A carbon footprint assessment of multi‐output biorefineries with international biomass supply: a case study for the Netherlands

The efficient use of lignocellulosic biomass for the production of advanced fuels and bio‐based materials has become increasingly relevant. In the EU, regulatory developments are stimulating the mobilization and production of bio‐based chemicals / materials and biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass. We used an attributional life‐cycle assessment approach based on region‐specific characteristics to determine the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) performance of different supply‐chain configurations with internationally sourced lignocellulosic biomass (stem wood, forest residues, sawmill residues, and sugarcane bagasse) from the USA, the Baltic States (BS), and Brazil (BR) for the simultaneous production of lactide and ethanol in a biorefinery located in the Netherlands (NL). The results are compared with a biorefinery that uses locally cultivated sugar beets. We also compared GHG emissions savings from the supply‐chain configurations with the minimum GHG saving requirements in the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) and relevant fossil‐based counterparts for bio‐based materials. The GHG emissions ‘from cradle to factory gate’ vary between 692 g CO2eq/kglactide (sawmill residues pellets from the BS) and 1002 g CO2eq/kglactide (sawmill chips from the USA) for lactide and between 15 g CO2eq/MJethanol (sawmill residues pellets from the BS) and 28 g CO2eq/MJethanol (bagasse pellets from BR) for ethanol. Upstream GHG emissions from the conversion routes have a relatively small impact compared with biomass conversion to lactide and ethanol. The use of woody biomass yields better GHG emissions performance for the conversion system than sugarcane bagasse or sugar beets as result of the higher lignin content that is used to generate electricity and heat internally for the system. Only the sugar beet from the NL production route is able to comply with RED II GHG savings criteria (65% by 2021). The GHG savings from polylactide acid (a derivate of lactic acid) are high and vary depending on choice of fossil‐based counterpart, with the highest savings reported when compared to polystyrene (PS). These high savings are mostly attributed to the negative emission credit from the embedded carbon in the materials. Several improvement options along the conversion routes were explored. Efficient feedstock supply chains (including pelletization and large ocean vessels) also allow for long‐distance transportation of biomass and conversion in large‐scale biorefineries close to demand centers with similar GHG performance to biorefineries with a local biomass supply.

[1]  S. Berg,et al.  Energy efficiency and the environmental impact of harvesting stumps and logging residues , 2010, European Journal of Forest Research.

[2]  David A. Glassner,et al.  ORIGINAL RESEARCH: The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production , 2007 .

[3]  W. J. Groot,et al.  Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand , 2010 .

[4]  D. P. Vuuren,et al.  THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT FOR THE DUTCH CLIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVES , 2017 .

[5]  A. Faaij,et al.  Global solid biomass trade for energy by 2020: an assessment of potential import streams and supply costs to North‐West Europe under different sustainability constraints , 2015 .

[6]  N. Shah,et al.  Multi-product biorefineries from lignocelluloses: a pathway to revitalisation of the sugar industry? , 2017, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[7]  Sandra Duni Eksioglu,et al.  Analyzing the design and management of biomass-to-biorefinery supply chain , 2009, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[8]  T. Astrup,et al.  GHG sustainability compliance of rapeseed-based biofuels produced in a Danish multi-output biorefinery system. , 2015 .

[9]  Susan Selke,et al.  Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials – Reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations , 2013 .

[10]  Per-Anders Hansson,et al.  Ethanol production in biorefineries using lignocellulosic feedstock - GHG performance, energy balance and implications of life cycle calculation methodology. , 2014 .

[11]  V. Santos,et al.  Furfural production using ionic liquids: A review. , 2016, Bioresource technology.

[12]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment , 2015 .

[13]  J. Oldengarm,et al.  Landelijk Grondgebruiksbestand Nederland versie 6 (LGN6) : vervaardiging, nauwkeurigheid en gebruik , 2010 .

[14]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—A case study , 2011 .

[15]  M. Wright,et al.  Product Selection and Supply Chain Optimization for Fast Pyrolysis and Biorefinery System , 2014 .

