Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 A comparison of study results with existing literature [21, 22, 2428, 52, 56, 6870]

From: Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production

Technologya Feedstock Energy allocation Reference Displacement method Reference
This study Prior studies This study Prior studies
g CO2eq /MJ g CO2eq/MJ g CO2eq/MJ g CO2eq/MJ
HEFA UCO 28 17–21 [68] 28  
  Jatropha 55 37–55 [21, 22, 28] 21 −134 to 63 [21, 22, 52]
  Camelina 47 18–47 [25, 28] 44 −17 to 60 [25, 69]
FT Willow 9   −7 −17 to 10 [24, 70]
  Poplar 10   −6 −17 to 10 [24, 70]
  Corn Stover 13 8–11 [28] −3 9 to 14b [21, 52, 70]
  Forestry residues 6   −10 10 to 12b [24, 52]
HTL (in situ) Forestry residues 18 27c [56] 18  
HTL (ex situ) Forestry residues 21   21  
Pyrolysis (in situ) Forestry residues 22 34c [56] 22  
Pyrolysis (ex situ) Forestry residues 41   37  
ATJ Corn 54   71  
  Corn stover 35   22  
  Sugarcane 31   31 −27d [26]
DSHC (increased blend level) Sugarcane 76   79 55 to 100 [27]
DSHC (10% blend) Sugarcane 47   49  
  1. aSome conversion pathways could not be compared due to lack of reference studies. It should be noted that the literature entails a much wider feedstock and technology scope than employed in this study, including a wide range of LCAs of RJF production based on algae species, edible oil crops, and herbaceous crops [71, 72]
  2. bElgowainy et al. [24], Stratton et al. [21] and Stratton et al. [52] assume all electricity produced during FT synthesis is used internally
  3. cBased on diesel production, not RJF. It is included in this comparison as it is used as a data source for our computations
  4. dRelative to Staples et al. [26], this study uses lower yields and a higher electricity emission intensity