Published at : 18 Jan 2023
Volume : IJtech
Vol 14, No 1 (2023)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v14i1.4949
Ary Mauliva Hada Putri | Research Center for Chemistry, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), KST BJ Habibie, Serpong, South Tangerang, 15314, Indonesia |
Muhammad Safaat | Research Center for Chemistry, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), KST BJ Habibie, Serpong, South Tangerang, 15314, Indonesia |
Hafiizh Prasetia | Research Center for Chemistry, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), KST BJ Habibie, Serpong, South Tangerang, 15314, Indonesia |
Firman Zulpikar | Research Center for Oseanography, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jalan Pasir Putih Raya No 1, Pademangan, North Jakarta, 14430, Indonesia |
Jeverson Renyaan | Research Center for Oseanography, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jalan Pasir Putih Raya No 1, Pademangan, North Jakarta, 14430, Indonesia |
Rijali Noor | Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lambung Mangkurat University, Jalan Ahmad Yani Km 37.5, Banjarbaru, 70714, South Borneo |
The purpose of this study
was to examine the environmental impact of ethanol production using solid waste
as a raw material from the extraction of red seaweed. Sources of data used in
this study derived from literature studies. The type of red seaweed studied was
k-carrageenan extracted from Eucheuma cottoni, Eucheuma
spinosum, and Gracilaria Manilaensis.
The system limitation in this study is gate-to-gate analysis, which includes
processing raw materials to ethanol products using the relative mass and energy
value method using a cut-off value of 5%. The value of CO2 emissions
from ethanol production using solid waste from Eucheuma cottonii is 2.97´10-14 kg CO2eq/kg
of ethanol. The production of ethanol using solid waste from Eucheuma spinosum and Gracilaria manilaensis resulted in CO2
emissions of 5.72 and 2.87 kg CO2 eq/kg of ethanol, respectively.
Bioethanol from solid waste extracted from k-carrageenan from Eucheuma cottonii becomes an
environmentally friendly biofuel compared to bioethanol from sugarcane and
sweet bagasse sorghum. The result of the main environmental impact study using
the LCA method shows that the fermentation process, followed by the production
of enzymes and electricity, is the main contributor to CO2
emissions.
Bioethanol; Life cycle assessment; Red seaweed; Solid waste
Bioethanol and biogas are just a couple of
examples of renewable energy sources that have been successfully developed from
various types of seaweed (Jang
et al., 2012; Van Der Wal et al.,
2013). Because it
contains a high concentration of carbs, seaweed can be fermented into ethanol.
In addition to this, seaweed includes biological components, which, when broken
down, can produce biogas as well as fertilizer.
Seaweed was categorized into 3 varieties, namely
green seaweed (Chlorophyceae), brown
seaweed (Phaeophyceae), and red
seaweed (Rhodophyceae) (Chen et al., 2015). There are several species of red seaweed, the
most common of which are Kappaphycus alvarezii, Eucheuma Spinosum,
and Gracilaria Manilaensis. In the farming community, Kappaphycus alvarezii is most
commonly referred to as Eucheuma cottonii.
Eucheuma cottonii and Eucheuma spinosum are the primary
sources of k-carrageenan, and so are used in over 88% of carrageenan production. Around
60% of global Kappaphycus production occurs in the BIMP-EAGA region, which
includes Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines (Israel, Einav, and Seckbach, 2010). It was not surprising that Indonesia, along with Malaysia and the
Philippines, is the largest carrageenan producer, which can produce around
120,000 dry tons per year (McHugh, 2003). For Gracilaria, according to FAO statistical data (FAO, 2020) annual the cultivation of Gracilaria has an increasing trend since 2014
and the production reached around 3.7 million tons.
k-carrageenan extracted from red seaweed can be
used in a variety of products, including food, health, and personal care (Kim et al., 2013). Since k-carrageenan
content in seaweed was only 25-35% based on dry weight, the amount of solid
waste left after the extraction process was quite large.
Seaweed
solid waste comprises cellulose material with low lignin content, so it has the
potency as a raw material for the production of third-generation bioethanol.
The cellulose content in seaweed solid waste was about 99.8 ± 0.15-wt% dry
basis (Tan and Lee, 2014, 2016). The
saccharification process will convert cellulose into glucose and then ferment
it to produce third-generation bioethanol. Thus, this is an opportunity to
recycle solid waste from seaweed extraction into biofuels that have higher
commercial value.
