MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

LCA of Ethanol Production from

Food Waste Modeled as

Corn and Corn By-Products

GROUP 1 PROJECT REPORT

Course Code: MANE4380U

Course Instructor: Dr. Yuelei Yang

Group Number: 1

Project Report Submitted On: Nov. 24, 2015

GROUP MEMBERS

# Last Name First Name ID Signature

1 Anugwa Emmanuel 100486340

2 Bower Lowell 100500898

3 Karanwal Tushar 100481186

2 Mikhail Maher 100484631

3 Pandya Devarsh 100455628

MANE4380U - Group 1 Project Report

1

Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

3. Goal and Scope Definition ...................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Goal ....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4. Inventory Analysis ................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Applications of Corn ............................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Ethanol Production................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Ethanol Production Process Inventory ................................................................................ 11

4.4 Kawartha Biogas - Anaerobic Digestion Facility ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................ 12

5.1 Classification....................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Characterization .................................................................................................................. 13

5.3 Normalization ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Valuation ............................................................................................................................. 14

6. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) ..................................................................... 16

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18

8. Nomenclature .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

9. Appendix ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

9.1 Figures.................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

References ..................................................................................................................................... 19


2

List of Figures Figure 1: Corn types and applications (2011) ................................................................................. 7

Figure 2: Dry Corn Milling - System Diagram ............................................................................... 9

Figure 3: Wet Corn Milling - System Diagram ............................................................................ 10

List of Tables Table 1: Mass flows and land use for assumed facility ................................................................ 13

Table 2: Nitrogen used in ethanol production............................................................................... 14

Table 3: LCIA results for ethanol production ............................................................................... 15

Table 4: SLCA Matrix ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.


3

1. Abstract

The Following is a Life Cycle Assessment on the production of ethanol with the use of household

waste in Ontario. The different methods by which ethanol can be produced are compared, and the

most environmentally friendly option is selected. Elements of the pre-production, production, and

post-production are assessed to examine economic and environmental impacts. A SLCA provides

an organized and easy way to compare the results of the assessment.


4

2. Introduction

Ethanol is a form of an alcohol, also known as a biofuel. Processes which convert cellulose

containing organic matter to biofuel are implemented in many industries in North America. The

United States accounts for around 90% of the global production of ethanol biofuel [1]. Ethanol is

usually added to gasoline, up to 15% by volume. This is done due to the ethanol which acts as an

oxidant and is also a replacement for other additives.

Ethanol is seen as ‘green’. The raw materials needed to product ethanol are biomass; a renewable

resource. Corn is the most common of the biomass used [2], although advancements in waste to

ethanol processes allow us to recycle various types of food waste. Fossil fuels are used in the

various processes involved in producing ethanol. These ethanols displace gasoline consumption,

since they replace about 10-15% of gasoline blends. When compared to many other petroleum

based fuels, “ethanol is relatively non-toxic. It is completely biodegradable and poses little threat

to groundwater sources” [3].


5

3. Goal and Scope Definition

3.1 Goal

The aim of this study is to assess the lifecycle of ethanol which is produced from corn and corn

byproducts. Using data readily available, we will be judging the following parameters:

Energy Use

Environmental Impacts

Land and Infrastructure Use

Once these have been examined, the analysis will be used to produce recommendation in order to

benefit the ethanol industry. The applications of these recommendations will cover pre-production,

post production and various process improvements.

3.2 Scope

Product System

This study will be based around using green bin household food waste. Many processes are

implemented on food waste in order to produce ethanol. Due to a lack of data on production of

ethanol from food waste corn and corn byproducts will be used as a reference LCA. There are a

few methods used in the industry to produce ethanol from corn and corn byproducts. These are dry

and wet milling.

Dry milling is when the waste food is dried and turned into a flour type of powder. Enzymes and

water are then added to this and turned into a slurry. The enzymes allow the mixture to “convert

starch to dextrose, a simple sugar” [2]. After this, ammonia is added as pH control, also as a

nutrient for the yeast. This is then cooked at high temperatures to prevent bacteria formation.

Finally, this mixture ferments when yeast is added. The resulting products are ethanol and carbon

dioxide.

Wet milling is essentially using water and dilute sulfurous acid to soak the food with. This is due

to the solution separating the waste into its many components.

