. 74, 86–95.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.052)
135. Guo M, Li C, Facciotto G, Bergante S, Bhatia R, Comolli R, Ferre C, Murphy R. 2015
Bioethanol from poplar clone Imola: an environmentally viable alternative to fossil fuel?
Biotechnol. Biofuels 8, Article number: 134.
136. Falano T, Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. 2014 Assessing the environmental sustainability
of ethanol from integrated biorefineries. Biotechnol. J. 9, 753–765. (doi:10.1002/biot.
201300246)
137. Reyes VC, Villanueva PAL, Vidal-Barrero F, Ollero P. 2015 Integrated economic and
life cycle assessment of thermochemical production of bioethanol to reduce production
cost by exploiting excess of greenhouse gas savings. Appl. Energy. 148, 466–475.
(doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.113)
138. Iribarren D, Peters JF, Dufour J. 2012 Life cycle assessment of transportation fuels from
biomass pyrolysis. Fuel 97, 812–821. (doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2012.02.053)
139. González-García S, Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J, Murphy RJ. 2012 Life cycle
assessment of two alternative bioenergy systems involving Salix spp. biomass: bioethanol
production and power generation. Appl. Energy. 95, 111–122. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.
2012.02.022)
140. Weinberg J, Kaltschmitt M. 2013 Life cycle assessment of mobility options using wood
based fuels—comparison of selected environmental effects and costs. Bioresour. Technol. 150,
420–428. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.093)
141. Maleche E, Glaser R, Marker T, Shonnard D. 2014 A preliminary life cycle assessment
of biofuels produced by the IH2 (TM) process. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 33, 322–329.
(doi:10.1002/ep.11773)
142. Slade R, Bauen A, Shah N. 2009 The greenhouse gas emissions performance of cellulosic
ethanol supply chains in Europe. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2, 15. (doi:10.1186/1754-6834-2-15)
143. Daystar J, Reeb C, Gonzalez R, Venditti R, Kelley SS. 2015 Environmental life cycle impacts of
cellulosic ethanol in the Southern US produced from loblolly pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged
hardwoods, forest residues, and switchgrass using a thermochemical conversion pathway.
Fuel Process. Technol. 138: 164–174. (doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.04.019)
144. Zaimes GG, Soratana K, Harden CL, Landis AE, Khanna V. 2015 Biofuels via fast pyrolysis
of perennial grasses: a life cycle evaluation of energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10 007–10 018. (doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00129)
145. Scown CD et al. 2012 Lifecycle greenhouse gas implications of US national
scenarios for cellulosic ethanol production. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 014011.
(doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014011)
146. Choudhary S, Liang S, Cai H, Keoleian GA, Miller SA, Kelly J, Xu M. 2014 Reference and
functional unit can change bioenergy pathway choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 796–805.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0692-z)
147. Sinistore JC, Reinemann DJ, Izaurralde RC, Cronin KR, Meier PJ, Runge TM, Zhang X.
2015 Life cycle assessment of switchgrass cellulosic ethanol production in the Wisconsin
and Michigan agricultural contexts. Bioenergy Res. 8, 897–909. (doi:10.1007/s12155-015-
30
9611-4)
148. Bai Y, Luo L, van der Voet E. 2010 Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol as

