Cost-benefit analysis of first-and second-generation biofuels based on an economic valuation of life-cycle impacts
Fiche du document
6 juin 2016
- handle: 10670/1.dwact4
- isbn: 978-88-89407-165
- hal: hal-02282258
- doi: 10.5071/24thEUBCE2016-4BO.13.5
- PRODINRA: 483061
- WOS: 000473716900237
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5071/24thEUBCE2016-4BO.13.5
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
biofuels life cycle assessment (LCA) miscanthus sugar beet sustainability assessment cost benefit analysis environmental externalities biofuel sugarbeet environmental externality biocarburant miscanthus betterave sucrière externalité environnementale analyse du cycle de vie analyse coût bénéficeSujets proches
Energy, Biomass Microbial energy conversion Biofuels Bio-energy (Biomass energy) Biological fuels Bioenergy (Biomass energy)Citer ce document
Benoit Gabrielle et al., « Cost-benefit analysis of first-and second-generation biofuels based on an economic valuation of life-cycle impacts », HAL-SHS : économie et finance, ID : 10.5071/24thEUBCE2016-4BO.13.5
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
In the face of the current push for liquid biofuels worldwide, the design of policies compatible with sustainable development requires a careful and comprehensive analysis of their respective benefits and drawbacks. The environmental impacts of biofuels are usually quantified with life-cycle assessment (LCA), which provides indicators for a suitable range of impacts but leaves their prioritization up to decision-makers. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) may be used to aggregate these impacts through an economic valuation of positive and negative effects on the environment. Here, we propose a simplified and ad hoc framework to combine LCA with CBA based on different valuations found in the literature, and apply it to a case-study comparing first-and second-generation biofuels in the Picardy region (northern France). The results were compared to 2 other methods already used to monetize externalities: the Eco-Cost method, and a method developed as part of the European Nitrogen Assessment. In terms of LCA, 2G bioethanol from miscanthus emitted 30 to 90% less pollutants than its 1G counterpart from sugar-beet, due to its lower requirements in agricultural inputs. This was directly reflected in the ad hoc CBA results, with a 3 to 6-fold decrease between the external costs of sugar-beet and miscanthus ethanol for the 4 impact categories monetized. There was a large variation between the valuation methods, which varied within an order of magnitude. For instance, the eutrophication costs associated with sugar-beet ethanol varied from 4 10-4to 4 10-3€/MJ of biofuel. Compared to fossil fuels, miscanthus-based ethanol incurred an overall net positive externality of 0.1€/MJ of biofuel, which is on a par with the tax exemption level put in place by the French government for 2ndgeneration biofuels.