Functional Unit and Reference Flow

The functional unit for this study will be 1 kg of ethanol. A study done at the University of Illinois

at Urbana−Champaign states that 327 g of ethanol was produced using 1 kg of house hold food

waste [4]. Therefore, around 3 kg of household food waste is needed to produce 1 kg of ethanol.


6

Our study will assume an arbitrary ethanol factory which receives household food waste from the

City of Toronto. In 2014, 104,400 tonnes of green bin waste were diverted from landfills. This

could mean that a plant could utilize this waste in order to produce ethanol assuming the waste is

in a usable form.

All of the analysis done in the following sections of this report will use the above numbers in order

to assess the lifecycle of food to waste ethanol.

System Boundary

The lifecycle of the ethanol will be assessed at several stages. All of these will be evaluated on

how they can be improved. All of the material and energy flows during the following phases of

ethanol’s lifecycle will be analyzed including:

Raw Material Harvesting

Treatment

Transportation & Packaging

Use

End of Life


7

4. Inventory Analysis

The major input in the ethanol production that is being used to setup this base LCA is corn. Corn

is taken as the major contributor for the biomass taken for ethanol production in industrial standard

processes. The quantitative data being used to setup this inventory analysis is taking a glance at

the international corn grain production, and the breakdown of the application of the corn. At the

11th rank, Canada contributes approximately 1.2% (10,688,700 metric tonnes) of the international

corn production compared to 35.5% (313,948,610 metric tonnes) by the USA ranked at number 1

[5]. Moving at a lower scale in the spatial analysis, the province of Manitoba has experienced a

major change in the inventory post 2008 since that was when ethanol production escalated. Farms

reporting production corn for grain increased from 152 in year 1971 to 710 in year 2011 [5].

4.1 Applications of Corn

There are 3 major types of corn produced in Canada consisting of:

Corn for grain

Corn for silage

Sweet corn

Figure 1: Corn types and applications (2011) [5]

The corn production for grain is utilized for beef cattle, poultry, and other grain & oilseeds.

Therefore, they serve as primary raw materials used in other processes/sub-processes as shown

below in Figure 1. The corn for silage is utilized for dairy, soybeans, and vegetables as shown.

Sweet corn is mainly used for Hog and pig, reseeding corn, and other applications. This should be

of most importance for our analysis as it includes corn used for ethanol production. It is evident

that the amount of corn produced by Canadian farms for ethanol production is minimal. This is

due to the fact that a major portion of the corn is coming from the USA. According to Natural


8

Resources Canada, there is currently a trend towards increasing growth of feedstock for ethanol

production.

An equation that relates corn to ethanol production can be estimated by 1 bushel (approximately

25 kg corn) yielding 10 liters ethanol, 8 kg of dry distillers grains (DDGs), and 8 kg of CO2. Thus,

ethanol generation of 200 million-liter-per-year (mlpy) requires 20 million bushels (approximately

500,000 tonnes of corn which would result from 140,000 acres of land), and also produces

approximately 160,000 tonnes of DDGs equivalent [5].

4.2 Ethanol Production

It is vital to understand the governing characteristic of the ethanol production in order to accurately

construct a base LCI (Life Cycle Inventory).There are 2 major approaches in ethanol production

by corn. The first approach is Dry Corn Milling, and second is Wet Corn Milling. The two

approaches have different governing mechanisms, efficiencies, and resulting by-products in terms

of materials, effluents, and emissions in the air, water, and soil. Each of the methods are discussed

below. However, this base LCA is concerned with the Dry Corn Milling method as it is

economically feasible, less sophisticated, and also produces useful by-products.

Dry Corn Ethanol Milling

The Dry Corn Milling technique follows the system diagram shown below. This technique consists

of 4 upstream processes: Milling, Liquefaction, Saccharification, and Fermentation. There is an

additional downstream process known as Distillation and Recovery [6].

The Milling process essentially produces a corn flour and mixes it with water to produce a slurry.

Liquefaction is achieved by employing jet-cookers to inject steam within the corn flour slurry to

cook it above boiling point of water. The cooked corn is mixed with the 𝛼-amylase enzyme and

given a time interval of approximately 30 minutes. Saccrification is then carried out on the mixture

known as a ‘corn mash’ whereby it is cooled to approximately 30° C [6]. Another enzyme

(glucoamylase) is mixed to complete the breakdown of starch into simple sugar (glucose). This

prepares the corn mash for the fermentation process. The yeast growth obtained in seed tanks (from

an external process) is used to begin process of converting the incoming liquid to the ethanol.