..........................................................
transport fuel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 468–477. (doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0177-2)
149. Argo AM et al. 2013 Investigation of biochemical biorefinery sizing and environmental
sustainability impacts for conventional bale system and advanced uniform biomass logistics
designs. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin.-Biofpr. 7, 282–302. (doi:10.1002/bbb.1391)
150. Patrizi N, Caro D, Pulselli FM, Bjerre AB, Bastianoni S. 2013 Environmental feasibility of
partial substitution of gasoline with ethanol in the Province of Siena (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 47,
388–395. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.023)
151. Moller F, Slento E, Frederiksen P. 2014 Integrated well-to-wheel assessment of biofuels
combining energy and emission LCA and welfare economic cost benefit analysis. Biomass
Bioenergy 60, 41–49. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.11.001)
152. Peters JF, Iribarren D, Dufour J. 2015 Simulation and life cycle assessment of biofuel
production via fast pyrolysis and hydroupgrading. Fuel 139, 441–456. (doi:10.1016/
j.fuel.2014.09.014)
153. Kumar D, Murthy GS. 2012 Life cycle assessment of energy and GHG emissions during
ethanol production from grass straws using various pretreatment processes. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 17, 388–401. (doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0376-5)
154. Dang Q, Yu C, Luo Z. 2014 Environmental life cycle assessment of bio-fuel production
via fast pyrolysis of corn stover and hydroprocessing. Fuel 131, 36–42. (doi:10.1016/
j.fuel.2014.04.029)
155. Nguyen L, Cafferty KG, Searcy EM, Spatari S. 2014 Uncertainties in life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions from advanced biomass feedstock logistics supply chains in Kansas. Energies
7, 7125–7146. (doi:10.3390/en7117125)
156. Palma-Rojas S, Caldeira-Pires A, Nogueira JM. 2017 Environmental and economic hybrid life
cycle assessment of bagasse-derived ethanol produced in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22,
317–327. (doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0892-9)
157. Wang H, Zhang S, Bi X, Clift R. 2020 Greenhouse gas emission reduction potential and
cost of bioenergy in British Columbia, Canada. Energy Policy 138, 111285. (doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2020.111285)
158. Haus S, Björnsson L, Börjesson P. 2020 Lignocellulosic ethanol in a greenhouse gas emission
reduction obligation system—a case study of Swedish sawdust based-ethanol production.
Energies 13, 1048. (doi:10.3390/en13051048)
159. Zupko R. 2019 Life cycle assessment of the production of gasoline and diesel from forest
residues using integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24,
1793–1804. (doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01616-8)
160. Lask J, Wagner M, Trindade LM, Lewandowski I. 2019 Life cycle assessment of ethanol
production from miscanthus: a comparison of production pathways at two European sites.
GCB Bioenergy 11, 269–288. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12551)
161. Gonzalez-Garcia S, Teresa Moreira M, Feijoo G. 2010 Comparative environmental
performance of lignocellulosic ethanol from different feedstocks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
14, 2077–2085. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.035)
162. Parajuli R, Knudsen MT, Birkved M, Djomo SN, Corona A, Dalgaard T. 2017 Environmental
impacts of producing bioethanol and biobased lactic acid from standalone and integrated
biorefineries using a consequential and an attributional life cycle assessment approach. Sci.
Total Environ. 598, 497–512. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.087)
163. Obnamia JA, Dias GM, MacLean HL, Saville BA. 2019 Comparison of U.S. Midwest corn
stover ethanol greenhouse gas emissions from GREET and GHGenius. Appl. Energy 235,
591–601. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.091)
164. Eshton B, Katima JHY, Kituyi E. 2013 Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances
of jatropha biodiesel as an alternative fuel in Tanzania. Biomass Bioenergy 58, 95–103.
(doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.020)
165. Hagman J, Nerentorp M, Arvidsson R, Molander S. 2013 Do biofuels require more water than
do fossil fuels? Life cycle-based assessment of jatropha oil production in rural Mozambique.
166. Ndong R, Montrejaud-Vignoles M, Saint Girons O, Gabrielle B, Pirot R, Domergue M,
Sablayrolles C. 2009 Life cycle assessment of biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West Africa:
a field study. GCB Bioenergy 1, 197–210. (doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01014.x)
167. Ajayebi A, Gnansounou E, Raman JK. 2013 Comparative life cycle assessment of
31
biodiesel from algae and jatropha: a case study of India. Bioresour. Technol. 150, 429–437.
(doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.118)

