ISBN 978-91-7415-769-7 TRITA-ECS 2010-01

Dilip KhatiwaDa assessing the sustainability of bioethanol production in Nepal Kth 2010

Assessing the sustainability of bioethanol production in Nepal

D i l i p K h at i wa D a

licentiate thesis in Energy technology Energy and Climate Studies Stockholm, Sweden 2010

www.kth.se

Asse essing th susta he ainabilit of ty bioeth hanol producti in Nepal p ion N

Dilip Khatiw p wada

Licen ntiate Thesis 2 2010

Division of Energy and Cli D limate Studies s t Technology Department of Energy T ring KTH Sch hool of Indust Engineer and Man trial nagement STOCK KHOLM, SW WEDEN

ISBN 978-91-7415-769-7 TRITA-ECS 2010-01 Dilip Khatiwada

Abstract
Access to modern energy services derived from renewable sources is a prerequisite, not only for economic growth, rural development and sustainable development, but also for energy security and climate change mitigation. The least developed countries (LDCs) primarily use traditional biomass and have little access to commercial energy sources. They are more vulnerable to problems relating to energy security, air pollution, and the need for hard-cash currency to import fossil fuels. This thesis evaluates sugarcanemolasses bioethanol, a renewable energy source with the potential to be used as a transport fuel in Nepal. Sustainability aspects of molasses-based ethanol have been analyzed. Two important indicators for sustainability, viz. net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances have been used to assess the appropriateness of bioethanol in the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework. This thesis has found that the production of bioethanol is energy-efficient in terms of the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it. Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from production and combustion are also lower than those of gasoline. The impacts of important physical and market parameters, such as sugar cane productivity, the use of fertilizers, energy consumption in different processes, and price have been observed in evaluating the sustainability aspects of bioethanol production. The production potential of bioethanol has been assessed. Concerns relating to the fuel vs. food debate, energy security, and air pollution have also been discussed. The thesis concludes that the major sustainability indicators for molasses ethanol in Nepal are in line with the goals of sustainable development. Thus, Nepal could be a good example for other LDCs when favorable governmental policy, institutional set-ups, and developmental cooperation from donor partners are in place to strengthen the development of renewable energy technologies. Keywords: Bioethanol, sustainability, life cycle assessment, net energy values, greenhouse gas (GHG) balances, sustainable development, least developed countries (LDCs), Nepal
I

Preface
This thesis has been developed in the Division of Energy and Climate Studies (ECS), Department of Energy Technology at KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management, within the framework of the Global Energy and Climate Studies Program, supported by the Swedish Energy Agency. Research at ECS has an interdisciplinary character with a strong systems-based approach dealing with cross-cutting issues of sustainable energy systems, viz. energy, climate change and sustainable development. Research at ECS is currently focused on bioenergy systems, rural electrification, and energy and climate policy. In this thesis, the sustainability paradigm of bioethanol production, with regard to environmental stewardship, economic prosperity, and social integrity is dealt with in relation to one of the worlds least developed countries (LDCs), Nepal. It is important to analyze the sustainability criteria of the renewable bioenergy systems when LDCs are living with energy and food poverty and myriad resource pressures, whilst endeavouring to sustain their livelihoods and achieve the goals of sustainable development. This Licentiate thesis has been written as part of an ongoing PhD program in the assessment of sustainable bioenergy systems at a regional and global level. The evaluation of bioethanol production with methodological improvements aimed at finding international common ground is the next step in the research.

II

Publications
The current licentiate thesis is based on the following publications which are appended at the end of the thesis: I. Paper - I: Khatiwada, D., Silveira S., 2009. Net energy balance of molasses based ethanol: The case of Nepal. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, pp. 2515-2524 [Available online at Elsevier's www.sciencedirect.com]

II. Paper - II: Khatiwada, D., Silveira S., 2010. Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol in Nepal (under review, Journal of Cleaner Production). Revised manuscript of this paper is appended in the thesis. III. Paper - III: Silveira, S., Khatiwada, D., 2010. Ethanol production and fuel substitution in NepalOpportunity to promote sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, pp. 1644-1652 [Available online at Elsevier's www.sciencedirect.com]

III

Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude and sincere appreciation to my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr. Semida Silveira for inviting me to join her research team at ECS as a PhD student and for her superb guidance and creative suggestions regarding my research work. This thesis would have not come together in this form without her continuous supervision. I would also like to thank my colleagues Brijesh, Francis, Maria, Tomas and Henrique at the Division of Energy and Climate Studies (ECS). Furthermore, I extend my special thanks to Mr. Johannes Morfeldt for his generous support and necessary assistance during this thesis period. I appreciate the work of Dr. Peter Hagstrm (KTH) for accepting to review this thesis, and providing valuable inputs. My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Andrew Martin, my thesis co-supervisor, who has provided special assistance and guided me a lot during my Masters degree, as the program director. I would like to thank the Swedish Energy Agency for providing partial funding, as a part of the Global Energy and Climate Studies Program, to allow me to complete my licentiate thesis. Last but not least, I thank my wife, Ruchita and my beloved son, Shreyash for their endurance, love, encouragement and moral support even from a great distance, in my home country Nepal.

IV

Abbreviations and Nomenclature

ADP BEFS CDM CH4 CHP CO2 CO2eq COD E10 E20 E5 Ef Ei ESCAP EtOH ETP EU FAO GHG GJ GoN Ha HC HHV IAEA IEA IPCC ISO K2O Kcal kg kgCO2eq KJ/kg KL koe ktoe kW Anaerobic Digestion Process Bioenergy and Food Security Cleaner Development Mechanism Methane Combined Heat and Power Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Chemical Oxygen Demand 10% ethanol and 90 % gasoline (v/v) 20% ethanol and 80% gasoline (v/v) 5% ethanol and 95 % gasoline (v/v) Lower Heating Value of Fuel ethanol Primary Energy Inputs The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Ethanol (>99.5% v/v), E100 or MOE Effluent Treatment Plant European Union United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization Greenhouse Gas Giga Joule Government of Nepal Hectare, also ha Hydro-Carbon Higher Heating Value International Atomic Energy Agency International Energy Agency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Standards for Organization Potash Kilocalorie Kilogram kg Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Kilo Joule per Kilogram Kilo-liter Kilogram of Oil Equivalent Kilo-tonnes of Oil Equivalent Kilowatt
V

kWh L LCA LDCs LHV LPG m-3 m3 MDGs MJ MJL-1 MJ-1 MOE MW N N2O NEB NEi NEV Nm3 NOC NREV NRs OECD ON P2O5 PS SRSM Tonne TPES UNDP UNFCCC US USD ($) v/v w/w WECS

Kilowatt-hour Liter Life Cycle Assessment Least Developed Countries Lower Heating Value Liquefied Natural Gas Per Cubic Meter Cubic Meter Millennium Development Goals Mega-joule Mega-joule per Liter Per Mega-joule Molasses Based Ethanol or EtOH Mega Watt Nitrogen Nitrous Oxide Net Energy Balance or NEV Non-Renewable or Fossil Fuel Inputs Net Energy Value or NEB Normal Cubic Meter Nepal Oil Corporation Net Renewable Energy Value or Balance Nepalese Currency Rupees Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Octane Number Phosphorous Pond Stabilization or Lagoon System Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1000 kilogram (kg) Total Primary Energy Supply United Nations Development Program United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United States of America US Dollar Volume by Volume Weight by Weight Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

VI

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF FIGURES INDEX OF TABLES 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND THESIS OBJECTIVE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY I II VII VIII IX 1 1 5 5 6 7

2 STATE-OF-ART TECHNOLOGIES IN BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 BIOFUELS AN OVERVIEW BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION BIOETHANOL AS A TRANSPORT FUEL 9 12 14 16

3 SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA AND LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT CONCEPTS AND FRAMEWORKS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2

OVERVIEW 16 DEFINING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 16 DEFINING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) 20 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY AND LCA 21 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA FOR BIOETHANOL 23 PRODUCTION Identification of sustainability indicators for bioethanol in Nepal 24 Defining net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances 26 Realization of a case study sensitivity analysis and development of scenarios 28 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 34

OVERVIEW 34 LIFE CYCLE NET ENERGY BALANCES AND TOTAL ENERGY YIELD 34 RATIO Sensitivity analysis (net energy balances) 37 LIFE CYCLE GHG BALANCES AND AVOIDED EMISSIONS 39 Sensitivity analysis (GHG balances) 42 Alternative scenarios and system expansion 44 VII

4.4 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.6 5 5.1 5.2 6

COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER STUDIES 48 PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 50 Ethanol production potential in Nepal 50 Substituting gasoline with E10 and E20 in the Kathmandu Valley 50 Environmental gains of introducing E10 and E20 in the Kathmandu Valley 51 Other important aspects of sustainable development 52 RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A SUMMARY SHEET 54 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORKS REFERENCES 56 56 59 60

Index of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Simplified layout of sugarcane bioenergy systems in Nepal 7 Layout of the thesis 8

The production of biofuels from different biomass sources 10 Production routes of bioethanol 13

The three pillars of sustainability and their interaction in the sustainable energy system 18 Integration of LCA and sustainability assessment 22

System boundary and material flows (per hectare) for sugarcane-based systems in Nepal 31 Realization of the case study in Nepal: sugarcane farming and factory operations 33 The contribution of fossil and renewable energy required to produce 1 liter of EtOH (MOE) in Nepal, at each stage of the ethanol production chain 37 Effect of changes in the price of molasses on NEV, NREV, and the energy yield ratio 38

Figure 10:

VIII

Figure 11: Figure 12 :

Effect of different levels of energy consumption at the ethanol plant on NEV values 39 Sensitivity analysis for life cycle GHG emissions and avoided emissions (%) as a function of different allocation ratios for sugar and molasses 42 Sensitivity analysis for variations in material/energy inputs and sugarcane yield in Nepal 43 Life cycle emissions in the case of partial treatment of wastewater in PS and ADP 45 Life cycle emissions in the case of biogas leakage 46

Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16:

GHG emissions shares from different stages of the ethanol production chain in Nepal (in the case of using surplus electricity to substitute diesel) 47

Index of tables
Table 1: Selected sustainability criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of bioethanol production and use in transport the case of Nepal 25 Primary energy requirement of one hectare of sugarcane farmland in Nepal (40.61 tonne/ha) 35 Primary energy balance of sugar milling in Nepal (including distillation, dehydration and ETP) 36 GHG emissions from sugarcane farm land per hectare in Nepal (sugarcane yield: 40.61 tonne/ha) 40 Life cycle GHG (CO2eq) balance of molasses-based ethanol (MOE, EtOH) fuel in Nepal 41 Life cycle comparison of GHG emissions, ethanol (EtOH) and gasoline 41 Evaluating selected sustainability criteria for bioethanol production and use in Nepal Summary of thesis results 55

Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7:

IX

1 Introduction
1.1 Background

The continuous depletion of limited fossil fuel reserves, the global agenda on climate change and threats to energy security have led to increased global interest in the exploration, production and utilization of biofuels in the transport sector. Bioenergy systems have been drawn to the attention of policy makers since they reduce dependence on fossil fuel, contribute to rural and sustainable development, and are carbon-neutral. Reasons to promote biofuels include energy security, environmental concerns, foreign exchange savings and socio-economic well-being of rural dwellers (Demirbas, 2008). Rising oil prices and energy security issues are the source of serious concerns in developing and least developed countries (LDCs) while climate change has led to the development of a global agenda that is also promoting renewable energy (UNIDO, 2006). Modern liquid biofuels are seen as promising transport fuels in relation to reducing environmental impacts and improving energy security. Today, the transport sector consumes about 30% of the worlds total primary energy consumption and is one of the major contributors to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Increased use of fossil-fuel-based motorized transportation in urban areas of developing countries has not only exacerbated problems of local air pollution, but also poses energy security threats and high economic costs (Creutzig and He, 2009; Yan and Crookes, 2010). Least developed countries (LDCs), which basically depend on traditional forms of energy (e.g. biomass) and have little access to commercial energy sources (e.g. electricity and liquid fuels) for their economic activities, are particularly vulnerable to issues surrounding energy security, air pollution, and the sustainability of their development. In addition, they cannot afford the cost of importing fossils fuels. The least developed countries (LDCs) are characterized by lowincome, weak human resources/assets, and high economic vulnerability. Their populations suffer severe distress in the face of rising
1

food and energy prices (UNCTAD, 2009). To achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), proper energy services need to be guaranteed for the poor (UNMCLDC, 2007). Indeed, access to modern energy services, sustainability (e.g. deforestation, land use, natural environment, and GHG emissions) and energy security are three areas that LDCs need to address to reach the MDGs (UNMCLDC, 2007). Traditional fuel consumption contributes 78.3% of the total energy in LDCs, while the figures for developing and OECD countries are 26.3% and 4.6% respectively (UNDP, 2006). Commercial energy (coal, oil, and electricity) consumption in LDCs was only 67 koe (kg of oil equivalent) per capita in 2004 while other developing countries consumed 718 koe (UNCTAD, 2008). In Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), half of the countries, including LDCs, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states are categorized as being more vulnerable with regard to energy security and sustainable development. The total final energy consumption of the least developed countries (LDCs) is only 47.02 thousand ktoe, compared to a total of 2,992 thousand ktoe in the ESCAP, whilst the contribution of liquid fuels in LDCs is only 6.1 thousand, out of a total of 912 thousand ktoe in the region (UNESCAP, 2008). Moreover, LDCs have few resources for financing infrastructure. The average value of domestic resources available for financing governance and investment was only 41 cents per capita in LDCs compared to $3.2 and $36.4 in lower-middle and high-income countries respectively (UNCTAD, 2009). However, there is huge potential for developing modern bioenergy in LDCs. According to Batidzirai et al., (2006), there is a large bioenergy potential in Mozambique that can be harnessed without compromising food demand and creating deforestation. FAO (2010) evaluated suitable pathways for developing biofuel production in conjunction with food security and poverty reduction as a way of realizing the enormous potential of biofuels in Tanzania. In African LDCs, average commercial energy consumption per capita was only 30.4 koe compared to 313 koe (kg of oil equivalent) in Africa as a whole (UNIDO, 2008). Thus, LDCs lack a basic supply of modern energy services and the financial resources to invest in them. Although they still only constitute a limited market for commercial liquid fuels for transportation, and are the lowest emit-

