Current limits of life cycle assessment framework in evaluating environmental sustainability – case of two evolving biofuel technologies

Application of membrane dewatering for algal biofuel

“…Of the few life cycle studies that do include more than one dewatering technology, the most frequently included dewatering method is a combination of flocculation and centrifugation [93,94], mainly due to the current commercial availability and financial feasibility. Other studies compared centrifugation devices [3,[95][96][97], flocculation with different flocculants [3,5,60] and pressure filtration with chambers or belts [3,60,96,97].…”

Global Biofuels at the Crossroads: An Overview of Technical, Policy, and Investment Complexities in the Sustainability of Biofuel Development

“…There are, for instance, claims that the net GHG emissions from biofuels can be worse than those attributed to gasoline in terms of climate effects in the lifecycle assessment scenario [62][63][64]. Alternatively, biofuels are also reported to reduce GHG emissions by 60%-94% relative to fossil fuels [65,66]. Looking at regional distinctions, biofuel development in less technologically advantaged countries is also singled out as producing higher GHGs than in more technologically advanced nations [67].…”

A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations

“…For example, Highina et al [30] compared the carbon footprint of the first and second generation of biofuel and the carbon footprint of the first generation biofuel was found to reduce the greenhouse gas effect by 78% while the second generation biofuel reduced greenhouse gas by 94% compared to fossil fuels. Holma et al [31] built a life cycle assessment model to estimate the environmental impacts of forest residue and microalgae biofuel production chains. Biodiesel from forest residues was able to reach the 60% emission reduction compared with fossil fuels, while the emission reduction of microalgae biodiesel was lower.…”