A Well-to-Wheel Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of First- and Second-Generation Bioethanol as Alternatives to Gasoline in Motorsport Races.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Well-to-Wheel Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of First- and Second-Generation Bioethanol as Alternatives to Gasoline in Motorsport Races. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Summa, Daniela1 (AUTHOR), Raimondi, Stefano2 (AUTHOR), Mangeruga, Valerio3 (AUTHOR), Giacopini, Matteo3,4 (AUTHOR) valerio.mangeruga@unimore.it, Tamburini, Elena1 (AUTHOR), Amaretti, Alberto2,4 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Energies (19961073). May2026, Vol. 19 Issue 9, p2155. 18p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Ethanol as fuel, *Product life cycle assessment, *Biomass energy, *Motorsports, *Automobile emissions, *Gasoline blending, *Ecological impact, *Sustainability |
| Abstract: | Emissions from transportation are rapidly increasing, representing the second-largest source within the energy sector. Switching to biofuels is a promising strategy to mitigate these environmental impacts. The main aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of fossil gasoline and bioethanol blends in a high-performance Formula SAE race car using a comprehensive well-to-wheel (WTW) life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The vehicle was tested under three fuel scenarios: (i) 100% fossil gasoline, (ii) a blend of 85% first-generation bioethanol (1G-pure bioethanol) derived from corn and 15% fossil gasoline (E85-1G), and (iii) a blend of 85% second-generation bioethanol (2G-pure bioethanol) derived from grape pomace, a winemaking waste product, and 15% fossil gasoline (E85-2G). The novelty of this work lies in the combined experimental and LCA-based comparison of crop-based and waste-derived bioethanol under identical high-performance operating conditions, enabling a direct assessment of feedstock influence on environmental impacts. The well-to-tank (WTT) results show that 2G bioethanol achieves the lowest environmental burdens across all impact categories, while 1G-pure bioethanol is significantly affected by emissions from corn cultivation. Fossil gasoline exhibits the highest impacts in terms of global warming potential (GWP) and Abiotic Resource Depletion (ARD). The tank-to-wheel (TTW) analysis confirms the superior environmental performance of the E85-2G blend. Despite requiring 6–16% more fuel to complete the race, E85-2G maintains its environmental advantage, and both biofuel blends produce lower air emissions than conventional gasoline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Emissions from transportation are rapidly increasing, representing the second-largest source within the energy sector. Switching to biofuels is a promising strategy to mitigate these environmental impacts. The main aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of fossil gasoline and bioethanol blends in a high-performance Formula SAE race car using a comprehensive well-to-wheel (WTW) life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The vehicle was tested under three fuel scenarios: (i) 100% fossil gasoline, (ii) a blend of 85% first-generation bioethanol (1G-pure bioethanol) derived from corn and 15% fossil gasoline (E85-1G), and (iii) a blend of 85% second-generation bioethanol (2G-pure bioethanol) derived from grape pomace, a winemaking waste product, and 15% fossil gasoline (E85-2G). The novelty of this work lies in the combined experimental and LCA-based comparison of crop-based and waste-derived bioethanol under identical high-performance operating conditions, enabling a direct assessment of feedstock influence on environmental impacts. The well-to-tank (WTT) results show that 2G bioethanol achieves the lowest environmental burdens across all impact categories, while 1G-pure bioethanol is significantly affected by emissions from corn cultivation. Fossil gasoline exhibits the highest impacts in terms of global warming potential (GWP) and Abiotic Resource Depletion (ARD). The tank-to-wheel (TTW) analysis confirms the superior environmental performance of the E85-2G blend. Despite requiring 6–16% more fuel to complete the race, E85-2G maintains its environmental advantage, and both biofuel blends produce lower air emissions than conventional gasoline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 19961073 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/en19092155 |