ters of GHGs, LDCs are highly vulnerable to global warming and its related consequences (Huq et al., 2003). Bioethanol has been used in the transport sector as a substitute for conventional gasoline. Bioethanol helps to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and to mitigate against climate change, while also promoting the socio-economic transformation of developing societies. Bioethanol already contributes 90% of the total biofuel market in the world, and its production could be significantly increased, particularly in sugar producing countries, where it can be used to replace fossil fuels (Balat et al., 2008; Balat and Balat, 2009). However, the production of biofuels has been debated in the context of environmental performance, food versus energy security and land use, among others. Nepal, a least developed and landlocked country in South Asia, does not have fossil fuel reserves. Nepals total primary energy supply (TPES) system is dominated by the use of traditional biomass (87.71%), followed by fossil fuels (9.94%), hydroelectricity (1.82%), and renewable sources 0.53% (WECS, 2006). The transport sector is the largest consumer of petroleum products. Kathmandu Valley, the capital city alone, consumes about 70% of the total imported gasoline. This area is also the place where 56% of the total number of vehicles run. Vehicular emissions are a major source of air pollution in the Valley, and its bowl-shaped topography tends to exacerbate local pollution problems. The accumulation of foreign debts for oil imports, at a rising cost, the frequent shortage of transport fuels, public unrest due to rises in the subsidized price of petroleum products, and alarming air pollution have contributed to the initiation of discussions about alternative sources of transport fuel in the Kathmandu Valley. Increasing foreign debts have also put pressure on the national economy as they divert money away from the scarce developmental budget of the country. As a result, the Government of Nepal (GoN) decided to blend 10% ethanol with gasoline (in 2004), and formed a high level committee with the task of finding energy alternatives to reduce oil consumption (in 2008). One of the sugarcane factories, Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (SRSM) has also constructed an ethanol plant in Nepal. However, the potential of ethanol production has not yet

been realized due to conflicting economic, technical and political issues, and a lack of promising trust amongst major stakeholders. Least developed countries (LDCs) have not yet harnessed their huge potential in producing ethanol from sugarcane systems. However, in recent times, they have been showing interest in the development and deployment of sugarcane bioenergy in an effort to reduce dependence on imported fuels and enhance domestic energy security, as is the case with Nepal. Both private and public sectors are willing to promote this commercial biofuel. International cooperation on the climate change agenda could also help to initiate work in sustainable sugarcane bioenergy systems in LDCs, such as the Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) program in Tanzania (FAO, 2010). Versteeg (2007) has evaluated the environmental sustainability of sugarcane-bioethanol production in Fiji, a small island developing state in the Pacific, estimating reductions in life cycle GHG emissions, net energy balances, and ecological footprints in the context of sustainable development. The feasibility study focused on how to select LDCs to produce bioethanol in an effective and sustainable way, indicating that surplus cane sugar, dependency on imported fuels, and economic production potential are the key selection criteria (DSDG, 2005). UNDESA (2007) has also discussed the technical, socio-economic, and environmental benefits of small scale biofuel production as a means of promoting sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa, focusing on the poors access to energy, the reduction of oil imports, income generation, rural development and the improvement of local environmental pollution. However, detailed analyses of the production of bioethanol have not been carried out for LDCs in general, and Nepal in particular. This study aims to make a contribution towards this, with an analysis of the case of Nepal using the life cycle perspective. This thesis uses three pillars of sustainable development to analyse sugarcane-molasses based bioethanol (MOE) production in Nepal. Sustainability criteria and life cycle assessment (LCA) provide the methodological framework for the study. It is the first of its kind in LDCs and assesses the sustainability criteria of bioethanol in the case of Nepal. The study provides useful information for decision makers, private investors, and other associated stakeholders, interested in developing ethanol production in Nepal. The example of

Nepal also serves the purpose of motivating the assessment of ethanol production potential in other LDCs.

1.2

Thesis objective

The main objective of this thesis is to investigate the net energy balance, GHG emissions of bioethanol from a life cycle perspective, and prospects for sustainable development in Nepal. The objective has been achieved in the following steps: 1. 2. 3. Estimation of the net energy balance in the production of sugarcane-molasses-based bioethanol (MOE) Examination of greenhouse gas (GHG) balances in the production and use of bioethanol Evaluation of bioethanol production for the purposes of sustainable development

1.3 Research questions and hypotheses

The following research questions have been asked in the thesis: Is bioethanol energy efficient; how much energy does it take to produce one liter of bioethanol? How many greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and savings occur in the production and use of bioethanol? What are the direct benefits of bioethanol substitution in the transport sector? The first and second questions are life cycle assessment (LCA) related questions, and the third is concerned with the immediate benefits, and sustainability issues observed from the production and use of bioethanol in the transport sector. Addressing these questions, this study performs a sustainability assessment of the production and use of bioethanol in Nepal. The answers to these questions provide valuable insights into the production of molasses-based ethanol in the least developed countries (LDCs) with respect to energy security, climate change mitigation, and sustainable development. As per the research questions above, and based on reviews of previous literature on bioethanol conversion technologies, life cycle

assessment and aspects of sustainability, the following hypotheses have been tested: The production of bioethanol requires a small amount of fossil fuel compared to its energy content. Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from bioethanol are lower than conventional gasoline. Bioethanol contributes to improved socio-economic and environmental performance, and can be promoted in Nepal in order to achieve sustainable development.

1.4 Scope and limitations

This thesis considers the full energy life cycle, material/waste flows, and carbon (GHG) flows involved in producing anhydrous ethanol (EtOH) from sugarcane molasses in Nepal. The system boundary covers local agricultural practices, the harvesting of sugarcane, cane milling, the ethanol conversion phase, through the fermentation, distillation and dehydration route, and waste management. Figure 1 provides a simplified schematic diagram of the sugarcane energy system in Nepal. Data sources relating to material, energy, and waste flows have been taken from an intensive field study visit made to one of the established sugar factories in Nepal Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (SRSM). SRSM is the only factory which has installed a molasses-based ethanol conversion unit, and associated ancillaries such as wastewater treatment plants with biogas recovery. It is assumed that the factory operations for molasses-based ethanol conversion at SRSM are the best available in Nepal. Energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances have been estimated from local inventory data for material and energy flows. The corresponding energy values and emission factors have been derived from regional and international studies. Solar energy inputs have not been considered in the analysis of the net energy balance. Energy inputs and GHG emissions from human labour have been considered. Energy generation and GHG emissions avoided by the commercial utilization of cane trash / waste have not been taken into account. In addition, energy inputs and corresponding GHG emissions for raw materials (for industrial installations), and oil/lubricants/chemicals (for factory operations) have also been excluded from this thesis. Sensitivity analyses have been performed to scrutinize the impacts of the variation in
6

material and ene ergy flows, and scenario have bee developed to os en rporate the f future expan nsion of mo olasses-based ethanol pl d lants incor in oth sugar/di her istillery indu ustries in Ne epal.

Figur 1: Simpl re lified layout of sugarc t cane bioene ergy system in ms Nepal The i intended au udience of th thesis ar policy ma his re akers, private ine vesto research ors, hers, and oth stakeho her olders (e.g. donor agenc d cies), who are intereste and moti ed ivated enoug to consid making congh der certed efforts to owards the production o commerc bioenerg in p of cial gy the fo of bioe form ethanol in th least deve he eloped count tries (LDCs) ). 1.5

Organization of the study

This thesis is div vided into fiv chapters. The layout and flow of the ve f thesis is presente in Figure 2. Chapter 1 deals wi the ratio s ed e r ith onale and o objectives of the study. In Chapter 2, an overv r view of state e-ofthe-a technolo art ogies in biofuel produc ction, and bioethanol as a b transport fuel, ar presented Methodollogical concepts and fra re d. amework with rega to sustai ks, ard inability asse essment crit teria and life cye cle as ssessment (L LCA) are ex xplained in Chapter 3. Reviews of preR vious research li s iterature reg garding LCA and the sustainability asA, s y pects of biofuel p s production have also be carried out. een o Chap 4 is the main body of the thes which be pter y sis egins with a discussion of the fir paper on net energy balances. The major findrst n y f ings o the paper concerning life cycle g of r g greenhouse gas (GHG) bal7

ances are also d s discussed. Su ustainability aspects of bioethanol producti and the findings of the paper E ion Ethanol prod duction and fuel subst titution in N Nepal - Opp portunity to promote su ustainable de evelopme and clim change mitigation are explain which elucient mate ned, dates the general prospects for sustainab s l ability in bioethanol production i Nepal. Fi in inally, the re esults are pre esented and compared with d those from a sm number of internatio studies. Chapter 5 pree mall onal sents concluding remarks an indicates the next steps in research s g nd s towards a PhD.

Figur 2: Layout of the thesi re t is

2 State-of-ar t technologies in bioethanol production and utilization

2.1 Biofuels an overview

Bioenergy is obtained from biomass, in the form of different solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. Food crops (sugarcane, corn, soybean, wheat, and sugar beet), hydrocarbon-rich plants, wastes (crop, food, and municipal), weeds and wild growths, and lignocellulosic biomass are the potential sources of biomass for bioenergy generation (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010). Biodiesel is obtained through the esterification of plant oils, whereas bioethanol is mainly derived from agricultural feedstocks. The use of biofuels in the transport and industrial sectors tends to be on the increase due to growing concerns about fossil-fuel reserves, climate change and sustainable development. Liquid biofuels, namely biodiesel and bioethanol, are used in their pure or blended form (with conventional gasoline or diesel) in automobiles. Biofuels from biomass are obtained primarily through two production processes: bio-chemical and thermo-chemical; bio-chemical processes may be further broken down into chemical and biological conversion technologies (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010; Sheehan, 2009; Walter and Ensinas, 2010). With the thermo-chemical route, biomass is heated in the absence (or regulated/controlled concentration) of oxygen, which includes pyrolysis, gasification, and Fisher-Tropsch processes. The Bio-chemical route consists of five alternatives - fermentation, esterification, anaerobic digestion, photosynthetic organisms, and dark fermentation (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010). Fermentation and esterification produce bioethanol and biodiesel respectively whilst anaerobic digestion creates biogas. Photosynthetic organisms and dark fermentation are part of the experimental phase. Fermentation and anaerobic digestion are classified as biological processes, whereas trans-esterification and hydro-treating follow chemical processes, in terms of bioenergy conversion technologies,
9

as sh hown in Figu 3. The advantage o f the thermo-chemical proure a cess i that it con is nverts almost all of the organic com mponents of the f biom mass into bio oenergy, wh hereas bio-ch hemical pro ocesses only utiy lise t polysacc the charide con ntent of the biomass. Operation and e main ntenance cos are quite high in th thermo-ch sts e he hemical con nversion, and these p processes usually consu ume signific cant amount of ts l tion Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010 A 0). fossil fuel along the product chain (A

Figur 3: The pro re oduction of biofuels fro different biomass f om t sources s

(Includes first, second and third gen neration biofue els) Adopted from Sheehan (2009) d

Biofu are broa divided into severa categories depending upuels adly d al s, g on f feedstock characteristic and pro duction pathways. Sev cs veral studi provide reviews of biofuels t ies f technologies used glob bally A, yal 2 m h, (IEA 2005; Roy Society, 2008; Nigam and Singh 2010; Yan and Lin, 2009; Naik et al., 2010) First gene ). eration biofu technolo uel ogies are w established, and in well nclude the f fermentation of sugars and n starch and the trans-esterification of p hes plant oils. For example ceF e, reals, grains and sugar crops can be ferm , s mented to produce bioe p ethanol, while oilsee crops su as sunf ed uch flower, rape e-seed, soyb bean, m pha c o sters (biodie esel). palm and jatrop can be converted to methyl es How wever, first g generation biofuels are being debat due to conb ted
10

cerns over land use, food security/prices, water scarcity, and deforestation. Second generation biofuel conversion technologies are complex, expensive and at an early stage of research & development and commercialization. They are obtained from, among other things, lignocellulose (cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin e.g. woodchips, straw and, cane bagasse) and feedstocks, through a conversion route which includes acid hydrolysis, followed by enzymatic fermentation. Second generation biofuels, produced from agricultural and forestry residues, municipal solid waste, and other forms of lignocellulosic biomass, can improve energy security, and reduce urban air pollution (Wyman, 1994) in spite of increased concerns about changes in land use patterns (Brennan and Ownede, 2010). Third generation biofuels, derived from microalgae, could avoid land use changes since they can be grown in aquatic media i.e. watersurfaces (Brennan and Ownede, 2010; Goh and Lee, 2010). New research has been initiated in the development of genetically modified crops/plants, and novel biofuels from non-food oil crops. At present, commercial biofuels are mainly derived from energy crops (e.g. sugarcane, corn) and oil feedstocks (e.g. palm oil, oilseed rape). The production of biofuels has increased significantly in the past decade (GRFA, 2009). The reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, achieving CO2 targets, the diversification away from commercial energy systems, favourable government policy and rural development are a few motivating factors in terms of encouraging biofuel production. Furthermore, biofuels can help to ensure energy security, reduce the environmental impacts arising from the transport sector, and create a conducive environment for economic growth in rural areas and the industrial sector at large. Nigam and Singh (2010) have highlighted energy security, economic stability and environmental gains as the main advantages of using biofuels. The key drivers of biofuel development in Asia are: (a) the security of the energy supply chain, (b) climate change, (c) land use changes and food security, and (d) rural development and poverty alleviation (Yan and Lin, 2009). Zhou and Thomson (2009) have also mentioned energy security, trade balances, foreign exchange, reduction in government expenditure, new markets for the principal agricultural products, employment in the agricultural sector, and climate change as being the driving forces, while deforestation, problems with water security, the sdanger of monocul11

ture, biofuels and food prices are highlighted as some of the negative impacts of biofuels production in Asia. Escobar et al., (2009) have assessed issues relating to environment, technology and the food security of biofuels. Debates surrounding the production of biofuel using the same raw materials for both fuel and food production, and changing land use patterns have encouraged the assessment of the sustainability of biofuels.

