Environmental Multiobjective Optimization of the Use of Biomass

Subscriber access provided by University of Newcastle, Australia

Article

Environmental multi-objective optimization of the use of biomass resources for energy Carl Vadenbo, Davide Tonini, and Thomas Fruergaard Astrup Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06480 • Publication Date (Web): 17 Feb 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 18, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 32

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Environmental multi-objective optimization of the

2

use of biomass resources for energy

3

Carl Vadenbo†,*, Davide Tonini‡, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup‡

4

†

5

Zürich, Switzerland

6

‡

7

2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

8

*Corresponding author: [email protected], telephone +41 44 633 70 66, fax +41 44 633

9

10 61

ETH Zürich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, CH-8093

Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering, Miljoevej 115,

10

KEYWORDS: biomass, biofuels, renewable energy, LCA, multi-objective environmental

11

optimization, fuzzy intervals

12

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


Page 2 of 32

13

ABSTRACT

14

Bioenergy is often considered an important component, alongside other renewables, to mitigate

15

global warming and to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Determining sustainable strategies for

16

utilizing biomass resources, however, requires a holistic perspective to reflect a wider range of

17

potential environmental consequences. To circumvent the limitations of scenario-based life cycle

18

assessment (LCA), we develop a multi-objective optimization model to systematically identify

19

the environmentally-optimal use of biomass for energy under given system constraints. Besides

20

satisfying annual final energy demand, the model constraints comprise availability of biomass

21

and arable land, technology- and system-specific capacities, and relevant policy targets.

22

Efficiencies and environmental performances of bioenergy conversions are derived using

23

biochemical process models combined with LCA data. The application of the optimization

24

model is exemplified by a case aimed at determining the environmentally-optimal use of biomass

25

in the Danish energy system in 2025. A multi-objective formulation based on fuzzy intervals for

26

six environmental impact categories resulted in impact reductions of 13-43% compared to the

27

baseline. The robustness of the optimal solution was analyzed with respect to parameter

28

uncertainty and choice of environmental objectives.

29


2

Page 3 of 32


30

INTRODUCTION

31

Member states of the European Union, as well as many other countries worldwide, have

32

committed to promote the use of renewable energy.1-2 Besides harvesting wind, solar, hydro, and

33

geothermal energy, the use of biomass is frequently put forward as an important supply-side

34

component to meet this objective.3 But a narrow focus on the energy system and on reducing the

35

contribution to global warming (GW) may compromise other environmental impact categories,

36

causing burden shifting (e.g., through increased stress on water and land resources, nutrients

37

enrichment, particulate emissions, etc.). A more holistic perspective is therefore needed to reveal

38

conflicting objectives.4-5 For this purpose, effects induced beyond the boundary of the energy

39

system should also be considered, including the direct impacts of (bio-)energy provision and the

40

indirect environmental consequences caused by, for example, competition with food/feed sector

41

for limited agricultural production capacity, which in turn may induce indirect land use changes

42

(iLUC).6-9

43

Environmental assessments of bioenergy systems are commonly performed using a scenario-

44

based life cycle assessment (LCA) approach comparing a limited set of pre-defined combinations

45

of biomass feedstock, conversion pathways, biofuels, and final energy services supplied.10-11 In

46

this context, the choices related to scope, methodology and reference system of the assessment

47

have been found to play a critical role.12-15 The application of scenario-based LCA to complex

48

bioenergy systems faces a number of important challenges, including: (i) the definition of a set of

49

alternative scenarios to be assessed out of a large number of feasible conversion pathways, (ii)

50

methodological choices to consistently deal with the multi-functional character of these

51

systems,13 (iii) the consideration of system constraints, for example in terms of balancing overall

52

supply and demand of energy or the influence of system-wide policy targets, (iv) the


3


Page 4 of 32

53

interdependencies between the different sub-systems of the energy system, and (v) the analysis

54

of conflicting objectives and the systematic identification of efficient trade-offs. LCA-based

55

multi-objective optimization shares many features with scenario-based LCA, but may overcome

56

several of the aforementioned challenges16. For example, multi-objective optimization

57

encompasses ‘all’ feasible system configurations (thereby lowering scenario uncertainty) and

58

explicitly captures the consequences of multi-functional product systems and other constraining

59

dependencies (thus reducing model uncertainty). On the other hand, covering these aspects

60

inflates data requirements, which in turn introduces additional sources of parameter uncertainty.

61

To explore the potential for environmentally-optimal regional/national biomass and bioenergy

62

strategies, multi-objective optimization formulations including consistent uncertainty analysis

63

are needed. Recent studies have advanced the understanding of the influence of life cycle

64

inventory/impact assessment (LCI/LCIA) parameter uncertainty for bioenergy/biofuels.11, 17 But

65

other relevant aspects remain largely unexplored, such as the influence of the choice of

66

environmental impact categories considered.

67

Attempts to integrate a fully consequential LCA perspective in an environmental multi-objective

68

optimization problem formulation are scarce in the literature. The aim of this work is to advance

69

the use of LCA for bioenergy systems to systematically identify robust environmentally-optimal

70

biomass utilization strategies for energy under imposed system constraints. We propose to

71

combine substrate-specific biochemical process modelling, consequential LCA, and

72

mathematical multi-objective optimization techniques in order to (i) capture the effect of biomass

73

characteristics on resource consumption, emission levels, and byproduct recovery, (ii) explicitly

74

reflect resource availability, system- and process-specific constraints, and policy targets imposed

75

upon the solutions, and (iii) systematically identify the optimal strategies that minimize the


4

Page 5 of 32


76

system-wide environmental impact out of all feasible options. For illustration, we apply the

77

model to the Danish energy system, building on preceding consequential scenario-based LCA

78

studies.8-9, 18-20

79

METHODOLOGY

80

Model formulation. To enable a systematic identification of the environmentally-optimal use of

81

biomass in a given energy system, a static multi-objective optimization model is formulated

82

based on a linear program (LP) extension of matrix-based LCA.21-22 The goal is to determine the

83

optimal activity levels of a comprehensive set of process options for conversion and provision of

84

energy that minimize environmental impacts while satisfying annual final energy demand

85

(Figure 1). The conversion of domestic biomass resources and imported biofuels into

86

intermediate products and subsequently final energy services (highlighted in orange) are

87

indicated on the left of Figure 1, and other renewable and fossil energy product systems on the

88

right side.