One
innovative approach to reducing seaweed waste disposal and raising the value of
seaweed waste biomass is the use of seaweed solid waste in bioethanol synthesis. Such production can also lead to the
development of a seaweed-based biorefinery for the simultaneous production of
carrageenan and bioethanol, which can increase the sustainability of the
seaweed industry. Although many studies have been reported in the literature
about the production of third-generation bioethanol, most of these studies have
concentrated on raw seaweed as a feedstock. Since interest in using seaweed for
bioethanol production was currently growing rapidly, the need for intensive
research on the efficient utilization of solid waste from seaweed extraction
has also received attention from researchers around the world.
The
most appropriate method for identifying the ecological effects of seaweed
biofuel production is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method (Bradley, Maga, and Antón, 2015; Chiaramonti et al.,
2015). To the best of the author's knowledge, there
are no papers focused on LCA studies to assess the conversion of seaweed solid
waste into biofuels. Parsons et al. (2019)
used LCA to calculate the potency of environmental effects associated with the
production of single-cell oils (SCO) using Saccharina lattisima as feedstock.
Besides replacing existing terrestrial oils, SCO can be used for food,
biochemicals, and biodiesel. Czyrnek-Delêtre (2017) calculated the environmental impact of integrated
seaweed and salmon farming on biomethane production in Ireland. Brockmann (2015) examined the effects of the ecosystem
of producing bioethanol from cultivated seaweed in France using the LCA method.
Not to mention, Aitken (2014) calculated the
environmental impact of the production of biogas, bioethanol, and bioethanol +
biogas from red seaweed and brown seaweed cultivated offshore in Chile using
the LCA method (Aitken et al., 2014). The potential of seaweed biomass as a biofuel source
was investigated by Aresta (2005), who also
developed software for estimating net consumption using the LCA method (Aresta, Dibenedetto, and Barberio, 2005). Langlois (2012) conducted the environmental effects of
biogas production on brown grass cultivated offshore (Langlois et al., 2012). Moreover, an LCA study on biofuels from brown
seaweed grown offshore was conducted by Alvaredo-Morales and discovered biogas
production and biogas + bioethanol from these seaweeds (Alvarado-Morales et al.,
2013). Additionally, Pilicka (2011) used a
cradle-to-grave boundary system in an LCA research to evaluate the ecological
effects of green seaweed biogas production (Pilicka, Blumberg, and Romagnoli, 2011). Based on that explanation, we see previous
biofuel studies there used seaweed as raw materials, either in the form of
cultivated seaweed, or integrated seaweed with others, for producing biofuel.
Previous research has primarily focused on using red and brown seaweed as a raw
material for biofuel. No paper discusses at discusses LCA studies for the
production of ethanol derived from solid waste produced from the k-carrageenan extraction of seaweed.
It is
necessary to carry out a life-cycle assessment (LCA) to determine the effect
that the production of ethanol from the solid waste of seaweed would have on
the surrounding environment. This research assesses a variety of environmental
concerns, one of which is the possibility of CO2 gas emissions being
produced during the production of ethanol. In addition, other environmental
effects were calculated, namely abiotic and ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity
to humans, freshwater, and seawater, as well as photochemical oxidation,
acidification, and eutrophication. The value of CO2 emissions
resulting from the production of ethanol using solid waste from seaweed as raw
material is extremely important because seaweed has different characteristics
from other lignocellulosic raw materials. The dissolved CO2 in
seawater can be absorbed by seaweed, which then converts it into O2.
Because of the emissions of CO2 gas that are released into the
environment, seaweed has the potential to lessen the effects of global warming.
However, because
the creation of ethanol results in the release of CO2 emissions into
the environment, the use of seaweed as a raw material for the production of
ethanol is in direct contradiction to the characteristics that seaweed
possesses. Because of this, a study was carried out to determine the effect
that the production of ethanol utilizing the solid waste of red seaweed had on
the environment, particularly in terms of the CO2 emissions that were caused by
the process. If the CO2
emissions generated from the production of ethanol from solid waste of seaweed
are not as large as the CO2 emissions produced when using seaweed as
raw material, then the results of this study can be a consideration for
industry and researchers to use solid waste, which is usually used as feed for
animal, instead of using seaweed as raw material for biofuel. Therefore, this
research has focused on the study of the environmental effects of bioethanol
from solid waste produced from k-carrageenan
extraction of red seaweed, i.e. Kappaphycus
alvarezii, Euchema spinosum, as
well as solid waste from agar extraction of Gracilaria
manilaensis. Because of its abundance in Indonesian waters, particularly in
the eastern regions, red seaweed was chosen as the study's subject. Data from
the existing literature on the manufacture of ethanol from red seaweed solid
waste was utilized during the course of this research.