The fermentation process occurs in batches in the dry milling technique. Typically, there are 3

fermentation tanks for a continuous operation. CO2 is a typical effluent of the fermentation process

and is usually released to the atmosphere. If recovery of CO2 is implemented, CO2 is compressed

and sold for carbonation of soft drinks or frozen into dry ice for cooling applications. The mixture

is now referred to as ‘beer’ and stored in a well. The well contains the beer for the interval of the


9

batches and continuous operation of ethanol production, distillation, and recovery which occurs in

the final step.

The final process segregates the ethanol from the beer by distillation. The ethanol yielded is

approximately 92-95% pure and recovery refers to the recollection of the excess water [6]. The

recovery process is carried out via molecular sieves designed to absorb water from an

ethanol/water vapor mixture, resulting in nearly pure ethanol (therefore, <99%). The result is

‘stillage’ which is the remaining water and solid corn residue. The stillage is put into a centrifuge

to separate the liquid and solid fragments (also referred to as thin stillage and distillers’ grain,

respectively). The thin stillage can either be recycled to the liquefaction process or passed through

evaporators to remove a significant portion of the water to produce a thick syrup. The syrup can

then be blended with distillers’ grains which yields animal feed known as ‘distillers’ dried grains

with solubles or DDGS.

Dry Corn Milling

Fermentation

CO2

Still Stillage

Alcohol

Corn

Grind, wet, enzymes Yeast,

enzymes

WDGs, DDGs

Distiller grainsWDG, DDG

Distillersolubles

Figure 2: Dry Corn Milling - System Diagram


10

Wet Corn Ethanol Milling

The Wet Corn Milling technique has the system diagram shown below. This process involves

production of many process besides just fuel ethanol with the trade-off of a larger scale plant, and

higher capital requirement. The name is derived from the first step of the process where the corn

grain is kept in water (the steeping process) to soften the grain and prepare it for the

separation/fractioning procedure to segregate various components of the kernel. The separation

allows for starch, fiber, and germs to be stored separately and introduced in chemical processes

that yield several end products. The major end products of Wet Corn Milling are animal feed, corn

gluten feed (28% and 40% protein) [6], and corn germ which is utilized for corn oil.

Wet Corn Milling

Steep Grind Separation

Steep Water

Corn

WDGs DDGs

Starch

Sugar

Alcohol

Germ

Corn Oil

Gluten meal

Spent Yeast

Corn bran

Figure 3: Wet Corn Milling - System Diagram [6]


11

4.3 Ethanol Production Process Inventory

Water: 9.21 – 18.21 kilograms per kilograms of ethanol

Corn: 15 kilograms per kilogram of ethanol

Grain Surplus: Typically 50 million tonnes of grain (wheat, barley, corn, oats, rye)

produced annually and nearly 50% are exports. Therefore, assuming 10% ethanol mix for

all Canadian gasoline, grain allocation of approximately 9 million tonnes of grain which is

18% of the production [7]. This magnitude of grain allocation for ethanol production still

allows Canada to remain a major grain exporting economy. This would also inspire locally

grown grain for ethanol production and advancements in plant biotechnology have allowed

Canadian farmers to grow more in the same land while minimizing the environmental

impact.

Energy: Approximately 40% less than traditional fossil fuels, could have up to 90% reduction in

cellulosic ethanol [7].

Emissions: Based on feedstock, GHGs reduced by up to 62% [7]

In Ontario, renewable content of gasoline in terms of ethanol is 5% and it ranges from 5 to 8.5%

all across Canada according to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Canada has put forth several

programs for promotion of alternative fuels such as ecoENERGY for Alternative Fuels,

ecoENERGY for Biofuels, Market Development Incentive Payment Fund, National Renewable

Diesel Demonstration Initiative, Next-generation Biofuels Fund [8].


12

5. Impact Assessment

The next portion of this report will determine the impact of the material and energy flows outlined

in the inventory analysis section. The goal of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is to determine

the extent to which a material/energy flow will impact an environmental property and then rank

these impacts in terms of severity [5]. The procedure for an LCIA follows four-steps:

Classification, Characterization, Normalization, and Valuation.

Classification involves identifying categories of environmental impacts that will be affected by

each material/energy flow. Commonly used LCIA categories include: Depletion of Abiotic

Resources, Climate Change, Human Toxicity, Freshwater Aquatic Toxicity, Terrestrial

Ecotoxicity, Photooxidant Formation, Acidification, and Eutrophication [5, p. 176].