89

*INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

90

The detailed model formulation is provided in section S1 of the Supporting Information (SI) on

91

the Web. Annual final energy demand represents the functional unit of the analysis and acts as

92

the driving constraint in this LP-LCA model. The final energy demand, reflecting either current

93

conditions or a future energy scenario, is subdivided into a set of demand categories (electricity,

94

centralized/decentralized district heat, individual heat, process heat, and various transport

95

services). Further model constraints considered include:


5


96

•

97 98

•

technologies, based on biochemical process modeling combined with LCA data.8-9

•

102

Technical process constraints and interdependencies, e.g., meeting a suitable carbon-tonitrogen ratio of the substrate mix for anaerobic co-digestion.

•

104 105

Substrate-dependent conversion efficiencies and environmental performance of feasible combinations of biomass substrates (or intermediate energy carriers) and conversion

100

103

Availability of own or imported biomass substrates or biofuels and domestic arable land that may be dedicated to energy crop production.

99

101

Aggregated current or foreseen capacities of the conversion technologies throughout the energy system.

•

Balance constraints to couple supply and demand of specific combinations of conversion

106

technologies, e.g. high-pressure supply of biomethane for large-scale installations vs.

107

high-to-low-pressure supply for residential consumption.

108

•

Minimum share of electricity supplied (annually) by flexible technologies to reflect the need for regulating capacity to ensure grid stability, cf. 23.

109 110

Page 6 of 32

•

Minimum acceptable share of energy from renewables per final energy demand category.

111

Diurnal or seasonal fluctuations/variations and the geographical distribution of demand and

112

supply of energy are not considered explicitly; typical load factors and average transport

113

distances are instead used as proxies to derive the effective availability of plants and transport

114

requirements, respectively. Model constraints formulated with upper/lower bounds that are

115

satisfied by equality (i.e., without slack) in an optimal solution are referred to as tight constraints.


6

Page 7 of 32


116

The marginal (or dual) values of tight constraints24 (see also section S1.3 in the SI) can be

117

interpreted as lost opportunities for further improvement caused by, for example, capacity

118

limitations or imposed policy targets forcing resources to be diverted from potentially more

119

beneficial uses.

120

To improve model flexibility, we disaggregate the bioenergy conversion pathways described in

121

Tonini, et al. 8, 9 based on the assumed substitutability of the generated products (Figure 1).

122

Primary bioenergy conversions include pretreatment for liquid/solid separation (e.g., for slurry

123

manures), pelletization, bioethanol biorefineries, anaerobic digestion, gasification, and pyrolysis.

124

Options for intermediate products (e.g., biogas, bioethanol, syngas, solid biofuel, bioethanol-

125

molasses, biomethanol, biochar, etc.) include direct utilization (mainly for heat-only or

126

combined-heat-and-power, CHP) or upgrading to higher-quality energy carriers (e.g.,

127

biomethane, biodiesel, etc.). Upgrading of intermediate bioenergy carriers is referred to as

128

secondary conversions, whereas activities intended for final service provision (i.e., supply of

129

electricity, heat, and transport services) are denoted tertiary conversions.

130

Environmental impact assessment. In order to capture the environmental impacts arising from

131

increasing or altering the use of biomass for energy purposes, we adopt a consequential (change-

132

oriented) perspective. For each substrate, the induced or avoided impacts expected when

133

diverging it from its current use (status quo) to bioenergy supply are accounted for by

134

conforming with the approach of Tonini, et al. 9. Similarly, expanding domestic energy crops is

135

assumed to displace marginal crop production, causing global demand for arable land to increase

136

and ultimately inducing iLUC effects.8 Agricultural products are considered to be traded on

137

global markets with full long-term elasticity of supply and that the response to increased demand

138

for arable land consists of a combination of intensified production and expansion into nature.


7


Page 8 of 32

139

Following common practice in consequential LCA,25 we also assume that any change in the

140

demand for energy- and protein-feed due to the diversion of biomass from feed to energy sector

141

(or conversely, by supplying additional feed to the market) is compensated by increased (or

142

decreased) production of marginal feed, here assumed to be maize and soymeal, respectively.8

143

The LCIs of other (non-bio-based) renewable and fossil energy technologies are sourced from

144

the consequential system model of the ecoinvent LCI database (v3.1).26

145

Multi-objective formulation. To determine Pareto-efficient solutions to the multi-objective

146

optimization problem and to facilitate the analysis of environmental tradeoffs between

147

conflicting objectives, we apply the fuzzy linear program (LP) extension for matrix-based LCA

148

proposed by Tan, et al. 22. For each objective (i.e., environmental impact category), a fuzzy

149

interval is defined by an upper and a lower bound representing completely unacceptable and

150

fully acceptable levels of performance, respectively. This formulation aims to maximize the joint

151

degree of satisfaction (λ) that can be achieved over a set of objectives simultaneously, according

152

to equations (S2-S3) in the SI. Each objective must be satisfied to at least λ over its respective

153

fuzzy interval. We define the upper bound (i.e., highest allowable impact) as the impact level in

154

the current situation (the baseline year), and the lower bound as the single-objective optimal

155

solution for each environmental category (i.e., the lowest achievable impact level, see also

156

section S1.2 of the SI).

