journal article·2022-07-12Open access

Incorporating New Technologies in EEIO Models

Cindy G. Azuero-Pedraza, Valerie M. Thomas, Wesley W. Ingwersen

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 14

Abstract

We propose a methodology to add new technologies into Environmentally Extended Input–Output (EEIO) models based on a Supply and Use framework. The methodology provides for adding new industries (new technologies) and a new commodity under the assumption that the new commodity will partially substitute for a functionally-similar existing commodity of the baseline economy. The level of substitution is controlled by a percentage (%) as a variable of the model. In the Use table, a percentage of the current use of the existing commodity is transferred to the new commodity. The Supply or Make table is modified assuming that the new industries are the only ones producing the new commodity. We illustrate the method for the USEEIO model, for the addition of second generation biofuels, including naphtha, jet fuel and diesel fuel. The new industries’ inputs, outputs and value-added components needed to produce the new commodity are drawn from process-based life cycle inventories (LCIs). Process-based LCI inputs and outputs per physical functional unit are transformed to prices and assigned to commodities and environmental flow categories for the EEIO model. This methodology is designed to evaluate the environmental impacts of substituting products in the current US economy with bio-versions, produced by new technologies, that are intended to reduce negative environmental impacts. However, it can be applied for any new commodity for which the substitution assumption is reasonable.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Global Energy and Sustainability Research · Climate Change Policy and Economics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

US Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA

Funding

USEPA through the Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (RESES) program

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future10.1021/es101316v ↗
2. Life Cycle Assessment: A review of the methodology and its application to sustainability10.1016/j.coche.2013.02.002 ↗
3. Bringing a life cycle perspective to emerging technology development10.1111/jiec.12990 ↗
4. Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: A review10.1111/jiec.12965 ↗
5. Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T., and Matthews, D.H. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter, Available online: http://www.lcatextbook.com/.
6. Economic Input–Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment10.1021/es983471i ↗
7. Miller, R.E., and Blair, P.D. (2022). Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, Cambridge University Press. [3rd ed.].10.1017/9781108676212 ↗
8. Hybrid life cycle inventory methods—A review10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.176 ↗
9. Comparison between Different Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Methodologies: A Review and Case Study of Biomass-based p-Xylene Production10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04709 ↗
10. Product Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output Techniques10.1162/108819899569449 ↗
11. Prioritizing Consumption-Based Carbon Policy Based on the Evaluation of Mitigation Potential Using Input-Output Methods10.1111/jiec.12702 ↗
12. Green versus brown: Comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.012 ↗
13. Using a new USA multi-region input output (MRIO) model for assessing economic and energy impacts of wind energy expansion in USA10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114141 ↗
14. Impacts of new energy technology using generalized input-output analysis10.1016/0305-0548(74)90077-X ↗
15. Bullard, C.W., and Sebald, A.V. (1975). A Model for Analyzing Energy Impact of Technological Change, Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois. Technical Report 146.
16. Economy wide impacts of ethanol and biodiesel policy in Canada: An input–output analysis10.1080/15435075.2016.1261708 ↗
17. The social, economic, and environmental implications of biomass ethanol production in China: A multi-regional input-output-based hybrid LCA model10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119326 ↗
18. Simulating the impact of new industries on the economy: The case of biorefining in Australia10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.022 ↗
19. Potential Socioeconomic and Environmental Effects of an Expanding U.S. Bioeconomy: An Assessment of Near-Commercial Cellulosic Biofuel Pathways10.1021/acs.est.0c08449 ↗
20. Comparative techno-economic analysis and process design for indirect liquefaction pathways to distillate-range fuels via biomass-derived oxygenated intermediates upgrading10.1002/bbb.1710 ↗
21. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2020, June 13). Input-Output Accounts Data, Available online: https://www.bea.gov/industry/input-output-accounts-data.
22. Cai, H., Benavides, T., Lee, U., Wang, M., Tan, E., Davis, R., Dutta, A., Biddy, M., Clippinger, J., and Grundl, N. (2018). Supply Chain Sustainability Analysis of Renewable Hydrocarbon Fuels via Indirect Liquefaction, Ex Situ Catalytic Fast Pyrolisis, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Combined Algal Processing, and Biochemical Conversion: Update of the 2018 State-of-Technology Cases and Design Cases, Argonne National Laboratory. Report.10.2172/1499023 ↗
23. USEEIO v2.0, The US Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Model v2.0 (USEEIOv2.0)10.1038/s41597-022-01293-7 ↗
24. Li, M., Ingwersen, W., Young, B., Vendries, J., and Birney, C. (2022). Useeior: An Open-Source R Package for Building and Using US Environmentally-Extended Input–Output Models. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12094469 ↗
25. Conceptual process design and economics for the production of high-octane gasoline blendstock via indirect liquefaction of biomass through methanol/dimethyl ether intermediates10.1002/bbb.1611 ↗
26. Davis, R., Grundl, N., Tao, L., Biddy, M.J., Tan, E.C., Beckham, G.T., Humbird, D., Thompson, D.N., and Roni, M.S. (2018). Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels and Coproducts: 2018 Biochemical Design Case Update, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Report NREL/TP-5100-71949.10.2172/1483234 ↗
27. IRS (2020, July 01). Publication 946 (2020), How To Depreciate Property—Table A-1, Available online: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946#en_US_2019_publink1000107507.
28. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2021, November 25). Margins Before Redefinitions 2007–2012 DET, Available online: https://www.bea.gov/industry/industry-underlying-estimates.
29. (2020, August 02). Trading Economics. Naphtha 2005–2020 Data | 2021–2022 Forecast | Price | Quote | Chart | Historical. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/naphtha.
30. IATA (2020, August 02). Jet Fuel Price Monitor. Available online: https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/.
31. AAA (2020, August 02). Gas Prices. Available online: https://gasprices.aaa.com/.
32. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2020, August 02). Oil and Petroleum Products Explained, Available online: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php.
33. Commercial Biomass Syngas Fermentation10.3390/en5125372 ↗
34. Fuel and chemical products from biomass syngas: A comparison of gas fermentation to thermochemical conversion routes10.1002/ep.11613 ↗
35. Life Cycle Assessments of Ethanol Production via Gas Fermentation: Anticipated Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cellulosic and Waste Gas Feedstocks10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215 ↗
36. Fermentative production of ethanol from carbon monoxide10.1016/j.copbio.2011.01.005 ↗
37. Economic and environmental potentials for natural gas to enhance biomass-to-liquid fuels technologies10.1039/C8GC01257A ↗
38. Understanding the role of Fischer–Tropsch reaction kinetics in techno-economic analysis for co-conversion of natural gas and biomass to liquid transportation fuels10.1002/bbb.2035 ↗
39. The burning question10.1126/science.355.6320.18 ↗
40. Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002 ↗
41. Horowitz, K.J., and Planting, M.A. (2009). Concepts and Methods of the U.S Input-Output Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Technical Report.
42. Steubing, B., de Koning, A., Merciai, S., and Tukker, A. (2022). How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare?: A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE. J. Ind. Ecol., 1–17.10.1111/jiec.13271 ↗
43. Uncertainty Implications of Hybrid Approach in LCA: Precision versus Accuracy10.1021/acs.est.9b00084 ↗
44. Hybridization of complete PLCA and MRIO databases for a comprehensive product system coverage10.1111/jiec.12979 ↗