EcoStrategic index: Economic value creation through product portfolio diversity for waste-to-x technologies

IF 16.3 1区工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2025.115507

Zahir Barahmand, Marianne Eikeland

{"title":"EcoStrategic index: Economic value creation through product portfolio diversity for waste-to-x technologies","authors":"Zahir Barahmand, Marianne Eikeland","doi":"10.1016/j.rser.2025.115507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sustainable decision-making for waste-to-X technologies presents a challenge, encompassing numerous alternatives across the entire supply chain, from biomass selection to diverse product portfolios. Each decision affects sustainability assessments, which span environmental, economic, social, technological, and circularity aspects. Addressing a gap in aligning product portfolio management with circular economy principles, this study introduces the EcoStrategic Index, a composite metric to quantify economic values within potential product portfolios. As part of a broader framework, the EcoStrategic Index integrates seamlessly with other dimensions to support strategic decision-making. Employing the value pyramid of bio-products concept, this study establishes a benchmark classification of chemicals with expert-informed values. Empirical validation was performed through a comparative case study of gasification and pyrolysis technologies, with catalogued product portfolios of approximately 300 and 1000 entries, respectively. Results show that over 50 % of both portfolios consist of functionalized hydrocarbons, with pyrolysis yielding a greater share of fine chemicals (28 %) compared to gasification (1 %), while gasification produces a larger share of inorganic salts and fertilizers (7 %). EcoStrategic Indices indicate that pyrolysis scores equal to or higher than gasification across all five sub-indices in multiple scenarios. To demonstrate its integrability, the TechnoStraegic Index was introduced, adding technology readiness level concept to form a cross-dimensional index reflecting economic value creation and technological maturity. The results show that while pyrolysis exhibits stronger potential for economic value, gasification often outperforms in cross-dimensional evaluations due to considerable higher technological maturity. This framework offers a cost-effective tool for guiding technology selection and strategic planning toward sustainable goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":418,"journal":{"name":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","volume":"214 ","pages":"Article 115507"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125001807","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sustainable decision-making for waste-to-X technologies presents a challenge, encompassing numerous alternatives across the entire supply chain, from biomass selection to diverse product portfolios. Each decision affects sustainability assessments, which span environmental, economic, social, technological, and circularity aspects. Addressing a gap in aligning product portfolio management with circular economy principles, this study introduces the EcoStrategic Index, a composite metric to quantify economic values within potential product portfolios. As part of a broader framework, the EcoStrategic Index integrates seamlessly with other dimensions to support strategic decision-making. Employing the value pyramid of bio-products concept, this study establishes a benchmark classification of chemicals with expert-informed values. Empirical validation was performed through a comparative case study of gasification and pyrolysis technologies, with catalogued product portfolios of approximately 300 and 1000 entries, respectively. Results show that over 50 % of both portfolios consist of functionalized hydrocarbons, with pyrolysis yielding a greater share of fine chemicals (28 %) compared to gasification (1 %), while gasification produces a larger share of inorganic salts and fertilizers (7 %). EcoStrategic Indices indicate that pyrolysis scores equal to or higher than gasification across all five sub-indices in multiple scenarios. To demonstrate its integrability, the TechnoStraegic Index was introduced, adding technology readiness level concept to form a cross-dimensional index reflecting economic value creation and technological maturity. The results show that while pyrolysis exhibits stronger potential for economic value, gasification often outperforms in cross-dimensional evaluations due to considerable higher technological maturity. This framework offers a cost-effective tool for guiding technology selection and strategic planning toward sustainable goals.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 工程技术-能源与燃料

CiteScore

31.20

自引率

5.70%

发文量

1055

审稿时长

62 days

期刊介绍： The mission of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is to disseminate the most compelling and pertinent critical insights in renewable and sustainable energy, fostering collaboration among the research community, private sector, and policy and decision makers. The journal aims to exchange challenges, solutions, innovative concepts, and technologies, contributing to sustainable development, the transition to a low-carbon future, and the attainment of emissions targets outlined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews publishes a diverse range of content, including review papers, original research, case studies, and analyses of new technologies, all featuring a substantial review component such as critique, comparison, or analysis. Introducing a distinctive paper type, Expert Insights, the journal presents commissioned mini-reviews authored by field leaders, addressing topics of significant interest. Case studies undergo consideration only if they showcase the work's applicability to other regions or contribute valuable insights to the broader field of renewable and sustainable energy. Notably, a bibliographic or literature review lacking critical analysis is deemed unsuitable for publication.