157

Sensitivity analysis. In order to assess the robustness of the multi-objective optimal solution,

158

two aspects are addressed: (i) to analyze the influence of model parameter uncertainty on the

159

resulting multi-objective optimal solution and (ii) to investigate the sensitivity of the optimal

160

outcome to the subjective choice of impact categories considered in the multi-objective

161

formulation. For the parameter uncertainty, e.g., in terms of biomass availability, crop yields,


8

Page 9 of 32


162

conversion efficiencies and resource consumption, impacts of background product systems, etc.,

163

we apply a Monte Carlo simulation (analogous to the commonly used approach for uncertainty

164

analysis in LCA).27-28 For this, the optimization problem is solved iteratively with input

165

parameter values sampled from their respective probability distributions. The Monte Carlo

166

simulation can be run with two alternative setups, representing different degrees of freedom: in a

167

first instance the decision variables (i.e., the scaling vector) are left free, while in the second

168

setup the decision space is limited to the choice of bioenergy conversion pathways of the initial

169

optimal solution, i.e., based on expected parameter values. The first setup allows for comparing

170

the performance of different conversion pathways competing for biomass under uncertainty

171

(section S2.3 in the SI). The second lets us evaluate the robustness of the recommendations

172

derived from the original multi-objective optimal solution based on the likelihood that they

173

would lead to environmentally favorable outcomes.

174

Next, we investigate the sensitivity of the optimal outcome to the choice of environmental

175

objectives, that is, aspect (ii) above. This is achieved by omitting each impact category once,

176

resolving the optimization problem, and comparing the results to the original multi-objective

177

solution. This final step not only enables for assessing the sensitivity of the overall outcome

178

arising from the selection of objectives, but also provides insights into the tradeoffs between

179

conflicting objectives.

180

Case study. The Danish energy system is used as an illustrative case due to the data available on

181

national biomass resource potential29 and the political ambitions for expanding bioenergy use30.

182

Forecasted energy demand, based on a ‘frozen policy’ scenario for the year 2025,31 is split into

183

eleven final demand categories (Table S1 in the SI). The 39 biomass substrates considered for

184

the case study are ordered into five main categories (with reference/counterfactual scenarios


9


Page 10 of 32

185

indicated in brackets), namely agricultural residues (otherwise left/applied on-field), domestic

186

and imported woody biomass (left to decay and inducing LUC, respectively), municipal biomass

187

waste (requiring treatment), domestic energy crops and imported biofuels (competing for arable

188

land), and industrial food-processing residues (competing on the feed market). The domestic

189

biomass potential in 2025 is assumed to be unchanged from that of the current situation. A

190

longer time perspective or the application to other geographical locations might require that the

191

expected effects of changing climatic conditions or prevailing crop regimes on biomass

192

availability are reflected, in turn introducing additional scenario/modelling uncertainty. The

193

availability and respective counterfactual treatment/management considered for each biomass

194

substrate is presented in Tables S2-S3. We assume that up to 10% of the area currently used for

195

barley (representing the marginal crop based on 19, 25, 32-34) may be dedicated to energy crop

196

production. Further system constraints include upper bounds on biomass/biofuel imports and

197

minimum shares of 20% renewable energy in electricity and heat generation and 10% in road

198

and rail transport. Expected availabilities or capacities of different energy carriers and

199

technologies are presented in section S.2.1.3 in the SI. A baseline is derived from national energy

200

statistics for the year 2013.35

201

Six environmental impact categories are considered for the case study, namely global warming

202

(GW),36 water footprint (WF; based on water scarcity),37 marine eutrophication (EP),38

203

acidification (AC),39-40 particulate matter (PM),41-42 and cumulative energy demand (CED) for

204

non-renewable fossil resources 43. Each impact category is first addressed individually and

205

subsequently jointly for the multi-objective optimization problem. The parameter uncertainty

206

considered for the sensitivity analysis encompasses the availability of domestic biomass

207

substrates, crop yields, the efficiencies and auxiliary resource/energy consumption of conversion


10

Page 11 of 32


208

processes, and the aggregated LCIA results of the bioenergy conversions. Other renewable and

209

fossil energy technologies are assigned a default uncertainty with standard deviations set to 10%

210

of the mean values. Similarly, an uncertainty of 10% is considered for the biomass availability in

211

Table S2. Final energy demand was assumed to be fixed, i.e., no uncertainty was considered for

212

this model parameter.

213

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

214

The results of the single- and multi-objective optimal solutions are summarized in Table 1 and

215

illustrated in Figure S4 in the SI. A first observation from Table 1 is that every single-objective

216

solution performs worse than the 2013 baseline in at least one other impact category. This

217

implies that none of these solutions result in an overall improvement, which highlights the

218

relevance of a multi-objective formulation to avoid burden-shifting. The characteristics and key

219

findings of the single-objective optimal solutions are described in section S2.2.1 of the SI and

220

illustrated in Figures S5-S10. A detailed account of the multi-objective optimal results is

221

presented in the next section. The overall shares of renewable energy and the contribution from

222

bioenergy were determined as the weighted average of all renewables and bioenergy over all

223

demand categories.