2.2

Bioethanol production

Bioethanol contributes more than 90% of the total liquid biofuel consumption in the world (IEA, 2007). Figure 4 shows different routes for the bioethanol production process. As can be seen in the figure, sugar/starch obtained from sugarcane/corn or cellulose feedstocks follows the process of fermentation, distillation, and dehydration in order to produce first and second generation ethanol respectively. It should be noted that molasses (also a sugarbased product) is treated separately in the figure in order to make it distinct from other conversion routes. This thesis covers molasses-based bioethanol. First generation bioethanol, obtained from sugarcane and corn feedstocks has so far dominated the bioethanol market globally and other technologies are at an early stage of development. In 2009, global ethanol production was about 74 billion liters, a four-fold increase since 2000 and it has contributed to a reduction in GHG emissions by 87.6 million tonnes in a year (RFA, 2010). The United States (US) was the world largest producer of bioethanol, accounting for about 52% (i.e. 38.5 billion liters) of the total bioethanol production in 2009. Brazil was the largest bioethanol exporter and second largest producer with a share of 34% (25 billion liters). The EU produced 3.9 billion liters (5.3%) whereas two emerging developing countries, China and India, contributed 2.8% and 0.5% of the total bioethanol production respectively. Bioethanol production could surpass 125 million liters by 2020 with the development of new agricultural policies/programs along with the exploration of new feedstocks in America, Asia and Europe (Balat and Balat, 2009). The primary feedstocks for bioethanol production are corn (US), sugarcane (Brazil, Thailand, India, Australia), and beet/grain (EU). Different bioethanol production processes are discussed by various authors in the literature (Kumar et al., 2010, Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010; Najafi et al., 2009; Nigam and Singh, 2010; Cardona and Sanchez,
12

2007; IEA, 2005 Ethanol from sugar 5). rcane has pr roven to be the e t w ollowing a steep s most cost competitive over the last few decades, fo learn ning curve in the produ n uction of et thanol (Gol ldemberg et al., t 2004 Bake et al., 2009), and there is a st 4; d trong global ethanol ma l arket nternational developmen (Hira, 20 10). nt for in

Figur 4: Produc re ction routes of bioethan nol

Adopted from Penning d gton (2009) wiith the inclusio of sugaron cane by-products (molasses and bag gasse, which is also cited i si by Abbas and Abbasi (2010)

Besid producin bioethan from su des ng nol ugarcane juic as in Br ce, razil, other developing countries such as Th r g hailand and India are also d produ ucing bioeth hanol using the by-prod duct of the sugar indus stry mola asses. Few s studies have been cond e ducted into molasses-based bioet thanol (Ngu uyen and Gheewala, 2 G 2008a, b, c; Harijan et al., ; t 2009; Prakash et al., 1998; Kumar et all., 2010; Khatiwada and Silt K d veira, 2009). Mol lasses (with a fermentab sugar con ble ntent of 40 45 % by weight, w/ is the by y /w) y-product ob btained duri the crystalliing zation and centr rifugation pr rocess in th productio of sugar at a he on point when the e t extraction of sugar is no longer possible. It is cono o sidered to be the cheapest source of biioethanol pr e s roduction (H Harijan et al., 2009). Pakistan co produce 500 millio liters bioe ould e on etha13

nol from molasses which could be used in the transport sector in a blending ratio of 5 10%, saving US $ 200 400 million per year, bringing various environmental and health benefits (Harijan et al., 2009). Mozambique could extract 68 million liters of bioethanol from sugarcane by 2010 (Batidzirai et al., 2006). Nepal also has a sugar-molasses bioethanol production potential of 18 million liters per year (Silveira and Khatiwada, 2010). India could produce an abundant amount of bioethanol from its available molasses (Kumar et al., 2010). However, policy needs to be focussed on the development and use of bioethanol in order to realise such potential (Pohit et al., 2009). In recent years, there have been a number of concerns with regard to the environmental, social and economic sustainability of bioethanol production. This thesis deals with the sustainability aspects of molasses-based bioethanol in the case of a sugar-producing least developed country, Nepal. Chapter 3 provides more details about the sustainability issues related to bioethanol production.

2.3

Bioethanol as a transport fuel

Bioethanol is the most commonly used liquid biofuel in the transportation sector, especially in Brazil and the US, and its global use is growing quickly due to increased interest in both developed and developing countries. Pharmaceutical, cosmetic and beverage items are also obtained from the use of bioethanol. Thus bioethanol is not limited to the transport sector (EUBIA, 2005). However, the largest share of bioethanol (more than 80%) has been used to fuel automobiles and it is expected to represent a 4% share of the worlds motor gasoline consumption in 2010 and 6% in 2020 (IEA, 2005). Vehicles can be fuelled either by pure or neat hydrous bioethanol (i.e. 95% ethanol v/v) or by a blend of gasoline and anhydrous (i.e. 99.5% v/v) ethanol the most common blend ranges from 5 25% (Costa et al., 2010). It has been found that bioethanol as a fuel additive improves engine performance and reduces exhaust emissions in addition to increasing braking power and thermal and volumetric efficiency (Al-Hasan, 2003). Niven (2005) has examined five important environment impacts of the ethanol enrichment of unleaded gasoline, viz. air pollution, subsurface contami14

nations, greenhouse emissions, energy efficiency, and sustainability. Automobiles with 5 10 % ethanol blended fuels do not require any engine adjustments or modifications while minor modifications are needed for a 10 25 % ethanol blend (IEA, 2005). Rising international oil prices, limited fossil-fuel reserves, environmental and climate change concerns, energy security, and diversity of energy sources are the major driving forces behind the desire for developed countries to produce biofuels. Biofuels may also help to save foreign currency, improve access to commercial energy, and generate local employment. However, the biofuel agenda has not yet had any major impacts in the least developed countries (LDCs). One important reason is that development donors have not prioritized bioethanol production. In addition, proper government policies are still lacking, even though the potential for bioethanol production is high. At the same time, there is increased apprehension about energy security and climate change in both developing and developed countries. Biofuels could contribute towards the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions while also promoting development. Energy security concerns and climate threats for the least developed and land-locked countries are extremely high since they are too weak economically to invest in new domestic technologies, require agricultural land for a growing population, in order to produce food, and cannot afford imported fossil fuels. This study is an attempt to assess the sustainability of bioethanol in the case of a land-locked, least developed country, Nepal. The study not only highlights the potential which exists, but also the opportunities to enhance the potential further and actually contribute to addressing a large number of national and global questions simultaneously.

15

3 Sustainability criteria and life cycle assessment c o n c e p t s a n d f r a m e wo r k s

3.1 Overview

In this chapter, the concept of sustainable development, sustainability criteria, and life cycle assessment (LCA) are defined. Sustainability aspects of biofuels are presented and relevant criteria are developed for assessing bioethanol production, based on literature reviews, and existing local conditions. Issues related to the integration of sustainability and LCA are also discussed. The life cycle assessment (LCA) tool is used to address the sustainable development of biofuels. Indeed, a life cycle based system approach serves an important role in addressing the economic, social and environmental integrity of any production system. This thesis uses a LCA methodology to evaluate the net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of molasses-based bioethanol (MOE) from cradle to grave. The case of Nepal, in terms of the production of bioethanol from sugarcane-molasses is realized and explained. Other general aspects of sustainability, such as the economy, local air pollution, and hard currency savings are also dealt with.

3.2

Defining sustainable development and sustainability

In general terms, sustainability covers the realms of environment (planet), society (people), and economy (prosperity). By sustainable development, we actually mean that the environment, comprising the earth and its ecosystems, biodiversity, scarce resources and cultures, needs to be sustained, while people (survival, life expectancy, education, equity and equality), economy (wealth distribution, consumption), and society (institutions, social capital, states, regions) need to be developed (Kates et al., 2005)
16

The concept of sustainable development and its underlying three pillars of sustainability have become important in dealing with the prosperity of developing and least developed countries (LDCs). In finding indicators for sustainable energy systems, the current state, economic and social systems, driving forces, and the responses of the institutional set up should be dealt with, and their interconnection considered, in order to determine the current situation regarding the sustainability of the energy system as shown in Figure 5. Economic prosperity, social development and environmental integrity are well connected and involve trade-offs between their varying objectives. Thus it is very difficult to deal with these factors in isolation. The three pillars always reinforce each other (Hediger, 2000). For instance, environmental pollution always involves economic costs/activities. Poverty, equality and social justice are also intertwined. Moreover, institutional strengthening i.e. networking, collaboration and cooperation between stakeholders, and political stability are also vital in order to enable sustainable development in developing and least developed countries (LDCs). Sustainable development aims to keep the integrity of the overall system. Economic sustainability includes investment, benefits and the availability and mobility of scarce national resources. Environmental sustainability is the ability of the natural environment to sustain human life. Social sustainability covers issues of equity and justice in wealth distribution, for example job creation, and human rights. Likewise, sustainable development of the bioenergy (biofuels) system is also very significant in terms of creating economic prosperity, and putting in place social and environmental safeguards. Energy security, rural development, and the climate change agenda motivate the production and utilization of biofuels derived from energy crops. Sustainability criteria are needed to justify the appropriateness of these energy systems. Interaction between the three pillars of sustainable development are crucial, as well as being complex and multidimensional throughout the production chain, which includes types of feedstock, land use, conversion technologies, material and energy flows, pollution, and geographical conditions.

17

Figur 5: The th pillars of sustainabiility and the interacre hree o eir tion in the sustaina energy s able system
Adopted from IAEA, Fact Sheets ,

Ther is a vast amount of literature o the susta re on ainability ass sesst systems in general and t bioenerg system in parthe gy ment of energy s ticula (Afgan et al., 2000; Cramer, 2006 Elghali et al., 2007). Four ar C 6; t F susta ainability ind dicators, viz resource (e.g. fossil fuel and en z. nergy consu umption), e environment (e.g. emiss t sions and pollution), so p ocial (e.g. jobs), and economic (e investm e.g. ment, cost) are used for asa r ng ainability of energy sys f stems (Afga et al., 20 an 000). sessin the susta Zhou and Thom u mson (2009) have found that energ security, ecod gy nomi (trade ba ics alance, price of petroleu an improved economy), e um, socia dimension (increase jobs in t agricultu sector, imal ns ed the ural prove ement in fa armers inco ome), and e environment impacts (clital mate change and air quality) are the maiin driving fo d orces behind the d lopment of biodiesel and bioethan in Asia. Cramer (2006) f a nol devel has p proposed six criteria on the theme o sustainabi for biom x of ility mass produ uction, viz. greenhouse gas emissio compet e ons, tition with food f and t local app the plications of biomass, b f biodiversity, economic prosp perity social wel y, ll-being, and environme Elghali et al. (2007) has d ent. ) devel loped a sust tainability fr ramework fo the assess or sment of bioenergy systems in terms of economic viiability, env e vironmental permance, and so ocial accepta ability. form

18

Smeets et al. (2006) have assessed sustainability criteria viz. The ecological, economic and social impacts of sugarcane-based ethanol production in Brazil, compared using the Dutch sustainability criteria. GHG balances, competition with food & energy supply, biodiversity, wealth, welfare and the environment were used as determining criteria. These criteria might also be useful to establish a product certification system for the international market. Environmental or ecological impacts cover water use, water pollution, land use, forest protection and biodiversity, soil erosion, greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance. On the other hand, socioeconomic criteria might include competition with food production, number of jobs, income distribution and land tenure, wages, worker rights, child labour, social responsibility and benefits (Smeets et al., 2006). Goldemberg et al. (2008) have discussed the sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane, considering air quality improvement, rural development, biodiversity, deforestation, soil degradation, water source contamination, food vs. fuel production, and labour conditions in the fields. They have also discussed sustainability aspects of ethanol production, namely environmental and social factors, along with the following sustainability criteria, as suggested by the Cramer commission (Cramer et al., 2006): (a) energy balance, (b) environment aspects, such as gaseous emissions from sugarcane and ethanol production, or due to sugarcane burning), water (water availability, water pollution - organic pollutants, inorganic pollutants), land use (expansion of sugarcane, land competition - ethanol versus food crops), soil, biodiversity; (c) social aspects and social impacts such as labour conditions, jobs creation, wages and income distribution, land ownership, working conditions. Zhou et al. (2007) have selected four sustainability indicators for assessing biofuels - economics, environment, energy, and renewability. The energy indicator represents how much energy is required to produce biofuel and renewability is evaluated using the rate of exploitation of natural resources, such as fuel-wood. In this way, there is great concern over the sustainability of biofuel in both developed and developing countries. For the Least developed countries (LDCs), whose main primary energy source is traditional biomass, issues of sustainability are quite high on the agenda, since rural populations live in conditions of utter poverty and do not have enough resources for economic growth.
19

3.3

Defining life cycle assessment (LCA)

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a concept used to evaluate the environmental performance of a product or service during its entire life span. LCA is an holistic systems approach and takes into account the inputs and outputs of the entire production system, viz. raw materials, energy and waste, at every stage, from resource extraction (raw materials acquisition) to the final utilization and disposal of the product. LCA has become important since it encompasses all the processes and environmental discharges during the production phases of the product, thus avoiding the shift of environmental problems from one place to another along the production chain (USEPA, 2006). The results of LCA have increasingly been used as a decision-making policy tool for the selection of products, and for environmentally friendly product-certification. Rebitzer et al. (2004) and Pennington et al. (2004) have elaborated on LCA application and practices. ISO 14040 - standards/series (ISO, 2006a and 2006b) also uses the LCA concept and methodologies. LCA comprises four phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation (see Figure 6a). Goal definition and scoping describe the objectives of the analysis, the production processes and system boundaries. The purpose of the study is measured as a functional unit. In the inventory analysis, the material inputs/outputs are identified and quantified, for example, natural resources (energy, land, water etc.) and environmental releases (e.g. emissions or wastes). Human and ecological effects that occur due to resource usage/consumption or emissions/waste released into the air, water or soil are taken into account in the impact assessment. This phase reveals the contribution made by different impact categories, for example: resource depletion, climate change, eco-toxicity, human and ecological health, acidification, and eutrophication. Following the inventory analysis and the impact assessment, the interpretation of the LCA is ultimately carried out to select the product or service based on the envisaged environmental performance and in order to comply with the objectives of the study. Thus, LCA provides a comprehensive environmental overview of the product, from cradle to grave.

