Environmental benefits of large‐scale second‐generation bioethanol production in the EU

An integrated supply chain network optimization and life cycle assessment approach

Bibliographic Data

ID19469121
AuthorsLars Wietschel (0000-0002-8719-4199, Resource Lab, Institute of Materials Resource Management University of Augsburg Augsburg Germany, corresponding author), Lukas Messmann (0000-0001-6814-8659, Resource Lab, Institute of Materials Resource Management University of Augsburg Augsburg Germany), Andrea Thorenz (0000-0002-0123-6109, Resource Lab, Institute of Materials Resource Management University of Augsburg Augsburg Germany), Axel Tuma (0000-0002-5532-9837, Resource Lab, Institute of Materials Resource Management University of Augsburg Augsburg Germany)
Year2021
Volume25
Issue3
Pages677-692
Publication date2021-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/jiec.13083
OpenAlexW3095062036
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited40

The use of agricultural residues for the generation of bioethanol has the potential to substitute fuels such as petrol or first-generation bioethanol and thereby generate environmental benefits. Scientific research in this field typically confines the environmental dimension to global warming, disregarding other environmental impact and damage categories. By multi-criteria mixed-integer linear programming, this work examines environmental benefits and economic viability of optimal second-generation bioethanol production network configurations to substitute petrol and/or first-generation bioethanol in the EU. The results comprise environmentally optimal decisions for 18 impact and 3 damage categories, as well as economically optimal solutions for different excise and carbon tax scenarios. The impact categories global warming potential, particulate matter, and land use are affected the most. Optimal network decisions for different environmental objectives can be clustered into three groups of mutual congruencies, but opportunity costs between the different groups can be very high, indicating conflicting decisions. The decision to substitute petrol or first-generation ethanol has the greatest influence. The results of the multi-dimensional analysis suggest that the damage categories human health and ecosystem quality are suitable to unveil tradeoffs between conflicting environmental impacts, for example, global warming and land use. Taking human health and ecosystem quality as environmental decision criteria, second-generation bioethanol should be used to concurrently substitute first-generation bioethanol and petrol (100% and 18% of today's demand in the EU, respectively). However, economic optimization shows that with current taxation, bioethanol is hardly competitive with petrol, and that excise tax abatement or carbon taxes are needed to achieve these volumes. This article met the requirements for a gold-gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges

Biofuel · Business · Carbon tax · Economics · Energy security · Environmental economics · Environmental resource management · Gasoline · Greenhouse gas · Land use · Life-cycle assessment · Natural resource economics · Renewable energy · Supply chain · Waste management · Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development · Biofuel production and bioconversion · Engineering · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Environmental Science · Ecology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access