224

*INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

225

Multi-objective optimal solution. In the multi-objective formulation of the optimization

226

problem, the fuzzy intervals prevent solutions performing worse than the baseline in any of the

227

impact categories from being considered. It can be observed from Table 1, however, that none of

228

the impact categories are at their respective upper bound in the optimal solution, with the

229

objective value for the joint degree of satisfaction (λ) reaching 0.46. This configuration


11


Page 12 of 32

230

outperforms the baseline (2013) across all environmental impact categories simultaneously, with

231

the improvement potential ranging from 13% to 43%. This implies that a ‘win-win’-solution is

232

feasible for the set of six environmental objectives considered. This multi-objective optimal

233

solution is characterized by a high degree of utilization of domestic biomass resources (Figure

234

2). Overall, 52% of the energy demand is met by renewables, with 34% from bioenergy and the

235

rest predominantly by wind power. Relying mainly on biomass combustion and anaerobic

236

digestion, the resulting system configuration has several similarities to the solutions that

237

minimize contributions to GW and AC. The potential for domestic energy crops is likewise used

238

for willow. Liquid biofuels are not imported due to the implications for WF, EP-marine and PM.

239

Instead, the minimum share of renewables in road transport is satisfied by upgrading biogas and

240

syngas to biomethane and liquid biofuels, respectively. The set of conflicting objectives

241

ultimately defining the optimal multi-objective solution, and the related trade-offs, are further

242

analyzed and discussed in the following sections.

243


244

Sensitivity analysis – robustness of the optimal solution. The multi-objective solution under

245

model parameter uncertainty is shown in Figure 3a-b as the relative frequency of optimality (i.e.,

246

the share of the 500 iterations in which an activity is utilized) for each option of (a) primary and

247

(b) secondary/tertiary bioenergy conversions. Focus is here placed on the robustness of the

248

original solution to the multi-objective optimization problem, and the likelihood that

249

environmentally favorable outcomes may be expected thereof. For this purpose, we use the

250

second Monte Carlo simulation setup outlined above, i.e., with choice of conversion pathways

251

limited to the selection of the original multi-objective solution. (The sensitivity results for single


12

Page 13 of 32


252

objectives and for the first, less constrained, model setup are provided in Figures S12-S25 in the

253

SI.)

254

The results in Figure 3a indicate that the recommendations for whether or not to utilize a specific

255

biomass for energy is generally rather robust (with frequencies >90%) for woody biomass and

256

several agricultural residues. Direct combustion dominates for woody and most lignocellulosic

257

biomass and some waste streams, whereas anaerobic digestion (including pretreatment)

258

represents the primary conversion pathway for the manures, sewage sludge, and wild grass.

259

Willow was chosen among the domestic energy crops in the original multi-objective optimal

260

solution and is also favorable in 69% of the iterations. Substrates otherwise used for animal feed

261

(representing about 10% of overall potential) remain excluded, as in the original solution.

262

The robustness of the optimal use of intermediate and final bioenergy carriers is shown in Figure

263

3b. Solid and residual biofuels are predominately used for heat-only, with a fraction of the solid

264

biofuels sent to combustion for CHP in 20% of the iterations. Biogas and syngas are generated in

265

all iterations. The first is upgraded to biomethane to enable gas grid distribution and the second

266

is utilized for the production of liquid biofuel. The biomethane is subsequently split between

267

utilization for CHP, heat-only, or in transport. Bio-oil is used solely for heat. The renewable

268

energy targets in the transport sector are mainly met by liquid biofuels produced domestically

269

from syngas or transesterification of used cooking oil. Additional biodiesel is imported in 52% of

270

the iterations. Imported bioethanol, in contrast, was not utilized in the original solution and hence

271

also excluded here (in agreement with the results of the less constrained model setup in Figure

272

S25a). Wood chips and pellets are imported in 53% and 91% of the iterations, respectively.

273

These results indicate that the environmental benefits of importing wood chips and biodiesel, as


13


Page 14 of 32

274

first suggested by the multi-objective optimal solution, represent the most ambiguous outcomes

275

of the analysis.

276

*INSERT FIGURE 3 (top AND bottom) HERE

277

Sensitivity analysis – multi-objective formulation. The fuzzy interval formulation of the multi-

278

objective optimization problem can accommodate a large number of objectives. For the case

279

study, the selection of the six environmental impact categories to be considered was made based

280

on expected relevance and data availability. The influence of including each environmental

281

impact category is presented in Figure 4. The results show that omitting impact categories GW or

282

AC will not affect the performance of the multi-objective optimal solution, as the overall λ-value

283

remains unaffected (λ =0.46) in these cases. GW and AC are hence not compromised in the

284

determining tradeoffs. It should be noted, however, that the solutions minimizing GW and AC

285

share several key features (compare Figures S5 and S8), e.g., in terms of the contribution of solid

286

biofuel combustion, anaerobic digestion, or woody biomass imports. In contrast, the remaining

287

four impact categories (WF, EP-marine, PM, and CED-fossil) cannot be further improved

288

without compromising the performance of each other. It can be observed from Figure 4 that

289

leaving out EP-marine from the multi-objective formulation leads to the highest achievable λ-

290

value (0.62), followed by the cases without CED-fossil (0.61), WF (0.52) and PM (0.49). In all

291

but the solution excluding CED-fossil, the resulting performance of the omitted impact

292

categories exceeds the levels of the 2013 baseline (i.e., above 100% in Figure 4), whereas the

293

impact on CED-fossil increases from 87% to 90% of the baseline level. Eliminating WF from the

294

multi-objective formulation leads to a shift in the cultivation of domestic energy crops from

295

willow to sugar beet for bioethanol production. Excluding EP-marine favors import of biodiesel,

296

direct anaerobic co-digestion of manures with lignocellulosic residues, and woody and waste


14

Page 15 of 32


297

biomass are either combusted or digested. Most of these pathways, indeed, involve N-emissions

298

to water bodies due to leaching from mineral/organic fertilizer application. Omitting PM from

299

the multi-objective formulation leads to a higher degree of straw/stover combustion, originally

300

utilized in anaerobic co-digestion. Removing CED-fossil mainly results in less woody biomass

301

being imported for heat generation, thereby slightly increasing the contributions to GW and AC,

302

and decreasing the contributions to WF, EP-marine, and PM compared to the original solution

303

(Figure 4).