The results of the LCA analysis show the
value of emissions produced or discharged into the environment by the product
or system and this information is needed by the researchers, practitioners, and
the seaweed industry in deciding the utilization of seaweed. Gate-to-gate
analysis was used as the boundary system in the LCA calculation and carried out
by considering the life cycle starting from raw materials (seaweed solid waste)
to processing into a product (ethanol).
2.1. Life cycle assessment
(LCA)
The
Life cycle assessment (LCA) method has been widely used to evaluate the
potential environmental impact of a product or process. For a life cycle assessment (LCA), the resources
used and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by a system are
measured and quantified within the limits of the system boundary (SNI ISO 14040:2016; SNI ISO 14044:2017). The procedures in LCA are described in the
International ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. The procedures are followings:
(1) defining the objectives and scope; (2) inventory analysis; (3) impact
analysis or measurement, (4) interpretation (SNI
ISO 14040:2016). There are four options for determining the used system
based on the ISO 14044 standard in the LCA study: (1) Cradle-to-grave:
includes materials and production chain all processes from raw material
extraction through production, transportation, and use stages to the final
product in the life cycle, (2) Cradle-to-gate: includes all processes of
extracting raw materials through the production stage (a process within the
factory), used to determine the environmental impact of a product's production,
(3) Gate-to-grave: includes the process from post-production use to the
end of the phase of life cycle life, used to determine the environmental impact
of the product after leaving the factory, (4) Gate-to-gate: consists of
the process from the production stage only, used to determine the environmental
impact of the production step or process.
In
this study, the LCA method was also applied to determine the environmental
impact, especially the Global Warming Potential (GWP), which was produced from
the production of bioethanol using solid waste as raw material from seaweed
extraction. Some literature was used as a data source on the basis of
calculating LCA because there was no laboratory analysis data related to this
topic in Indonesia. The reference sources used in this paper include bioethanol
production using solid waste from Eucheuma cottonii (Tan and Lee, 2016), ethanol production derived from solid waste
extracted from Eucheuma Spinosum (Alfonsín, Maceiras, and Gutiérrez, 2019), and ethanol production derived from solid
waste extracted from Gracilaria Manilaensis (Hessami, Salleh, and Phang, 2020). Energy consumption during the production
process was also included in the scope of this analysis. In general, the LCA
method consisted of, (1) a Definition of The Objectives and Scope, (2) a Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI), and (3) a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), along
with the assumptions and limitations of the study (Putri, Waluyo, and Setiawan, 2018).
2.1.1. Goal and scope definition
The purpose of this study, as mentioned in the first section
(introduction), was to evaluate the environmental impact of bioethanol
production from seaweed solid waste obtained after extraction. The raw material
used in this study was red seaweed, including Kappaphycus alvarezii (Eucheuma
cottonii, Eucheuma spinosum, and Gracilaria manilaensis, using the LCA
methodology approach. Using the mass and energy value method and a cutoff value
of 5%, the system limitations for analysis were determined. The scope includes
the entire ethanol production process, from raw materials to final products. During the production process
from the raw material into the ethanol product, the total mass and energy
values of each input were calculated using the LCA method approach. Because the
value of this functional unit (FU) is closely related to the modeling of the
production system that is being studied, determining the definition of the
functional unit (FU) is an extremely crucial step in the LCA method.
The functional unit is described as the function of a product
which will be the basic reference for all impact assessment calculations. The
determination of FU in the LCA study is affected by the sector or type of
product that is the object of the study. For food-based products, the FU
standard used in the LCA calculation is usually based on mass. In the energy sector,
the unit that is frequently used to define a functional unit is energy and is
followed by mass, for example, the mass of a particular fuel. In general, the
most widely used quantity is mass, followed by energy, volume, and area. This
research was related to the energy sector, namely biofuels, and the functional
unit commonly used in this sector is mass, therefore the functional unit that
defined in this paper was 1 kg of ethanol product. The results of the LCA
analysis conducted for this study will present information regarding the
environmental emissions caused by the production of 1 kilogram of ethanol.