[16]  A. Faaij,et al.  The role of bioenergy and biochemicals in CO2 mitigation through the energy system – a scenario analysis for the Netherlands , 2017 .

[17]  S. Nahavandi,et al.  Power demand and energy usage of container crane - comparison between AC and DC drives , 2008, 2008 43rd International Universities Power Engineering Conference.

[18]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis , 2018 .

[19]  Sara González-García,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessment of ethanol production from fast-growing wood crops (black locust, eucalyptus and poplar) , 2012 .

[20]  Siti Azmah Jambo,et al.  Yeasts in sustainable bioethanol production: A review , 2017, Biochemistry and biophysics reports.

[21]  A. B. Smit,et al.  Dutch energy crops. Parameters to calculate greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 , 2010 .

[22]  Yasunori Kikuchi,et al.  Environmental Performance of Biomass-Derived Chemical Production: A Case Study on Sugarcane-Derived Polyethylene , 2013 .

[23]  R. Newman.  Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources , 2014 .

[24]  L. Paula,et al.  EU ambition to build the world's leading bioeconomy-Uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable solutions. , 2018, New biotechnology.

[25]  B. Slack,et al.  The Geography of Transport Systems , 2006 .

[26]  J. Görgens,et al.  Multi‐criteria analysis of a biorefinery for co‐production of lactic acid and ethanol from sugarcane lignocellulose , 2017 .

[27]  G. Nabuurs,et al.  Sourcing overseas biomass for EU ambitions: assessing net sustainable export potential from various sourcing countries , 2019 .

[28]  Electo Eduardo Silva Lora,et al.  Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security , 2009 .

[29]  Martin K. Patel,et al.  Emerging bioeconomy sectors in energy systems modeling – Integrated systems analysis of electricity, heat, road transport, aviation, and chemicals: a case study for the Netherlands , 2018 .

[30]  T. H. Kwan,et al.  Techno-economic analysis of a food waste valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly(lactic acid) production , 2018 .

[31]  Edward M. Rubin,et al.  Genomics of cellulosic biofuels , 2008, Nature.

[32]  M. Camargo,et al.  Key challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized biorefinery supply chain design and management: A bibliographic analysis , 2017 .

[33]  Yasunori Kikuchi,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions and socioeconomic effects of biomass-derived products based on structural path and life cycle analyses: A case study of polyethylene and polypropylene in Japan , 2017 .

[34]  M. Junginger,et al.  Review of solid and liquid biofuel demand and supply in Northwest Europe towards 2030 – A comparison of national and regional projections , 2017 .

[35]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Review of methodological choices in LCA of biorefinery systems ‐ key issues and recommendations , 2015 .

[36]  Francesco Cherubini,et al.  Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations , 2009 .

[37]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Lignocellulosic feedstock supply systems with intermodal and overseas transportation , 2014 .

[38]  Kuan Chong Ting,et al.  Supply chain optimization of sugarcane first generation and eucalyptus second generation ethanol production in Brazil , 2016 .

[39]  L. Hockstad,et al.  Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks , 2018 .

[40]  Yueyue Fan,et al.  Multistage Optimization of the Supply Chains of Biofuels , 2010 .

[41]  Amit K Jaiswal,et al.  Lignocellulosic Biorefineries in Europe: Current State and Prospects. , 2019, Trends in biotechnology.

[42]  M. Regis Verde Leal,et al.  Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane Bagasse and Trash , 2008 .

[43]  S. Mussatto.  Challenges in Building a Sustainable Biobased Economy , 2017 .

[44]  Guiping Hu,et al.  Integrated supply chain design for commodity chemicals production via woody biomass fast pyrolysis and upgrading. , 2014, Bioresource technology.

[45]  O' Connell Adrian Parker,et al.  Definition of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation , 2019 .

[46]  Yong-Su Jin,et al.  Genome sequence of the lignocellulose-bioconverting and xylose-fermenting yeast Pichia stipitis , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[47]  Krystel K. Castillo-Villar,et al.  Quantifying the Impact of Feedstock Quality on the Design of Bioenergy Supply Chain Networks , 2016 .

