MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE
LCA of Ethanol Production from
Food Waste Modeled as
Corn and Corn By-Products
GROUP 1 PROJECT REPORT
Course Code: MANE4380U
Course Instructor: Dr. Yuelei Yang
Group Number: 1
Project Report Submitted On: Nov. 24, 2015
GROUP MEMBERS
# Last Name First Name ID Signature
1 Anugwa Emmanuel 100486340
2 Bower Lowell 100500898
3 Karanwal Tushar 100481186
2 Mikhail Maher 100484631
3 Pandya Devarsh 100455628

MANE4380U - Group 1 Project Report
1
Table of Contents
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Abstract.................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
3. Goal and Scope Definition ...................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Goal....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Scope..................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Inventory Analysis................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Applications of Corn............................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Ethanol Production................................................................................................................ 8
4.3 Ethanol Production Process Inventory................................................................................ 11
4.4 Kawartha Biogas - Anaerobic Digestion Facility................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................ 12
5.1 Classification....................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Characterization.................................................................................................................. 13
5.3 Normalization ..................................................................................................................... 14
5.4 Valuation............................................................................................................................. 14
6. Results and Discussion.......................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Interpretation....................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) ..................................................................... 16
7. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 18
8. Nomenclature..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
9. Appendix ................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
9.1 Figures..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
References..................................................................................................................................... 19

2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Corn types and applications (2011)................................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Dry Corn Milling - System Diagram............................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Wet Corn Milling - System Diagram ............................................................................ 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Mass flows and land use for assumed facility ................................................................ 13
Table 2: Nitrogen used in ethanol production............................................................................... 14
Table 3: LCIA results for ethanol production............................................................................... 15
Table 4: SLCA Matrix ...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3
1. Abstract
The Following is a Life Cycle Assessment on the production of ethanol with the use of household
waste in Ontario. The different methods by which ethanol can be produced are compared, and the
most environmentally friendly option is selected. Elements of the pre-production, production, and
post-production are assessed to examine economic and environmental impacts. A SLCA provides
an organized and easy way to compare the results of the assessment.

4
2. Introduction
Ethanol is a form of an alcohol, also known as a biofuel. Processes which convert cellulose
containing organic matter to biofuel are implemented in many industries in North America. The
United States accounts for around 90% of the global production of ethanol biofuel [1]. Ethanol is
usually added to gasoline, up to 15% by volume. This is done due to the ethanol which acts as an
oxidant and is also a replacement for other additives.
Ethanol is seen as ‘green’. The raw materials needed to product ethanol are biomass; a renewable
resource. Corn is the most common of the biomass used [2], although advancements in waste to
ethanol processes allow us to recycle various types of food waste. Fossil fuels are used in the
various processes involved in producing ethanol. These ethanols displace gasoline consumption,
since they replace about 10-15% of gasoline blends. When compared to many other petroleum
based fuels, “ethanol is relatively non-toxic. It is completely biodegradable and poses little threat
to groundwater sources” [3].

5
3. Goal and Scope Definition
3.1 Goal
The aim of this study is to assess the lifecycle of ethanol which is produced from corn and corn
byproducts. Using data readily available, we will be judging the following parameters:
 Energy Use
 Environmental Impacts
 Land and Infrastructure Use
Once these have been examined, the analysis will be used to produce recommendation in order to
benefit the ethanol industry. The applications of these recommendations will cover pre-production,
post production and various process improvements.
3.2 Scope
Product System
This study will be based around using green bin household food waste. Many processes are
implemented on food waste in order to produce ethanol. Due to a lack of data on production of
ethanol from food waste corn and corn byproducts will be used as a reference LCA. There are a
few methods used in the industry to produce ethanol from corn and corn byproducts. These are dry
and wet milling.
Dry milling is when the waste food is dried and turned into a flour type of powder. Enzymes and
water are then added to this and turned into a slurry. The enzymes allow the mixture to “convert
starch to dextrose, a simple sugar” [2]. After this, ammonia is added as pH control, also as a
nutrient for the yeast. This is then cooked at high temperatures to prevent bacteria formation.
Finally, this mixture ferments when yeast is added. The resulting products are ethanol and carbon
dioxide.
Wet milling is essentially using water and dilute sulfurous acid to soak the food with. This is due
to the solution separating the waste into its many components.
Functional Unit and Reference Flow
The functional unit for this study will be 1 kg of ethanol. A study done at the University of Illinois
at Urbana−Champaign states that 327 g of ethanol was produced using 1 kg of house hold food
waste [4]. Therefore, around 3 kg of household food waste is needed to produce 1 kg of ethanol.