20

There are lots of applications of the LCA concept in evaluating renewable and sustainable energy systems. The LCA concept and methodologies have been widely applied in developing bioenergy systems. Liquid biofuels are increasingly seen as potential substitutes for gasoline and diesel in transportation. It is, therefore, important to assess the environmental performance of biofuel production and consumption, and also to compare them with conventional fossil fuels. Several LCA studies and reviews have been conducted to investigate the impacts of the life cycle resource consumption and environmental burden of bioethanol production from different feedstocks, and they are primarily focused on the life cycle net energy balance and GHG balances (see, for example, Shapouri et al., 2004; Macedo et al., 2008; Dai et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 2007a/b/c, 2010; Blottnitz and Curran, 2007; Gnansounou et al., 2009; Cherubini et al., 2009; Hoefnagels et al., 2010; Xunmin et al., 2009). In this thesis, the life cycle energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances have been investigated for molasses-based bioethanol (MOE). Molasses are a low-value by-product resulting from sugar production. The definition of system boundaries, local sugarcane growing practices, harvesting, factory operations and waste management, and allocation methods in LCA are some of the key features of the sustainability assessment of bioethanol carried out for Nepal.

3.4

Integrating sustainability and LCA

LCA conventionally covers environmental sustainability, but efforts have been made to extend the concept to cover the three pillars of sustainability, including economic prosperity and social integrity. The future of LCA is likely to encompass all aspects of sustainable development, and the life cycle costing will provide policy decision-makers with information on investment and return, while social aspects might include indicators of millennium development goals (MDGs) in a holistic approach (Hunkeler and Rebitzer, 2005). LCA analyses have been carried out for the sustainability assessment of various products/services during the last decade. For example, Heller et al., (2000) have scrutinized economic, social and environmental dimensions of the US food system, taking into account the interaction between LCA and sustainability throughout the life cycle. Zhou et al. (2007) have analysed single- and mul21

ti-dim mension sus stainablity as ssessment c criteria for th sustainab he bility asses ssment of fu in the li cycle fra uels ife amework, including rene eway and ability indexe es. bility indicators a sustaina

Fig.6 6(a)Life cycle assessment e (LCA) fr ramework

Adopted f from ISO (200 06)

Fig.6( Sustainab (b) bility assessm ment procedur re

Adopted fr rom DETEC (2004) (

Figur 6: Integra re ation of LCA and sustaiinability asse A essment The conceptual framework and basic methodolog guideline for gy e susta ainability ass sessment inc cludes releva ance analysi impact an is, nalysis an assessme optimiza nd ent ation (DETE 2004). This can also be EC, T appli to bioeth ied hanol produ uction. The m aim of the sustainabilmain f ity as ssessment is to evaluate and optim bioetha s mize anol produc ction and c consumption in relation to the targ of susta n gets ainable deve elopment Sustainabi t. ility assessm ment is also a systemat and com tic mprehensi approac and the relevance a ive ch, analysis dete ermines the sustainab bility criteria in detail. Impact anallysis evaluat whether susI tes tainab developm has be achieved or not. Fin ble ment een d nally, the sys stem is op ptimized for further im r mprovement. These step are show in ps wn Figur 6b. Linka or integ re age gration seem importan when the sysms nt tem c also be optimized with the hellp of object function to can w tive ns secur the best, most envir re ronmentally benign op y ptions (Azap pagic and C Clift, 1999). In this way there is a c y, close link be etween life cycle c
22

assessment and sustainability assessment of biofuel production (see Figure 6). Moreover, Zah et al., (2009) have recently outlined an idea for the standardization and simplification of life cycle assessment, as a driver for more sustainable biofuels, using a webbased sustainability check-list for benchmarking sustainability criteria. This should help developing countries conduct LCAs of biofuels when product-certification schemes become mandatory.

3.5

Development of sustainability criteria for bioethanol production

The literature has been reviewed to find out more about the sustainability indicators of bioethanol production. Yan and Lin (2009) have mentioned energy security, climate change, rural development and poverty alleviation as the driving forces of sustainable biofuel production. The energy and food security debate is crucial when discussing the sustainability assessment of bioethanol since agricultural land is used to produce feedstocks, and these same feedstocks can alternatively be used for food production, such as sugarcane and corn. Biofuel and food prices have become an important factor in Asia when considering biofuel production, due to their conflicting nature, in terms of price, which could subsequently lead to political instability (Zhou and Thomson, 2009). Sheehan (2009) has mentioned that LCA is used for assessing the sustainability of biofuels not only when it comes to net energy balance or the carbon footprint, but also expanding it to include global land and water resources, global ecosystems, air quality, public health and social justice. As he has shown, analytical frameworks for LCA and sustainability assessment for biofuel have received increased attention in recent years. Research on the topic 'biofuels and sustainability' and 'ethanol and life cycle' have increased six-fold and threefold respectively from 2006 to 2008 (Sheehan, 2009). Smeets et al. (2008) have evaluated the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the production of ethanol from sugarcane in the state of Brazil for the purposes of product certification. Phalan (2009) has given an overview of the social and environmental costs and benefits of biofuels in Asia, and the major factors identified were land use, feedstocks used, technology issues and scale. According to Schubert and Blasch (2010), bioenergy can only play an important role in greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction when it is produced in a
23

sustainable way, thus the biofuel-pathways with minimum environmental and socio-economic problems should be promoted. Initial subsidies could also be instrumental in promoting environmentally benign biofuel promotion processes. Government policies, such as mandatory blending targets, tax exemptions and subsidies are the driving forces for biofuels production in many countries (Sorda et al., 2010). The development and selection of the sustainability criteria for bioenergy depends on feedstock characteristics and different production pathways. Buchholz et al. (2009) have also screened 35 sustainability criteria from a survey of experts, which are grouped into three pillars of sustainability. Regarding the experts views, which were based on attributes of relevance, practicality, reliability, and importance, only two criteria, namely energy balance and greenhouse gas balance, were found to be the most critical, and local social parameters such as compliance with laws, food security, participation, human rights and social cohesion were ranked lower down. Competition between food and bioenergy production, and deforestation were two of the sustainability criteria used in the potential assessment of modern bioenergy sources in one of the least developed countries (LDCs) in Africa Mozambique (Batidzirai et al., 2006)

3.5.1

Identification of sustainability indicators for bioethanol in Nepal

Within the context of the sustainability assessment criteria for bioethanol production in the least developed countries (LDCs) such as Nepal, the scarcity of commercial transport fuels, the flow of hard currency, with state-subsidies on the imports of petroleum, and local air pollution in urban cities are motivating factors for using a blend of bioethanol in gasoline. Energy security and the diversification of transport fuels, along with issues of food security (i.e. sugar), environmental problems, such as water pollution, and GHG emissions, play a vital role in the sustainability of bioethanol. Employment generation in sugarcane cultivation and industrial operations, and the use of domestic resources for economic growth at a local and regional level are to be assessed when evaluating the sustainability of bioethanol. The technical viability of bioethanol production is also important. Empowering local communities, strengthening institutions among the concerned stakeholders and

24

political stability are all necessary for sustainable development of bioethanol in Nepal. Thus there are many different and important criteria to be considered in this context. This thesis focuses on some of the most important sustainability criteria. An overview of the indicators identified is presented in Table 1. The indicators marked with an asterisk (*) are the focus of the present study. Many of the other criteria have been discussed from a sustainability point of view, but more as a means of analysing and defining the problem, thus lacking the necessary depth for arriving at major conclusions. Table 1: Selected sustainability criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of bioethanol production and use in transport the case of Nepal
Fossil fuel substitution Life cycle energy balances CO2 emissions from fuel substitution in automobiles Life cycle GHG balances Local air pollution Wastewater management Change in land use pattern Soil pollution Utilization of natural resources Protecting forests (avoiding deforestation) Investment (costs and benefits analysis) Savings on oil imports Availability of resources (Capital) Industrial growth Agriculture growth Energy security and diversification Improved trade balances Economic instruments: subsidies/tax exemptions Carbon trading (under CDM) Food vs. energy security Employment generation, and wages Rural and local development Trade union, workers' facilities & safety Poverty reduction Equality, equity and cultural sovereignty Institutional Technical Political
25

Environmental

* * * * * *

Economic

Social

Others

Two important sustainability indicators: net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances have been analysed in the life cycle framework. The economic and social factors of biofuel production, which play a key role in determining the sustainability of bioethanol production, are also discussed so as to justify the research questions and hypotheses of the thesis. However, this study is limited to evaluating the direct economic and social benefits. The life cycle assessment of economic and social sustainability and the optimization of relevant sustainability indicators could possibly be the scope of future analysis. 3.5.2 Defining net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances

Two important sustainability criteria energy efficiency (net energy balances) and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances have been defined along the entire product-chain. The actual net energy and GHG balances of bioethanol production in Nepal can then be estimated.

a. Net energy balance

Energy balances primarily deal with the life cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and the savings in non-renewable fossil fuels compared to bioethanol in the entire product-chain. There are defined terminologies for dealing with energy balances. The net energy value or balance (NEV or NEB) of bioethanol (EtOH) is the difference between the energy content of the bioethanol produced and the total primary energy inputs (fossil plus renewable) in the entire fuel production cycle.
NEV = EF EI where, EF is the energy content (lower heating value) of ethanol, EI is the total amount of primary energy inputs

Net renewable energy value/balance (NREV) is calculated as follows:

NREV = EF NEI where, NEI is the non-renewable energy or fossil fuel input.

26

The energy yield ratio is defined as the ratio between the energy content of bioethanol and the total fossil energy required to produce it.
energy yield ratio= energy content in ethanol fossil energy input

NREV and the energy yield ratio provide essential information necessary to assess the contribution of biofuels to energy security. The threshold limit is NREV > 1, while NEV gives and analysis of the total input/output of energy, including renewable inputs. In this study, energy recovered from by-products within the system, i.e. excess bagasse and biogas are also incorporated into estimates of NEV, NREV, and energy yield ratio.

b. Greenhouse gas balances

Total net emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are estimated from greenhouse gas balances, including both release and absorption through the life cycle. The main GHGs considered in the analysis are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The effect of these gases is measured using Global Warming Potential (GWP), expressed in CO2 equivalent (CO2eq.). The estimation of GHG emissions is carried out by taking account of the direct consumption of fossil fuels, the production of fertilizers/chemicals, activities taking place on agricultural farm land, operations in industrial premises, and the ultimate combustion of fuels. This thesis uses the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) balances and avoided emissions compared to conventional gasoline. Material and energy inputs, and their GHG emissions in sugarcane farming (fertilizer application and irrigation), transportation, milling, fermentation, distillation and the dehydration processes are considered in the analysis. The system boundary covers local agricultural practices, the harvesting of sugarcane, cane milling, the ethanol conversion phase (through the fermentation, distillation and dehydration route), and waste management. The functional unit in LCA is a measure of quantified performance of products or services, and it enables comparison between the
27

products / services under consideration. GHG emissions in terms of the kgCO2eq m-3 (also, in kgCO2eq MJ -1) functional unit are evaluated without considering the mechanical efficiency of the end user of bioethanol as the transport fuel. Material and energy flows in the sugarcane bioenergy systems are normalized to this functional unit. Avoided emissions in the production and combustion/use of bioethanol (as the gasoline substitute) are estimated using the following equation, considering energy equivalencies of gasoline and bioethanol i.e. 1 GJ of bioethanol replaces 1 GJ of gasoline.
Avoided life cycle GHG emissions % = GHG emissions in gasoline - GHG emissions in bioethanol x 100 GHG emissions in gasoline

3.5.3

Realization of a case study sensitivity analysis and development of scenarios

Sugarcane is one of Nepals cash crops, and 2.6 million tonnes of sugarcane was produced from 64 thousand hectares of land, giving an average yield of 40.6 tonnes per hectare in 2006/07. The trend has been towards an increase in production, cultivation area, and productivity since 1999/00. Nine sugar mills are operational with a total installed capacity of 17,050 cane-tonnes per day, and are located in different districts of the fertile plain land of the South. The sugar industry produces low-value molasses (4 - 5% of the cane-stalk, w/w) as a by-product, which can be used for bioethanol production. At present, an ethanol plant with a production capacity of 30 m3 per day has been installed to produce molassesbased ethanol at Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (SRSM). In order to evaluate sustainability aspects of bioethanol production in Nepal, a field case study was carried out at SRSM. Field data based on material, energy, and waste flows (inputs and outputs) in both agricultural practices and industrial operations are considered. Figure 7 provides details of energy and material flows, including emissions and waste at each stage along the ethanol production chain in Nepal. There are actually two main by-products in the sugar milling process: molasses and bagasse. Bagasse is used as the fuel input to
28

boilers. The steam from bagasse-fired boilers is used in power turbines to generate electricity, and the exhaust steam is utilized as the heat required for the process of sugarcane milling, distillation and dehydration. Molasses are converted into anhydrous ethanol fuel (EtOH) via the route of hydrous ethanol (95% (v/v) ethanol, called rectified spirit). The fermentation of molasses and the subsequent process of repeated distillation generate rectified spirit. To produce anhydrous ethanol (99.5% v/v), rectified spirit (95% v/v) is passed through a typical molecular sieve dehydration column/plant and following this the anhydrous vapour of EtOH are condensed and cooled down to produce the final bioethanol. Distillery waste water effluent (spent wash) is treated prior to disposal since treatment is essential from an environmental point of view. An anaerobic effluent treatment plant generates biogas, which is later used as a fuel, which is input into the boilers. Bagasse, which is used to generate steam for electricity and the heat production, is considered as a source of renewable energy input into the system. Thus, bioethanol is only produced from low-value molasses in Nepal at this point. Sugar juice is mainly dedicated to the production of sugar. In LCA, economic allocations are used to divide the resource consumption (primary energy), and environmental burdens (GHG emissions) in upstream operations when we get co-products (sugar and molasses). The market prices of sugar and molasses determine the division of energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions between these two products. The average allocation ratio was found to be 22.2:1. Figure 8 (a-j) shows actual field conditions in agricultural practices, transportation of feedstocks, and factory operations, including the generation of the co-products. SRSM is the only plant in Nepal which has an installed molasses-based ethanol conversion unit, and associated ancillaries such as wastewater treatment with biogas recovery. Therefore, factory operations for molasses-based ethanol conversion in SRSM are considered to be the best available ethanol plant in Nepal. In order to cover the effect of variations in input parameters, such as fertilizers, diesel consumption for irrigation, allocation ratio (i.e. the prices of co-products), and agricultural yields, sensitivity anal29

yses have been performed for estimating both net energy and GHG balances. Scenarios have also been developed at the plant level to evaluate the consequences of adopting different wastewater treatment processes, with or without biogas recovery, and selling surplus bagasse electricity to the grid.

