IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i24p4664-d295574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Costing and Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Fuel Production by Coprocessing Biomass in Crude Oil Refineries

Author

Listed:
  • Pedro L. Cruz

    (Low Carbon and Resource Efficiency, R&Di, Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade, 4415-491 Grijó, Portugal)

  • Diego Iribarren

    (Systems Analysis Unit, IMDEA Energy, 28935 Móstoles, Spain)

  • Javier Dufour

    (Systems Analysis Unit, IMDEA Energy, 28935 Móstoles, Spain
    Chemical and Environmental Engineering Group, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933 Móstoles, Spain)

Abstract

Biobased liquid fuels are becoming an attractive alternative to replace, totally or partially, fossil ones in the medium term, mainly in aviation and long-distance transportation. In this regard, coprocessing biomass-derived feedstocks in conventional oil refineries might facilitate the transition from the current fossil-based transport to a biobased one. This article addresses the economic and environmental feasibility of such a coprocessing strategy. The biomass-based feedstocks considered include bio-oil and char from the fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass, which are coprocessed in fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), hydrocracking, and/or cogasification units. The assessment was based on the standardized concept of eco-efficiency, which relates the environmental and economic performances of a system following a life-cycle approach. Data from a complete simulation of the refinery process, from raw materials to products, were used to perform a life cycle costing and eco-efficiency assessment of alternative configurations of the coprocessing strategy, which were benchmarked against the conventional fossil refinery system. Among other relevant results, the eco-efficiency related to the system’s carbon footprint was found to improve when considering coprocessing in the hydrocracking unit, while coprocessing in FCC generally worsens the eco-efficiency score. Overall, it is concluded that coprocessing biomass-based feedstock in conventional crude oil refineries could be an eco-efficient energy solution, which requires a careful choice of the units where biofeedstock is fed.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedro L. Cruz & Diego Iribarren & Javier Dufour, 2019. "Life Cycle Costing and Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Fuel Production by Coprocessing Biomass in Crude Oil Refineries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4664-:d:295574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4664/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4664/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gjalt Huppes & Masanobu Ishikawa, 2005. "Eco‐efficiency and Its xsTerminology," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(4), pages 43-46, October.
    2. Korhonen, Jouni & Snäkin, Juha-Pekka, 2015. "Quantifying the relationship of resilience and eco-efficiency in complex adaptive energy systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 83-92.
    3. Guizani, Chamseddine & Jeguirim, Mejdi & Gadiou, Roger & Escudero Sanz, Fransisco Javier & Salvador, Sylvain, 2016. "Biomass char gasification by H2O, CO2 and their mixture: Evolution of chemical, textural and structural properties of the chars," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 133-145.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Djula Borozan, 2023. "Institutions and Environmentally Adjusted Efficiency," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 4489-4510, December.
    2. Quintano, Claudio & Mazzocchi, Paolo & Rocca, Antonella, 2021. "Evaluation of the eco-efficiency of territorial districts with seaport economic activities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Viktoria Mannheim & Weronika Kruszelnicka, 2022. "Energy-Model and Life Cycle-Model for Grinding Processes of Limestone Products," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Zhang, Zihang & Yi, Baojun & Sun, Zhengshuai & Zhang, Qi & Feng, He & Hu, Hongyun & Huang, Xiangguo & Zhao, Chunqing, 2021. "Reaction process and characteristics for coal char gasification under changed CO2/H2O atmosphere in various reaction stages," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    5. J. Van Meensel & A. Kanora & L. Lauwers & J. Jourquin & L. Goossens & G. Van Huylenbroeck, 2010. "From research to farm: ex ante evaluation of strategic deworming in pig finishing," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 55(10), pages 483-493.
    6. María Pilar González-Vázquez & Roberto García & Covadonga Pevida & Fernando Rubiera, 2017. "Optimization of a Bubbling Fluidized Bed Plant for Low-Temperature Gasification of Biomass," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Figge, Frank & Thorpe, Andrea Stevenson, 2023. "Circular economy, operational eco-efficiency, and sufficiency. An integrated view," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PB).
    8. Imen Ghouma & Mejdi Jeguirim & Uta Sager & Lionel Limousy & Simona Bennici & Eckhard Däuber & Christof Asbach & Roman Ligotski & Frank Schmidt & Abdelmottaleb Ouederni, 2017. "The Potential of Activated Carbon Made of Agro-Industrial Residues in NO x Immissions Abatement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Korhonen, Jouni & Honkasalo, Antero & Seppälä, Jyri, 2018. "Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 37-46.
    10. Anna Trubetskaya, 2022. "Reactivity Effects of Inorganic Content in Biomass Gasification: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-36, April.
    11. Tuni, Andrea & Rentizelas, Athanasios, 2019. "An innovative eco-intensity based method for assessing extended supply chain environmental sustainability," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 126-142.
    12. Weronika Kruszelnicka, 2020. "A New Model for Environmental Assessment of the Comminution Process in the Chain of Biomass Energy Processing †," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Tothmihaly, Andras & Ingram, Verina & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2019. "How Can the Environmental Efficiency of Indonesian Cocoa Farms Be Increased?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 134-145.
    14. Yang Ban & Ying Wang & Xiaohong Chen & Liuqing Wei, 2022. "Synergistic Patterns of Urban Economic Efficiency and the Economic Resilience of the Harbin–Changchun Urban Agglomeration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Qing Song & Shengyuan Zhong & Junyu Chen & Chuanming Yang & Yan Zhu, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution of City Resilience in the Yangtze River Delta, China, from the Perspective of Statistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Witold-Roger Poganietz & Jasmin Friedrich & Helmut Lehn, 2021. "Eco-efficiency of system alternatives of the urban water-energy-waste nexus [Die Ökoeffizienz von Systemalternativen im Wasser-Energie-Abfall Nexus]," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 119-131, June.
    17. Raquel Lopes Oliveira & Liliane Dolores Fagundes & Renato da Silva Lima & Marcelo Montaño, 2020. "Discrete event simulation to aid decision-making and mitigation in solid waste management," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 67-85, January.
    18. Bei He & Xiaoyun Du & Junkang Li & Dan Chen, 2023. "A Effectiveness-and Efficiency-Based Improved Approach for Measuring Ecological Well-Being Performance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-29, January.
    19. Xia, Sunwen & Yang, Haiping & Lu, Wang & Cai, Ning & Xiao, Haoyu & Chen, Xu & Chen, Yingquan & Wang, Xianhua & Wang, Shurong & Wu, Peng & Chen, Hanping, 2022. "Fe–Co based synergistic catalytic graphitization of biomass: Influence of the catalyst type and the pyrolytic temperature," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    20. Jouni Korhonen & Birk Granberg, 2020. "Sweden Backcasting, Now?—Strategic Planning for Covid-19 Mitigation in a Liberal Democracy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4664-:d:295574. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.