6
Our study will assume an arbitrary ethanol factory which receives household food waste from the
City of Toronto. In 2014, 104,400 tonnes of green bin waste were diverted from landfills. This
could mean that a plant could utilize this waste in order to produce ethanol assuming the waste is
in a usable form.
All of the analysis done in the following sections of this report will use the above numbers in order
to assess the lifecycle of food to waste ethanol.
System Boundary
The lifecycle of the ethanol will be assessed at several stages. All of these will be evaluated on
how they can be improved. All of the material and energy flows during the following phases of
ethanol’s lifecycle will be analyzed including:
 Raw Material Harvesting
 Treatment
 Transportation & Packaging
 Use
 End of Life

7
4. Inventory Analysis
The major input in the ethanol production that is being used to setup this base LCA is corn. Corn
is taken as the major contributor for the biomass taken for ethanol production in industrial standard
processes. The quantitative data being used to setup this inventory analysis is taking a glance at
the international corn grain production, and the breakdown of the application of the corn. At the
11th
rank, Canada contributes approximately 1.2% (10,688,700 metric tonnes) of the international
corn production compared to 35.5% (313,948,610 metric tonnes) by the USA ranked at number 1
[5]. Moving at a lower scale in the spatial analysis, the province of Manitoba has experienced a
major change in the inventory post 2008 since that was when ethanol production escalated. Farms
reporting production corn for grain increased from 152 in year 1971 to 710 in year 2011 [5].
4.1 Applications of Corn
There are 3 major types of corn produced in Canada consisting of:
 Corn for grain
 Corn for silage
 Sweet corn
Figure 1: Corn types and applications (2011) [5]
The corn production for grain is utilized for beef cattle, poultry, and other grain & oilseeds.
Therefore, they serve as primary raw materials used in other processes/sub-processes as shown
below in Figure 1. The corn for silage is utilized for dairy, soybeans, and vegetables as shown.
Sweet corn is mainly used for Hog and pig, reseeding corn, and other applications. This should be
of most importance for our analysis as it includes corn used for ethanol production. It is evident
that the amount of corn produced by Canadian farms for ethanol production is minimal. This is
due to the fact that a major portion of the corn is coming from the USA. According to Natural

8
Resources Canada, there is currently a trend towards increasing growth of feedstock for ethanol
production.
An equation that relates corn to ethanol production can be estimated by 1 bushel (approximately
25 kg corn) yielding 10 liters ethanol, 8 kg of dry distillers grains (DDGs), and 8 kg of CO2. Thus,
ethanol generation of 200 million-liter-per-year (mlpy) requires 20 million bushels (approximately
500,000 tonnes of corn which would result from 140,000 acres of land), and also produces
approximately 160,000 tonnes of DDGs equivalent [5].
4.2 Ethanol Production
It is vital to understand the governing characteristic of the ethanol production in order to accurately
construct a base LCI (Life Cycle Inventory).There are 2 major approaches in ethanol production
by corn. The first approach is Dry Corn Milling, and second is Wet Corn Milling. The two
approaches have different governing mechanisms, efficiencies, and resulting by-products in terms
of materials, effluents, and emissions in the air, water, and soil. Each of the methods are discussed
below. However, this base LCA is concerned with the Dry Corn Milling method as it is
economically feasible, less sophisticated, and also produces useful by-products.
Dry Corn Ethanol Milling
The Dry Corn Milling technique follows the system diagram shown below. This technique consists
of 4 upstream processes: Milling, Liquefaction, Saccharification, and Fermentation. There is an
additional downstream process known as Distillation and Recovery [6].
The Milling process essentially produces a corn flour and mixes it with water to produce a slurry.
Liquefaction is achieved by employing jet-cookers to inject steam within the corn flour slurry to
cook it above boiling point of water. The cooked corn is mixed with the 𝛼-amylase enzyme and
given a time interval of approximately 30 minutes. Saccrification is then carried out on the mixture
known as a ‘corn mash’ whereby it is cooled to approximately 30° C [6]. Another enzyme
(glucoamylase) is mixed to complete the breakdown of starch into simple sugar (glucose). This
prepares the corn mash for the fermentation process. The yeast growth obtained in seed tanks (from
an external process) is used to begin process of converting the incoming liquid to the ethanol.
The fermentation process occurs in batches in the dry milling technique. Typically, there are 3
fermentation tanks for a continuous operation. CO2 is a typical effluent of the fermentation process
and is usually released to the atmosphere. If recovery of CO2 is implemented, CO2 is compressed
and sold for carbonation of soft drinks or frozen into dry ice for cooling applications. The mixture
is now referred to as ‘beer’ and stored in a well. The well contains the beer for the interval of the

