Journal article
Life cycle assessment of the valorization of rice straw for energy purposes. Rice production in Cuba

Publication Details
Bravo Amarante, E.; Schulz, R.; Romero Romero, O.; Gil Unday, Z.; López Bastida, E.; Güereca Hernández, L.
Publication year:
Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development
Pages range:
Journal acronym:
Volume number:
Issue number:


Due to the need to evaluate the sustainability of rice straw management during rice production in Cuba, the objective of this work was to analyze four possible alternatives for the valorization of rice straw for energy purposes in
Cuba in two different scenarios. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was used. The "Sur del Jíbaro" Grain Enterprise was assessed as a case study. The environmental impacts generated from the intermediate impact categories
and those associated with the three categories of final damages proposed by the methodology ReCiPe were assessed. The behavior of the ecological footprint was also assessed. The impact category climate change is expressed in kg CO2-Eq. The three proposed alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4), where valorization of rice straw for energy purposes are considered, presented better results. One of them (Alternative 4), where part of the biogas generated is used in the transportation of different products, has the lowest impact on climate change, with a difference of 4.09923 e + 7 kg of CO2-Eq as compared to the alternative used at present (Alternative 1). In the particle formation impact category expressed in kg PM10-Eq, Alternatives 2 and 3 have the most unfavorable results with emissions of 3.46561 e + 5 kg PM10-Eq. This value is higher than that of Alternative 1, which is associated with the necessary increase of diesel consumption for the transportation of different products in the process. However, in Alternative 4, the emissions are reduced in 1.86204e + 5 kg PM10-Eq when the biogas is used as fuel replacing a part of the diesel used in transportation. In the categories of final damages, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have advantages with respect to Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 have a score of 9.11450e + 5 points less than Alternative 1; and Alternative 4 reaches a score of 3.033540e + 6 points less than Alternative 1 and of 2.119390e + 6 points less than Alternatives 2 and 3, what makes Alternative 4 the one that damages the environment the least.

Last updated on 2019-07-01 at 09:10