..........................................................
168. Kumar S, Singh J, Nanoti SM, Garg MO. 2012 A comprehensive life cycle assessment
(LCA) of Jatropha biodiesel production in India. Bioresour. Technol. 110, 723–729.
(doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.142)
169. Li X, Mupondwa E. 2014 Life cycle assessment of camelina oil derived biodiesel and jet fuel
in the Canadian Prairies. Sci. Total Environ. 481, 17–26. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.003)
170. Krohn BJ, Fripp M. 2012 A life cycle assessment of biodiesel derived from the
‘niche filling’ energy crop camelina in the USA. Appl. Energy. 92, 92–98. (doi:10.1016/
j.apenergy.2011.10.025)
171. Escobar N, Ribal J, Clemente G, Sanjuan N. 2014 Consequential LCA of two alternative
systems for biodiesel consumption in Spain, considering uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 61–73.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.065)
172. Caldeira C, Queirós J, Noshadravan A, Freire F. 2016 Incorporating uncertainty in the life
cycle assessment of biodiesel from waste cooking oil addressing different collection systems.
Resour. Conserv. Recycling 112, 83–92. (doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.005)
173. Talens PL, Lombardi L, Villalba Méndez G, Gabarrell i Durany X. 2010 Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA) of the production of biodiesel from used
cooking oil (UCO). Energy 35, 889–893. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.013)
174. Dufour J, Iribarren D. 2012 Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from free fatty acid-
rich wastes. Renew. Energy 38, 155–162. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.016)
175. Thamsiriroj T, Murphy JD. 2011 The impact of the life cycle analysis methodology on
whether biodiesel produced from residues can meet the EU sustainability criteria for biofuel
facilities constructed after 2017. Renew. Energy 36, 50–63. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.05.018)
176. Souza DdP, Mendonca FM, Alves Nunes KR, Valle R. 2012 Environmental and
socioeconomic analysis of producing biodiesel from used cooking oil in Rio de Janeiro:
the case of the Copacabana District. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 655–664. (doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.
2012.00517.x)
177. Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. 2009 Greenhouse gas emissions from production and
use of used cooking oil methyl ester as transport fuel in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 873–876.
(doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.01.007)
178. Mortimer N, Evans AKF, Mwabonje O, Whittaker CL, Hunter AJ. 2010 Comparison of the
greenhouse gas benefits resulting from use of vegetable oils for electricity, heat, transport and
industrial purposes. NNFCC.
179. Vrech A, Ferfuia C, Bessong Ojong W, Piasentier E, Baldini M. 2019 Energy and
environmental sustainability of Jatropha-Biofuels Chain from nontoxic accessions in
Cameroon. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38, 305–314. (doi:10.1002/ep.12928)
180. Fuentes A, García C, Hennecke A, Masera O. 2018 Life cycle assessment of Jatropha curcas
biodiesel production: a case study in Mexico. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 20, 1721–1733.
(doi:10.1007/s10098-018-1558-7)
181. Baumert S, Khamzina A, Vlek PLG. 2018 Greenhouse gas and energy balance of
Jatropha biofuel production systems of Burkina Faso. Energy Sustain. Dev. 42, 14–23.
(doi:10.1016/j.esd.2017.09.007)
182. Khang DS, Tan RR, Uy OM, Promentilla MAB, Tuan PD, Abe N, Razon LF. 2017 Design of
experiments for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: the case of biodiesel in
Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119, 12–23. (doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.016)
183. Giraldi-Díaz MR, De Medina-Salas L, Castillo-González E, De la Cruz-Benavides M. 2018
Environmental impact associated with the supply chain and production of biodiesel
from Jatropha curcas L. through life cycle analysis. Sustainability 10, 1451. (doi:10.3390/
su10051451)
184. Bacenetti J, Restuccia A, Schillaci G, Failla S. 2017 Biodiesel production from
unconventional oilseed crops (Linum usitatissimum L. and Camelina sativa L.) in
Mediterranean conditions: environmental sustainability assessment. Renew. Energy 112,
444–456. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.044)
185. Tabatabaie SMH, Tahami H, Murthy GS. 2018 A regional life cycle assessment and economic
analysis of camelina biodiesel production in the Pacific Northwestern US. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
2389–2400. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.172)
186. Foteinis S, Chatzisymeon E, Litinas A, Tsoutsos T. 2020 Used-cooking-oil biodiesel: life
32
cycle assessment and comparison with first- and third-generation biofuel. Renew. Energy 153,
588–600. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.022)

