Carbon Life Cycle Assessment Evidence Analysis: Bioenergy Life Cycle Assessment Review Report (D2)
||Mortimer, N.D., Rix, J.H.R., Evans, A,F,K,. Elsayed, M., Hunter, A.J., Matthews, R.W., Hogan, G., Turley, D., Goldsworthy, M. and McNamee, P. Carbon Life Cycle Assessment Evidence Analysis: Bioenergy Life Cycle Assessment Review Report (D2), ETI, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5286/UKERC.EDC.000437. Cite this using DataCite
||Mortimer, N.D., Rix, J.H.R., Evans, A,F,K,. Elsayed, M., Hunter, A.J., Matthews, R.W., Hogan, G., Turley, D., Goldsworthy, M. and McNamee, P.
||North Energy Associates Ltd, Forest Research, NNFCC
||ETI-BI2017: Carbon Life Cycle Assessment Evidence Analysis
||No associated datasets
||The ETI appointed North Energy Associates (NEA) to lead a new Carbon Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Evidence Analysis project in its Bioenergy Programme. LCAs are used to understand the greenhouse gas emissions associated with bioenergy from across the supply chain, from feedstock production to energy production. Several different methodologies can be used in LCAs and this ETI project assessed the strengths and weaknesses associated with applying these methodologies to bioenergy value chains. It also reviewed sources of data for LCAs and produced a compendium of the best and most reliable data across different UK-relevant bioenergy feedstocks and value chains. This compendium has formed the basis of a series of carbon balance calculations across a range of bioenergy value chains so that emissions from different feedstocks can be compared.
This report documents the outcomes of Work Package 2 of this project which has the main objectives of analysing previous relevant LCA studies by providing
As a basis for this, a concise summary of the context of bioenergy LCA studies has been produced to cover the types of questions that, typically, they attempt to answer and the appropriate methodologies that they should use to do this, and to highlight some of the areas where there are conflicting views as to the appropriate approach.
- a critique of the robustness of the evidence base based on both data and methodologies used;
- a measure of certainty behind the data reviewed; and
- details of the confidence the reviewer may have in interpreting the data.