30

Figure 7: System boundary an material f e nd flows (per hectare) for sugarh s cane-based systems iin Nepal
31

a. Sugarcane plantation, gr rowth, and ha arvesting are don by human labour; main materine l m al inputs a fertilizers, pesticides, in are nsecticides, and diesel (to op perate water pumps p for irrigatiion). The tota duration req al quired for sugarca growth is 11-12 months, and ane harvesting time lasts up to five months. Average prod ductivity is 40. tonnes per hec.61 tare.

b. Transportation: D Different mode of transport for carrying sugarcane feed es t dstock to t factory gate they include animal-power cart (50%) tractor (30% and the e; e red ), %), truc (20%). ck

c. Fee eding of feedst tock into the milling proces ss

d. Open burning of sugarcane wastes (top and O g ps leaves) l e. Industrial comp plex Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. m s. Lt (SRSM) run for about 5 months durin the td. ns ng ha arvesting seaso of sugarcan Industrial operaon ne. o tio include su ons ugarcane millin which pro ng, oduces sugar as the maiin product, an molasses an band nd gasse as co-prod ducts. Bagasse is separated during e d the crushing of sugarcane wh molasses is obf hile tai ined at the cry ystallization/ce entrifugal process.

f. Cog generation plant: Bagasse-fir industrial boilers (left), and steam turbines red (righ to generate heat and elec ht) e ctricity required for the plant d t

32

g. Ge eneration of su ugar: The yiel is ld 7 9 % of the su ugarcane crush hed.

h. Gen neration of bag gasse: a co-pr roduct of th milling pro he ocess and the yield is y 35 37% of the cane crushed. c

i. Dist tillation plant (left) molas sses based bio oethanol (95% v/v ethanol) and % ), De ehydration pla (right) - molasses based bioethanol (9 ant m 99.5% v/v eth hanol). Ap pprox. 120 ton nnes of molasses (42% w/w - fermentabl sugar) is req w le quired to generate 30 m3 of ethanol in the distillatio plant. n on j. Effluent (w j wastewater or spent-wash) treatment plant where reduct t tion in environ nmental load oc ccurs along wit the generati of th ion biogas, wh hich is later us as fuel inp in sed put the boilers 0.53 Nm3 of biogas (68% mes. o % thane) is p produced per kg of COD reducr tion. In th present stat he te-of-the-art case in SRSM, 100 biogas is recovered from the 0% m Anaerobic Digestion Pro ocess (ADP) and directly fed in boilers. into

Figur 8 (a j): Realization of the case study in Nepal: sugar re n e N rcane and farming a factory operations
Photograp phs: Authors field visit at Sri Ram Sug Mills Pvt. Ltd. gar (SRSM), N Nepal

33

4 Re s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n s
4.1 Overview

In this chapter, the findings of the research and case study are discussed. The results of the evaluation of the net energy balances, energy yield ratios, and GHG balances are presented for the case of Nepal. Sensitivity analyses are performed taking into account economic allocation, material inputs, energy consumption, and sugarcane yield. Different scenarios for the treatment of wastewater and the case of surplus electricity derived from bagasse are also dealt with for the purposes of evaluating GHG balances. Finally, important sustainability aspects of the production of molasses-based bioethanol are discussed and summarized. The various steps taken in the calculations are explained in detail in the following papers: Khatiwada and Silveira (2009), Khatiwada and Silveira (2010), and Silveira and Khatiwada (2010) which are annexed at the end of this thesis.

4.2

Life cycle net energy balances and total energy yield ratio

In the case of sugarcane farming in Nepal, the primary energy consumption (per hectare) is 45,371.6 MJ (see, Table 2). The share of fossil fuel and renewable energy inputs are 67.5% and 32.5% respectively. Out of the fossil fuel inputs, diesel used for irrigation contributes 43.2% and fertilizers/chemicals comprise 45.7%. Since transportation is mainly carried out using animal-driven carts, it has only a small share, that is to say 5.9%, of total fossil fuel inputs. In the factory operations, 737.3 tonnes of bagasse is generated per day, which has a heating value (HHV) of 7,036.5 GJ. Bagasse and biogas supply energy for the plants processes. The sum of the primary energy requirements of the different processes gives the total energy demand.

34

Table 2: Primary energy requirement of one hectare of sugarcane farmland in Nepal (40.61 tonne/ha)
Activities 1. Sugarcane farming Phosphorous (P2O5) Fertilizers Potash (K2O) Nitrogen Pesticides/Insecticides Herbicides Diesel (irrigation) Human Labor 2. Diesel (Transportation) Sub-total (fossil and renewable) Total Fossil fuel inputs (MJ/ha) Renewable energy inputs (MJ/ha)

382.1 387.8 7,883.7 4,761.4 586.7 13,227.7 1,625 1,793.6 30,648.1

14,723.5 14,723.5 45,371.6 MJ/ha

Table 3 shows the primary energy balance in all the processes. The sugar milling process consumes a large amount of primary energy (73%). It should be noted that surplus bagasse amounts to 17%, and is also taken into account in the calculation. To produce one liter of anhydrous bioethanol (99.5% EtOH or MOE), the life cycle energy input analysis shows that the renewable energy contribution amounts to 91.7% (31.42 MJ/L) since most of the operations are run using bagasse, biogas and nonmotorized transportation. The only exceptions are the application of fertilizers/chemicals and irrigation. Fermentation/distillation consumes 12.63 MJ/L, which is the most energy intensive part of the process, followed by sugar milling which consumes 10.46 MJ/L (see Figure 9).

35

Table 3: Primary energy balance of sugar milling in Nepal (including distillation, dehydration and ETP) Processes Primary energy required
Sugarcane milling Fermentation/Distillation Dehydration Power (including electricity to facilities) Heat Power Heat Power Heat 990.3 4,600.0 73.8 240.2 78.1 54 32.8 54.5 6,123.7

Sectors

GJ/day

Effluent treatment plant Power (ETP) Lighting in the distillation, dehydration, ETP plus Power electricity in their facilities Total primary energy required

Primary energy supply

Bagasse primary energy input ETP biogas input Total primary energy input Excess bagasse % excess bagasse 7,036.5 319.3 7,355.8 1,232.1 16.75 %

Taking the energy content of anhydrous bioethanol (EtOH) to be 21.2 MJ/L, the net renewable energy value (NREV) is positive (18.36 MJ/L) but the net energy value (NEV) is negative ( 13.05 MJ/L). The higher positive value of NREV shows that the amount of fossils fuels used in the production cycle of bioethanol is quite low. In fact, the ratio between the energy content of bioethanol fuel to fossil fuel inputs (energy yield ratio) is 7.47. However, the negative value of NEV shows that more energy is required to make EtOH than there is in its final energy content. In any case, low quality biomass feedstock, i.e. molasses (in terms of market and energy values), is converted into a high quality commercial energy carrier - bioethanol.

36

Figur 9: The co re ontribution of fossil and renewable energy requ o d uired to prod duce 1 liter of EtOH (MOE) in Nepal, at each r stage of the ethano production chain f ol n

4.2.1

Sensitivity analysis (net energy balances)

Sensi itivity analys are perfo ses ormed to fin out the effect of (a) the nd ) economic allocat tion ratio, an (b) energ consumption (power and nd gy ess ergy and y proce heat) on the net ene values a energy yield ratio. (a) V Variation of a allocation ratio related to mo o olasses price The price of mo olasses is qu low in Nepal. As the demand for uite t d asses-based e ethanol incr reases, it can be expecte that the price n ed p mola of m molasses will rise. The pr of mola rice asses has be increased by een 50%, 100%, 150% and 200% to see the effect on th energy va , % e he alues and e energy yield ratio, whilst the price of sugar is assumed to be d e s o const tant. It has been found that the ne energy va (NEV), net d et alue , renew wable energ value (NR gy REV), and energy yield ratio also ded o
37

creas with an in se ncrease in th price of m he molasses, see Figure 10 (a-c). e ( For e example, a 100% increa in the p ase price of mol lasses leads to a reduc ction of 90.2 in the NEV and 14..7% in the NREV with cor2% N N respo onding ener values of (-24.83) M rgy MJ/L and 15 5.66 MJ/L. The energ yield rati is also re gy io educed to 3..88 (a 48.8% reduction A % n). highe value for the energy yield ratio eq er y quates to a higher merit for the fu fuel.

Figur 10 (a-c): E re Effect of changes in the price of mo e olasses on NEV, N NREV, and the energy y yield ratio
38

(b) E Energy consum mption in the plant is reduced p d In th factory op he perations, th is signiificant poten to improve here ntial the e energy balan of the pr nce roduction o bioethano in Nepal. One of ol impo ortant way to achieve th is to sav energy (p o his ve power and heat). h Figur 11 shows the variatio in NEV resulting fr re s on V rom a reduc ction in th plants en he nergy consum mption. It h been found that a 10% has reduc ction in ene ergy consum mption in t plant he the elps to incr rease NEV by 33.5%. The break V . keven point,, when NEV reaches zero, V z occur at a 30% reduction in energy con rs n nsumption. Although th is his possi ible from a technolog gical point of view, it is difficul to t lt achie given the current tec eve e chnological settings of the plant. t

Figur 11: Effec of different levels of energy con re ct f nsumption at the ethanol plant on NEV values

4.3

L i f e c y c l e GH G b a la n c e s an d a v o id e d emissions

GHG emissions (per hectar from sug G s re) garcane farm ming are 36 625.3 kgCO2eq and the contributio from diff O e on ferent activi ities is show in wn Table 4. The sha of produ e are uction and th total app he plication of fertif lizers s/chemicals is 55 %, while diesel u w used to pow diesel water wer w pump and truck ps ks/tractors constitutes 2 c 29.9%. Hum labour, cane man trash burning, an returned residues ha small shares of the total h nd ave emiss sions, with f figures of 3.9%, 6.3% an 4.9% respectively. nd
39

Table 4: GHG emissions from sugarcane farm land per hectare in Nepal (sugarcane yield: 40.61 tonne/ha)
Particulars Production of fertilizers/ chemicals Application of N-fertilizers Human labour (fossil fuel inputs) Use of diesel (irrigation and transportation) Cane trash burning (dry trash) Returned residues Total kgCO2eq emissions per hectare Emissions (kgCO2eq Ha-1) 1013.34 982.45 142.12 1082.72 228.43 176.20 3625.27 % share 27.9 27.1 3.9 29.9 6.3 4.9

Table 5 shows the results of the estimation of GHG balances. The life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of 1 m3 of molasses-based anhydrous bioethanol (EtOH) are 432.5 kgCO2eq, considering the best available molasses-based ethanol conversion plant at Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (SRSM), Nepal. The net avoided emissions come out at 1418.4 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol, compared to conventional gasoline (of an equivalent energy amount) which is a 76.6% reduction in the life cycle GHG emissions (see Table 6). Moreover, the life cycle emissions of EtOH measured as a functional unit, per MJ, is 20.42 gCO2eq MJ-1. Fossil fuels used in the production of fertilizers/chemicals, diesel combustion (in water pumps and trucks/tractors), and human labour contributes 51.9% (224.4 kgCO2eq) of the total emissions. Soil emissions from fertilizer-application and returned residues is the second largest source with a share of 26.8% (116.1 kgCO2eq). Emissions from boilers as a result of bagasse/biogas combustion, trash burning, and combustion of ethanol in vehicles all correspond to small shares. Total life cycle GHG emissions have been calculated to be 1251 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol when all the sugarcane is used to produce bioethanol (without sugar), considering that 1 tonne sugarcane produces 80 liters of ethanol. It should be noted that the allocation has not been made here since bioethanol accounts for the entire GHG share in this case. Avoided emissions are 599.7 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol or a 32.4% reduction in the life cycle GHG emissions compared to gasoline, thus much lower than the case of molassesbased ethanol.
40

Table 5: Life cycle GHG (CO2eq) balance of molasses-based ethanol (MOE, EtOH) fuel in Nepal
Activities and constituents Fertilizer production Phosphorous (P2O5) Potash (K2O) Nitrogen (N) Chemical production Insecticides/pesticides Herbicides Diesel (irrigation): production & combustion Diesel (transport): production & combustion Fertilizer application N2O from fertilizer N-application CO2 from fertilizer N-application Human labour (fossil fuel inputs) Cane trash burning N2O (spent wash/stillage) Returned N2O (filter cake/mud) residues N2O (unburned trash) Bagasse combustion in boilers (for heat & power) Biogas combustion in boilers Sub-total (emissions along the ethanol production chain) Emissions from combustion of 1 m3 ethanol (EtOH) in vehicles Total life cycle emissions (production & combustion of EtOH) Emissions (kgCO2eq m-3) 5.95 3.89 48.92 38.66 4.16 95.57 12.96 76.11 22.37 14.25 22.90 1.06 9.13 7.48 35.57 8.56 407.53 25.00 432.53

Table 6: Life cycle comparison of GHG emissions, ethanol (EtOH) and gasoline
Equivalent fuels (EtOH and gasoline) Emissions from production and combustion, 1 m3 ethanol (EtOH) Emissions from production and combustion, 0.658 m3 gasoline (= 1 m3 of EtOH) Net avoided emissions (kgCO2eq EtOH) % reduction in life cycle GHG emissions
41

Emissions (kgCO2eq) 432.53 1850.95 1418.42 76.63

4.3.1

Sensitivity analysis (GHG balances) Variat of alloca tion ation ratio re elated to molas price sses

Sensi itivity analysis shows how the life cycle GHG emissions inh e G s creas when the market pri se e ices change towards a higher price for h e mola asses. Figure 12 depicts the result of GHG emi e f issions, cove ering the w whole range of sensitivi from the allocation ratio of 24 to 4. ity e r t It should be not that the average allo ted ocation ratio considere to o, ed be th normal b he base case for analysis, w 22.2. When the ma was W arket price of molasse increases two-fold, t new allo e es the ocation ratio i.e. o 10.88 (keeping the market price of su 8 ugar consta ant) would give 844.7 kgCO2.eq m-3 ethanol which is a 5 7 w 54.4% reduction in the life e cycle GHG emissions comp e pared to gas soline (also, see Figure 12). , The full trade-o situation, i.e. when the life cyc emission of off cle ns ethan are the same as tho of conve nol ose entional gas soline, occur at rs an all location rati of 4.43 (b io break-even p point). Below this point, it is w , not e economically viable to produce mo y p olasses-based ethanol in Ned pal.

