In this study, we performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) on an emerging lignin upgrading process, namely the production of biobased adipic acid.

No abstract

The Green biorefinery (GBR) is a biorefinery concept that converts fresh biomass into value-added products. The present study combines a Process Flowsheet Simulation (PFS) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the technical and environmental performance of different GBR configurations and the cascading utilization of the GBR output. The GBR configurations considered in this study, test alternatives in the three main steps of green-biorefining: fractionation, precipitation, and protein separation. The different cascade utilization alternatives analyse different options for press-pulp utilization, and the LCA results show that the environmental profile of the GBR is highly affected by the utilization of the press-pulp and thus by the choice of conventional product replaced by the press-pulp. Furthermore, scenario analysis of different GBR configurations shows that higher benefits can be achieved by increasing product yields rather than lowering energy consumption. Green biorefining is shown to be an interesting biorefining concept, especially in a Danish context. Biorefining of green biomass is technically feasible and can bring environmental savings, when compared to conventional production methods. However, the savings will be determined by the processing involved in each conversion stage and on the cascade utilization of the different platform products.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

The aim of this study is to assess the potential environmental impacts of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass, and straw from winter wheat as biomass feedstocks for biorefinery. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method included the following impact categories: Global Warming Potential (GWP100), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Non-Renewable Energy use (NRE), Potential Fresh Water Ecotoxicity (PFWTox) and Potential Biodiversity Damages (PBD). The results showed that GWP100 (in kg CO2 eq, including contribution from soil carbon change) for producing 1 ton of dry matter (t DM) was highest for ryegrass, grassclover and maize, and lowest for straw. The carbon footprints of ryegrass, grass-clover and maize were affected by including the contribution from soil organic carbon (SOC) changes. Nitrous oxide emissions and emissions related to the production of agro-chemicals (including N-fertilizer) were other hotspots in the carbon footprint. The EP calculated per t DM was highest for grass-clover, ryegrass and maize, and was lowest for straw. NRE use (MJ eq/t DM) was highest for ryegrass, grass-clover and maize and lowest for straw. Major hotspots were diesel use for field operations and agro-chemicals production. The PBD, expressed as Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) showed the highest adverse impact to biodiversity in maize, followed by straw, whereas the results showed relatively lower impact for ryegrass and grass-clover. The PFWTox (CTUe/t DM), at farm level was highest for straw, followed by maize, whereas the values were significantly lower for grass-clover and ryegrass. These variations in ranking of the different biomasses productions using different impact categories for environmental performance showed that it is important to consider a wider range of impact categories for assessing environmental sustainability.

The current study aimed at evaluating potential environmental impacts for the production of willow, alfalfa and straw from spring barley as feedstocks for bioenergy or biorefinery systems. A method of Life Cycle Assessment was used to evaluate based on the following impact categories: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Non-Renewable Energy (NRE) use, Agricultural Land Occupation (ALO), Potential Freshwater Ecotoxicity (PFWTox) and Soil quality. With regard to the methods, soil organic carbon (SOC) change related to the land occupation was calculated based on the net carbon input to the soil. Freshwater ecotoxicity was calculated using the comparative toxicity units of the active ingredients and their average emission distribution fractions to air and freshwater. Soil quality was based on the change in the SOC stock estimated during the land use transformation and land occupation. Environmental impacts for straw were economically allocated from the impacts obtained for spring barley. The results obtained per ton dry matter showed a lower carbon footprint for willow and alfalfa compared to straw. It was due to higher soil carbon sequestration and lower NO emissions. Likewise, willow and alfalfa had lower EP than straw. Straw had lowest NRE use compared to other biomasses. PFWTox was lower in willow and alfalfa compared to straw. A critical negative effect on soil quality was found with the spring barley production and hence for straw. Based on the energy output to input ratio, willow performed better than other biomasses. On the basis of carbohydrate content of straw, the equivalent dry matter of alfalfa and willow would be requiring higher. The environmental impacts of the selected biomasses in biorefinery therefore would differ based on the conversion efficiency, e.g. of the carbohydrates in the related biorefinery processes.

This study evaluates the environmental impacts of biorefinery products using consequential (CLCA) and attributional (ALCA) life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches. Within ALCA, economic allocation method was used to distribute impacts among the main products and the coproducts, whereas within the CLCA system expansion was adopted to avoid allocation. The study seeks to answer the questions (i) what is the environmental impacts of process integration?, and (ii) do CLCA and ALCA lead to different conclusions when applied to biorefinery?. Three biorefinery systems were evaluated and compared: a standalone system producing bioethanol from winter wheat-straw (system A), a standalone system producing biobased lactic acid from alfalfa (system B), and an integrated biorefinery system (system C) combining the two standalone systems and producing both bioethanol and lactic acid. The synergy of the integration was the exchange of useful energy necessary for biomass processing in the two standalone systems. The systems were compared against a common reference flow: "1MJ+1kg", which was set on the basis of products delivered by the system C. Function of the reference flow was to provide service of both fuel (bioethanol) at 99.9% concentration (wt. basis) and biochemical (biobased lactic acid) in food industries at 90% purity; both products delivered at biorefinery gate. The environmental impacts of interest were global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential (EP), non-renewable energy (NRE) use and the agricultural land occupation (ALO). Regardless of the LCA approach adopted, system C performed better in most of the impact categories than both standalone systems. The process wise contribution to the obtained environmental impacts also showed similar impact pattern in both approaches. The study also highlighted that the recirculation of intermediate materials, e.g. C sugar to boost bioethanol yield and that the use of residual streams in the energy conversion were beneficial for optimizing the system performance.

Over the recent decades biomaterials have been marketed successfully supported by the common perception that biomaterials and environmental sustainability de facto represents two sides of the same coin. The development of sustainable composite materials for wind turbine blades for small-scale wind turbines have therefore partially been focused on substitution of conventional fibre materials with bio-fibres assuming that this substitution was in the better for the environment and human health. The major question is if this material substitution, taking into account a multitude of environmental impact categories, not only climate change, actually is supporting sustainable development or if the development of sustainable composite materials is more complex and perhaps even contra-intuitive due to complex trade-offs. Based on a case study 4 different types of fibres and fibre mixtures (flax, carbon, glass and flax/carbon, flax/glass mixed fibres) are compared in terms of environmental sustainability. Applying one of the most recent life cycle impact assessment methods, we demonstrate that the environmental sustainability of natural fibre based composite materials is similar or even lower, within certain impact categories, than the conventional materials. This observation may seem contra-intuitive (i.e. most people would expect the bio-based to be most sustainable), but is primarily caused by the fact that the resin demand of biobased reinforcement materials is by far larger than that of conventional reinforcement materials. Since the environmental burden of the resin in addition is comparable to that of the fibres (especially in terms human health related impacts), the higher resin demand counterbalances the environmental sustainability improvements, obtained with the application of natural fibres.