Energy evaluation adopted the same FU used for LCA (1 kg of
ethanol) and was carried out for each specific step and the entire process. The
following energy indicators were calculated: the net energy value (NEV, e.g.
the difference between total energy output and input) and the net energy ratio
(NER, e.g. the ratio between net energy output/input). Process simulation
techniques were integrated into LCA and energy evaluation to reduce bias
parameters in processing data collection.
2.1.2. Life cycle inventory
As outlined in Section 2.1, the data for
ethanol production from red seaweed solid waste was obtained from a variety of
publications. Researchers utilized the LCA modeling software SimaPro 8.2.0.0 to
perform the LCA modeling. As it is known that SimaPro 8.2.0.0 was LCA modeling
software. Inventory data for the ethanol production process based on seaweed
solid waste, such as chemicals used, ethanol yield, by-products, energy use,
and emissions, were collected from various sources, including published
literature and databases (i.e. EcoInvent v3.0). When the data of the process
were not available, the assumptions were established, process engineering calculations
were conducted, and data were analyzed.
2.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Based on the inputs and outputs of the system determined in
the Life Cycle Inventory calculation, the potency of environmental impacts was
measured in the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase. The following are
some categories of the impact that were measured in the research: Global
Warming Potential (GWP) (kg CO2--eq), abiotic depletion (kg Sb--eq),
abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) (MJ), ozone layer depletion (kg CFC-11--eq),
human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB--eq), freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB--eq),
seawater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB--eq), terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB--eq),
eq), photochemical oxidation (kg C2H4--eq), acidification
(kg SO2--eq), and eutrophication (kg PO4--eq).
2.2.
Ethanol production from solid waste derived after extraction from red seaweed
2.2.1. Solid waste of Eucheuma cottonii
The composition of solid waste-carrageenan from Eucheuma cottonii consisted of 99.8 wt%
cellulose, 0.03 wt% protein, 0.14 wt% ash, and 0.03 wt% lipid (Tan and
Lee, 2016). Based on the research of Tan et al. (2016) there was 15833.3 kg/hour
of solid waste and 69262.85 kg/hour of water to produce 7626 kg/hour of
anhydrous bioethanol and 3372 kg/hour of liquid organic fertilizer (Tan and
Lee, 2016). This literature describes the SSF process,
in which the enzymes Saccharomyces cerevisiae (1316.2 kg/hour) and cellulase
(316.19 kg/hour) are utilized to produce bioethanol (Tan and
Lee, 2016). As for the production of cellulase, other
nutrients such as glucose, ammonia, and sulfur dioxide were needed for the growth
of Trichoderma reesei (Humbird et
al., 2011). In this study, Tan et al. used
glucose at 1327 kg/hour, sulfur dioxide at 9,545 kg/hour sulfur dioxide, and
ammonia at 63.15 kg/hour (Tan amd
Lee, 2016). To dehydrate the resulting bioethanol,
62.07 kg/hour of ethylene glycol was used as a solvent during extractive
distillation. From the dehydration process, 59 kg/hour of ethylene glycol waste
was produced (Tan and
Lee, 2016). The recovered ethanol was delivered to a
pre-concentration distillation column for further purification.
In terms of energy consumption, cooling water contributed to
39.71 GJ/h in the distillation column. Refrigerated water contributed to 36.69
GJ/h for the fermentation process. For the heating process, low-pressure steam
contributed 23.77 GJ/h of heating duty, and medium-pressure steam contributed
43.16 GJ/h for the designed plant (Tan and Lee,
2016).
Based on the literature the CO2 emissions value resulting
from the ethanol production process was around 9182.47 kg/h (Tan and
Lee, 2016).
2.2.2. Solid waste of Eucheuma Spinosum
This research is based on previous work by Alfonsín (2019) who found that the cellulose
content of the solid waste produced during the seaweed extraction process was
approximately 37% and that the waste itself contained a considerable amount of
water (roughly 35%) (Alfonsín, Maceiras, and Gutiérrez, 2019). An embodied
carbon coefficient for main and supplement materials was taken into account in
processing the solid waste into ethanol. The total organic carbon contained in
seaweed solid waste was 2.89% (Alfonsín, Maceiras, and Gutiérrez, 2019). The
residue of acid hydrolysis was characterized by elemental and immediate
analysis. According to elemental analysis,
the embodied carbon in hydrolysis residue was 0.43%, whereas the fixed carbon
was 3.77%.