9
batches and continuous operation of ethanol production, distillation, and recovery which occurs in
the final step.
The final process segregates the ethanol from the beer by distillation. The ethanol yielded is
approximately 92-95% pure and recovery refers to the recollection of the excess water [6]. The
recovery process is carried out via molecular sieves designed to absorb water from an
ethanol/water vapor mixture, resulting in nearly pure ethanol (therefore, <99%). The result is
‘stillage’ which is the remaining water and solid corn residue. The stillage is put into a centrifuge
to separate the liquid and solid fragments (also referred to as thin stillage and distillers’ grain,
respectively). The thin stillage can either be recycled to the liquefaction process or passed through
evaporators to remove a significant portion of the water to produce a thick syrup. The syrup can
then be blended with distillers’ grains which yields animal feed known as ‘distillers’ dried grains
with solubles or DDGS.
Dry Corn Milling
Fermentation
CO2
Still Stillage
Alcohol
Corn
Grind, wet,
enzymes Yeast,
enzymes
WDGs,
DDGs
Distiller
grains
WDG,
DDG
Distiller
solubles
Figure 2: Dry Corn Milling - System Diagram

10
Wet Corn Ethanol Milling
The Wet Corn Milling technique has the system diagram shown below. This process involves
production of many process besides just fuel ethanol with the trade-off of a larger scale plant, and
higher capital requirement. The name is derived from the first step of the process where the corn
grain is kept in water (the steeping process) to soften the grain and prepare it for the
separation/fractioning procedure to segregate various components of the kernel. The separation
allows for starch, fiber, and germs to be stored separately and introduced in chemical processes
that yield several end products. The major end products of Wet Corn Milling are animal feed, corn
gluten feed (28% and 40% protein) [6], and corn germ which is utilized for corn oil.
Wet Corn Milling
Steep Grind Separation
Steep Water
Corn
WDGs DDGs
Starch

Sugar

Alcohol
Germ

Corn Oil
Gluten
meal
Spent
Yeast
Corn bran
Figure 3: Wet Corn Milling - System Diagram [6]

11
4.3 Ethanol Production Process Inventory
Water: 9.21 – 18.21 kilograms per kilograms of ethanol
Corn: 15 kilograms per kilogram of ethanol
 Grain Surplus: Typically 50 million tonnes of grain (wheat, barley, corn, oats, rye)
produced annually and nearly 50% are exports. Therefore, assuming 10% ethanol mix for
all Canadian gasoline, grain allocation of approximately 9 million tonnes of grain which is
18% of the production [7]. This magnitude of grain allocation for ethanol production still
allows Canada to remain a major grain exporting economy. This would also inspire locally
grown grain for ethanol production and advancements in plant biotechnology have allowed
Canadian farmers to grow more in the same land while minimizing the environmental
impact.
Energy: Approximately 40% less than traditional fossil fuels, could have up to 90% reduction in
cellulosic ethanol [7].
Emissions: Based on feedstock, GHGs reduced by up to 62% [7]
In Ontario, renewable content of gasoline in terms of ethanol is 5% and it ranges from 5 to 8.5%
all across Canada according to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Canada has put forth several
programs for promotion of alternative fuels such as ecoENERGY for Alternative Fuels,
ecoENERGY for Biofuels, Market Development Incentive Payment Fund, National Renewable
Diesel Demonstration Initiative, Next-generation Biofuels Fund [8].