Characterization attempts to develop a quantitative impact for each species of material/energy flow

on the classification category. An equation that is used in this step is:

𝑆𝑗 = ∑ 𝐶𝑖,𝑗−𝑖 𝐸𝑖 [5, p. 177]

where 𝑆𝑗 is the category stress indicator for classification category 𝑗, 𝐶𝑖,𝑗 is the characterization

factor for a material/energy flow species 𝑖 on classification category 𝑗, and 𝐸𝑖 is the relevant mass

flow for the species 𝑖.

Normalization applies a reference value in able to relate all of the category stress indicators (𝑆𝑗) to

each other. This allows for these potentially disparate stresses to be compared against each other.

The equation used in this step is:

𝑁𝑗 =𝑆𝑗

𝑅𝑗 [5, p. 178]

where 𝑁𝑗 is the normalized indicator for a classification category 𝑗 and 𝑅𝑗 is a reference value

(e.g. kg/yr).

Valuation is the final step in an LCIA in which weights are assigned to each normalized indicator

(𝑁𝑗) so that their relative importance can be determined. Valuation is defined by the following

equation:

𝑊𝑗 = 𝛺𝑗𝑁𝑗 [5, p. 180]

where 𝑊𝑗 is the weighted indicator for each classification category 𝑗 and 𝛺𝑗 are the associated

weighting factor.


13

A total LCIA score can be calculated by considering all of the weighted indicators and applying

the equation:

𝐼 = ∑ 𝑊𝑗−𝑗 [5, p. 180]

It should be noted that the process of applying reference values and weights is sometimes omitted

from an LCIA due to its subjective nature. However, if no weightings are applied, it is as if an 𝛺𝑗

value of one has been applied to all impacts. Each of these steps will now be performed for the

process of ethanol production outlined in the LCI.

5.1 Classification

The classification categories (𝑗) that will be considered in this LCIA are: Depletion of Abiotic

Resources, Climate Change, and Freshwater Aquatic Toxicity. The species (𝑖) to be considered

are: water, corn, and emissions. Corn is being considered because there is currently a lack of data

present for conversion of food waste to ethanol. This data will be used to emulate the production

of the proposed ethanol cycle.

5.2 Characterization

This LCIA will assume that the ethanol production facility outputs 100 million liters of fuel-grade

ethanol per year. This number was estimated by researching existing ethanol production facilities

in Ontario such as the Kawartha biogas plant run by Kawartha Ethanol Inc. [6]. The total mass

flows (in kg/year) and land use (in hectares) for this facility are tabulated below:

Table 1: Mass flows and land use for assumed facility

Ethanol Production

(L/year) Density of Ethanol

(kg/m3) Ethanol Production

(kg/year)

100·106 792 @ 15 °C [7] 79.2·106

Water Rate (kg water/kg ethanol)

Total Water Use (kg water/year)

Land Use (hectare/year)

13.71 1.08·109 28327

CO2 Rate (kg CO2/kg ethanol)

Total CO2 Production (kg CO2/year)

DDG Produced (kg DDG/year)

1.010 79.9·106 80.0·106

The species of total water use will be placed into the impact category of Depletion of Abiotic

Resources and is a potential serious concern. Total CO2 production will be applied to the Climate

Change impact category since CO2 emissions are one of the most problematic greenhouse gases


14

(GHGs) that are suspected to cause global climate change [8]. The impact category of Freshwater

Aquatic Toxicity will be filled by nitrogen pollution which is introduced into the environment as

fertilizer when the corn is produced. Corn only utilizes around 40-60% of the nitrogen introduced

to the field; the remaining nitrogen is either volatilized into the air, runoff to surface water, or

leached into groundwater. Excess nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems can result in algae growth. When

this algae dies and decomposes oxygen is removed from the water and can result in die-off of other

plants and animal in the ecosystem [9]. Data from 2007 indicates that the average corn crop

requires 138 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre of corn [8, p. 956]. Using these values and

assuming a utilization factor of 50% for nitrogen, the mass flow rate of nitrogen for the assumed

ethanol facility can be found and are included below.