The production of ethanol was started through the pretreatment
of solid waste extracted from seaweed, which was then followed by acid
hydrolysis. Then, yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was used to ferment the
reduced sugar to obtain bioethanol. Finally, the bioethanol was separated by
distillation and characterized. With a sulfuric acid concentration of 9 wt% and an acid/dry
seaweed ratio of 7, the highest bioethanol yield was 11.6 g EtOH/g of seaweed (Alfonsín, Maceiras, and Gutiérrez, 2019). Seaweed
solid waste can produce about 0.1 g bioethanol/g waste and 0.12 g bioethanol/g
reducing sugar with an ethanol concentration of 36.6 g/L using acid hydrolysis
and yeast fermentation. Ethanol conversion efficiency was approximately 75%
theoretical (Alfonsín, Maceiras, and Gutiérrez, 2019).
This research examines an alternate LCA analysis by Aitken et al. (2014), which was based on
data from an experimental study (Luo et al.,
2010), and used data tested for fermentation and distillation
processes. Table 1 illustrates the
inputs per MJ of bioethanol. The energy consumption values were multiplied by
the lower heating value of the bioethanol produced.
Table 1 Alternative inputs
for fermentation/distillation of microalgae per MJ of bioethanol
Process |
Energy consumption (MJ/MJETOH) |
Fermentation |
0.056 |
Vapour
compression steam stripping (Heat) |
0.161 |
Molecular
sieve (Heat) |
0.056 |
Vapour
compression steam stripping (Electricity) |
0.051 |
Vapour
compression distillation (Electricity) |
0.067 |
2.2.3. Solid waste of Gracilaria Manilaensis
Hessami Salleh, and Phang (2020) conducted a
study regarding ethanol production using seaweed solid waste derived from Gracilaria Manilaensis (Hessami Salleh, and Phang, 2020). In the
literature, 13.81±0.54 g of solid waste was used as raw material obtained from
100 g of dry matter Gracilaria
Manilaensis. The hydrolysis enzyme used 7 g of solid waste, which had an
ash-free dry weight content of 6.90±0.73. The highest hydrolysis yield was
achieved in a 10:1 liquid: solid waste ratio, where 85.12% of the solid waste
was converted to glucose. The remaining hydrolyzate was fermented into ethanol
using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The
concentration of bioethanol produced was 51.10±1.21 g/L, which was achieved
after 36 hours of incubation (Hessami Salleh, and Phang, 2020).
This study modeled the processing of solid waste into ethanol
using LCA studies, namely the fermentation or distillation of ethanol. The
model relied on Ecoinvent data for fermentation or distillation because no
research has been undertaken on the energy consumption associated with
converting Gracilaria Manilasis solid waste to ethanol (Aitken et al., 2014). The cumulative energy demand and impacts were
calculated using data from the Ecoinvent v3.0 database for electricity, heat,
and material consumption required to produce 85.12% ethanol from
solid waste.
3.1. Environmental emissions
Figure 1 shows an analysis of the contribution to the
production of 1 kg of bioethanol from red seaweed solid waste. The value of the
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the functional mass unit ethanol production
(1 kg of ethanol) is presented in Figure 1. GWP values ??can be generated not
only from the production of utilities such as heat and electricity but also by
the utilization of chemicals. This study revealed that among the three types of
red seaweed analyzed, the GWP value produced from bioethanol production using
solid waste from Eucheuma cottonii was the lowest, at around
2.97E-14 kg CO2--eq. While the GWP produced from bioethanol
production uses solid waste from two other red seaweed variants, each of which
is around 5.72 kg CO2--eq/kg ethanol and 2.87 kg CO2--eq/kg
ethanol for Eucheuma spinosum and Gracilaria Manilaensis, respectively.
This difference may be because of the different assumptions used during the
ethanol production process, which results in higher ethanol yields, as in the
case of the process energy is used in each of these different raw materials.
The number of CO2 released during ethanol fermentation is taken into
account. The simultaneous saccharification and fermentation reaction produced
75% of the CO2 emissions, 20% by the production of enzymes, and the
remaining by the consumption of electricity.
