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
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
2
Page 3 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
4
Page 5 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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:
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
5
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6
Page 7 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
7
Environmental Science & Technology
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,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
8
Page 9 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
9
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
10
Page 11 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
11
Environmental Science & Technology
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
*INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
12
Page 13 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
13
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
14
Page 15 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
*INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
15
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
16
Page 17 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
17
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
18
Page 19 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
19
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
20
Page 21 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
21
Environmental Science & Technology
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,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
22
Page 23 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
23
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
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
Environmental Science & Technology
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.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
25
Environmental Science & Technology
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
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
26
Page 27 of 32
619
Environmental Science & Technology
ABSTRACT ART
620
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
27
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 1 424x203mm (96 x 96 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 28 of 32
Page 29 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2 469x221mm (96 x 96 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 3 (top) 222x114mm (150 x 150 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 30 of 32
Page 31 of 32
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 3 (bottom) 150x96mm (150 x 150 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 4 154x82mm (150 x 150 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 32 of 32