| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
110370
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We present evidence for the coexistence of two antagonistic sugarcane ethanol production technologies in Brazil, with the Southeast region of the country having relatively mechanized production processes, and the Northeast area using labor-intensive ones. We highlight the main differences between the hand-production and fully automated mechanical manufacturing in the Brazilian ethanol industry and examine the historical, political, and economic factors that induced this regional technology gap that is currently observed. We then construct an environmental model based on a 375-industry interregional input-output system for the Brazilian regions, in order to determine the extent to which the primitive ethanol production of Northern Brazil differs from the automated manufacture technologies of the South in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We show that ethanol produced with modern technologies generates lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than ethanol produced with traditional production processes. We also demonstrate that ethanol, regardless of the technology with which it was produced, is more carbon-efficient than petrochemical products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
125552
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In an editorial of a recent issue of a known academic journal, Prof. Hartmut Michel affirmed that "…the production of biofuels constitutes an extremely inefficient land use… We should not grow plants for biofuel production.", after comparing the area occupied with plants for bioenergy production with the one required for photovoltaic cells to supply the same amount of energy for transportation. This assertion is not correct for all situations and this comparison deserves a more careful analysis, evaluating the actual and prospective technological scenarios and other relevant aspects, such as capacity requirements, energy consumed during the life cycle of energy systems and the associated impacts. In this communication this comparison is revaluated, presenting a different perspective, more favorable for the bioenergy routes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|