IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3836-d248212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximizing Environmental Impact Savings Potential through Innovative Biorefinery Alternatives: An Application of the TM-LCA Framework for Regional Scale Impact Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanna Croxatto Vega

    (Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Joshua Sohn

    (Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Sander Bruun

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, 1165 København, Denmark)

  • Stig Irving Olsen

    (Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Morten Birkved

    (Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, The University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark)

Abstract

In order to compare the maximum potential environmental impact savings that may result from the implementation of innovative biorefinery alternatives at a regional scale, the Territorial Metabolism-Life Cycle Assessment (TM-LCA) framework is implemented. With the goal of examining environmental impacts arising from technology-to-region (territory) compatibility, the framework is applied to two biorefinery alternatives, treating a mixture of cow manure and grape marc. The biorefineries produce either biogas alone or biogas and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), a naturally occurring polymer. The production of PHA substitutes either polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or biosourced polylactide (PLA) production. The assessment is performed for two regions, one in Southern France and the other in Oregon, USA. Changing energy systems are taken into account via multiple dynamic energy provision scenarios. Territorial scale impacts are quantified using both LCA midpoint impact categories and single score indicators derived through multi-criteria decision assessment (MCDA). It is determined that in all probable future scenarios, a biorefinery with PHA-biogas co-production is preferable to a biorefinery only producing biogas. The TM-LCA framework facilitates the capture of technology and regionally specific impacts, such as impacts caused by local energy provision and potential impacts due to limitations in the availability of the defined feedstock leading to additional transport.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanna Croxatto Vega & Joshua Sohn & Sander Bruun & Stig Irving Olsen & Morten Birkved, 2019. "Maximizing Environmental Impact Savings Potential through Innovative Biorefinery Alternatives: An Application of the TM-LCA Framework for Regional Scale Impact Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3836-:d:248212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3836/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3836/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bugge, Jørgen & Kjær, Sven & Blum, Rudolph, 2006. "High-efficiency coal-fired power plants development and perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1437-1445.
    2. Annie Levasseur & Pascal Lesage & Manuele Margni & Réjean Samson, 2013. "Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(1), pages 117-128, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Felipe Romero-Perdomo & Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, 2023. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Techniques in Life-Cycle Tools for the Circular Bioeconomy Transition of Agri-Food Waste Biomass: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Spyridoula Gerassimidou & Olwenn V. Martin & Gilenny Yamily Feliz Diaz & Chaoying Wan & Dimitrios Komilis & Eleni Iacovidou, 2022. "Systematic Evidence Mapping to Assess the Sustainability of Bioplastics Derived from Food Waste: Do We Know Enough?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, December.
    3. Su, Shu & Ju, Jingyi & Guo, Qiyue & Li, Xiaodong & Zhu, Yimin, 2023. "A temporally dynamic model for regional carbon impact assessment based on city information modeling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Luciano Vogli & Stefano Macrelli & Diego Marazza & Paola Galletti & Cristian Torri & Chiara Samorì & Serena Righi, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment and Energy Balance of a Novel Polyhydroxyalkanoates Production Process with Mixed Microbial Cultures Fed on Pyrolytic Products of Wastewater Treatment Sludge," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Giovanna Croxatto Vega & Juliën Voogt & Joshua Sohn & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Assessing New Biotechnologies by Combining TEA and TM-LCA for an Efficient Use of Biomass Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-35, May.

    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. Mara Madaleno & Victor Moutinho & Jorge Mota, 2015. "Time Relationships among Electricity and Fossil Fuel Prices: Industry and Households in Europe," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 5(2), pages 525-533.
    2. Wu, Junjie & Hou, Hongjuan & Yang, Yongping & Hu, Eric, 2015. "Annual performance of a solar aided coal-fired power generation system (SACPG) with various solar field areas and thermal energy storage capacity," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 123-133.
    3. Chihiro Kayo & Ryu Noda, 2018. "Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Wood Use in Civil Engineering in Japan Based on Life-Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Kalimuthu, Selvam & Karmakar, Sujit & Kolar, Ajit Kumar, 2017. "3-E analysis of a Pressurized Pulverized Combined Cycle (PPCC) power plant using high ash Indian coal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 634-648.
    5. Yuanyuan Pu & Derek B. Apel & Alicja Szmigiel & Jie Chen, 2019. "Image Recognition of Coal and Coal Gangue Using a Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Perejón, Antonio & Romeo, Luis M. & Lara, Yolanda & Lisbona, Pilar & Martínez, Ana & Valverde, Jose Manuel, 2016. "The Calcium-Looping technology for CO2 capture: On the important roles of energy integration and sorbent behavior," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 787-807.
    7. Stefan Pauliuk & Tomer Fishman & Niko Heeren & Peter Berrill & Qingshi Tu & Paul Wolfram & Edgar G. Hertwich, 2021. "Linking service provision to material cycles: A new framework for studying the resource efficiency–climate change (RECC) nexus," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(2), pages 260-273, April.
    8. Janusz Kotowicz & Sebastian Michalski & Mateusz Brzęczek, 2019. "The Characteristics of a Modern Oxy-Fuel Power Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-34, September.
    9. Zhang, Xinghui & Yang, Jiaojiao & Zhao, Xudong, 2018. "Optimal study of the rural house space heating systems employing the AHP and FCE methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 631-641.
    10. Jim Hart & Francesco Pomponi, 2020. "More Timber in Construction: Unanswered Questions and Future Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Locatelli, Giorgio & Mancini, Mauro & Todeschini, Nicola, 2013. "Generation IV nuclear reactors: Current status and future prospects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1503-1520.
    12. Johanna Olofsson, 2021. "Time-Dependent Climate Impact of Utilizing Residual Biomass for Biofuels—The Combined Influence of Modelling Choices and Climate Impact Metrics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Hyun-Chul Lee & Eul-Bum Lee & Douglas Alleman, 2018. "Schedule Modeling to Estimate Typical Construction Durations and Areas of Risk for 1000 MW Ultra-Critical Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Pettinau, Alberto & Ferrara, Francesca & Tola, Vittorio & Cau, Giorgio, 2017. "Techno-economic comparison between different technologies for CO2-free power generation from coal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 426-439.
    15. Alina Galimshina & Maliki Moustapha & Alexander Hollberg & Sébastien Lasvaux & Bruno Sudret & Guillaume Habert, 2024. "Strategies for robust renovation of residential buildings in Switzerland," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    17. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2007. "A centurial history of technological change and learning curves for pulverized coal-fired utility boilers," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1996-2005.
    18. Shu Su & Jingyi Ju & Yujie Ding & Jingfeng Yuan & Peng Cui, 2022. "A Comprehensive Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment Model: Considering Temporally and Spatially Dependent Variations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Al-Momani, Ahmad & Mohamed, Omar & Abu Elhaija, Wejdan, 2022. "Multiple processes modeling and identification for a cleaner supercritical power plant via Grey Wolf Optimizer," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    20. Chamkalani, A. & Zendehboudi, S. & Rezaei, N. & Hawboldt, K., 2020. "A critical review on life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3836-:d:248212. 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.