Table 2: Nitrogen used in ethanol production

Nitrogen Rate

(kg nitrogen/hectare·year) Nitrogen Utilization Factor

(%) Total Nitrogen Output

(kg/year)

154.6 [8] 50 [8] 2.19·106

5.3 Normalization

The normalization step is not strictly required for this LCIA as all of the species are in the same

unit of kg/year. Although selection of these parameters simplified the LCIA process it would not

be a realistic assumption for a real-world LCA analysis which is generally expected to be more

rigorous.

5.4 Valuation

In the next step weights must be applied to each of the impact categories in order to prioritize those

that are potentially more dangerous. When calculating the weights for each impact the three

dimensions that should be considered are spatial, temporal, and risk [10]. Depletion of abiotic

resources in this case is spatially regional, temporally long term, and has a medium to high risk

factor. Climate change would be considered spatially global, temporally long term, with a high

risk factor. Freshwater aquatic toxicity due to nitrogen pollution would be spatially local,

temporally short term, with a lower risk factor.

By considering the risk factors in this way it appears that the release of CO2 resulting in global

climate change is the most important factor to be considered. It will be assigned a weighting factor

of unity and the other impact categories will have 𝛺𝑗 values of between 0 and 1. The next most

important category appears to be depletion of water which can have serious regional consequences.

It will be assigned a weighting factor of 0.7. Nitrogen pollution is of relatively lower importance


15

compared to these previous issues. Although nitrogen pollution can have damaging local effects

the short-term nature of this problem results in a weighting factor of 0.3.

A table summarizing the results of this LCIA can now be created by applying the stress indicators

and weighting factors for each impact category. And the overall life cycle impact evaluation score

can also be found for comparison with other models.

Table 3: LCIA results for ethanol production

Impact Category 𝑺𝒋 Value (kg/year) 𝜴𝒋 Value 𝑾𝒋 Value (kg/year)

Depletion of Abiotic

Resources 1.08·109 Water 0.7 760·106

Climate Change 79.9·106 CO2 1.0 79.9·106

Freshwater Aquatic

Toxicity 2.19·106 N2 0.3 657·103

Total 840·106

As the results show, even though the release of CO2 has been given a higher weighting factor,

consumption of water has the highest weighted indicator and would be selected as the most

important impact of ethanol production in this analysis. Pollution of surface/groundwater reserves

by nitrogen is the least important factor under the listed assumptions. The overall LCIA score for

this process is calculated at approximately 840 million kg per year.


16

6. Discussion

The analysis for this project was done with corn data because data for the food waste data was

difficult to find. We have demonstrated the possibility of producing ethanol from both dry corn

milling and wet corn milling using corn and corn byproducts. Greenhouse gas emissions can be

reduced by recycling the biomass carbon from the field to the tailpipe and back again.

6.1 Interpretation

The tables shown in the impact assessment illustrate important environmental factors that can pose

problems later on and mostly explained the results. From table 2, the Nitrogen rate and factors

were given. This factors are lower compared to a wheat ethanol plant. From table 3, the CO2

emission is high and discourages the application of this approach in general. The SLCA matrix for

this report is shown below.

6.2 Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA)

Table 4: SLCA Matrix

Environmental Concern

Life

Stage

Material

Use Energy Use

Solid

Residues

Liquid

Residues

Gas

Residues Row Score

Pre-

Manufacture 3 2 2 2 3 12

Product

Manufacture 2 0 3 2 0 7

Product

Delivery 3 4 1 2 2 12

Product

Use 3 2 4 3 1 13

Recycle and

Disposal 4 1 4 1 3 13

Column Score 15 9 14 10 9 57

Grade system:

0 – highest impact (negative evaluation)

1

2 – Moderate impact

3

4 – Lowest impact (exemplary evaluation)


17

The gas residues from the manufacturing of ethanol from corn is very dangerous to the

environment. A lot of greenhouse gases are emitted. Product use of ethanol doesn’t essentially

pose a threat to the environment as compared to Recycling and land use. By applying this

streamlined life cycle assessment a total score of 57 is reached for the production of ethanol from

corn and corn by-products.


18

7. Conclusion

Fossil fuels are an essential resource for a functioning of modern society. Gasoline is used in

processes to generate electricity, as well as but not limited to powering vehicles. There are two

main problems that arise with such a high dependence on fossil fuels. The first issue is in regards

to renewability. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and therefore their mass consumption

will one day result in depletion. The second issue is with regards to environmental impact.

Extraction of fuel is hazardous to the planets ground water reservoirs and oceans. Accidents that

occur are very hard to reverse and usually result in damage to local wild life and ecosystems. The

burning of fuel results in CO2 emissions that are harmful to the atmosphere and result in global

climate change. Alternative fuel sources such as ethanol must be considered.

