Environmental optimization of biomass use for energy under alternative future energy scenarios for Switzerland

Biomass and Bioenergy

Volumn 119, Issue , 2018, Pages 462-472

  Vadenbo, Carl ^a   Tonini, Davide ^b   Burg, Vanessa ^c   Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard ^b   Thees, Oliver ^c   Hellweg, Stefanie ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bioenergy; Biomass resource potential; Consequential life cycle assessment (LCA); Energy scenarios; Environmental optimization

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; FERTILIZERS; GLOBAL WARMING; LAND USE; LIFE CYCLE; OPTIMAL SYSTEMS; SUBSTRATES;

BIO-ENERGY; BIOMASS RESOURCES; CONSEQUENTIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS (LCA); ENERGY SCENARIOS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES; LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVES; MATERIAL APPLICATION; PARTICULATE MATTER FORMATIONS;

BIOMASS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; BIOENERGY; BIOFUEL; BIOMASS POWER; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; FOSSIL FUEL; LIFE CYCLE; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; OPTIMIZATION; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; SCENARIO ANALYSIS; SUSTAINABILITY;

SWITZERLAND;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 85055028063     PISSN: 09619534     EISSN: 18732909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Hamelin, L., Naroznova, I., Wenzel, H., Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas. Appl. Energy 114 (2014), 774–782.
2. 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. 208 (2016), 123–133.
3. Thornley, P., Gilbert, P., Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Maximizing the greenhouse gas reductions from biomass: the role of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 81:0 (2015), 35–43.
4. Börjesson, P., Berglund, M., Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems—Part II: the environmental impact of replacing various reference systems. Biomass Bioenergy 31:5 (2007), 326–344.
5. Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102:2 (2011), 437–451.
6. Giuntoli, J., Agostini, A., Caserini, S., Lugato, E., Baxter, D., Marelli, L., Climate change impacts of power generation from residual biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 89 (2016), 146–158.
7. 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 7:6 (2015), 1305–1320.
8. Styles, D., Mesa Dominguez, E., Chadwick, D., Environmental balance of the UK biogas sector: an evaluation by consequential life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 560–561 (2016), 241–253.
9. 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 319:1238 (2008), 1238–1240.
10. 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 325:5938 (2009), 270–271.
11. Tonini, D., Hamelin, L., Astrup, T.F., Environmental implications of the use of agro-industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land-use changes. GCB Bioenergy 8:4 (2016), 690–706.
12. Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Pengue, W.A., LCA of soybean meal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13:3 (2008), 240–254.
13. 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. 13:4 (2008), 350–364.
14. Reinhard, J., Zah, R., Consequential life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of an increased rapemethylester (RME) production in Switzerland. Biomass Bioenergy 35:6 (2011), 2361–2373.
15. 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. 46:24 (2012), 13521–13530.
16. Air Resource Board (ARB), Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 2017 . (Accessed 5 August 2017)
17. Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Official Journal of the European Union, European Commission, 2015, 29.
18. Directive 2009/28/EC, On the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.2009.04.23. 2009, Official Journal of the European Union, European Commission.
19. Kim, S., Dale, B.E., Heijungs, R., Azapagic, A., Darlington, T., Kahlbaum, D., Indirect land use change and biofuels: mathematical analysis reveals a fundamental flaw in the regulatory approach. Biomass Bioenergy 71 (2014), 408–412.
20. Finkbeiner, M., Indirect land use change - help beyond the hype?. Biomass Bioenergy 62 (2014), 218–221.
21. Muñoz, I., Schmidt, J.H., Brandão, M., Weidema, B.P., Rebuttal to ‘Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) – scientific robustness and consistency with international standards’. GCB Bioenergy 7 (2015), 565–566.