304


305

Discussion – case study findings. The marginal values of the renewable targets imposed on the

306

case study suggest that the final demand categories light and heavy road transport are associated

307

with an environmental lost opportunity, i.e., that the overall performance of this optimal solution

308

may be improved by omitting these targets. Relaxing the corresponding constraints results in an

309

improvement of the mutual degree of satisfaction from λ=0.46 to 0.48 for the multi-objective

310

optimal solution. This improves the performance over the whole set of impact categories

311

(between -0.6% and -3.3%). These results indicate that the use of constrained biomass resources

312

for electricity and/or heat is preferable over the transport sector, as long as the former demand

313

categories would otherwise be met by coal. The results of the sensitivity analysis suggest that the

314

impact category EP-marine, followed by CED-fossil, WF, and PM, exercises the largest

315

individual influence on the overall performance of the multi-objective solution. By

316

compromising the performance of each other, these impact categories also represent decisive

317

tradeoffs, e.g., in terms of the choice between direct combustion versus conversion pathways

318

involving nutrient recovery (due to N-leaching), or the extent of biomass/biofuel imports

319

(causing higher water-related impacts). In contrast, GW and AC appear to be non-essential


15


Page 16 of 32

320

objectives to obtain this optimal solution, meaning that they can be omitted without introducing

321

any approximation error in the formulation (see Guillén-Gosálbez 44). This can here be explained

322

by the correlation between GW, AC, and CED-fossil, with the latter representing the limiting

323

tradeoff in conjunction with the remaining objectives. Biogenic CO2-emissions were here

324

considered climate-neutral, but recent advances in assessing the climate relevance of forest

325

bioenergy45 might reduce the level of correlation between GW and CED-fossil.

326

Small and statistically insignificant differences in the underlying LCIA results may, in a

327

deterministic optimization model, lead to an overly unambiguous picture of the optimality of

328

end-uses and substitution options for bioenergy.11 The influence of parameter uncertainty was

329

therefore analyzed through Monte Carlo simulations using two complementary model setups, as

330

described above. Given the large number of feasible conversion pathways for each biomass

331

substrate, it may be expected that a solution that performs better than the original multi-objective

332

optimal solution can be found in each iteration. By constraining the decision variables to the

333

reduced set of pathways, it was found that the recommendations for these biomass resources can

334

be considered robust, although the original conversion pathways might not consistently represent

335

the most favorable solution under the considered parameter uncertainty.

336

Discussion - modelling approach. The described modelling approach circumvents several

337

short-comings of scenario-based LCA studies, most notably the ability to cover a vast amount of

338

feasible combinations and to identify the global optimum or Pareto-efficient solutions thereof.

339

Specifically, by combining mass/energy flow analysis, consequential LCA, and mathematical

340

optimization techniques, we are able to (i) capture the effect of biomass characteristics on

341

resource consumption, emission levels, and byproduct recovery, (ii) explicitly reflect resource

342

limitations, process-specific constraints, and policy targets imposed upon optimal solutions, and


16

Page 17 of 32


343

(iii) systematically identify the configurations that minimize the system-wide environmental

344

impact or represent efficient trade-offs between conflicting environmental objectives.

345

Furthermore, and as demonstrated in the case study, an optimization approach also provides a

346

consistent and transparent format for considering uncertainties and for assessing the related

347

sensitivities. This would also be possible in scenario-based LCA by tracking the effects through

348

multiple single-outcome assessments. This, however, is hardly practical. Thus, while general

349

frameworks for quantitative uncertainty assessment of LCA28 apply to our optimization model, it

350

also offers enhanced opportunities to capture the effects of dependencies.

351

It should be noted with respect to (i) that increasing biomass exploitation may be associated with

352

increasing efforts per additional unit of supply, e.g., from transport requirements.46 Instead of

353

considering a few highly aggregated biomass categories with a non-linear supply-cost, we assess

354

39 substrates individually on the basis of their specific biochemical properties. This leads to a

355

piece-wise linear supply-cost for bioenergy over the full range of substrates. Given the relatively

356

limited geographical scope of the case study, we consider a linear response an appropriate

357

approximation. The unit processes of the feasible conversion pathways were aggregated up to the

358

point where key intermediate bioenergy carriers or final energy services are provided. The

359

definition of a common pool of (perfectly substitutable) interchangeable intermediate bioenergy

360

carriers of the same kind represents a generic modelling choice. Allowing for more flexibility to

361

introduce or modify conversions at any stage throughout the model building, this approach also

362

meant that any qualitative differences among these same-kind bioenergy carriers are disregarded

363

in subsequent conversion steps. This may introduce higher uncertainty for the input-dependent

364

emissions or the resource requirements for emission abatement.