..........................................................
187. Faleh N, Khila Z, Wahada Z, Pons M-N, Houas A, Hajjaji N. 2018 Exergo-environmental
life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from mutton tallow transesterification. Renew.
Energy. 127, 74–83. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.046)
188. Lombardi L, Mendecka B, Carnevale E. 2018 Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative
strategies for energy recovery from used cooking oil. J. Environ. Manage. 216, 235–245.
(doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.016)
189. Yang Y, Fu T, Bao W, Xie GH. 2017 Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas and PM2.5 emissions
from restaurant waste oil used for biodiesel production in China. BioEnergy Res. 10, 199–207.
(doi:10.1007/s12155-016-9792-5)
190. Mu D, Min M, Krohn B, Mullins KA, Ruan R, Hill J. 2014 Life cycle environmental
impacts of wastewater-based algal biofuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 11 696–11 704.
(doi:10.1021/es5027689)
191. Pragya N, Pandey KK. 2016 Life cycle assessment of green diesel production from
microalgae. Renew. Energy 86, 623–632. (doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.064)
192. Yuan J, Kendall A, Zhang Y. 2015 Mass balance and life cycle assessment of biodiesel from
microalgae incorporated with nutrient recycling options and technology uncertainties. Global
Change Biol. Bioenergy. 7, 1245–1259. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12229)
193. Soratana K, Harper Jr WF, Landis AE. 2012 Microalgal biodiesel and the renewable
fuel standard’s greenhouse gas requirement. Energy Policy 46, 498–510. (doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2012.04.016)
194. Chowdhurya R, Freire F. 2015 Bioenergy production from algae using dairy manure as a
nutrient source: life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission analysis. Appl. Energy. 154,
1112–1121. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.045)
195. Medeiros DL, Sales EA, Kiperstok A. 2015 Energy production from microalgae
biomass: carbon footprint and energy balance. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 493–500. (doi:10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.07.038)
196. Adesanya VO, Cadena E, Scott SA, Smith AG. 2014 Life cycle assessment on microalgal
biodiesel production using a hybrid cultivation system. Bioresour. Technol. 163, 343–355.
(doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.04.051)
197. Sills DL, Paramita V, Franke MJ, Johnson MC, Akabas TM, Greene CH, Tester JW. 2013
Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle assessment for algal biofuel production.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 687–694. (doi:10.1021/es3029236)
198. Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. 2011 Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 50–56. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.048)
199. Stephenson AL, Kazamia E, Dennis JS, Howe CJ, Scott SA, Smith AG. 2010 Life-cycle
assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a comparison of
raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors. Energy Fuels 24, 4062–4077. (doi:10.1021/ef1003123)
200. Sander K, Murthy GS. 2010 Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15,
704–714. (doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0194-1)
201. Holma A, Koponen K, Antikainen R, Lardon L, Leskinen P, Roux P. 2013 Current limits
of life cycle assessment framework in evaluating environmental sustainability—case of
two evolving biofuel technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 215–228. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.
04.032)
202. Woertz IC, Benemann JR, Du N, Unnasch S, Mendola D, Mitchell BG, Lundquist TJ. 2014 Life
cycle GHG emissions from microalgal biodiesel—a CA-GREET model. Environ. Sci. Technol.
48, 6060–6068. (doi:10.1021/es403768q)
203. Bennion EP, Ginosar DM, Moses J, Agblevor F, Quinn JC. 2015 Lifecycle assessment of
microalgae to biofuel: comparison of thermochemical processing pathways. Appl. Energy.
154, 1062–1071. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.12.009)
204. Azari A, Noorpoor AR, Bozorg-Haddad O. 2019 Carbon footprint analyses of microalgae
cultivation systems under autotrophic and heterotrophic conditions. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 16, 6671–6684. (doi:10.1007/s13762-018-2072-5)
205. Morales M, Hélias A, Bernard O. 2019 Optimal integration of microalgae production with
photovoltaic panels: environmental impacts and energy balance. Biotechnol. Biofuels 12, 239.
(doi:10.1186/s13068-019-1579-4)
206. Sun C-H, Fu Q, Liao Q, Xia A, Huang Y, Zhu X, Reugsang A, Chang H-X. 2019 Life-cycle
33
assessment of biofuel production from microalgae via various bioenergy conversion systems.
Energy 171, 1033–1045. (doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.074)