12
5. Impact Assessment
The next portion of this report will determine the impact of the material and energy flows outlined
in the inventory analysis section. The goal of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is to determine
the extent to which a material/energy flow will impact an environmental property and then rank
these impacts in terms of severity [5]. The procedure for an LCIA follows four-steps:
Classification, Characterization, Normalization, and Valuation.
Classification involves identifying categories of environmental impacts that will be affected by
each material/energy flow. Commonly used LCIA categories include: Depletion of Abiotic
Resources, Climate Change, Human Toxicity, Freshwater Aquatic Toxicity, Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity, Photooxidant Formation, Acidification, and Eutrophication [5, p. 176].
Characterization attempts to develop a quantitative impact for each species of material/energy flow
on the classification category. An equation that is used in this step is:
𝑆𝑗 = ∑ 𝐶𝑖,𝑗
−
𝑖 𝐸𝑖 [5, p. 177]
where 𝑆𝑗 is the category stress indicator for classification category 𝑗, 𝐶𝑖,𝑗 is the characterization
factor for a material/energy flow species 𝑖 on classification category 𝑗, and 𝐸𝑖 is the relevant mass
flow for the species 𝑖.
Normalization applies a reference value in able to relate all of the category stress indicators (𝑆𝑗) to
each other. This allows for these potentially disparate stresses to be compared against each other.
The equation used in this step is:
𝑁𝑗 =
𝑆 𝑗
𝑅 𝑗
[5, p. 178]
where 𝑁𝑗 is the normalized indicator for a classification category 𝑗 and 𝑅𝑗 is a reference value
(e.g. kg/yr).
Valuation is the final step in an LCIA in which weights are assigned to each normalized indicator
(𝑁𝑗) so that their relative importance can be determined. Valuation is defined by the following
equation:
𝑊𝑗 = 𝛺𝑗 𝑁𝑗 [5, p. 180]
where 𝑊𝑗 is the weighted indicator for each classification category 𝑗 and 𝛺𝑗 are the associated
weighting factor.

13
A total LCIA score can be calculated by considering all of the weighted indicators and applying
the equation:
𝐼 = ∑ 𝑊𝑗
−
𝑗 [5, p. 180]
It should be noted that the process of applying reference values and weights is sometimes omitted
from an LCIA due to its subjective nature. However, if no weightings are applied, it is as if an 𝛺𝑗
value of one has been applied to all impacts. Each of these steps will now be performed for the
process of ethanol production outlined in the LCI.
5.1 Classification
The classification categories (𝑗) that will be considered in this LCIA are: Depletion of Abiotic
Resources, Climate Change, and Freshwater Aquatic Toxicity. The species (𝑖) to be considered
are: water, corn, and emissions. Corn is being considered because there is currently a lack of data
present for conversion of food waste to ethanol. This data will be used to emulate the production
of the proposed ethanol cycle.
5.2 Characterization
This LCIA will assume that the ethanol production facility outputs 100 million liters of fuel-grade
ethanol per year. This number was estimated by researching existing ethanol production facilities
in Ontario such as the Kawartha biogas plant run by Kawartha Ethanol Inc. [6]. The total mass
flows (in kg/year) and land use (in hectares) for this facility are tabulated below:
Table 1: Mass flows and land use for assumed facility
Ethanol Production
(L/year)
Density of Ethanol
(kg/m3
)
Ethanol Production
(kg/year)
100·106
792 @ 15 °C [7] 79.2·106
Water Rate
(kg water/kg ethanol)
Total Water Use
(kg water/year)
Land Use
(hectare/year)
13.71 1.08·109
28327
CO2 Rate
(kg CO2/kg ethanol)
Total CO2 Production
(kg CO2/year)
DDG Produced
(kg DDG/year)
1.010 79.9·106
80.0·106
The species of total water use will be placed into the impact category of Depletion of Abiotic
Resources and is a potential serious concern. Total CO2 production will be applied to the Climate
Change impact category since CO2 emissions are one of the most problematic greenhouse gases