17


Page 18 of 32

365

It has been questioned whether a price on fossil carbon emission alone will be sufficient to boost

366

biomass/bioenergy utilization due to the highly uncertain future development of these markets.14

367

Establishing and expanding bioenergy systems are hence likely to require additional financial

368

incentives. On this basis, public spending to promote increased or altered use of biomass

369

resources should be based on robust sustainability criteria, e.g., consequential LCA or ecosystem

370

services as illustrated for the UK biogas sector.5 Our modelling approach offers a powerful tool

371

to provide decision makers with holistic environmental information that supplements market and

372

energy system analyses, e.g., 2, 47, as a basis for identifying potentially constraining factors in

373

policy design. The results of our static optimization model should be interpreted as an upper limit

374

for the environmental improvement potential under the constraints considered for a given energy

375

system, as referred to in (ii) above. Further insights may be gained by increasing the complexity,

376

e.g., by adding spatial or temporal resolutions. This may enable logistic constraints, diurnal and

377

seasonal fluctuations in demand and supply, the interaction between intermittent and grid-

378

stabilizing energy technologies, and importance of transmission capacities for exchange with

379

adjacent energy systems to be analyzed.47-51 A too narrow focus on the energy system may cause

380

alternative (potentially more sustainable) uses of biomass to be neglected, e.g., for feed, or

381

biogenic waste anyway requiring treatment, cf. Jablonski, et al. 52. The information obtained

382

from energy systems analysis can serve as input for detailed LCAs,53 as demonstrated by

383

Turconi, et al. 54. To further close this gap, the integration of dynamic and spatial aspects of the

384

energy system into LCA and environmental optimization problems hence represents an

385

important area for future research.

386

Regarding point (iii) above, it should be noted that the multi-objective approach based on fuzzy

387

intervals chosen here does not represent an explicit weighting of the individual objectives.


18

Page 19 of 32


388

Nevertheless, the upper and lower bounds of the intervals introduce a relative importance of the

389

different environmental impact categories.22 The use of a particular reference year as the basis

390

for the upper bound of the fuzzy objective formulation (above which any outcome is considered

391

completely unacceptable) represents a subjective modelling choice, and the sensitivity

392

introduced by this step may consequently be analyzed by shifting the baseline year.

393

Alternatively, the upper bounds could be defined based on more ambitious or stringent targets.22

394

These bounds could reflect levels set by binding political commitments, or require adhering to

395

the concept of planetary boundaries. Fuzzy intervals based on political targets offer an alternative

396

approach to aggregated distance-to-target LCIA methods, e.g., the Swiss ecological scarcity

397

method,55 with the advantage that they enable efficient trade-offs between conflicting impact

398

categories to be identified systematically. Multi-objective optimization techniques, such as the

399

methods based on fuzzy intervals22 or objective reduction44 represent important opportunities for

400

dealing with the multitude of environmental issues, and any potential tradeoffs thereof, which is

401

essential for a holistic perspective of environmental optimization problems.

402


19


Page 20 of 32

403

FIGURES AND TABLES

404

Figure 1. Scope (superstructure) of the static optimization problem with the goal to identify the

405

environmentally-optimal utilization of biomass resources in a regional or national energy system.

406

Processes are indicated in framed grey boxes, final energy demand categories are highlighted in

407

orange, and the arrows represent the main energy flows. Ancillary energy inputs to the

408

conversion processes (e.g., electricity, transport requirements, etc.) have been omitted for clarity.

409

Figure 2. Optimal system configuration maximizing overall degree of satisfaction over six

410

impact categories (using the performance of the 2013 baseline scenario as upper bound for each

411

respective objective) for the 2025 scenario.

412

Figure 3. Relative frequency of optimality for the utilization of biomass substrates among the

413

primary conversions (top), and of the intermediate bioenergy carriers among secondary

414

(upgrading) and tertiary (provision of final energy service) conversions (bottom), respectively,

415

from the Monte Carlo simulation. The selection of feasible conversion pathways is fixed that of

416

the multi-objective optimal solution for based on expected parameter values. Dedicated energy

417

crops are indicated with an asterisk (*; top graph). Abbreviations: AD: anaerobic digestion; LF:

418

liquid fraction; L/S-sep.: liquid/solid separation; UoL: use-on-land.

419

Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis of the multi-objective solution with respect to the choice of

420

environmental objectives (i.e., impact categories) considered. The performance of individual

421

impact categories is expressed relative to the respective impact levels of the 2013 baseline

422

(100%). The resulting optimal λ-values (i.e., mutual degree of satisfaction) are shown on the

423

secondary axis.


20

Page 21 of 32


424

Table 1. Comparison of the environmental performance of the optimized 2025 scenario

425

expressed as relative to the impacts of the 2013 baseline scenario (indicated as 100%) for single-

426

objective optimal solutions (GW, WF, EP-marine, AC, PM, CED-fossil) and the multi-objective

427

optimal solution. The color-shade highlights the best (light) to worst (dark) performance per

428

impact category, i.e., column-wise.

Year

Scenario/objective

GW

2013

baseline min global warming (GW) min water footprint (WF) min marine eutrophication (EP) min acidification (AC) min particulate matter (PM) min fossil resources (CED) multi-objective (overall λ = 0.46) category-specific λ

100% 67% 100% 98% 77% 88% 73% 78% 0.66

2025

Environmental impact category EPWF AC PM marine 100% 100% 100% 100% 261% 99% 82% 156% 7% 115% 130% 203% 153% 7% 96% 121% 167% 81% 71% 99% 15% 112% 87% 53% 324% 195% 96% 137% 57% 57% 81% 78% 0.46 0.46 0.68 0.46

CEDfossil 100% 79% 99% 99% 84% 93% 72% 87% 0.46

429 430 431

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

432

Additional information on the optimization model formulation and supplementary case study

433

data, results, and sensitivity analysis are provided in the Supporting Information (SI), freely

434

available at http://pubs.acs.org.

435

AUTHOR INFORMATION

436

Corresponding Author

437

*Carl Vadenbo, [email protected], telephone +41 44 633 70 66, fax +41 44 633 10 61

438

Present Addresses


21


Page 22 of 32

439

†

440

Zürich, Switzerland

441

‡

442

2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

443

Author Contributions

444

The study design was developed by all of the authors, C. Vadenbo and D. Tonini carried out the

445

analysis, and all authors contributed to the interpretation. All authors have contributed and given

446

approval to the final version of the manuscript.