..........................................................
207. Wu W, Lin K-H, Chang J-S. 2018 Economic and life-cycle greenhouse gas optimization
of microalgae-to-biofuels chains. Bioresour. Technol. 267, 550–559. (doi:10.1016/
j.biortech.2018.07.083)
208. Foteinis S, Antoniadis-Gavriil A, Tsoutsos T. 2018 Life cycle assessment of algae-to-
biodiesel shallow pond production systems in the Mediterranean: influence of species, pond
type, by(co)-product valorisation and electricity mix. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 12, 542–558.
(doi:10.1002/bbb.1871)
209. Bello M, Ranganathan P, Brennan F. 2017 Life cycle optimization for sustainable algal
biofuel production using integrated nutrient recycling technology. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5,
9869–9880. (doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01833)
210. Lisboa CC, Butterbach-Bahl K, Mauder M, Kiese R. 2011 Bioethanol production from
sugarcane and emissions of greenhouse gases—known and unknowns. Global Change Biol.
Bioenergy 3, 277–292. (doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01095.x)
211. Esteves VPP et al. 2016 Land use change (LUC) analysis and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of Brazilian soybean biodiesel. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy. 18, 1655–1673.
(doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1161-8)
212. Ecofys. 2015 The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU quantification of area and
greenhouse gas impacts. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Ecofys.
213. Repo A, Böttcher H, Kindermann G, Liski J. 2015 Sustainability of forest bioenergy in Europe:
land-use-related carbon dioxide emissions of forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy 7,
877–887. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12179)
214. Warren RD, Bogdanski A, Tittonell P. 2015 How does crop residue removal affect soil organic
carbon and yield? A hierarchical analysis of management and environmental factors. Biomass
Bioenergy. 81, 345–355. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.07.022)
215. Zhao G, Bryan BA, King D, Luo Z, Wang E, Yu Q. 2015 Sustainable limits to crop
residue harvest for bioenergy: maintaining soil carbon in Australia’s agricultural lands. GCB
Bioenergy 7, 479–487. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12145)
216. Singh A, Olsen SI. 2013 Comparison of algal biodiesel production pathways using life cycle
assessment tool. In Life cycle assessment of renewable energy sources (eds A Singh, D Pant,
SI Olsen), pp. 145–168. London, UK: Springer.
217. Orfield ND, Levine RB, Keoleian GA, Miller SA, Savage PE. 2015 Growing algae for biodiesel
on direct sunlight or sugars: a comparative life cycle assessment. Acs Sustain. Chem. Eng. 3,
386–395. (doi:10.1021/sc5004117)
218. Arvidsson R, Fransson K, Froling M, Svanstrom M, Molander S. 2012 Energy use indicators
in energy and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations. J. Clean. Prod.
31, 54–61. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.001)
219. Ponnusamy S, Reddy HK, Muppaneni T, Downes CM, Deng S. 2014 Life cycle assessment of
biodiesel production from algal bio-crude oils extracted under subcritical water conditions.
Bioresour. Technol. 170, 454–461. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.072)
220. Pardo-Cardenas Y, Herrera-Orozco I, Gonzalez-Delgado A-D, Kafarov V. 2013
Environmental assessment of microalgae biodiesel production in Colombia: comparison of
three oil extraction systems. Ct&F-Cienc. Tecn. Fut. 5, 85–100. (doi:10.29047/01225383.59)
221. Scacchi CCO, Gonzalez-Garcia S, Caserini S, Rigamonti L. 2010 Greenhouse gases emissions
and energy use of wheat grain-based bioethanol fuel blends. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 5010–
5018. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.046)
222. Kamahara H, Hasanudin U, Widiyanto A, Tachibana R, Atsuta Y, Goto N, Daimon
H, Fujie K. 2010 Improvement potential for net energy balance of biodiesel derived
from palm oil: a case study from Indonesian practice. Biomass Bioenergy 34, 1818–1824.
(doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.07.014)
223. Queiroz AG, Franca L, Ponte MX. 2012 The life cycle assessment of biodiesel from palm oil
(‘dende’) in the Amazon. Biomass Bioenergy 36, 50–59. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.007)
224. Zaimes GG, Khanna V. 2014 Assessing the critical role of ecological goods and services in
microalgal biofuel life cycles. Rsc Advances. 4, 44 980–44 990. (doi:10.1039/C4RA09191D)
225. Slade R, Bauen A. 2013 Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: cost, energy balance,
environmental impacts and future prospects. Biomass Bioenergy 53, 29–38. (doi:10.1016/
j.biombioe.2012.12.019)
226. National Research Council. 2012 Sustainable development of algal biofuels in the United States.
34
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
227. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG, Alvarez PJ. 2009 The water footprint of biofuels:

..........................................................
a drink or drive issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3005–3010. (doi:10.1021/es802162x)
228. National Research Council. 2008 Water implications of biofuels production in the United States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
229. Hammond GP, Li B. 2016 Environmental and resource burdens associated with world biofuel
production out to 2050: footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to waste
arisings and water consumption. GCB Bioenergy 8, 894–908. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12300)
230. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. 2011 Water footprint: methodologies and a case study for assessing
the impacts of water use. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1288–1299. (doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.003)
231. Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH. 2009 The water footprint of bioenergy.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10 219–10 223. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0812619106)
232. Berger M, Pfister S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M. 2015 Saving the planet’s climate or water
resources? The trade-off between carbon and water footprints of European biofuels.
Sustainability 7, 6665–6683.
233. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Xu L, de Vries GJ, Hoekstra AY. 2014 The blue water footprint and land
use of biofuels from algae. Water Resour. Res. 50, 8549–8563. (doi:10.1002/2014WR015710)
234. Webb A, Coates D. 2012 Biofuels and biodiversity. Montreal, Technical Series No. 65, 69 p.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
235. Correa DF, Beyer HL, Possingham HP, Thomas-Hall SR, Schenk PM. 2017 Biodiversity
impacts of bioenergy production: microalgae vs. first generation biofuels. Renew. Sustain.
236. Liu Y, Xu Y, Zhang F, Yun J, Shen Z. 2014 The impact of biofuel plantation on biodiversity: a
review. Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 4639–4651. (doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0639-1)
237. Elshout PMF, van Zelm R, van der Velde M, Steinmann Z, Huijbregts MAJ. 2019 Global
relative species loss due to first-generation biofuel production for the transport sector. GCB
238. IEA. 2010 Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels—potential and perspectives in major
economies and developing countries. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
239. Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G. 2009 Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-
scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13,
271–290. (doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.008)
240. The Royal Society. 2008 Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. London, UK: Royal
Society.
241. Mortimer N. 2016 Carbon life cycle assessment of bioenergy for policy analysis, formulation and
implementation: a briefing paper. North Energy Associates Limited.
242. Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S. 2012 Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results
in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3671–3678.
(doi:10.1021/es203641p)
243. Ripa M, Buonauio C, Melllino S, Fiorentino G, Ulgati S. 2014 Recycling waste cooking oil into
biodiesel: a life cycle assessment. Int. J. Perform. Eng. 10, 347–356.
244. Kalaivani K, Ravikumar G, Balasubramanian N. 2014 Environmental impact studies of
biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas in India by life cycle assessment. Environ. Prog.
Sustain. Energy 33, 1340–1349. (doi:10.1002/ep.11913)
245. Whitaker J, Ludley KE, Rowe R, Taylor G, Howard DC. 2010 Sources of variability in
greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review. GCB
Bioenergy 2, 99–112. (doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01047.x)
246. Searchinger T et al. 2008 Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse
gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240. (doi:10.1126/
science.1151861)
247. Kim S, Dale BE, Heijungs R, Azapagic A, Darlington T, Kahlbaum D. 2014 Indirect land use
change and biofuels: mathematical analysis reveals a fundamental flaw in the regulatory
approach. Biomass Bioenergy 71, 408–412. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.09.015)
248. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A. 2012 Lights and shadows in
consequential LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 904–918. (doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0423-x)
249. Brander M, Tipper R, Hutchison C, Davis G. 2009 Consequential and attributional approaches
to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels, p. 14.
Edinburgh, UK: Econometrica Press.
250. Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo de Haes HA. 2009 Allocation issues in LCA
35
methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14,
529–539. (doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0112-6)