14
(GHGs) that are suspected to cause global climate change [8]. The impact category of Freshwater
Aquatic Toxicity will be filled by nitrogen pollution which is introduced into the environment as
fertilizer when the corn is produced. Corn only utilizes around 40-60% of the nitrogen introduced
to the field; the remaining nitrogen is either volatilized into the air, runoff to surface water, or
leached into groundwater. Excess nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems can result in algae growth. When
this algae dies and decomposes oxygen is removed from the water and can result in die-off of other
plants and animal in the ecosystem [9]. Data from 2007 indicates that the average corn crop
requires 138 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre of corn [8, p. 956]. Using these values and
assuming a utilization factor of 50% for nitrogen, the mass flow rate of nitrogen for the assumed
ethanol facility can be found and are included below.
Table 2: Nitrogen used in ethanol production
Nitrogen Rate
(kg nitrogen/hectare·year)
Nitrogen Utilization Factor
(%)
Total Nitrogen Output
(kg/year)
154.6 [8] 50 [8] 2.19·106
5.3 Normalization
The normalization step is not strictly required for this LCIA as all of the species are in the same
unit of kg/year. Although selection of these parameters simplified the LCIA process it would not
be a realistic assumption for a real-world LCA analysis which is generally expected to be more
rigorous.
5.4 Valuation
In the next step weights must be applied to each of the impact categories in order to prioritize those
that are potentially more dangerous. When calculating the weights for each impact the three
dimensions that should be considered are spatial, temporal, and risk [10]. Depletion of abiotic
resources in this case is spatially regional, temporally long term, and has a medium to high risk
factor. Climate change would be considered spatially global, temporally long term, with a high
risk factor. Freshwater aquatic toxicity due to nitrogen pollution would be spatially local,
temporally short term, with a lower risk factor.
By considering the risk factors in this way it appears that the release of CO2 resulting in global
climate change is the most important factor to be considered. It will be assigned a weighting factor
of unity and the other impact categories will have 𝛺𝑗 values of between 0 and 1. The next most
important category appears to be depletion of water which can have serious regional consequences.
It will be assigned a weighting factor of 0.7. Nitrogen pollution is of relatively lower importance

15
compared to these previous issues. Although nitrogen pollution can have damaging local effects
the short-term nature of this problem results in a weighting factor of 0.3.
A table summarizing the results of this LCIA can now be created by applying the stress indicators
and weighting factors for each impact category. And the overall life cycle impact evaluation score
can also be found for comparison with other models.
Table 3: LCIA results for ethanol production
Impact Category 𝑺𝒋 Value (kg/year) 𝜴𝒋 Value 𝑾𝒋 Value (kg/year)
Depletion of Abiotic
Resources
1.08·109
Water 0.7 760·106
Climate Change 79.9·106
CO2 1.0 79.9·106
Freshwater Aquatic
Toxicity
2.19·106
N2 0.3 657·103
Total 840·106
As the results show, even though the release of CO2 has been given a higher weighting factor,
consumption of water has the highest weighted indicator and would be selected as the most
important impact of ethanol production in this analysis. Pollution of surface/groundwater reserves
by nitrogen is the least important factor under the listed assumptions. The overall LCIA score for
this process is calculated at approximately 840 million kg per year.

16
6. Discussion
The analysis for this project was done with corn data because data for the food waste data was
difficult to find. We have demonstrated the possibility of producing ethanol from both dry corn
milling and wet corn milling using corn and corn byproducts. Greenhouse gas emissions can be
reduced by recycling the biomass carbon from the field to the tailpipe and back again.
6.1 Interpretation
The tables shown in the impact assessment illustrate important environmental factors that can pose
problems later on and mostly explained the results. From table 2, the Nitrogen rate and factors
were given. This factors are lower compared to a wheat ethanol plant. From table 3, the CO2
emission is high and discourages the application of this approach in general. The SLCA matrix for
this report is shown below.
6.2 Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA)
Table 4: SLCA Matrix
Environmental Concern
Life
Stage
Material
Use
Energy Use
Solid
Residues
Liquid
Residues
Gas
Residues
Row Score
Pre-
Manufacture
3 2 2 2 3 12
Product
Manufacture
2 0 3 2 0 7
Product
Delivery
3 4 1 2 2 12
Product
Use
3 2 4 3 1 13
Recycle and
Disposal
4 1 4 1 3 13
Column Score 15 9 14 10 9 57
Grade system:
0 – highest impact (negative evaluation)
1
2 – Moderate impact
3
4 – Lowest impact (exemplary evaluation)

17
The gas residues from the manufacturing of ethanol from corn is very dangerous to the
environment. A lot of greenhouse gases are emitted. Product use of ethanol doesn’t essentially
pose a threat to the environment as compared to Recycling and land use. By applying this
streamlined life cycle assessment a total score of 57 is reached for the production of ethanol from
corn and corn by-products.

