東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic ...

Daystar, Jesse Sky.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions./
Author:	Daystar, Jesse Sky.
Description:	294 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International76-05A(E).
Subject:	Sustainability. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3647610
ISBN:	9781321413601

Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions.
Daystar, Jesse Sky.

Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions. - 294 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--North Carolina State University, 2014.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

National and state governments have responded to the potential threats of climate change by mandating the use of renewable fuels and energy sources. The Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) legislation put into law in 2007 required the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 with specified GHG reductions as compared to gasoline (EISA 2007). The original legislation required petroleum producers to purchase 6 billion ethanol equivalent gallons of cellulosic biofuels in 2013, however, this mandate was recently adjusted to 810,184 ethanol equivalent gallons due to insufficient supply. The insufficient supply of cellulosic biofuels can be attributed to high delivered biomass cost, high conversion process capital requirements, and insufficient technology to profitably convert cellulosic biomass to biofuels.

ISBN: 9781321413601Subjects--Topical Terms:

1029978
Sustainability.

Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions.
LDR:05221nmm a2200349 4500 001 2062803
005 20151027073819.5
008 170521s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781321413601
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3647610
035 $a AAI3647610
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Daystar, Jesse Sky. $3 3177232
245 1 0 $a Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Biofuels Made in the South East: Implications of Impact Assessment Methods and Study Assumptions.
300 $a 294 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Richard Venditti.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--North Carolina State University, 2014.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a National and state governments have responded to the potential threats of climate change by mandating the use of renewable fuels and energy sources. The Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) legislation put into law in 2007 required the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 with specified GHG reductions as compared to gasoline (EISA 2007). The original legislation required petroleum producers to purchase 6 billion ethanol equivalent gallons of cellulosic biofuels in 2013, however, this mandate was recently adjusted to 810,184 ethanol equivalent gallons due to insufficient supply. The insufficient supply of cellulosic biofuels can be attributed to high delivered biomass cost, high conversion process capital requirements, and insufficient technology to profitably convert cellulosic biomass to biofuels.
520 $a In addition to technical difficulties, there is controversy surrounding the environmental impacts of biofuels and the methods used to calculate these environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of biofuels made from a range of cellulosic feedstocks using numerous emerging conversion technologies are difficult to compare due to inconsistent life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and data. Conversion pathways with the lowest environmental impacts can be identified through implementing the most robust LCA methods, using consistent study assumptions, and using consistent biomass LCA data. Increased consistency in biofuel LCA methodology will develop more evidence characterizing the environmental impacts of biofuels..
520 $a The goal of this dissertation work is to fill in some of the missing pieces mentioned above by providing focused research projects. This will be done using a series of associated studies. The first study determines the delivered cost and environmental impacts of cellulosic biomass grown in the South East with consistent assumptions and data. Results from this study enable more consistent technology comparisons as the environmental impacts and financial performance of each feedstock were determined using consistent data and assumptions. On a cradle-to-gate basis, forest based feedstocks were determined to have lowered delivered costs and lower environmental impacts due to no storage requirements, lower management intensity, and less frequent harvesting. Direct land use change (LUC) was shown to increase biomass GHG emissions when converting forest to agriculture lands and shown to reduce GHG emissions when converting agriculture lands to forest.
520 $a In the third and fourth study, the environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels made with the thermochemical and biochemical conversion pathways. Global warming impacts (GWI) of forest based biofuels were lower than agriculture based feedstocks, however, all biofuel scenarios reduced GWI and energy use compared to gasoline. When examining additional impact categories, environmental tradeoffs were present when comparing biofuels to gasoline. A multivariate analysis determined the effects of weighting methods and study assumptions on the analysis conclusions. Single weighted score biofuel scenario ranking was different than the GWI scenario ranking as GWI contributed minimally to the single weighted score; carcinogens and non-carcinogens related to process chemical production dominated the single score result. Biofuel scenario ranking based on GWI was sensitive to LUC and co-product treatment methods, however, the single score ranking was not, except in one LUC scenario of converting natural forest to agricultural lands. Impact weighting methods did not to influence the biofuel scenario single score ranking.
520 $a The implications of GHG accounting method in the context of biofuel GWI was explored in the fifth study. Dynamic GHG accounting using consistent time horizons (TH) was compared to traditional global warming potential (GWP) method with a 100 year TH. Biofuel scenario ranking was sensitive to TH and the starting condition assumption of biomass planting or harvesting. Biofuel scenario GWI was more sensitive to these study assumptions when biomass types with longer growth cycles were used.
590 $a School code: 0155.
650 4 $a Sustainability. $3 1029978
650 4 $a Environmental engineering. $3 548583
650 4 $a Alternative Energy. $3 1035473
690 $a 0640
690 $a 0775
690 $a 0363
710 2 $a North Carolina State University. $3 1018772
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 76-05A(E).
790 $a 0155
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3647610