Figur 12 : Sensi re itivity analys for life cy GHG em sis ycle missions and avoide emissions (%) as a fu ed unction of different allocad tion ra atios for sug and mola gar asses
(Note: Dots on the primary and se condary y-axis represent the total p s e ons oided emission respectively at the base ca alns ase emissio and % avo location ratio, i.e. 22.2:1 (molasses: sugar) n 42

Alterna ation of material/ener inputs, and sugar m rgy rcane yield

With a variation in the thre importan input para h n ee nt ameters, nam mely consu umption of pesticides, nitrogen-fert n rtilizer, and diesel (for irrigad tion), the life cyc GHG em , cle missions hav been esti ve imated. The pae rame eters have be varied fr een rom a 75% r reduction to a 75% incr o rease from the present value. Figu 13 show the results of the anal m t ure ws s lysis. It can be observ that the production and appli n ved e n ication of nitrogen-f fertilizer has a higher im s mpact on GH emissio than the use HG ons e of die and pes esel sticides. For example, a 50% increa in the us of r ase se nitrogen-fertilize will lead to an increa in GHG emissions to a er t ase G level of 506 kgC 2eq m-3 etha CO anol, while d diesel consu umption and the d appli ication of pe esticides wo ould only inc crease the emissions to 480 e and 4 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol respectively On the ot 452 l y. ther hand, when w q sugar rcane yields are improv ved, there is a significa reduction in s ant the li cycle GH emission (see also Figure 13). A 75% incr ife HG ns rease in the cane yield (i.e. 71 tonn per hect e nes tare) from th present value he v of 40 tonnes/ could re 0.61 /ha educe GHG emissions to 306 kgC 2eq G CO m-3 e ethanol (14.4 gCO2eq MJ-1) and av M voided emissions would be d 83.5% compared to gasoline Cane yield are curren quite low in % d e. ds ntly Nepa Therefor there is plenty of scope for immediate imal. re, prove ements.

Figur 13: Sensit re tivity analys for variat sis tions in mat terial/energy iny puts and sugarca yield in Nepal ane
43

4.3.2

Alternative scenarios and system expansion Alternative scenarios in wastewater treatment plants

GHG emissions from wastewater (effluent or spent wash) treatment plants at the factories/distillery plants are quite significant, and are related to the types of treatment process used. The Anaerobic Digestion Process (ADP, a biological digester) and Pond Stabilization (PS, also called the lagoon system) are two common treatment practices for the treatment of wastewater from sugar and distillery industries. The present scenario (at the plant level) in SRSM comprises the best available case in Nepal with wastewater treatment facilities treating 100% of the wastewater, using ADP to recover biogas, whereby no leakage of biogas is allowed into the atmosphere. Recovered biogas is fed directly into boilers as fuel. Given a scenario of 100% biogas leakage into the open atmosphere from ADP, the total amount of emissions would be 2602.1 kgCO2eq (per hectare). The Pond Stabilization (PS) process releases 1551.4 kgCO2.eq Ha-1 into the atmosphere. A close examination of the GHG emissions associated with each of these waste treatment options shows that the ADP treatment process, without any biogas leakage, is preferred. The results of emissions from ADP and pond stabilization (PS) treatment plants have been scrutinized. When 100% of the spent wash is sent through the pond stabilization process, the life cycle emissions may increase to 118% with a value of 4032 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol. When 50% of the spent wash is treated using PS and the remaining 50% fed into the ADP (with biogas recovery), there is a 21% increase in emissions, compared with those for gasoline. However, if 25% of the spent wash is treated using PS and the remaining 75% with the ADP, the emissions are reduced by 28% to a level of 1332 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol, as shown in Figure 14. Thus, the installation and operation of the ADP in sugar and distillery factories not only recovers energy but also reduces the life cycle GHG emissions.

44

Figur 14: Life cycle emissi re ions in the case of par rtial treatter d ment of wastewat in PS and ADP When considerin the leaka of biog from a bio-digester (i.e. n ng age gas b from ADP), 10% leakage would avoid 44% of the life cycle emism % w e sions compared to gasoline In this ca the val of life cycle s e. ase, lue c GHG emissions becomes 1038 kgCO 2eq m-3 etha G s O anol. Figure 15 e show the total emissions, taking into account bio ws ogas leakage in es the ra e ge s 3.4% ange of 5 25%. If the total leakag of biogas exceeds 23 then the life cyc GHG em cle missions of bioethanol will surpass the s emiss sions level of its coun nterpart, con nventional gasoline. Th g herefore, it is essenti to avoid leakage in o ial order to tak full advan ke ntage he f bstitution. of th emissions reduction from fuel sub

Grid c connection for electricity from exce bagasse and fo y ess technolo ogical improvements
As fo ound in the estimation of the net en o nergy balanc there is 17% ces, exces bagasse a ss arising from the sugar p m production chain at SR RSM. Sugar mills/facto r ories in Nep are locat near to industrial corripal ted dors where many industrial complexes o y operate. The industries suffer fr rom power shortages, especially in the dry sea e n ason (Decem mber Ma the perio when hy ay), od ydroelectricit generatio is limited and ty on
45

the h harvesting of sugarcan occurs. Industries, therefore, run ne stand d-by diesel p power plant when no electricity is available from ts s f the g grid. Excess bagasse ca be used t generate and supply elecs an to a e tricity to the grid along thes industrial corridors. Part of the elecy d se P e tricity produced by the diese power pla can be replaced by this y el ants y renew wable bioel lectricity with a conse equent redu uction in GHG G emiss sions. It sho ould be not that boillers and turbines with their ted t curre installed capacities can operate iin such a wa as to gene ent ay erate exces electricity though im ss y mproved eff fficiency, wh hich would add both economic a environm and mental value e.

Figur 15: Life cy emissio in the ca of biogas leakage re ycle ons ase s With the avoidan of GHG emissions through the substitutio of h nce G e on diese el-based elec ctricity, the total emissio of ethan are nega t ons nol ative (-213 kgCO2eq m-3 ethano indicatin that the entire su 3 ol) ng e ugarcane/ /ethanol pro oduction-ch absorbs GHG rathe than relea hain er asing emiss sions into th atmosph he here. The to percenta reductio in otal age on GHG emissions is 112% ba G ased on the production of 1 m3 of molasses s-based etha anol (EtOH) when com ), mpared with gasoline. Emish sions from differ s rent activitie are shown in Figure 16. It should be es n noted that the a d avoided GH emissio are not partitioned beHG ons tween sugar and molasses when consid n d w dering the ex xpansion of the f
46

system with sur m rplus electric city. Sugar a molasses actually emit and 618 kgCO2eq an 28 kgCO2eq at an alllocation rat of 22.2:1 as nd O tio show in Figure 16. wn Tech hnological im mprovement in the bag ts gasse-fuelled combined heat d and p power plant (CHP), such as a high pressure and tempera t h a ature turbin can gene ne, erate 1 kWh electricity f h from 1.6 kg of bagasse (Pug rohit and Micha t aelowa, 2007 which is m 7) more than five times more m resou urce efficien than the ones found in Nepal. Thus, ther is nt d . re huge potential to trade-off the entire G o t GHG balanc in the su ces ugarcane systems of Nepal by generating and selling bagasse-fue f elled bioel lectricity to r replace diese power pla el ants. The ut tilization of cane trash h/wastes for electricity generation, and the im r mprovement and optim mization of industrial processes c ould furthe reduce GHG p er G emiss sions.

Figur 16: GHG emissions shares from different st re G m tages of the ethanol p production chain in N Nepal (in the case of using u surplu electricity to substitut diesel) us y te

47

4.4

Comparison of results with other studies

Several studies have estimated the life cycle energy and GHG balances of bioethanol derived from various feedstocks, such as sugarcane, cassava, corn and cane-molasses. Macedo et al., (2008) found that the energy yield ratio in the production phase of sugarcane was 9.3 in Brazil during 2005/06, taking into account the direct consumption of external fuels and electricity, the energy required for the production of chemicals and materials, and the additional energy necessary for the manufacture, construction and maintenance of equipment and buildings. The total GHG emissions for anhydrous ethanol production were 436 kg CO2eq m-3 ethanol in the same period and could decrease to 345 kgCO2eq m-3 for a conservative scenario in 2020 (Macedo et al., 2008). Cane productivity and ethanol yield were the most important parameters affecting the estimation of GHG balances. However, the study has not dealt with wastewater treatment of spent wash. Nguyen et al. 2007a have calculated the NEV and NREV for cassava-based bioethanol in Thailand with respective positive values of 8.8 MJ/L and 9.15 MJ/L. Shapouri et al. (2004) reported that the net energy balance (energy yield ratio) for producing corn ethanol in the USA was 1.67. The results of NEV and NREV for cassava fuel ethanol, as reported by Dai et al. (2006), were 7.47 MJ/L and 7.88 MJ/L respectively, in the case of China. Nguyen et al. (2008b)s life cycle analysis of sugarcane-molasses-based ethanol calculated the values of NEV (-5.67 MJ/L), NREV (5.95 MJ/L), and energy yield ratio (6.12 per MJ petroleum inputs) in Thailand. The study was quite similar to that of molasses bioethanol in Nepal. However, the results contrast with the values of NEV (-13.05 MJ/L) and NREV (18.36 MJ/L) found in the Nepalese case. In the Thai case, the plants energy requirements are not met by bagasse alone; rice husks and wood wastes are also used as supplementary fuels in the sugar milling process. Coal is a major fuel in the ethanol conversion process, and biogas is not utilized for process energy. At the same time, excess electricity is sold to the grid as energy outputs. In the case of Nepal, the difference in NEV is due to higher total energy inputs (fossil fuel plus renewable) while favourable conditions for NREV occur, since energy requirements are mostly met by renewable sources.
48

Nguyen et al. (2007b) have analysed the life cycle GHG emissions for molasses-based ethanol in Thailand, demonstrating that there is a 31.3% increase in GHG emissions (per liter of ethanol) with an allocation ratio (between sugar and molasses) of 8.6:1. Emissions from anaerobic pond stabilization contributed the largest share, of 54.1%. However, the study also showed that biogas recovery from 100% spent wash could reduce GHG emissions by 60.6% compared to conventional gasoline, and further improvements are possible, up to an 88.8% reduction. In comparison, a 76.6% reduction in total emissions per liter of ethanol is observed in the Nepalese case, assuming the best case currently available in one of the established sugar factories. Greenhouse gas savings (tonnes of CO2eq per hectare) in sugarcane bioenergy systems have also been identified by Nguyen et al. (2010) in the sugar industry in Thailand. Electricity generation from cane trash/residues and excess bagasse, and energy extraction from stillage (wastewater) would reduce GHG emissions. When considering molasses as a feedstock for ethanol production in the average Brazilian mill, Gopal and Kammen (2009) found that the life cycle GHG emissions were 15.1 gCO2eq MJ-1 , and sugar and molasses prices play a key role in determining the emissions. In comparison, emissions of 20.4 gCO2eq MJ-1 of GHGs were found in the case of Nepal, for sugarcane-molasses-based ethanol. The life cycle emissions in the production and use of 1 m3 of cassava-based ethanol were 964 kgCO2eq, which corresponds to 62.9% of the total reduction in emissions Nguyen et al. (2007c). Moreover, Blottnitz and Curran (2007) conducted a review of assessments of bioethanol as a transporation fuel from the net energy, greenhouse gas and environmental life cycle perspective, comparing energy yield ratios and GHG balances, though with differing assumptions and system boundaries. The values of GHG emissions and energy yield ratios differ significantly depending on the feedstock used and the production practices applied. Recent literature also points out that it is essential to distinguish between the bioenergy systems referred to, the energy conversion technologies used and the resultant energy and GHG balances, when contrasting LCA and sustainability issues for different biofuels (Gnansounou et al., 2009 ; Cherubini et al., 2009; Hoefnagels et al., 2010). These studies are important points of reference for the evaluation of biofuels, but an in depth comparison of the
49

energy values and GHG emissions of ethanol production methods is difficult without precisely defining the methodological approach, system boundaries, allocation methods, and specific feedstock characteristics, among other things. Thus, unified methodological procedures in the production of bioethanol are required globally, including LDCs.

