Life cycle assessment of biomass-based ethylene production in Sweden  —  is gasification or fermentation the environmentally preferable route?

PurposeTo reduce its environmental impact, the chemical industry is investigating the biomass-based production of chemicals such as ethylene, including fermentation and gasification conversion processes. However, a comprehensive study that compares the environmental impact of these biomass routes is missing. This study assesses and compares a wood gasification with a wood fermentation route to ethylene in Sweden, as well as compares it with the commercialized sugarcane and fossil oil alternatives.MethodsThe study followed the methodology of life cycle assessment. A cradle-to-gate perspective for the production of 50,000 t ethylene/year was applied, and the following impact categories were investigated: global warming (GWP), acidification (ACP), photochemical ozone creation (POCP), and eutrophication (EP).Results and discussionBiomass acquisition including transport to the gasification plant was the major cause of the gasification route’s GWP and POCP, suggesting improvements with regard to fuel source and machine efficiency. NOx emissions from the gasification process had the main share on the ACP and EP.The comparison of the gasification with a wood and a sugarcane fermentation route showed a lower impact for the gasification route. Among other things, this is caused by high emissions from transport and cultivation for the sugarcane route and high emissions from enzyme and ethanol production for the wood fermentation route.The results were less distinct for a comparison of the gasification with a fossil-based route. Fossil-based ethylene production was found to be preferable for the ACP and the EP, but less preferable for the GWP and POCP. However, it needs to be considered that the fossil route has been optimized for decades and is still ahead of the gasification and other biomass routes.ConclusionsThe study shows that a gasification-based production of ethylene could outperform a fermentation-based one; however, further investigations are recommended, given the state of development of the investigated biomass routes. Moreover, based on the limited availability of biomass, further investigations into economical and ecological restrictions are of importance.

[1]  Kim Pingoud,et al.  Global warming potential factors and warming payback time as climate indicators of forest biomass use , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[2]  Thore Berntsson,et al.  Corrigendum to “Integration of biomass gasification with a Scandinavian mechanical pulp and paper mill – Consequences for mass and energy balances and global CO2 emissions” [Energy 44 (2012) 420–428] , 2012 .

[3]  E. Hertwich,et al.  CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming , 2011 .

[4]  F. Maréchal,et al.  Thermochemical production of liquid fuels from biomass: Thermo-economic modeling, process design and process integration analysis , 2010 .

[5]  Jim Andersson,et al.  Methanol production via pressurized entrained flow biomass gasification – Techno-economic comparison of integrated vs. stand-alone production , 2014 .

[6]  Eva-Lotta Lindholm,et al.  Energy Use and Environmental Impact of Roundwood and Forest Fuel Production in Sweden , 2010 .

[7]  A. Stromman,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Second Generation Bioethanols Produced From Scandinavian Boreal Forest Resources , 2009 .

[8]  T. Seager,et al.  Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production: Biochemical Versus Thermochemical Conversion , 2010, Environmental management.

[9]  L.A.J. Joosten.  Process data descriptions for the production of synthetic organic materials : input data for the MATTER study , 1998 .

[10]  T. Foust,et al.  An economic and environmental comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion processes , 2009 .

[11]  Brian Vad Mathiesen,et al.  A review of biomass gasification technologies in Denmark and Sweden , 2013 .

[12]  Steven D. Phillips,et al.  Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline Technologies , 2011 .

[13]  Anne-Marie Tillman,et al.  Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology , 2000 .

[14]  E. Galli,et al.  Frame Analysis in Environmental Conflicts : The case of ethanol production in Brazil , 2011 .

[15]  Shahab Sokhansanj,et al.  A life cycle evaluation of wood pellet gasification for district heating in British Columbia. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[16]  Thore Berntsson,et al.  System aspects of biomass gasification with methanol synthesis – Process concepts and energy analysis , 2012 .

[17]  Christin Liptow,et al.  A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Polyethylene Based on Sugarcane and Crude Oil , 2012 .

[18]  Mikael Lantz,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels in Sweden , 2010 .

[19]  Sara González-García,et al.  Environmental impacts of forest production and supply of pulpwood: Spanish and Swedish case studies , 2009 .

[20]  J. Seabra,et al.  Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. , 2008 .

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

[22]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[23]  Edgard Gnansounou,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Biofuels , 2011 .

[24]  A. Tillman,et al.  Ethylene based on woody biomass—what are environmental key issues of a possible future Swedish production on industrial scale , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.