Literature DB >> 19497862

The water footprint of bioenergy.

Winnie Gerbens-Leenes1, Arjen Y Hoekstra, Theo H van der Meer.   

Abstract

All energy scenarios show a shift toward an increased percentage of renewable energy sources, including biomass. This study gives an overview of water footprints (WFs) of bioenergy from 12 crops that currently contribute the most to global agricultural production: barley, cassava, maize, potato, rapeseed, rice, rye, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, sugar cane, and wheat. In addition, this study includes jatropha, a suitable energy crop. Since climate and production circumstances differ among regions, calculations have been performed by country. The WF of bioelectricity is smaller than that of biofuels because it is more efficient to use total biomass (e.g., for electricity or heat) than a fraction of the crop (its sugar, starch, or oil content) for biofuel. The WF of bioethanol appears to be smaller than that of biodiesel. For electricity, sugar beet, maize, and sugar cane are the most favorable crops [50 m(3)/gigajoule (GJ)]. Rapeseed and jatropha, typical energy crops, are disadvantageous (400 m(3)/GJ). For ethanol, sugar beet, and potato (60 and 100 m(3)/GJ) are the most advantageous, followed by sugar cane (110 m(3)/GJ); sorghum (400 m(3)/GJ) is the most unfavorable. For biodiesel, soybean and rapeseed show to be the most favorable WF (400 m(3)/GJ); jatropha has an adverse WF (600 m(3)/GJ). When expressed per L, the WF ranges from 1,400 to 20,000 L of water per L of biofuel. If a shift toward a greater contribution of bioenergy to energy supply takes place, the results of this study can be used to select the crops and countries that produce bioenergy in the most water-efficient way.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19497862      PMCID: PMC2690604          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0812619106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  2 in total

1.  Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth.

Authors:  C J Vörösmarty; P Green; J Salisbury; R B Lammers
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-07-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries.

Authors:  Johan Rockström; Mats Lannerstad; Malin Falkenmark
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

  2 in total
  41 in total

1.  Association with an ammonium-excreting bacterium allows diazotrophic culture of oil-rich eukaryotic microalgae.

Authors:  Juan Cesar Federico Ortiz-Marquez; Mauro Do Nascimento; Maria de Los Angeles Dublan; Leonardo Curatti
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Biofuels from algae: challenges and potential.

Authors:  Michael Hannon; Javier Gimpel; Miller Tran; Beth Rasala; Stephen Mayfield
Journal:  Biofuels       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.956

3.  Use of inadequate data and methodological errors lead to an overestimation of the water footprint of Jatropha curcas.

Authors:  W H Maes; W M J Achten; B Muys
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-24       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The water footprint of bioenergy from Jatropha curcas L.

Authors:  R E E Jongschaap; R A R Blesgraaf; T A Bogaard; E N van Loo; H H G Savenije
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  The water "shoesize" vs. footprint of bioenergy.

Authors:  Stephan Pfister; Stefanie Hellweg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Reply to Pfister and Hellweg: Water footprint accounting, impact assessment, and life-cycle assessment.

Authors:  Arjen Y Hoekstra; Winnie Gerbens-Leenes; Theo H van der Meer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Reply to Maes et al.: A global estimate of the water footprint of Jatropha curcas under limited data availability.

Authors:  Winnie Gerbens-Leenes; Arjen Y Hoekstra; Theo H van der Meer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Reply to Jongschaap et al.: The water footprint of Jatropha curcas under poor growing conditions.

Authors:  Arjen Y Hoekstra; Winnie Gerbens-Leenes; Theo H van der Meer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  Is the water footprint an appropriate tool for forestry and forest products: the Fennoscandian case.

Authors:  Samuli Launiainen; Martyn N Futter; David Ellison; Nicholas Clarke; Leena Finér; Lars Högbom; Ari Laurén; Eva Ring
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 5.129

10.  Bio-energy retains its mitigation potential under elevated CO2.

Authors:  Marion Liberloo; Sebastiaan Luyssaert; Valentin Bellassen; Sylvestre Njakou Djomo; Martin Lukac; Carlo Calfapietra; Ivan A Janssens; Marcel R Hoosbeek; Nicolas Viovy; Galina Churkina; Giuseppe Scarascia-Mugnozza; Reinhart Ceulemans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.