Figure 2 compares the production of 1 kg of ethanol from sugarcane and sweet bagasse sorghum with the production of 1 kg of ethanol from solid waste resulting from the extraction of red seaweed to classify the environmental impact of the former. Sugarcane is the biomass with the lowest average GWP for the first generation of ethanol. The average GWP for the second generation is lower than the first generation. Bioethanol from sweet bagasse sorghum is the most eco-friendly bioethanol in the ecoinvent database. Nonetheless, the bioethanol produced from Eucheuma cottonii seaweed solid waste in this study is the most eco-friendly option, even when compared to the bioethanol produced from sweet bagasse sorghum.
Figure 1 Contribution analysis for production of 1 kg
ethanol from solid waste of extraction from red seaweed
Figure 2 shows that in almost all impact
categories, except for GWP, bioethanol from solid waste Eucheuma cottonii has a lower environmental impact than bioethanol
from sugarcane and sweet bagasse sorghum, and it has environmental
competitiveness. For GWP produced from bioethanol-derived solid waste Eucheuma cottonii has a higher value
than bioethanol from sweet sorghum and sugarcane, researchers hypothesized that
the main contributor to the GWP value is coming from the fermentation process,
then followed by enzyme production.
Table 3 displays the results of a more in-depth assessment of the environmental impact of producing 1 kg of ethanol from solid waste produced from red seaweed extraction. This assessment focused on the use of heat and electricity, as well as nutrients and chemicals. Table 3 depicts the several impact categories that were significantly affected by the production of enzymes, while a relatively small number of areas were significantly affected by the use of heat and electricity to produce ethanol. The magnitude of the impact of enzyme production on climate change is the result of the energy-intensive process of enzyme production. Further improvement of the bioethanol environmental performance of Eucheuma cottonii can be obtained with a more refined and detailed enzyme inventory in the ecoinvent v3.0 database, as it will reduce uncertainty in the impact assessment results associated with enzyme production.
Figure 2 Comparison of the production of 1
kg of ethanol from solid waste of Eucheuma
cottonii, ethanol from sugarcane, and sweet sorghum.
There are enormous
variations in energy use and emission data for cellulase enzyme production
based on the diversity of enzymes and production techniques implemented (Spatari, Bagley, and MacLean, 2010). The range for possible enzyme emission was 1000-10,000 g CO2--eq./kg
depending on the technology used (MacLean and Spatari, 2009). Emissions from enzyme production were higher for this study due to the
assumption of relatively low enzyme activity (45-50 FPU g-1), which
resulted in a higher amount of enzyme used. It has been discovered that various
literature studies use enzymes in various ways because researchers assume
varied enzyme activities in different production processes.
The magnitude of the
influence of electricity consumption on GWP derived from electricity data in
the ecoinvent v3.0 database. The authors used the assumption of "Mixed
grid electricity, AC, mixed consumption, to consumers, 230V CH S" in the
ecoinvent v3.0 database as the basis for LCA modeling. The data represents the
average electricity supply specific to the user's country or region, including
own consumption, along with net losses, and imports from neighboring countries.
The official statistics for the reference year are used to determine the
composition of the national energy grid utilized for electricity production as
well as data on efficiency, net loss, and consumption. Most of the literature
uses a breakdown value power generation model, which incorporates the added
emissions calculated for emissions that do not exceed organics or heavy metals.
For this research, electricity demand inventory data is mostly based on primary
industry data and partly on secondary literature data.
Because the data on
electricity generated from Indonesia is not available in the ecoinvent v3.0
database, the authors used the data on electricity generated from China instead
of Europe. Geographically, both China and Indonesia are located on the continent
of Asia. According to the Keyhole Markup Language (KML), Indonesia and China
are the countries having no overlapping market regions for electricity (Treyer and Bauer, 2013). All of the adopted
technology power plant in Indonesia is mostly from China, namely 3019 MW of
subcritical power plant (Tritto, 2021). It
is due to the inflexibility of technology in Indonesia, as remote areas may
have a limited grid capacity, which may only support subcritical power plants.
