IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v204y2017icp66-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated design and sustainable assessment of innovative biomass supply chains: A case-study on miscanthus in France

Author

Listed:
  • Perrin, Aurelie
  • Wohlfahrt, Julie
  • Morandi, Fabiana
  • Østergård, Hanne
  • Flatberg, Truls
  • De La Rua, Cristina
  • Bjørkvoll, Thor
  • Gabrielle, Benoit

Abstract

Cost-efficient, environmental-friendly and socially sustainable biomass supply chains are urgently needed to achieve the 2020 targets of the Strategic Energy Technologies-Plan of the European Union. This paper investigated technical, social, economic, and environmental barriers to the development and innovation of supply chains, taking into account a large range of parameters influencing the performances of biomass systems at supply chain scale. An assessment framework was developed that combined economic optimization of a supply chain with a holistic and integrated sustainability assessment. The framework was applied to a case-study involving miscanthus biomass in the Burgundy region (Eastern France) to compare alternative biomass supply chain scenarios with different annual biomass demand, crop yield, harvest timing and densification technologies. These biomass supply chain scenarios were first economically optimized across the whole supply chain (from field to plant gate) by considering potential feedstock production (from a high-resolution map), costs, logistical constraints and product prices. Then sustainability assessment was conducted by combining recognized methodologies: economic analysis, multi-regional input-output analysis, emergy assessment, and life-cycle assessment. The analysis of the case study scenarios found that expanding biomass supply from 6,000 to 30,000tons of dry matter per year did not impact the profitability, which remained around 20€perton of biomass procured. Regarding environmental impacts, the scenario with the lowest feedstock supply area had the lowest impact per ton due to low economies of scale. Mobile briquetting proved to be also a viable economic option, especially in situations with a considerable scattering of the crop production and expensive transportation logistics. By highlighting hot-spots in terms of economic, environmental and social impacts of biomass supply systems, this study provides guidance in the supply chain optimization and the design of technological solutions tailored to economic operators as well as other stakeholders, such as policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Perrin, Aurelie & Wohlfahrt, Julie & Morandi, Fabiana & Østergård, Hanne & Flatberg, Truls & De La Rua, Cristina & Bjørkvoll, Thor & Gabrielle, Benoit, 2017. "Integrated design and sustainable assessment of innovative biomass supply chains: A case-study on miscanthus in France," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 66-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:204:y:2017:i:c:p:66-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917308516
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurent, A. & Pelzer, E. & Loyce, C. & Makowski, D., 2015. "Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 41-50.
    2. Cobuloglu, Halil I. & Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra, 2015. "Food vs. biofuel: An optimization approach to the spatio-temporal analysis of land-use competition and environmental impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 418-434.
    3. Ilya Gelfand & Ritvik Sahajpal & Xuesong Zhang & R. César Izaurralde & Katherine L. Gross & G. Philip Robertson, 2013. "Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest," Nature, Nature, vol. 493(7433), pages 514-517, January.
    4. Smeets, Edward M.W. & Lewandowski, Iris M. & Faaij, André P.C., 2009. "The economical and environmental performance of miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1230-1245, August.
    5. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Buonocore, Elvira & Paletto, Alessandro & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2017. "Wood-based bioenergy value chain in mountain urban districts: An integrated environmental accounting framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 197-210.
    6. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    7. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & McDonnell, Kevin, 2013. "Miscanthus production and processing in Ireland: An analysis of energy requirements and environmental impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 412-420.
    8. Steubing, Bernhard & Ballmer, Isabel & Gassner, Martin & Gerber, Léda & Pampuri, Luca & Bischof, Sandro & Thees, Oliver & Zah, Rainer, 2014. "Identifying environmentally and economically optimal bioenergy plant sizes and locations: A spatial model of wood-based SNG value chains," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 57-68.
    9. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    10. Tara W. Hudiburg & WeiWei Wang & Madhu Khanna & Stephen P. Long & Puneet Dwivedi & William J. Parton & Melannie Hartman & Evan H. DeLucia, 2016. "Impacts of a 32-billion-gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, January.
    11. Leontief, Wassily, 1970. "Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(3), pages 262-271, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Efthymios Rodias & Remigio Berruto & Dionysis Bochtis & Alessandro Sopegno & Patrizia Busato, 2019. "Green, Yellow, and Woody Biomass Supply-Chain Management: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Monia El Akkari & Nosra Ben Fradj & Benoit Gabrielle & Sylvestre Njakou Djomo, 2023. "Spatially-explicit environmental assessment of bioethanol from miscanthus and switchgrass in France [Évaluation environnementale spatialement explicite du bioéthanol produit à partir de miscanthus ," Post-Print hal-04369771, HAL.
    3. Lechón, Y. & de la Rúa, C. & Rodríguez, I. & Caldés, N., 2019. "Socioeconomic implications of biofuels deployment through an Input-Output approach. A case study in Uruguay," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 178-191.