18
7. Conclusion
Fossil fuels are an essential resource for a functioning of modern society. Gasoline is used in
processes to generate electricity, as well as but not limited to powering vehicles. There are two
main problems that arise with such a high dependence on fossil fuels. The first issue is in regards
to renewability. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and therefore their mass consumption
will one day result in depletion. The second issue is with regards to environmental impact.
Extraction of fuel is hazardous to the planets ground water reservoirs and oceans. Accidents that
occur are very hard to reverse and usually result in damage to local wild life and ecosystems. The
burning of fuel results in CO2 emissions that are harmful to the atmosphere and result in global
climate change. Alternative fuel sources such as ethanol must be considered.
Since the ethanol is produced using corn; it has a moderate to little impact on the environment
during the pre-manufacturing stage. During the manufacturing stage however ethanol has the
most negative impact on the environment. The process itself requires a lot of energy and
produces harmful emissions. It is estimated that 1.08·109 kg of water are needed by the
production process per year. Ethanol is not limited to corn for production. Food waste can be
used to produce ethanol. The recycling process that the food waste undergoes is beneficial as it
reuses a resource that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. This recycling process does not
cause a significant amount of solid and gas emissions. Recycling facilities do require a lot of
energy to operate, and cause significant liquid waste.
In the product use stage, introducing a 15% ethanol to gasoline mix has many benefits. The
emissions caused by ethanol contain much less CO2 and CO than that of gasoline. Reducing
Ontario’s gasoline consumption by 15% reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from
vehicles. That being said, emissions of any kind are still harmful, but in this case less harmful
than that of gasoline. This is represented in the SLCA Matrix (table 4) with a score of 1. In the
remaining categories of environmental concern, ethanol use has a moderate to low environmental
impact.
In this LCA, water use was found to have the largest impact of the three environmental concerns
considered with a weighted impact indicator value of 760 million kg/year out of the total value of
840 million ky/year. A streamlined life cycle assessment was also carried out and a total score of
57 was calculated for the process. This value could be used to compare the production of ethanol
from corn and corn by-products against another process if the same criteria was applied.
Alternative fuels are the key to reducing dependence on gasoline. The environment continues to
be polluted by greenhouse emissions. Until better alternatives are found, it is essential that a
continued efforts be made to reduce negative environmental impact and natural resource
depletion.

19
References
[1] Worldwatch Insitiute, "Biofuels Make a Comeback Despite Tough Economy," 2011.
[Online]. Available: http://www.worldwatch.org/biofuels-make-comeback-despite-tough-
economy. [Accessed 7 November 2015].
[2] Renewable Fuels Association, "How Ethanol is Made?," RFA, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/how-ethanol-is-made/. [Accessed 7 November 2015].
[3] Saskatchewan Eco Network (SEN), [Online]. Available: http://econet.ca/about/index.html.
[Accessed 7 November 2015].
[4] N. Q. M.-H. C. W. L. V. S. Haibo Huang, "Ethanol Production from Food Waste at High
Solids Content with Vacuum Recovery Technology," American Chemical Society,
Chicago, 2015.
[5] Statistics Canada, "Corn: Canada's Third Most Valuable Crop," 18 02 2015. [Online].
Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm.
[Accessed 26 11 2015].
[6] R. Lackey , "Ethanol Production in Ontario," 2013.
[7] Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, "Ethanol Key Issues," CRFA, Ottawa, 2011.
[8] Natural Resouorces Canada, "Energy Sources and Distribution Programs," 02 05 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/alternative-fuels/programs/3575.
[Accessed 26 11 2015].
[9] T. E. Graedel and B. R. Allenby, Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering, Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2009.
[10] Kawartha Ethanol Inc., "Welcome to Kawartha Ethanol Inc.," 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://kawarthaethanol.ca/. [Accessed 17 November 2015].
[11] Alternative Fuels Data Center, "Fuel Property Comparison for Ethanol, Gasoline, and No.
2 Diesel," 11 February 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_properties.php. [Accessed 14 November 2015].
[12] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Rnewable Fuel Standard Program
(RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis," February 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. [Accessed 18 November 2015].
[13] B. Whitehead, "The Negative Effects of Nitrogen-Rich Fertilizer to the Environment,"
SFGate, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/negative-effects-
nitrogenrich-fertilizer-environment-72041.html. [Accessed 20 November 2015].
[14] M. Rosen, MECE4430 - Module 5: Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, Oshawa:
Univeristy of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2015.

20
[15] Governors' Ethanol Coalition, "The Fate and Transport of Ethanol-Blended Gasoline in the
Environment," October 1999. [Online]. Available:
http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/E5700/B055-1999.pdf. [Accessed 16 November 2015].

21
Turnitin.com Results (Submitted via Blackboard under Lowell Bower - 100500898)

MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final

Similar to MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final (20)

MANE4380U-Group-1-Project-Report-Final