..........................................................
251. Cherubini F, Stromman AH. 2011 Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art
and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 437–451. (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010)
252. Whitaker J et al. 2018 Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops
and land use. GCB Bioenergy 10, 150–164. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12488)
253. IPCC. 1996 Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories:
workbook-module 24 agriculture (eds J Houghton et al.).
254. Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. 2008 N2 O release from agro-biofuel
production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8,
289–395. (doi:10.5194/acp-8-389-2008)
255. Liska AJ. 2015 Eight principles of uncertainty for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems.
Adam Liska Papers. 26.
256. Sylvester-Bradley R et al. 2015 Minimising nitrous oxide intensities of arable crop products
(MIN-NO). See http://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/759084/pr548.pdf.
257. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM. 2006 Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311, 506–508. (doi:10.1126/science.
1121416)
258. Humpenoeder F, Schaldach R, Cikovani Y, Schebek L. 2013 Effects of land-use change
on the carbon balance of 1st generation biofuels: an analysis for the European Union
combining spatial modeling and LCA. Biomass Bioenergy 56, 166–178. (doi:10.1016/
j.biombioe.2013.05.003)
259. Yang Y, Suh S. 2015 Marginal yield, technological advances, and emissions timing
in corn ethanol’s carbon payback time. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 226–232.
(doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0827-x)
260. Ahlgren S, Di Lucia L. 2014 Indirect land use changes of biofuel production—a review of
modelling efforts and policy developments in the European Union. Biotechnol. Biofuels 7, 35.
(doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-35)
261. Fritsche UR, Wiegmann K. 2011 Indirect land use change and biofuels. European
Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
262. Plevin RJ, O’Hare M, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK. 2010 Greenhouse gas emissions from
biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously
estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 8015–8021. (doi:10.1021/es101946t)
263. Lywood W. 2010 Issues of concern with models for calculating GHG emissions from indirect land
use change, revision 1. Yarm, UK Ensus.
264. Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC. 2011 Scientific analysis is essential to assess
biofuel policy effects: in response to the paper by Kim and Dale on ‘Indirect land-use change
for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies’. Biomass Bioenergy.
35, 4488–4491. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.011)
265. Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC), National Farmers Union (NFU), Renewable
Energy Association (REA), the Seed Crushers and Oil Processors Association (SCOPA).
2013 The effects on the UK biofuel industry of the EU proposals on Indirect Land Use
Change (COM 2012) 595 final of 17 October 2012, and UK Biofuels Industry counter-
proposals. See www.r-e-a.net/resources/pdf/104/FINALREANFUSCOPAAICIndustry_
positionILUC18Feb13.pdf.
266. Linares P, Pérez-Arriaga IJ. 2013 A sustainable framework for biofuels in Europe. Energy
Policy. 52, 166–169. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.008)
267. Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM. 2016 Soil carbon sequestration and
land use change associated with biofuel production: empirical evidence. Global Change Biol.
268. Smith P. 2012 Soils and climate change. Curr. Opin. Environm. Sustain. 4, 539–544.
(doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.06.005)
269. Cherubini F, Ulgiati S. 2010 Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems—a LCA
case study. Appl. Energy. 87, 47–57. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.08.024)
270. Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Tsupari E, Thun R, Antikainen R. 2013 GHG emission
performance of various liquid transportation biofuels in Finland in accordance with the EU
sustainability criteria. Appl. Energy. 102, 440–448. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.07.023)
271. Liska AJ, Yang H, Milner M, Goddard S, Blanco-Canqui H, Pelton MP, Fang XX, Zhu
36
H, Suyker AE. 2014 Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2
emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 398–401. (doi:10.1038/nclimate2187)

..........................................................
272. Whittaker C, Borrion AL, Newnes L, McManus M. 2014 The renewable energy directive and
cereal residues. Appl. Energy. 122, 207–215. (doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.091)
273. Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM. 2016 Influence of spatially dependent,
modeled soil carbon emission factors on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and
cellulosic ethanol. GCB Bioenergy 8, 1136–1149. (doi:10.1111/gcbb.12333)
274. Rowe RL, Keith AM, Elias D, Dondini M, Smith P, Oxley J, McNamara NP. 2016 Initial soil C
and land-use history determine soil C sequestration under perennial bioenergy crops. GCB
275. Richards M et al. 2017 High-resolution spatial modelling of greenhouse gas emissions
from land-use change to energy crops in the United Kingdom. GCB Bioenergy 9, 627–644.
(doi:10.1111/gcbb.12360)
276. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R. 2011 Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation
of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass
Bioenergy. 35, 2323–2336. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.10.019)
277. Schmer MR, Jin VL, Wienhold BJ. 2015 Sub-surface soil carbon changes affects biofuel
greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 81, 31–34. (doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.011)
278. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, Nemecek T.
2015 Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review.
279. International Council on Clean Transportation. 2014 Comprehensive carbon accounting for
identification of sustainable biomass feedstocks. Washington, DC: The International Council on
Clean Transportation.
280. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Strømman AH, Hertwich E. 2011 CO2 emissions from
biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming.
GCB Bioenergy 3, 413–426. (doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x)
281. World Resource Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2011
Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard—greenhouse gas protocol. USA: World
Resource Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. See
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-
Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf.
282. BSI. 2011 Publicly available specification 2050:2011—specification for the assessment of the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London, UK: British Standards Institute.
283. ISO. 2013 ISO 14067—greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and
guidelines for quantification and communication. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Organization for Standardization.
284. Scovronick N, Wilkinson P. 2014 Health impacts of liquid biofuel production and use: a
review. Global Environ. Change 24, 155–164. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.011)
285. Tessum CW, Marshall JD, Hill JD. 2012 A spatially and temporally explicit life cycle
inventory of air pollutants from gasoline and ethanol in the United States. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46, 11 408–11 417. (doi:10.1021/es3010514)
286. Scovronick N et al. 2016 Air auality and health impacts of future ethanol production
and use in São Paulo State, Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 13, 695.
(doi:10.3390/ijerph13070695)
287. Le Blond JS, Woskie S, Horwell CJ, Williamson BJ. 2017 Particulate matter produced
during commercial sugarcane harvesting and processing: a respiratory health hazard? Atmos.
Environ. 149, 34–46. (doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.11.012)
288. Arbex MA, Pereira LAA, Carvalho-Oliveira R, Saldiva PHdN, Braga ALF. 2014 The effect of
air pollution on pneumonia-related emergency department visits in a region of extensive
sugar cane plantations: a 30-month time-series study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 68,
669–674. (doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203709)
289. Silveira HCS et al. 2013 Emissions generated by sugarcane burning promote
genotoxicity in rural workers: a case study in Barretos, Brazil. Environ. Health. 12, 87.
(doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-87)
290. Air Quality Expert Group. 2011 Road transport biofuels: impact on UK air quality. London,
UK: DEFRA. See https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/110322_AQEG_Biofuels_
advice_note.pdf.
291. Beer T et al. 2011 The health impacts of ethanol blend petrol. Energies 4, 352. (doi:10.3390/
37
en4020352)
292. Wallington TJ, Anderson JE, Kurtz EM, Tennison PJ. 2016 Biofuels, vehicle emissions, and