    4. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Chopin, Pierre & Guindé, Loïc & Causeret, François & Bergkvist, Göran & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2019. "Integrating stakeholder preferences into assessment of scenarios for electricity production from locally produced biomass on a small island," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 128-136.
    6. Letizia Tebaldi & Barbara Bigliardi & Eleonora Bottani, 2018. "Sustainable Supply Chain and Innovation: A Review of the Recent Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-29, October.
    7. De Laporte, Aaron V. & Ripplinger, David G., 2019. "The effects of site selection, opportunity costs and transportation costs on bioethanol production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 73-82.
    8. Juhi Kamra & Ambica Prakash Mani & Manu Sharma & Sudhanshu Joshi, 2024. "The Nexus between Green Supply Chain Management and Sustainability Performance in the Past Decade," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-33, August.
    9. Brinkman, Marnix L.J. & Wicke, Birka & Faaij, André P.C. & van der Hilst, Floor, 2019. "Projecting socio-economic impacts of bioenergy: Current status and limitations of ex-ante quantification methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Albers, Ariane & Collet, Pierre & Lorne, Daphné & Benoist, Anthony & Hélias, Arnaud, 2019. "Coupling partial-equilibrium and dynamic biogenic carbon models to assess future transport scenarios in France," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 316-330.
    11. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski & Michał Krzyżaniak, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of the Production of Perennial Crops for Energy Purposes—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Monia El Akkari & Nosra Ben Fradj & Benoit Gabrielle & Sylvestre Njakou Djomo, 2023. "Spatially-explicit environmental assessment of bioethanol from miscanthus and switchgrass in France [Évaluation environnementale spatialement explicite du bioéthanol produit à partir de miscanthus ," Post-Print hal-04369771, HAL.
    2. Ujjayant Chakravorty & Marie‐Hélène Hubert & Beyza Ural Marchand, 2019. "Food for fuel: The effect of the US biofuel mandate on poverty in India," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(3), pages 1153-1193, July.
    3. Singlitico, Alessandro & Goggins, Jamie & Monaghan, Rory F.D., 2018. "Evaluation of the potential and geospatial distribution of waste and residues for bio-SNG production: A case study for the Republic of Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 288-301.
    4. Chen, Xiaoguang & Önal, Hayri, 2016. "Renewable energy policies and competition for biomass: Implications for land use, food prices, and processing industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 270-278.
    5. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & McDonnell, Kevin, 2014. "Forest biomass supply chains in Ireland: A life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and primary energy balances," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Eric G. O’Neill & Caleb H. Geissler & Christos T. Maravelias, 2024. "Large-scale spatially explicit analysis of carbon capture at cellulosic biorefineries," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 9(7), pages 828-838, July.
    7. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.
    8. Weiwei Wang, 2022. "Agricultural and Forestry Biomass for Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard: Implications for Land Use and GHG Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Gasparatos, Alexandros & Doll, Christopher N.H. & Esteban, Miguel & Ahmed, Abubakari & Olang, Tabitha A., 2017. "Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 161-184.
    10. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu, 2018. "Effect of corn ethanol production on Conservation Reserve Program acres in the US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 124-134.
    11. Miao, Ruiqing & Khanna, Madhu, 2017. "Costs of meeting a cellulosic biofuel mandate with perennial energy crops: Implications for policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 321-334.
    12. Patterson, Murray & McDonald, Garry & Hardy, Derrylea, 2017. "Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 19-36.
    13. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2017. "Integrated Assessment Models of the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus: A Review and an Outline of Research Needs," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 143-163, October.
    14. Lisa Thormann & Ulf Neuling & Martin Kaltschmitt, 2021. "Opportunities and Challenges of the European Green Deal for the Chemical Industry: An Approach Measuring Innovations in Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-31, September.
    15. Durusut, Emrah & Tahir, Foaad & Foster, Sam & Dineen, Denis & Clancy, Matthew, 2018. "BioHEAT: A policy decision support tool in Ireland’s bioenergy and heat sectors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 306-321.
    16. Murphy, Fionnuala & McDonnell, Kevin, 2017. "Investigation of the potential impact of the Paris Agreement on national mitigation policies and the risk of carbon leakage; an analysis of the Irish bioenergy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 80-88.
    17. Anthony Oliver & Madhu Khanna, 2018. "The spatial distribution of welfare costs of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States electricity sector," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 269-287, October.
    18. Weiwei Wang, 2023. "Integrated Assessment of Economic Supply and Environmental Effects of Biomass Co-Firing in Coal Power Plants: A Case Study of Jiangsu, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    19. Shemfe, Mobolaji B. & Whittaker, Carly & Gu, Sai & Fidalgo, Beatriz, 2016. "Comparative evaluation of GHG emissions from the use of Miscanthus for bio-hydrocarbon production via fast pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 22-33.
    20. Ferrarini, Andrea & Serra, Paolo & Almagro, María & Trevisan, Marco & Amaducci, Stefano, 2017. "Multiple ecosystem services provision and biomass logistics management in bioenergy buffers: A state-of-the-art review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 277-290.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:204:y:2017:i:c:p:66-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.