IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2339-d1048486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Carlos Farrapo

    (Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil)

  • Thiago Teixeira Matheus

    (Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil)

  • Ricardo Musule Lagunes

    (Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Veracruzana, Coatzacoalcos 96538, Mexico)

  • Remo Filleti

    (Research Nucleus for Energy, Materials, and Sustainability (NUPEMAS), Post-Graduate Program in Production Engineering (PPGEP), Methodist University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP), Piracicaba 13423-170, Brazil)

  • Fabio Yamaji

    (Biomass and Bioenergy Research Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil)

  • Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva

    (Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil)

Abstract

Allocation methodological choices in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a relevant issue for the Circular Bioeconomy context. The recent Product Environmental Footprint Guide from the European Commission includes the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) as a new way to deal with energy recovery/recycling processes. This paper investigated CFF vs. other different LCA allocation methods in Brazilian briquette production. A cradle-to-gate LCA study was conducted considering 1 MJ of energy from recovered and dedicated Eucalyptus briquette production. Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) were selected as the impact categories to evaluate the allocation methods choice that influences the potential impacts. LCA results were compared regarding four allocation methods. Eucalyptus wood as a biomass supply scenario achieved impact results up to 4.3 kg CO 2 -eq. for GWP and 0.0272 MJ-eq. for CED. The recovery wood scenario presented LCA burdens reduction by up to 206% for GWP, however a 492% increase in the CED results. CFF provided the lowest results for both impact categories. However, the CFF method still doesn’t address particular aspects of circular bioenergy systems. Biomass and bioenergy LCA require further adjustments focusing on biochemical flows in the CFF calculation procedure to lead the development of innovative circular business models.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Carlos Farrapo & Thiago Teixeira Matheus & Ricardo Musule Lagunes & Remo Filleti & Fabio Yamaji & Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva, 2023. "The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2339-:d:1048486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2339/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2339/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koytsoumpa, E.I. & Magiri – Skouloudi, D. & Karellas, S. & Kakaras, E., 2021. "Bioenergy with carbon capture and utilization: A review on the potential deployment towards a European circular bioeconomy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. Xinyu Liu & Bhavik R. Bakshi, 2019. "Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment while Encouraging Techno‐Ecological Synergies," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(2), pages 347-360, April.
    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. Joanna Kulczycka & Anna Lewandowska & Katarzyna Joachimiak-Lechman & Przemysław Kurczewski, 2024. "The Circularity of Materials from the Perspective of a Product Life Cycle: A Life Cycle Assessment Case Study of Secondary Fence Boards—Part 1 (Baseline Scenario)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.

    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. Rosa, Lorenzo & Mazzotti, Marco, 2022. "Potential for hydrogen production from sustainable biomass with carbon capture and storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    2. Schipfer, F. & Mäki, E. & Schmieder, U. & Lange, N. & Schildhauer, T. & Hennig, C. & Thrän, D., 2022. "Status of and expectations for flexible bioenergy to support resource efficiency and to accelerate the energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Sarah M. Jordaan & Junghun Lee & Maureen R. McClung & Matthew D. Moran, 2021. "Quantifying the ecosystem services values of electricity generation in the US Chihuahuan Desert: A life cycle perspective," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(4), pages 1089-1101, August.
    4. Kristia Kristia & Mohammad Fazle Rabbi, 2023. "Exploring the Synergy of Renewable Energy in the Circular Economy Framework: A Bibliometric Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, September.
    5. Parrado-Hernando, Gonzalo & Pfeifer, Antun & Frechoso, Fernando & Miguel González, Luis Javier & Duić, Neven, 2022. "A novel approach to represent the energy system in integrated assessment models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    6. Benedetto Rugani & Philippe Osset & Olivier Blanc & Enrico Benetto, 2023. "Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Jianling Fan & Cuiying Liu & Jianan Xie & Lu Han & Chuanhong Zhang & Dengwei Guo & Junzhao Niu & Hao Jin & Brian G. McConkey, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment on Agricultural Production: A Mini Review on Methodology, Application, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.

    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:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2339-:d:1048486. 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.