..........................................................
urban air quality. Faraday Discuss. 189, 121–136. (doi:10.1039/C5FD00205B)
293. Sundvor I, López-Aparicio S. 2014 Impact of bioethanol fuel implementation in transport
based on modelled acetaldehyde concentration in the urban environment. Sci. Total Environ.
496, 100–106. (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.017)
294. Rouleau M, Egyed M, Taylor B, Chen J, Samaali M, Davignon D, Morneau G. 2013 Human
health impacts of biodiesel use in on-road heavy duty diesel vehicles in Canada. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 47, 13 113–13 121. (doi:10.1021/es4023859)
295. Hutter H-P, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Shelton J, Krüger B, Schicker I, Wallner P. 2015
Replacing fossil diesel by biodiesel fuel: expected impact on health. Arch. Environ. Occup.
Health. 70, 4–9. (doi:10.1080/19338244.2013.787962)
296. Larcombe AN, Kicic A, Mullins BJ, Knothe G. 2015 Biodiesel exhaust: the need for a
systematic approach to health effects research. Respirology 20, 1034–1045. (doi:10.1111/resp.
12587)

Rspa 20200351

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rspa 20200351

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rspa 20200351

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental sustainability

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa of biofuels: a review

of biofuels: a review. Proc. R. Soc. A 476: London SW1Y 5DG, UK

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

2. Study methodology and coverage

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

short rotation coppice 29 2 0 0 0 0 17 14 31

used cooking oil/tallow 17 1 3 5 1 0 27 0 27

total 223 160 75 124 25 6 464 149 613

(a) Type of life cycle assessment: attributional versus consequential

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(b) Goal and scope of studies

(c) Functional unit

(d) Allocation methods

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(e) Land-use change

(f) Environmental impacts

3. Environmental impacts of biofuels

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

EU RED requirement (50%

(i) First-generation biofuels

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

fossil fuel (reference)

Figure 4. GWP of second-generation bioethanol. Based on data from [17,18,33,34,40,66,68,119,120,102,104,105,115,117,128–163].

120 3rd quartile

EU RED requirement (60% reduction)

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(ii) Second-generation biofuels

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(iii) Third-generation biofuels

(b) Energy use

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(c) Water use

blue water consumption (m3 GJ–1) 120

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(e) Other environmental impacts

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

bioethanol corn 1.4–3 4.4–20 [242]

sugar beet 1.4–1.8 6–15 [83]

sugarcane 2 2.8 [81]

biodiesel rape seed 1.3–1.7 3.1–5 [32,54]

soya bean 1.3–1.7 4–5 [121]

palm oil 1.3 14 [88]

bioethanol short rotation coppice 0.45 1.2 [139]

switchgrass 1.1 3.2 [148]

straw 1.6–3 2–3.6 [129]

biodiesel used cooking oil 0.2 0.63 [243]

biodiesel algae 2.6–3 2.1–3.2 [216]

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(b) Methodological approaches

(c) Allocation methods

(d) Emissions of soil nitrous oxide

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351

(e) Land-use change

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa Proc. R. Soc. A 476: 20200351