447

Funding Sources

448

This work was conducted within the IRMAR project (grant no. 11-116775) funded by the Danish

449

Council for Strategic Research. The authors declare no competing financial interest.

450

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

451

The authors are grateful for the financial support from the IRMAR project (grant no. 11-116775)

452

funded by the Danish Council for Strategic Research.

453

ABBREVIATIONS

454

AC: acidification; AD: anaerobic digestion; CED: cumulative energy demand; CHP: combined

455

heat-and-power; EP: eutrophication; GW: global warming; LCA: life cycle assessment; LF:

456

liquid fraction; L/S: liquid/solid (separation); PM: particulate matter (respiratory inorganics);

457

UoL: use-on-land; WF: water footprint

ETH Zürich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, CH-8093

Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering, Miljoevej 115,


22

Page 23 of 32


458

REFERENCES

459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502

1. European Commission (EC), Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77EC and 2003/30/EC. In 2009/28/EC, Official Journal of the European Union: European Union, 2009. 2. International Energy Agency (IEA) Renewable Energy Medium-Term Market Report 2014; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris, France, 2014; p 255; http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/medium-term-renewable-energymarket-report-2014.html. 3. Bruckner, T.; Bashmakov, I. A.; Mulugetta, Y.; Chum, H.; de la Vega Navarro, A.; Edmonds, J.; Faaij, A.; Fungtammasan, B.; Garg, A.; Hertwich, E.; Honnery, D.; Infield, D.; Kainuma, M.; Khennas, S.; Kim, S.; Nimir, H. B.; Riahi, K.; Strachan, N.; Wiser, R.; Zhang, X., Energy Systems. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Farahani, E.; Kadner, S.; Seyboth, K.; Adler, A.; Baum, I.; Brunner, S.; Eickemeier, P.; Kriemann, B.; Savolainen, J.; Schlömer, S.; von Stechow, C.; T., Z.; Minx, J. C., Eds. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp 511-597. 4. Zah, R.; Böni, H.; Gauch, M.; Hischier, R.; Lehmann, M.; Wäger, P. Ökobilanz von Energieprodukten: Ökologische Bewertung von Biotreibstoffen; Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE): Bern, Switzerland, 2007; p 161; http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/8514.pdf. 5. Styles, D.; Gibbons, J.; Williams, A. P.; Dauber, J.; Stichnothe, H.; Urban, B.; Chadwick, D. R.; Jones, D. L., Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass energy options within an arable crop rotation. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7 (6), 1305–1320. 6. Searchinger, T. D.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R. A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.-H., Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319 (1238), 1238–1240. 7. Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J. A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T. D.; Somerville, C.; Williams, R., Beneficial Biofuels—The Food, Energy, and Environment Trilemma. Science 2009, 325 (5938), 270–271. 8. Tonini, D.; Hamelin, L.; Astrup, T. F., Environmental implications of the use of agroindustrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land-use changes. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 8 (4), 690-706. 9. Tonini, D.; Hamelin, L.; Alvarado-Morales, M.; Astrup, T. F., GHG emission factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 208 (May 2016), 123–133. 10. Cherubini, F.; Strømman, A. H., Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102 (2), 437–51. 11. Steubing, B.; Zah, R.; Ludwig, C., Heat, electricity, or transportation? The optimal use of residual and waste biomass in Europe from an environmental perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (1), 164–171. 12. Berglund, M.; Börjesson, P., Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems—Part II: The environmental impact of replacing various reference systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31 (5), 326–344.


23


503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547

Page 24 of 32

13. Wardenaar, T.; van Ruijven, T.; Mendoza Beltran, A.; Vad, K.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R., Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 1059-1067. 14. Thornley, P.; Gilbert, P.; Shackley, S.; Hammond, J., Maximizing the greenhouse gas reductions from biomass: The role of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 81 (0), 35– 43. 15. Cherubini, F.; Bird, N. D.; Cowie, A. L.; Jungmeier, G.; Schlamadinger, B.; WoessGallasch, S., Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53 (8), 434-447. 16. Vadenbo, C.; Hellweg, S.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Multi-objective optimization of waste and resource management in industrial networks – Part I: Model description. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 89, 52–63. 17. Pfister, S.; Scherer, L., Uncertainty analysis of the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Energy Sustainability Soc. 2015, 5 (30), 1-12. 18. Tonini, D.; Dorini, G.; Astrup, T. F., Bioenergy, material, and nutrients recovery from household waste: Advanced material, substance, energy, and cost flow analysis of a waste refinery process. Appl. Energy 2014, 121, 64-78. 19. Tonini, D.; Hamelin, L.; Wenzel, H.; Astrup, T. F., Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (24), 13521–30. 20. Tonini, D.; Martinez-Sanchez, V.; Astrup, T. F., Material Resources, Energy, and Nutrient Recovery from Waste: Are Waste Refineries the Solution for the Future? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 74, 8962–8969. 21. Azapagic, A.; Clift, R., Linear Programming as a Tool in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1998, 3 (6), 305-316. 22. Tan, R. R.; Culaba, A. B.; Aviso, K. B., A fuzzy linear programming extension of the general matrix-based life cycle model. J. Cleaner Prod. 2008, 16 (13), 1358–1367. 23. Lund, H. EnergyPLAN - Advanced Energy Systems Analysis Computer Model. Documentation Version 12; Sustainable Energy Planning Research Group, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2015; http://www.energyplan.eu/training/documentation/. 24. Azapagic, A.; Clift, R., Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-function systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 1999, 7 (2), 101–119. 25. Dalgaard, R.; Schmidt, J.; Halberg, N.; Christensen, P.; Thrane, M.; Pengue, W. A., LCA of soybean meal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13 (3), 240–254. 26. ecoinvent, The ecoinvent database – data v3.1. In www.ecoinvent.org The Ecoinvent Centre: Zurich, Switzerland, 2014. 27. Heijungs, R.; Suh, S., The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer Science+Business Media: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002; Vol. 11. 28. Clavreul, J.; Guyonnet, D.; Christensen, T. H., Quantifying uncertainty in LCAmodelling of waste management systems. Waste Manage. 2012, 32 (12), 2482–95. 29. Tonini, D.; Astrup, T. F., LCA of biomass-based energy systems: A case study for Denmark. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 234–246. 30. Danish Energy Agency Analysis of Bioenergy in Denmark [Analyse af bioenergi i Danmark]; Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014; p 159; http://www.ens.dk/undergrundforsyning/vedvarende-energi/analyse-anvendelse-bioenergi-danmark.


