Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production

Table 4 A comparison of study results with existing literature [21, 22, 24–28, 52, 56, 68–70]

Technology^a	Feedstock	Energy allocation		Reference	Displacement method		Reference
		This study	Prior studies		This study	Prior studies
		g CO_2eq/MJ	g CO_2eq/MJ		g CO_2eq/MJ	g CO_2eq/MJ
HEFA	UCO	28	17–21	[68]	28	–
	Jatropha	55	37–55	[21, 22, 28]	21	−134 to 63	[21, 22, 52]
	Camelina	47	18–47	[25, 28]	44	−17 to 60	[25, 69]
FT	Willow	9	–		−7	−17 to 10	[24, 70]
	Poplar	10	–		−6	−17 to 10	[24, 70]
	Corn Stover	13	8–11	[28]	−3	9 to 14^b	[21, 52, 70]
	Forestry residues	6	–		−10	10 to 12^b	[24, 52]
HTL (in situ)	Forestry residues	18	27^c	[56]	18	–
HTL (ex situ)	Forestry residues	21	–		21	–
Pyrolysis (in situ)	Forestry residues	22	34^c	[56]	22	–
Pyrolysis (ex situ)	Forestry residues	41	–		37	–
ATJ	Corn	54	–		71	–
	Corn stover	35	–		22	–
	Sugarcane	31	–		31	−27^d	[26]
DSHC (increased blend level)	Sugarcane	76	–		79	55 to 100	[27]
DSHC (10% blend)	Sugarcane	47	–		49	–

^aSome conversion pathways could not be compared due to lack of reference studies. It should be noted that the literature entails a much wider feedstock and technology scope than employed in this study, including a wide range of LCAs of RJF production based on algae species, edible oil crops, and herbaceous crops [71, 72]
^bElgowainy et al. [24], Stratton et al. [21] and Stratton et al. [52] assume all electricity produced during FT synthesis is used internally
^cBased on diesel production, not RJF. It is included in this comparison as it is used as a data source for our computations
^dRelative to Staples et al. [26], this study uses lower yields and a higher electricity emission intensity

ISSN: 2731-3654