4.5

Prospects for sustainable development

Nepal has great potential to produce molasses-based ethanol and for it to be used as part of a blend in gasoline-run vehicles. The increased use of biofuels not only reduces dependency on fossil fuels but also reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and local air pollution caused by vehicular emissions. In addition, the production of biofuels can serve as a driver for improvements in agriculture. The prospects for sustainable development are discussed in detail in Silveira and Khatiwada (2010). This section highlights the key issues related to the potential for ethanol to contribute to sustainable development in Nepal. 4.5.1 Ethanol production potential in Nepal

With an installed production capacity of 30 m3 of bioethanol per day, Sri Ram Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (SRSM) can produce 4,500 m3 annually, assuming the plant runs for 150 crop days. If SRSM purchased molasses from other sugar mills, then the production capacity reaches 8,760 m3, assuming that the ethanol plant runs during the whole year at a plant utilization factor of 80%. Of the total sugarcane production in 2006/07 (i.e. 2.6 million tonnes), 70% was processed by sugar industries to produce sugar in Nepal. 78,684 tonnes of molasses were generated, assuming an average production of 4.3% of the sugarcane milling. Thus the bioethanol production potential was 18,045 m3 for the same year. 4.5.2 Substituting gasoline with E10 and E20 in the Kathmandu Valley

The Kathmandu Valley consumes 71,338 m3 of gasoline (70% of the gasoline imported to Nepal) per year. 56% of the countrys automobiles run in the valley. Most light automobiles, such as cars,
50

jeeps and vans, and a huge fleet of two-wheeler motor-bikes use gasoline. Automobiles fuelled by gasoline can use E5-E20 blended fuel in the existing engine with only minor adjustments, and it also has a high octane number (ON) with better combustion efficiency. When considering the energy content or lower heating value (LHV), and the volumetric equivalency between the ethanol blend (E10) and pure gasoline, i.e. one liter of pure gasoline is equal to 1.0354 liters of E10, it is found that the substitution of the gasoline presently used in the Kathmandu Valley adds up to a total of 73,864 m3 of E10, which corresponds to a blend of 66,478 m3 gasoline and 7,386 m3 of ethanol. It should be noted that the LHV of anhydrous ethanol (99.5% v/v, EtOH) and gasoline are 21.183 MJ/L and 32.192 MJ/L respectively. As examined by Silveira and Khatiwada (2010), The Kathmandu Valley could save 4,860 m3 of gasoline per year, which is a reduction in imports of 6.8% if gasoline automobiles went for E10. The demand for E10 could be met if SRSM purchased molasses from other sugar mills and ran the dehydration ethanol plant annually at a plant utilization factor of 68% assuming other sugar mills were not equipped to produce anhydrous ethanol (EtOH). When the vehicles go for an E20 blend, a reduction of 14% in gasoline imports, i.e. an annual saving of 10,078 m3, is achievable, which corresponds to an ethanol requirement of 15,315 m3 in a year. This annual requirement is still lower than the total potential capacity of the sugar mills, given the availability of molasses for ethanol production. Looking at the economics of petroleum imports, Nepal Oil Corporation (a state owned enterprise, NOC) accumulated annual losses of US$ 78 million in 2007/08, US$ 27 million in 2006/07, and US$ 55 million in 2005/06. With the introduction of ethanol blends, direct annual import savings of US$ 4.9 million (with E10), and US$ 10.1 million (with E20) can be achieved, given the current retail price of gasoline. 4.5.3 Environmental gains of introducing E10 and E20 in the Kathmandu Valley

The Kathmandu Valley suffers from a severe air pollution problem due to increased vehicular emissions and its specific geographic lo51

cation. Various international studies have shown that the use of biofuels not only reduces dependency on fossil fuels but also reduces greenhouse gases and local air pollution caused by vehicular emissions. In Nepal, the environmental life cycle analysis of an E10 and pure gasoline car shows that E10 fuel works better than pure gasoline with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, the release of carcinogens, and ozone layer destruction, although the quantity of substances causing acidification/eutrophication increases with the E10 (Khatiwada, 2007). A piece of research conducted to investigate the performance of E10 and E20 in automobiles in the Kathmandu Valley showed ethanol blends work better than conventional gasoline (AEPC, 2008). The Kathmandu Valley consumed 71,338 m3 of gasoline, 46,003 m3 of diesel, and 5400 tonnes of LPG in the transport sector in 2006/07. The total CO2 emissions resulting from the consumption of these transport fuels were estimated to be 304,000 tonnes (petrol: 54.4%, diesel: 40.3%, and LPG: 5.3%). The introduction of E10 could avoid 11,283 tonnes (7% of total gasoline emissions) of CO2 emissions, while E20 could contribute to the avoidance of 23,397 tonnes of CO2 emissions, which is 14% of the total gasoline emitted in a year in 2006/07 (Silveira and Khatiwada, 2010). 4.5.4 Other important aspects of sustainable development

First generation bioethanol, derived from food crops such as corn/maize and sugarcane is often debated when it comes to food security and land use. In Nepal, the production of bioethanol occurs from the low-value by-product of the sugar milling process: molasses. Without compromising sugar and other indigenous sugar-based food products (such as Chaku and Shakhar), Nepal could today produce enough bioethanol to introduce an E20 blend for gasoline replacement in the Kathmandu Valley (Silveira and Khatiwada, 2010). Therefore, there is no trade-off between food and fuel in terms of bioethanol production in Nepal at its present scale. Our study has also shown that there is still a significant potential to increase cane yields, which would guarantee a significant increase in ethanol production without the need to bring more land into cultivation.

52

Given the present conditions, sugar industries are self-sufficient in their energy requirements. Bagasse generates the heat and electricity required to run the whole plant. Excess bagasse could be used to provide surplus electricity to replace diesel-powered electricity in the industrial corridor. Bioethanol derived from molasses could replace gasoline in the transport sector. Having made more efficient utilization of bagasse and cane-trash, surplus bioelectricity could be generated to provide power for nearby industries or to provide lighting for the rural poor, with the help of rural electrification in the countryside, where 61% of the population still lack electricity. Therefore, the development of sugarcane bioenergy systems would enhance energy security. Of the total land area of 14.72 million hectares in Nepal, cultivated land accounts for 21%, non-cultivated 7%, forest including shrubs 39.6%, grass land 12% and water bodies and others 20.4%. Cultivated land is used for cereal/food products, cash crops, pulses, and fruit/vegetables. Cash crops consist of oilseed, potato, tobacco, sugarcane, and jute. The production of cash crops takes place in 13.2% of the total cultivated land, of which 14.5% is allocated for sugarcane farming. Thus, it can be observed that the area occupied by sugarcane is significantly smaller than the area dedicated to other cash or food crops. At present, sugarcane yields reach an average of 40.6 tonnes/ha, and could be improved with the help of regional experience and practice in sugarcane cultivation. Mechanization of agricultural practices should also be considered in the medium term. This would enhance food production as well as that of energy products without the need for more cultivated land. Wastewater (spent wash), generated by bioethanol conversion units, is treated using an Anaerobic Digestion Process (ADP) with biogas recovery, and the final effluents are only discharged into water bodies, within acceptable limits, after the treatment has met the effluent standards set out by the environmental protection rules/regulations in Nepal. If the wastewater treatment plant is properly operated and maintained, there will be no significant water pollution resulting from distillery operations. The institutional collaboration between concerned private and public stakeholders, including donor agencies/partners plays an important role in the sustainability of any development project. The institutional set-up and public-private-partnerships seem weak
53

in the case of Nepal. For example, government policy on the introduction of the E10 blend was enacted in 2004 but has not yet been implemented due to institutional bottle-necks. Nepal is currently at the verge of a period of political transition, and internal conflicts still exist within the country, especially in the plains of the south, which affects sugarcane production and productivity. Proper renewable energy policy is required to boost the production and use of bioethanol, providing on the one hand incentives for sugarcane farmers and industries who want to make the investment in bioethanol production and, on the other hand, the proper institutional conditions to promote the switch to a new fuel.

4.6 Results of sustainability assessment: a summary sheet

With the above discussion on the development of sustainability criteria, and the findings from the case of molasses-based bioethanol production and use in Nepal, a summary sheet of sustainability criteria for bioethanol production is presented in Table 7. While Table 1 indicated a large number of important criteria in the context of bioethanol production and use, Table 7 shows a summary of the most important messages derived from the in depth analysis carried out using some of these sustainability criteria. The second column summarizes the main contributions or arguments of the thesis, indicating what can be achieved in the short run.

54

Table 7: Evaluating selected sustainability criteria for bioethanol production and use in Nepal Summary of thesis results Criteria Contributions of the thesis
A. Environmental
Fossil fuels substitution Life cycle energy balances CO2 emissions from fuel substitution in automobiles Life cycle GHG balances Local air pollution Wastewater management

With the use of bioethanol blends in the transport sector, the consumption of imported gasoline is reduced. Gasoline savings are 4,860 m3 (for E10) and 10,078 m3 (for E20) per year in the Kathmandu valley.

Net renewable energy value (NREV) = 18.36 MJ/L; Net energy value (NEV) = - 13.05 MJ/L; Total energy (fossil and renewable) inputs = 34.26 MJ /L; Energy yield ratio = 7.47

11,283 tonnes and 23,397 tonnes of CO2 are avoided by substituting E10 and E20 for gasoline respectively.

Life cycle GHG emissions = 433 kgCO2eq m-3 (or 20.4 gCO2eq.MJ-1.); net avoided emissions = 1418 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol or a 76.6% reduction in the life cycle GHG emissions compared to conventional gasoline

Bioethanol blends reduce air pollution problems in the Kathmandu Valley Examination of the wastewater treatment processes shows that it is essential to treat distilleries wastewater (spent wash) using the Anaerobic Digestion Process (ADP) with biogas recovery. Biogas contributes 4% of total available primary energy, and ADP (without biogas leakage) contributes to reducing life cycle GHG emissions.

B. Economic
Savings on oil import Energy security and diversification

Direct annual savings are US$ 4.9 million (using E10) and US$ 10.1 million (using E20) in the Kathmandu Valley National bioethanol potential = 18 million liters. Bioethanol can replace imported gasoline, enhancing domestic energy security. Moreover, a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, fuelled by bagasse and recovered biogas, provides energy at the plant level, while surplus bioelectricity can be sold to the grid.

C. Social
Food vs. energy security

Molasses, a low-value by-product of the sugar milling process is used for bioethanol production without compromising the production of sugar and other indigenous sugar based food products (such as Chaku and Shakhar).

55

5 Conclusions and future work

5.1 Conclusions
This study has estimated the net energy balance of the production of molasses-based bioethanol in Nepal, examined the GHG balances associated with the production and use of bioethanol in the country, and showed how bioethanol production and use can contribute towards sustainable development. The thesis now turns to the three key questions that were asked at the beginning, as a way of putting the analysis into perspective and drawing appropriate conclusions. (a) Is bioethanol energy efficient i.e. how much energy does it take to produce one liter of bioethanol? The fossil fuel required to produce 1 liter of molasses-based bioethanol (MOE or EtOH) is 2.84 MJ, giving a good energy yield ratio (7.47). The net renewable energy value (NREV) is 18.36 MJ/L, and a higher value of NREV indicates the low amount of fossil fuels used in the production cycle of ethanol in Nepal. Thus, bioethanol production is energy efficient in terms of the amount of fossil fuel used to produce it. The total energy (fossil fuel and renewable) requirement is 34.26 MJ/L, which is higher than the energy content of 1 liter of bioethanol (i.e. 21.2 MJ/L), giving a negative NEV ( 13.05 MJ/L). However, low quality biomass feedstock i.e. molasses (in terms of market and energy values) is converted into a high quality modern renewable transport fuel. In addition, there is plenty of room for significant improvements in the short term. The life cycle renewable energy contribution amounts to 91.7%, required to produce 1 liter of EtOH, since bagasse, biogas and non-motorized transportation cover most of the operations with the exception of the application of fertilizers/chemicals and irrigation. There is huge potential for energy savings in sugar milling and ethanol production: a 10% reduction in energy consumption
56

helps to increase NEV by 33.5%. An improvement of 30% in the efficiency of the plant will result in a break-even situation for NEV, i.e. a point where the total energy input into the system is equal to the output in terms of the energy content provided by bioethanol. This is fully possible with readily available technology. (b) How many greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and savings occur in the production and use of bioethanol? The total life cycle emission of bioethanol is 433 kgCO2eq m-3 (i.e. 20.4 gCO2eq MJ-1), which is a 76.6% reduction in GHG emissions compared to conventional gasoline from a life cycle perspective. Thus, the production and consumption of bioethanol saves 1418 kgCO2eq m-3 of GHG emissions when an equivalent volumetric amount (i.e. 1 m3 ethanol = 0.658 m3 gasoline) of gasoline is replaced by ethanol as the transport fuel in Nepal. (c) What are the direct benefits of bioethanol substitution in the transport sector? The direct benefits of bioethanol substitution in the transport sector are: replacement of gasoline fuel, enhancement of energy security, diversification of energy products, improvement of local air quality in the Kathmandu Valley, saving hard foreign currency, and a reduction in GHG emissions. The variation in the price of molasses has a significant effect on the net energy values, energy yield ratio, and GHG balances. When the market price of molasses doubles, the energy yield ratio is reduced to 3.88 (a 48.8% reduction). NEV and NREV also decrease by 90.2% and 14.7% respectively. On the other hand, the life cycle GHG emissions would be 844.7 kgCO2eq m-3 ethanol given a twofold increase in the price of molasses. The analysis of scenarios concerning the choice of wastewater treatment plant, from either Anaerobic Digestion Process (ADP) or Pond Stabilization (PS), shows that ADP with biogas recovery significantly reduces GHG emissions, particularly if leakages are avoided. The pond stabilization (PS) treatment process contributes to an alarming increase in GHG emissions. The expansion of the system, with the sale of surplus electricity obtained from the

57

combustion of excess bagasse, could also help to reduce GHG emissions. This thesis has identified a number of opportunities for improvements to the net energy balance and GHG emissions along the bioethanol production chain. Improvements can be achieved through: (a) improvement in cane yields, with the help of the modernization of agricultural practices, (b) cane bagasse and trash/wastes being used efficiently to generate bioelectricity, and (c) the technological upgrading and optimization of industrial operations. However, it is difficult to compare and benchmark these improvements with similar studies carried out elsewhere due to a lack of methodological coherence in evaluating bioethanol production globally. In spite of the international debate on biofuels, bioethanol production in Nepal does not pose any threats to food security since the feedstock is a low-value industrial by-product obtained from the sugarcane milling process. Nepal can produce 18 million liters of bioethanol annually without compromising the production of food products, and savings of US$ 10 million could be possible through the implementation of the E20 blend in the Katmandu Valley to replace conventional gasoline. Vehicles running on ethanol blends (E10 or E20) also release less air pollutants compared to pure gasoline. It is envisaged that favorable governmental policies, such as mandatory bioethanol blends and incentives/subsidies for sugarcane farmers and private investors, will be put in place to explore the bioethanol potential in Nepal. Proper institutional mechanisms and coordination amongst concerned stakeholders, including both private and public sectors, are required for the production and commercialization of bioethanol in Nepal. Both political and institutional concerns have become the most urgent issues to address at this stage, when mature conversion technologies are already available and accessible in the region. The insight provided using the example of this country could also motivate the assessment and production of bioethanol in other LDCs.