24

Page 25 of 32

548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593


31. Energistyrelsen, Basisfremskrivninger. Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen): http://www.ens.dk/info/tal-kort/fremskrivninger-analyser-modeller/fremskrivninger, 2014. 32. Weidema, B. Environmental Project No. 863 - Market information in life cycle assessment; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003. 33. Schmidt, J. H., System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA: Outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13 (4), 350–364. 34. Hamelin, L.; Jørgensen, U.; Petersen, B. M.; Olesen, J. E.; Wenzel, H., Modelling the carbon and nitrogen balances of direct land use changes from energy crops in Denmark: A consequential life cycle inventory. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4 (6), 889–907. 35. Energistyrelsen Energistatistik 2013 - Data, tabeller, statistikker og kort; Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014; http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/info/tal-kort/statistik-noegletal/aarligenergistatistik/energistatistik2013.pdf. 36. Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Nganga, J.; Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Schulz, M.; Van Dorland, R., Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H. L., Eds. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp 129-234. 37. Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S., Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (11), 4098–4104. 38. Goedkoop, M. J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; De Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2008 – A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level / Report I: Characterisation; Den Haag, Netherlands, 2013; http://www.lcia-recipe.net. 39. Seppälä, J.; Posch, M.; Johansson, M.; Hettelingh, J.-P., Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11 (6), 403–416. 40. Posch, M.; Seppälä, J.; Hettelingh, J.-P.; Johansson, M.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O., The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13 (6), 477–486. 41. Rabl, A.; Spadaro, J. V., The RiskPoll software, version is 1.051 (dated August 2004). www.arirabl.com, 2004. 42. European Commission (EC) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook- Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context; Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Luxemburg, 2011. 43. PRé Consultants SimaPro, v8.0.5.13; PRé Consultants bv: 2015. 44. Guillén-Gosálbez, G., A novel MILP-based objective reduction method for multiobjective optimization: Application to environmental problems. Comp. Chem. Eng. 2011, 35 (8), 1469–1477. 45. Cherubini, F.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Kindermann, G.; Van Zelm, R.; Van Der Velde, M.; Stadler, K.; Strømman, A. H., Global spatially explicit CO2 emission metrics for forest bioenergy. Scientific Reports 2016, 6 (20186), 1-12.


25


594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617

Page 26 of 32

46. Bentsen, N. S.; Jack, M. W.; Felby, C.; Thorsen, B. J., Allocation of biomass resources for minimising energy system greenhouse gas emissions. Energy 2014, 69, 506–515. 47. Mathiesen, B. V.; Lund, H.; Karlsson, K., 100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl. Energy 2011, 88 (2), 488–501. 48. Mathiesen, B. V.; Lund, H.; Connolly, D., Limiting biomass consumption for heating in 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2012, 48 (1), 160–168. 49. Lund, R.; Mathiesen, B. V., Large combined heat and power plants in sustainable energy systems. Appl. Energy 2015, 142, 389–395. 50. Liu, W.; Lund, H.; Mathiesen, B. V., Large-scale integration of wind power into the existing Chinese energy system. Energy 2011, 36 (8), 4753–4760. 51. Kwon, P. S.; Østergaard, P. A., Priority order in using biomass resources - Energy systems analyses of future scenarios for Denmark. Energy 2013, 63, 86-94. 52. Jablonski, S.; Strachan, N.; Brand, C.; Bauen, A., The role of bioenergy in the UK’s energy future formulation and modelling of long-term UK bioenergy scenarios. Energy Policy 2010, 38 (10), 5799–5816. 53. Münster, M.; Lund, H., Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport—Challenges when performing energy system analysis. Energy 2009, 34 (5), 636–644. 54. Turconi, R.; Tonini, D.; Nielsen, C. F. B.; Simonsen, C. G.; Astrup, T. F., Environmental impacts of future low-carbon electricity systems: Detailed life cycle assessment of a Danish case study. Appl. Energy 2014, 132, 66–73. 55. Frischknecht, R.; Büsser Knöpfel, S. Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the Ecological Scarcity Method - Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland; Swiss Federal Office for the Environment: Bern, Switzerland, 2013; p 256; http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01750/index.html?lang=en.

618


26

Page 27 of 32

619


ABSTRACT ART

620


27


Figure 1 424x203mm (96 x 96 DPI)


Page 28 of 32

Page 29 of 32


Figure 2 469x221mm (96 x 96 DPI)



Figure 3 (top) 222x114mm (150 x 150 DPI)


Page 30 of 32

Page 31 of 32


Figure 3 (bottom) 150x96mm (150 x 150 DPI)



Figure 4 154x82mm (150 x 150 DPI)


Page 32 of 32

Environmental Multiobjective Optimization of the Use of Biomass

Recommend Documents