Since the ethanol is produced using corn; it has a moderate to little impact on the environment

during the pre-manufacturing stage. During the manufacturing stage however ethanol has the

most negative impact on the environment. The process itself requires a lot of energy and

produces harmful emissions. It is estimated that 1.08·109 kg of water are needed by the

production process per year. Ethanol is not limited to corn for production. Food waste can be

used to produce ethanol. The recycling process that the food waste undergoes is beneficial as it

reuses a resource that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. This recycling process does not

cause a significant amount of solid and gas emissions. Recycling facilities do require a lot of

energy to operate, and cause significant liquid waste.

In the product use stage, introducing a 15% ethanol to gasoline mix has many benefits. The

emissions caused by ethanol contain much less CO2 and CO than that of gasoline. Reducing

Ontario’s gasoline consumption by 15% reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from

vehicles. That being said, emissions of any kind are still harmful, but in this case less harmful

than that of gasoline. This is represented in the SLCA Matrix (table 4) with a score of 1. In the

remaining categories of environmental concern, ethanol use has a moderate to low environmental

impact.

In this LCA, water use was found to have the largest impact of the three environmental concerns

considered with a weighted impact indicator value of 760 million kg/year out of the total value of

840 million ky/year. A streamlined life cycle assessment was also carried out and a total score of

57 was calculated for the process. This value could be used to compare the production of ethanol

from corn and corn by-products against another process if the same criteria was applied.

Alternative fuels are the key to reducing dependence on gasoline. The environment continues to

be polluted by greenhouse emissions. Until better alternatives are found, it is essential that a

continued efforts be made to reduce negative environmental impact and natural resource

depletion.


19

References

[1] Worldwatch Insitiute, "Biofuels Make a Comeback Despite Tough Economy," 2011.

[Online]. Available: http://www.worldwatch.org/biofuels-make-comeback-despite-tough-

economy. [Accessed 7 November 2015].

[2] Renewable Fuels Association, "How Ethanol is Made?," RFA, [Online]. Available:

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/how-ethanol-is-made/. [Accessed 7 November 2015].

[3] Saskatchewan Eco Network (SEN), [Online]. Available: http://econet.ca/about/index.html.

[Accessed 7 November 2015].

[4] N. Q. M.-H. C. W. L. V. S. Haibo Huang, "Ethanol Production from Food Waste at High

Solids Content with Vacuum Recovery Technology," American Chemical Society,

Chicago, 2015.

[5] Statistics Canada, "Corn: Canada's Third Most Valuable Crop," 18 02 2015. [Online].

Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm.

[Accessed 26 11 2015].

[6] R. Lackey , "Ethanol Production in Ontario," 2013.

[7] Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, "Ethanol Key Issues," CRFA, Ottawa, 2011.

[8] Natural Resouorces Canada, "Energy Sources and Distribution Programs," 02 05 2014.

[Online]. Available: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/alternative-fuels/programs/3575.

[Accessed 26 11 2015].

[9] T. E. Graedel and B. R. Allenby, Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering, Prentice

Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2009.

[10] Kawartha Ethanol Inc., "Welcome to Kawartha Ethanol Inc.," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://kawarthaethanol.ca/. [Accessed 17 November 2015].

[11] Alternative Fuels Data Center, "Fuel Property Comparison for Ethanol, Gasoline, and No.

2 Diesel," 11 February 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_properties.php. [Accessed 14 November 2015].

[12] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Rnewable Fuel Standard Program

(RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis," February 2010. [Online]. Available:

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. [Accessed 18 November 2015].

[13] B. Whitehead, "The Negative Effects of Nitrogen-Rich Fertilizer to the Environment,"

SFGate, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/negative-effects-

nitrogenrich-fertilizer-environment-72041.html. [Accessed 20 November 2015].

[14] M. Rosen, MECE4430 - Module 5: Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, Oshawa:

Univeristy of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2015.


20

[15] Governors' Ethanol Coalition, "The Fate and Transport of Ethanol-Blended Gasoline in the

Environment," October 1999. [Online]. Available:

http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/E5700/B055-1999.pdf. [Accessed 16 November 2015].


21

Turnitin.com Results (Submitted via Blackboard under Lowell Bower - 100500898)

MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final

Documents

Transcript of MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final