Table 3 Contributions to the environmental impact of producing 1 kg ethanol from solid waste of red seaweed
From the perspective of global impact,
the authors discovered that among the three species of red seaweed, Eucheuma
cottonii had the lowest negative effects on the environment for the CO2
emissions generated by the use of heat, electricity, enzyme production, and
consumables. Solid waste from the extraction of Eucheuma cottonii into biofuel will produce low environmental
emissions. Therefore, this assessment result contributes to the environmental
aspects of utilizing seaweed solid waste and assists the government to
determine policies for the use of renewable energy using biomass as raw
materials to obtain environmentally friendly energy products with relatively
low environmental emission impact values (Shafie, Othman, and Hami, 2018; Sheth and Sarkar, 2019; Minakov, Lobanov, and Dyatlov, 2020).
An environmental impact analysis of
bioethanol production using solid waste obtained from red seaweed extraction as
raw materials was conducted using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. In conducting this research, researchers used
some literature data on the production of ethanol from red seaweed solid waste.
The result of the assessment showed that bioethanol from the solid waste
of Eucheuma cottonii was more
environmentally friendly than two other red seaweed species, namely Eucheuma Spinosum and Gracilaria Manilaensis. However, when
compared to the first and second generations of bioethanol, the production of
bioethanol from Eucheuma cottonii
solid waste was the most environmentally friendly. It can be concluded that
solid waste from red seaweed may produce the most ecologically friendly
bioenergy fuel. There was 75% of the CO2 emission produced from the
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation reaction, followed by 20%
produced the enzyme production, and the remaining from electricity consumption.
The environmental impact of enzyme production and electricity may result from
inventory data of these in the EcoInvent 3.0 database. To reduce the uncertainty that comes with
enzyme production and how it affects results, it is important to find more
detailed and refined enzymes.
This research and the APC for publication were funded by LIPI's
CORE MAP-CTI 2021-2022 (17/A/DK/2021).
Aitken, D., Bulboa, C., Godoy-Faundez, A., Turrion-Gomez, J.L., Antizar-Ladislao,
B., 2014. Life cycle assessment of macroalgae cultivation and processing for
biofuel production. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 75, pp. 45–56
Alfonsín, V., Maceiras, R., Gutiérrez, C., 2019. Bioethanol production
from industrial algae waste. Waste Management, Volume 87, pp. 791–797
Alvarado-Morales, M., Boldrin, A., Karakashev, D.B., Holdt, S.L.,
Angelidaki, I., Astrup, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment of biofuel production from
brown seaweed in nordic conditions. Bioresource Technology, Volume 129,
pp. 92–99
Aresta, M., Dibenedetto, A., Barberio, G., 2005. Utilization of
macro-algae for enhanced CO2 fixation and biofuel production:
development of a computing software for an LCA study. Fuel Processing
Technology, Volume 86, pp. 1679–1693
Bradley, T., Maga, D., Antón, S., 2015. A unified approach to life
cycle assessment between three unique algae biofuel facilities. Applied
Energy, Volume 154, pp. 1052–1061
Brockmann, D., Pradinaud, C., Champenois, J., Benoit, M., Hélias,
A., 2015. Environmental assessment of bioethanol from onshore-grown green
seaweed. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, Volume 9, pp. 696–708
Chen, H., Zhou, D., Luo, G., Zhang, S., Chen, J., 2015. Macroalgae
for biofuels production: progress and perspectives. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 47, pp. 427–437
Chiaramonti, D., Maniatis, K., Tredici, M.R., Verdelho, V., Yan,
J., 2015. Life cycle assessment of algae biofuels: needs and challenges. Applied
Energy, Volume 154, pp. 1049–1051
Czyrnek-Delêtre, M.M., Rocca, S., Agostini, A., Giuntoli, J.,
Murphy, J.D., 2017. Life cycle assessment of seaweed biomethane, generated from
seaweed sourced from integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in temperate oceanic
climates. Applied Energy, Volume 196, pp. 34–50
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2020. FAO global
aquaculture production statistics database updated to 2013: summary information.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Volume 2013
Hessami, M.J., Salleh, A., Phang, S.M., 2020. Bioethanol is a by-product