58

5.2 Future works

(a) This research is focused on the direct economic and environmental benefits, along with the life cycle energy assessment and GHG balances of bioethanol production in Nepal. The generation of bioelectricity from bagasse and cane trash/wastes has not been discussed in detail. There is a huge potential, not only to generate bioelectricity in order to improve net energy balances and efficiency, but also to trade-off entire GHG balances in the sugarcane systems of Nepal. Therefore, life cycle economic and social sustainability, and the optimization of relevant sustainability indicators, such as net energy and GHG balances and the utilization of cane trash/wastes for electricity generation is another step worthy of investigation. (b) The development of life cycle case studies for sustainability assessment, and the optimization of sugarcane-based commercial energy sources (i.e. bioelectricity and bioethanol) are important for many least developed countries (LDCs). In this regard, a similar case study in one of the African LDCs would be interesting to investigate. After the compilation of field data from the production chain of bioethanol in different LDCs, the modelling of climate, energy, land use, environmental performance, and the consumption of other natural resources, such as water, could be carried out. (c) Last but not the least, in order to allow a comparative analysis of the sustainability assessment of bioethanol production from sugarcane feedstock, methodological coherence and unification should be established and benchmarked globally in the context of the evaluation of sustainable bioenergy systems for product certification, and international trade from the life cycle perspective. Therefore, the evaluation of sugarcane bioethanol, with methodological improvements towards international common ground, is the next step of this research work.

59

6 References
Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S.A., 2010. Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated with its production and utilization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 10, pp. 919 937. AEPC, 2008. Report on Assessing the Economic, Technical and Environmental Aspects of Using Petrol-Ethanol Blend in the Automobiles in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal. Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC), Government of Nepal. Afgan, H.A., Carvalho, M.G., Hovanov, N.V., 2000. Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators. Energy Policy 28, pp 603 - 612. Al-Hasan, M., 2003. Effect of ethanolunleaded gasoline blends on engine performance and exhaust emission. Energy Conversion and Management 44, pp. 15471561. Available at http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Projcet_Documents /RESTMAC/Brochure5_Bioethanol_low_res.pdf Azapagic, A., Clift, R., 1999. Life cycle assessment and multiobjective optimisation. Journal of Cleaner Production 7, pp. 135143. Bake, J.D.W., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Poot, T., Walter, A., 2009. Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane. Biomass and Bioenergy 33, pp. 644 658. Balat, M., Balat, H., 2009. Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Applied Energy 86, pp 2273-2282 Balat, M., Balat, H., Oz, C., 2008. Progress in bioethanol processing. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34, pp 551573 Batidzirai, B., Faaij, A.P.C., Smeets, E., 2006. Biomass and bioenergy supply from Mozambique. Energy for Sustainable Development, Volume X No. 1. pp. 54 - 80. Blottnitz, H.V., Curran, M.A., 2007. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 607- 619. Brennan, L., Ownede, P., 2010. Biofuels from microalgaeA review of technologies for production,processing, and extractions
60

of biofuels and co-products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, pp. 557 - 577. Buchholz, T., Luzadis, A.V., Volk, T.A., 2009. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. Journal of cleaner production 17, S86S98. Cardona, C.A., Sanchez, O.J., 2007. Fuel ethanol production: Process design trends and integration opportunities. Bioresource Technology 99, pp 2415 2457. Cherubini, F., Bird, N. D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B., Gallasch, S.W., 2009. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 , 434447 Costa, R.C., Sodre, J.R., 2010. Hydrous ethanol vs. gasolineethanol blend: Engine performance and emissions. Fuel 89, pp 287 293. Cramer, J., Wissema, E., Lammers, E., Faaij, A., Hamelinck, C., Bergsma, G., van den Heuvel, E., Junginger, M., Smeets, E., 2006. Criteria for sustainable biomass production, Netherlands. Creutzig, F., He, D., 2009. Climate change mitigation and cobenefits of feasible transport demand policies in Beijing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14, pp 120-131. Dai, D., Hu, Z., Pu, G., Li, H., Wang, C., 2006. Energy efficiency and potentials of cassava fuel ethanol in Guangxi region of China. Energy Conversion and Management 47, 16861699. Demirbas, A., 2008. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections. Energy Conversion and Management 49, pp. 21062116. DETEC, 2004. Sustainability assessment Conceptual framework and basic methodology. Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC), Federal Office for Spatial Development ARE (2004), Zurich, the Switzerland. DSDG, 2005. Dutch Sustainable Development Group (DSDG). Feasibility study on an effective and sustainable bio-ethanol production program by least developed countries as alternative to cane sugar export. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), The Hague, The Netherlands, May 20; 2005, <library.wur.nl/WebQuery/catalog/lang/1845441>. Elghali. L., Cliff, L.R., Sinclair, P., Panoutsou, C., Bauen, A., 2007. Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 35, pp 6075 6083.
61

Escobar, J.C., Lora, E.S., Venturini, O.J., Yanez, E.E., Castillo E.F., 2009. Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, pp 1275 - 1287. EUBIA, 2005. Creating markets for renewable energy Technologies EU RES Technology Marketing Campaign - Bioethanol production and use. European Biomass Industry Association (EUBIA). FAO, 2010. Bioenergy and Food Security. The BEFS (Bioenergy and Food Security) analysis for Tanzania. The Bioenergy and Food Security Project, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Villegas, J., Panichelli, L., 2009. Life cycle assessment of biofuels: Energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technology 100, 49194930. Goh, C.S.., Lee, K.T., 2010. A visionary and conceptual macroalgae-based third-generation bioethanol (TGB) biorefinery in Sabah, Malaysia as an underlay for renewable and sustainable development. Renewable and sustainable energy Reviews 14, pp 842 848. Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Guardabassi, P., 2008. The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36, pp. 2086 - 2097. Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Nastari, P.N., Lucon, O., 2004. Ethanol learning curve - the Brazilian experience. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, pp. 301 304. Gopal, A.R., Kammen, D.M., 2009. Molasses for ethanol: the economic and environmental impacts of a new pathway for the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of sugarcane ethanol. Environmental Research Letters 4, 1-5. GRFA, 2009. GHG emission reductions from world biofuel production and use. Global Renewable Fuels Alliance. Prepared by (S&T)2Consultants Inc. (A research institute in Canada). Available at http://www.globalrfa.org/pdf/120809_final_report_ghg_emissi ons_biofuels_1.pdf as accessed on 25 June 2010. Harijan, K., Memon, M., Uqaili, M.A., Mirza, U.K., 2009. Potential contribution of ethanol fuel to the transport sector of Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 291-295. Hediger, W., 2000. Sustainable development and social welfare. Ecological Economics 32, pp. 481492.

62

Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., 2003. Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective. Agricultural systems 76. pp 1007 - 1041. Hira, A., 2010. Sugar rush: Prospects for a global ethanol maket. Energy Policy. Article in press. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.035 Hoefnagels, R., et al., 2010 Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.014 (article in press). Hunkeler, D., Rebitzer, G., 2005. The future of lice cycle assessment. Internatin Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5, pp. 305 308. Huq, S., Rahman, A., Konate, M., Sokona, Y., Reid, H., 2003. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in least developed countries (LDCs). International Institute for Environment and Development (iied), Available at http://www.un.org/specialrep/ohrlls/ldc/LDCsreport.pdf IAEA-Fact Sheets. Indicators for sustainable energy development. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/indicator s.pdf IEA, 2005. Biofuels for transport: an international perspective. International Energy Agency (IEA) Available at http://www.ifri.org/files/Agriculture/FultontalkIFRI29March.p df IEA, 2007. IEA Energy Technology Essentials - Biofuel Production. International Energy Agency (IEA). Available at http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials2.pdf ISO, 2006a. International Standard ISO 14040. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO, 2006b. International Standard ISO 14044. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirement and guidelines Kates, W.K., Parris, T.M., Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47, pp. 821. Khatiwada, D., 2007. A Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Ethanol Blended (E10) and Conventional Petrol Fuel Car- A Case Study in Nepal. 14th LCA Case Studies Symposium of LCA of Energy - Energy in LCA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Gothenburg, Sweden.

63

Khatiwada, D., and Silveira, S., 2009. Net energy balance of molasses based ethanol: the case of Nepal. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 25152524. Khatiwada, D., Silveira S., 2010. Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol in Nepal (under review), International Journal of Cleaner Production). Kumar, S., Singh, N., Prasad, R., 2010. Anhydrous ethanol: A renewable source of energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 1830 1844 Macedo, I.C., Isaias, C., Seabra, J.E.A., Silva, J.E.A.R., 2008. Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 58295. Naik, S.N., Goud, V.V., Rout, R.K., Dalai, A.K., 2010. Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, pp. 578597. Najafi, G., Ghobadian, B., Tavakoli, T., Yusaf, T., 2009. Potential of bioethanol production from agricultural wastes in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, pp. 14181427 Nguyen, T. L.T., Gheewala, S.H., 2008a. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13, 301311 Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., 2008c. Fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand: Environmental and cost performance. Energy Policy 36, 15891599. Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Garivait, S., 2007a. Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 41, 41354142. Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Garivait, S., 2007b. Fossil energy savings and GHG mitigation potentials of ethanol as a gasoline substitute in Thailand. Energy Policy 35, 51955205. Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Garivait, S., 2007c. Energy balance and GHG-abatement cost of cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand. Energy Policy 35 , 4585-4596. Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Garivait, S., 2008b. Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Applied Energy 85, 722 734. Nguyen, T.L.T., Gheewala, S.H., Sagisaka, M., 2010. Greenhouse gas savings potential of sugar cane bio-energy systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 412418.

64

Nigam, P.S., Singh A., 2010. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Article in Press, doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003 Niven, R.K., 2005. Ethanol in gasoline: environmental impacts and sustainability review article. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9, pp 535 555. Pennington et al., 2004. Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environment International 30, pp. 721 739. Pennington, D., 2009. Bioenergy: Today & Tomorrow - Bringing Knowledge To Life! Michigan State University. Available at http://www.maes.msu.edu/upes/agtomm_2009/bioenergy.pdf Phalan, B., 2009. The social and environmental impacts of biofuels in Asia: An overview. Applied Energy 86, S21S29.Phalan (2009) Pohit, S., Biswas, P.K., Kumar, R., Jha, J., 2009. International experiences of ethanol as transport fuel: Policy implications for India. Energy policy 37, pp 5540 4548 Prakash, R., Henham, A., Bhat, I.K., 1998, Net energy and gross pollution from bio-ethanol production. Fuel 77, pp. 16291633 Rebitzer et al., 2004. Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International 30, pp. 701 720. RFA, 2010. Ethanol industry outlook - climate of opportunity. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). Available at http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page//objects/pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1 Royal Society, 2008. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. Available at http://royalsociety.org/Sustainable-biofuelsprospects-and-challenges/ Schubert, R., Blasch, J., 2010. Sustainability standards for bioenergyA means to reduce climate change risks? Energy policy 38, pp. 27972805. Shapouri, H., Duffield, J., McAloon, A., Wang, M., 2004. The 2001 net energy balance of corn ethanol. US Department of Agriculture. US. Sheehan, J.J., 2009. Biofuels and the conundrum of sustainability, 20. pp 318324. Silveira, S., Khatiwada, D., 2010. Ethanol production and fuel substitution in NepalOpportunity to promote sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 16441652
65

Smeets, E., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Walter, A., Dolzan P., 2006.Sustainability of Brazilian bio-ethanol. Copernicus Institute Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Report NWS-E-2006-110, ISBN 908672-012-9. Smeets, S., Jungingera, M., Faaij, A., Walter, A., Dolzan, P., Turkenburg, W., 2008. The sustainability of Brazilian ethanolan assessment of the possibilities of certified production. Biomass and bioenergy 32, 781 813. Sorda, G., Banse, M., Kemfert, C., 2010. An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energy policy (Article in Press), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.066 UNCTAD, 2008. The least developed countries report 2008. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). UNCTAD, 2009. The least developed countries report 2009 - the state and development governance. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). UNDESA, 2007. Small-scale production and use of liquid biofuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) commission on sustainable development: fifteensession 30 April-11 May 2007, New York. Background paper no. 2. DESA/DSD/2007/2. UNDP, 2006. Human Development Report - 2006. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). UNESCAP, 2008. Energy Security and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asian and the Pacific (UNESCAP). Available at http://www.unescap.org/esd/energy/theme UNIDO, 2006. Energy Security in Least Developed countries. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). UNIDO, 2008. Powering Industrial Growth - the Challenge of Energy Security for Africa - Working paper, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). UNMCLDC, 2007. Energizing the least developed countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals: the challenges and opportunities of globalization issues. Making globalization work for the LDCs Istanbul; 9-11 July 2007. United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least Developed Countries (UNMCLDC). Available at http://www.un.int/turkey/4.pdf USEPA, 2006. Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. National Risk Maangment Research Laboratory, Office of Research
66

and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Avaialble at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/pdfs/600r06060.pdf Versteeg, S., 2007. Bioethanol production in Fiji: An environmentally sustainable project? Evidence Based Environmental Policy and Management 1: 82-106. Walter, A., Ensinas A., 2010. Combined production of secondgeneration biofuels and electricity from sugarcane residues. Energy 35, pp. 874 - 879. Wyman, C.E., 1994. Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: Technology, economics, and opportunities. Bioresource Technology 50, pp.3-15. Xunmin, Q., Xiliang, Z., Shiyan, C., Qingfang, G., 2009. Energy consumption and GHG emissions of six biofuel pathways by LCA in (the) Peoples Republic of China. Applied Energy 86, 197208. Yan, J., Lin, T., 2009. Biofuels in Asia. Applied Energy 86 (editorial supplement), S1S10. Yan, X., Crookes, R.J., 2010. Energy demand and emissions from road transportation vehicles in China. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Article in press, doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2010.02.003 Zah, R., Faist, M., Reinhard, J., Birchmeier, D., 2009. Standardized and simplified life-cycle assessment (LCA) as a driver for more sustainable biofuels. Journal of cleaner production 17, S102 S105. Zhou, A., Thomson, E., 2009. The development of biofuels in Asia. Applied Energy 86 (editorial supplement), S11S20. Zhou, Z., Jaing, H., Qin, L., 2007. Life cycle sustainability assessment of fuels. Fuel 86, pp. 256263.

67