22. Bentsen, N.S., Jack, M.W., Felby, C., Thorsen, B.J., Allocation of biomass resources for minimising energy system greenhouse gas emissions. Energy 69 (2014), 506–515.
23. Vadenbo, C., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., Environmental multiobjective optimization of the use of biomass resources for energy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:6 (2017), 3575–3583.
24. DETEC, Energy Strategy 2050. 2017 . (Accessed 26 April 2017)
25. SFOE, Energy Strategy 2050. 2017 . (Accessed 26 April 2017)
26. Tonini, D., Vadenbo, C., Astrup, T.F., Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective. Energy 124 (2017), 295–309.
27. Thees, O., Burg, V., Erni, M., Bowman, G., Lemm, R., Biomassepotenziale der Schweiz für die energetische Nutzung [Switzerland's biomass potential for energy purposes], Ergebnisse des Schweizerischen Energiekompetenzzentrums SCCER BIOSWEET [Findings of the Swiss Energy Competence Center SCCER BIOSWEET]. 2017, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 299.
28. Burg, V., Bowman, G., Erni, M., Lemm, R., Thees, O., Analyzing the potential of domestic biomass resources for the energy transition in Switzerland. Biomass Bioenergy 111 (2018), 60–69.
29. Steubing, B., Zah, R., Waeger, P., Ludwig, C., Bioenergy in Switzerland: assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 2010.
30. Werner, F., Softwood forestry, mixed species, sustainable forest management [CH]. ecoinvent, (eds.) The Ecoinvent LCI Database – Data v3.3, 2016, Ecoinvent Association www.ecoinvent.org.
31. Abegg, M., Brändli, U.-B., Cioldi, F., Fischer, C., Herold-Bonardi, A., M, H., Keller, M., Meile, R., Rösler, E., Speich, S., Traub, B., Vidondo, B., Fourth National Forest Inventory - Result Tables and Maps on the Internet for the NFI 2009-2013 (NFI4b). 2014, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
32. Meylan, G., Haupt, M., Duygan, M., Hellweg, S., Stauffacher, M., Linking energy scenarios and waste storylines for prospective environmental assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 81 (2018), 11–21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.017.
33. Prognos, Die Energieperspektiven für die Schweiz bis 2050 [The energy perspectives for Switzerland until 2050], Basel, Switzerland. 2012.
34. Teske, S., Heiligtag, G.K., energy [r]evolution - eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung für die Schweiz, Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Schweiz. 2013, Global Wind Energy Council, European Renewable Energy Council.
35. Schmidt, J., Brandão, M., LCA Screening of Biofuels ‐ ILUC, Biomass Manipulation and Soil Carbon. 2013, 2.0–0 LCA consultants, Aalborg, Denmark.
36. SFOE, Biomasse-Energiestrategie Schweiz. Strategie für die energetische Nutzung von Biomasse in der Schweiz [Biomass-Energy Strategy Switzerland. Strategy for the energetic use of biomass in Switzerland]. S.F.O.o.E. (SFOE), (eds.), 2010, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Bern Switerland, 24.
37. ecoinvent, The Ecoinvent LCI Database – Data v3.3. 2016, The ecoinvent Association, Zurich, Switzerland www.ecoinvent.org.
38. UNEP/SETAC, Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators, vol. 1, 2017, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).
39. Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., 2013, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535.
40. 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. Sci. Rep. 6:20186 (2016), 1–12.
41. Duraiappah, A.K., Naeem, S., Agardy, T., Ash, N.J., Cooper, H.D., Diaz, S., Faith, D.P., Mace, G., McNeely, J.A., Mooney, H.A., Oteng-Yeboah, A.A., Pereira, H.M., Polasky, S., Prip, C., Reid, W.V., Samper, C., Schei, P.J., Scholes, R., Schutyser, F., Van Jaarsveld, A., Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis; a Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., 2005, World Resources Institute, Washington (DC), US.
42. Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., de Baan, L., Hellweg, S., Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:16 (2015), 9987–9995.
43. Boulay, A.-M., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Lathuillière, M.J., Manzardo, A., Margni, M., Motoshita, M., Núñez, M., Pastor, V.A., Ridoutt, B., Oki, T., Worbe, S., Pfister, S., The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23:2 (2018), 368–378.
44. Frischknecht, R., Büsser Knöpfel, S., Swiss Eco-factors 2013 According to the Ecological Scarcity Method - Methodological Fundamentals and Their Application in Switzerland. 2013, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Bern, Switzerland, 256.