of the agar and carrageenan production industry from the tropical red seaweeds,
gracilaria, manilaensis, and kappaphycus alvarezii. Iranian Journal of
Fisheries Sciences, Volume 19(2), pp. 942–960
Humbird, D., Davis, R., Tao, L., Kinchin, C., Hsu, D., Aden, A.,
Schoen, P., Lukas, J., Olthof, B., Worley, M., Sexton, D., Dudgeon, D., 2011. Process
design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to
ethanol: dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
Israel, A., Einav, R., Seckbach, J., 2010. Seaweeds and their role
in globally changing environments. Israel oceanographic and limnological
research, Volume 15, pp. 156–157
Jang, J.S., Cho, Y.K., Jeong, G.T., Kim, S.K., 2012. Optimization of
saccharification and ethanol production by simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation (SSF) from seaweed, saccharina japonica. Bioprocess and
Biosystems Engineering, Volume 35(1), pp. 11–18
Kim, M.J., Kim, J.S., Ra, C.H., Kim, S.K., 2013. Bioethanol production
from eucheuma spinosum using various yeasts. KSBB Journal, Volume 28(5),
pp. 315–318
Langlois, J., Sassi, J.F., Jard, G., Steyer, J.P., Delgenes, J.P.,
Hélias, A., 2012. Life cycle assessment of biomethane from offshore-cultivated
seaweed. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, Volume 6(4), pp. 246–256
Luo, D., Hu, Z., Choi, D.G., Thomas, V.M., Realff, M.J., Chance,
R.R., 2010. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol
production process based on blue-green algae. Environmental Science and
Technology., Volume 44(2), pp. 8670–8677
MacLean, H.L., Spatari, S., 2009. The contribution of enzymes and
process chemicals to the life cycle of ethanol. Environmental Research
Letters, Volume 4(1), p. 014001
McHugh, D.J., 2003. Seaweed uses as human food. A Guide to
the Seaweed Industry
Minakov, V.F., Lobanov, O.S., Dyatlov, S.A., 2020. Three-dimensional
trends superposition in digital innovation life cycle model. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 11(6), pp. 1201–1212
Parsons, S., Allen, M.J., Abeln, F., McManus, M., Chuck, C.J.,
2019. Sustainability and life cycle assessment (lca) of macroalgae-derived
single cell oils. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 232, pp.
1272–1281
Pilicka, I., Blumberg, D., Romagnoli, F., 2011. Life cycle
assessment of biogas production from marine macroalgae: a latvian scenario. Environmental
and Climate Technologies, Volume 6, pp. 69–78
Putri, A.M.H., Waluyo, J. Setiawan, A.A.R., 2018. Carbon footprint
analysis of modern and traditional tempeh production in Indonesia. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 2024,
p. 020010
Shafie, S.M., Othman, Z., Hami, N., 2018. Life Cycle of biomass
blending in electricity generation: an environmental and economic assessment. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 9(8), pp. 1681–1691
Sheth, A., Sarkar, D., 2019. Life cycle cost analysis for electric vs
diesel bus transit in an indian scenario. International Journal of
Technology, Volume 10(1), pp. 105–115
SNI ISO 14040:2016, 2016. Manajemen lingkungan, penilaian daur
hidup, prinsip dan kerangka kerja (environmental management lifecycle
assessment principles and framework)
SNI ISO 14044:2017, 2017. Manajemen lingkungan, penilaian daur
hidup, persyaratan dan panduan (environmental management, life cycle
assessment, requirements and guidelines)
Spatari, S., Bagley, D.M., MacLean, H.L., 2010. Life cycle
evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic ethanol conversion technologies. Bioresource
Technology, Volume 101(2), pp. 654–667
Tan, I.S., Lee, K.T., 2014. Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of
seaweed solid wastes for bioethanol production: an optimization study. Energy,
Volume 78, pp. 53–62
Tan, I.S., Lee, K.T., 2016. Comparison of different process
strategies for bioethanol production from eucheuma cottonii: an economic
study. Bioresource Technology. Volume 199, pp. 336–346
Treyer, K., Bauer, C., 2013. Life cycle inventories of electricity
generation and power supply in version 3 of the ecoinvent database – part II:
electricity markets. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 21(9), pp. 1255–1268
Tritto, A., 2021. China's belt and road initiative: from
perceptions to realities in Indonesia's coal power sector. Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 34, p. 100624
Van der Wal, H., Sperber, B.L.H.M., Houweling-Tan, B., Bakker,
R.R.C., Brandenburg, W., López-Contreras, A.M., 2013. Production of acetone,
butanol, and ethanol from biomass of the green seaweed ulva lactuca. Bioresource
Technology, Volume 128, pp. 431–437