[48]  Josepha Potting,et al.  A critical comparison of ten disposable cup LCAs , 2013 .

[49]  J. Trevors,et al.  Genetic improvement of native xylose-fermenting yeasts for ethanol production , 2014, Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology.

[50]  C. Cardona,et al.  Optimization of the Colombian biodiesel supply chain from oil palm crop based on techno-economical and environmental criteria , 2015 .

[51]  Chemical production from lignocellulosic biomass: thermochemical, sugar and carboxylate platforms , 2010 .

[52]  Melissa M. Bilec,et al.  Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment , 2017 .

[53]  Michael Q. Wang,et al.  Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production , 2017, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[54]  B. Dale,et al.  All biomass is local: The cost, volume produced, and global warming impact of cellulosic biofuels depend strongly on logistics and local conditions , 2015 .

[55]  J. Rubin,et al.  Economics of biofuels: Market potential of furfural and its derivatives , 2018, Biomass and Bioenergy.

[56]  Per Blomqvist,et al.  The Pellet Handbook , 2010 .

[57]  Mateus F. Chagas,et al.  Life cycle assessment of butanol production in sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil , 2015 .

[58]  Fazleena Badurdeen,et al.  A comprehensive techno-economic analysis tool to validate long-term viability of emerging biorefining processes , 2015, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy.

[59]  M. Pavel,et al.  Economic and life cycle environmental optimization of forest-based biorefinery supply chains for bioenergy and biofuel production , 2016 .

[60]  André Faaij,et al.  Outlook for ethanol production costs in Brazil up to 2030, for different biomass crops and industrial technologies , 2015 .

[61]  Joaquim E. A. Seabra,et al.  Comparative analysis for power generation and ethanol production from sugarcane residual biomass in Brazil , 2011 .

[62]  Sampo Soimakallio,et al.  How to ensure greenhouse gas emission reductions by increasing the use of biofuels?: Suitability of the European Union sustainability criteria , 2011 .

[63]  R. Gross,et al.  Biodegradable polymers for the environment. , 2002, Science.

[64]  G. Nabuurs,et al.  Opportunities and risks for sustainable biomass export from the south‐eastern United States to Europe , 2019 .

[65]  T H VinkErwin,et al.  Life Cycle Inventory and Impact Assessment Data for 2014 Ingeo™ Polylactide Production , 2015 .

[66]  Dorival Pinheiro Garcia,et al.  TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF BRAZILIAN PELLETS INDUSTRY ORIGINATED FROM AGROFORESTRY , 2016 .

[67]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Comparing life cycle assessments of different biofuel options. , 2013, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[68]  Sabrina Spatari,et al.  Uncertainties in Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Advanced Biomass Feedstock Logistics Supply Chains in Kansas , 2014 .

[69]  Bhavna Sharma,et al.  Scenario optimization modeling approach for design and management of biomass-to-biorefinery supply chain system. , 2013, Bioresource technology.

[70]  Ingwald Obernberger,et al.  The Pellet Handbook: The Production and Thermal Utilization of Biomass Pellets , 2010 .

[71]  L. Eliasson,et al.  Comparing the efficiency of drum and disc chippers , 2013 .

[72]  D. Markewitz.  Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: Impacts on net carbon sequestration in forests , 2006 .

[73]  B. G. Hermann,et al.  Today’s and tomorrow’s bio-based bulk chemicals from white biotechnology , 2007, Applied biochemistry and biotechnology.

[74]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the South‐eastern United States , 2014 .

[75]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers , 2014 .

[76]  Deger Saygin,et al.  Competing uses of biomass : Assessment and comparison of the performance of bio-based heat, power, fuels and materials , 2014 .

[77]  A. Straathof,et al.  Biochemical Conversion: Biofuels by Industrial Fermentation , 2014 .

[78]  Zsófia Kádár,et al.  Bio-Products from Sugar-Based Fermentation Processes , 2019, Biorefinery.

[79]  Esther S. Parish,et al.  Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States , 2017 .