45. Azapagic, A., Clift, R., Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-function systems. J. Clean. Prod. 7:2 (1999), 101–119.
46. FOEN, Erhebung der Kehrichtzusammensetzung 2012 [Survey of Municipal Solid Waste Composition 2012]. 2014, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern, Switzerland, 63.
47. Beretta, C., Stucki, M., Hellweg, S., Environmental impacts and hotspots of food losses: value chain analysis of Swiss food consumption. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:19 (2017), 11165–11173.
48. Desaules, A., Studer, K., NABO: Nationales Beobachtungsnetz, Messresultate 1985-1991, Schriftreihe Umwelt Nr. 200. 1993, Bern, Switzerland.
49. Nemecek, T., Schnetzer, J., Methods of Assessment of Direct Field Emissions for LCIs of Agricultural Production Systems - Data v3.0. 2011, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zürich, Switzerland, 34.
50. Molt Petersen, B., Trydeman Knudsen, M., Hermansen, J.E., Halberg, N., An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 52 (2013), 217–224.
51. Bentsen, N.S., Nilsson, D., Larsen, S., Agricultural residues for energy - a case study on the influence of resource availability, economy and policy on the use of straw for energy in Denmark and Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 108 (2018), 278–288.
52. SFOE, Schweizerische Gesamtenergiestatistik 2016 [Swiss Overall Energy Statistics 2016]. 2017, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Bern, Switzerland, 62.
53. SFOE, Potential zur energetischen Nutzung von Biomasse in der Schweiz [Potential for energetic use of biomass in Switzerland]. 2004, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Bern, Switzerland.
54. Suter, F., Steubing, B., Hellweg, S., Life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value chain: the case of Switzerland. J. Ind. Ecol. 21:4 (2017), 874–886.
55. Mehr, J., Vadenbo, C., Steubing, B., Hellweg, S., Environmentally optimal wood use in Switzerland - investigating the relevance of material cascades. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 131 (2018), 181–191.
56. Sathre, R., Gustavsson, L., Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47:4 (2006), 332–355.
57. Haberl, S., Geissler, S., Cascade utilization of biomass: strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol. Eng. 16 (2000), 111–121.
58. Höglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K., Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction—a case study for south-east Germany. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 78 (2013), 81–91.
59. FOEN, SFOE, SECO, (eds.) Ressourcenpolitik Holz. Strategie, Ziele und Aktionsplan Holz [Wood Resource Policy. Strategy, Objectives and Wood Action Plan], 2017, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Bern, Switzerland, 44.
60. Tonini, D., Albizzati, P.F., Astrup, T.F., Environmental impacts of food waste: learnings and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Manag. 76 (2018), 744–766.
61. Santibañez-Aguilar, J.E., Morales-Rodriguez, R., González-Campos, J.B., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Stochastic design of biorefinery supply chains considering economic and environmental objectives. J. Clean. Prod. 136 (2016), 224–245.
62. Sharifzadeh, M., CortadaGarcia, M., Shah, N., Supply chain network design and operation: systematic decision-making for centralized, distributed, and mobile biofuel production using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) under uncertainty. Biomass Bioenergy 81 (2015), 401–414.
63. Paolucci, N., Bezzo, F., Tugnoli, A., A two-tier approach to the optimization of a biomass supply chain for pyrolysis processes. Biomass Bioenergy 84 (2016), 87–97.
64. Paulo, H., Azcue, X., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Relvas, S., Supply chain optimization of residual forestry biomass for bioenergy production: The case study of Portugal. Biomass Bioenergy 83 (2015), 245–256.
65. Shabani, N., Shaghaygh, A., Sowlati, T., Value chain optimization of forest biomass for bioenergy production: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23 (2013), 299–311.
66. Cambero, C., Sowlati, T., Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives – a review of literature. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36 (2014), 62–73.
67. Cherubini, F., Strømman, A.H., Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 102:2 (2011), 437–451.
68. 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. 46:1 (2012), 164–171.
69. Panos, E., Kannan, R., The role of domestic biomass in electricity, heat and grid balancing markets in Switzerland. Energy 112 (2016), 1120–1138.