{"title":"What Is the Best Use of Biomass? A Harmonized LCA-TEA Framework Quantifying Economic and Environmental Metrics for Bioenergy Pathways","authors":"Saurajyoti Kar, Troy R. Hawkins, Doris Oke, Udayan Singh, Ling Tao, Arpit Bhatt","doi":"10.1111/gcbb.70115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Bioresource utilization is expected to play a pivotal role in complementing existing energy pathways and enhancing energy resilience. This study develops a harmonized life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) framework to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential, minimum fuel selling price (MFSP), and marginal abatement cost (MAC) of bioenergy pathways. We analyze 19 pathways, including liquid biofuels (via catalytic fast pyrolysis, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, and gasification), bioelectricity, and biomass-to-hydrogen, with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS). The GHG impacts are assessed using the GREET 2022 model, while U.S. Billion-Ton 2016 biomass availability projections are used to estimate scale-up potential. Additionally, we evaluate the influence of a low-carbon electricity grid on pathway performance. Our results show that CCS implementation reduces carbon intensities (CI) to net-negative values for several pathways, with MAC ranging from $32 to $600 per metric ton (MT) CO2e avoided. Bioelectricity pathways with CCS achieve the lowest MAC ($32–$68/tCO2e), while liquid biofuels and hydrogen pathways remain critical for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy industry. Pathways with net-positive electricity demand benefit from a low-carbon grid, whereas those co-producing electricity experience increased MAC under lower electricity grid CI scenarios. This open-source framework provides a robust tool for harmonized evaluation of bioenergy pathways, enabling policymakers and stakeholders to identify cost-effective strategies for biomass utilization and carbon abatement at scale. The findings underscore the importance of CCS, co-product credits, and feedstock availability in optimizing bioenergy deployment for a low-carbon economy.</p>","PeriodicalId":55126,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","volume":"18 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.70115","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.70115","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Bioresource utilization is expected to play a pivotal role in complementing existing energy pathways and enhancing energy resilience. This study develops a harmonized life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) framework to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential, minimum fuel selling price (MFSP), and marginal abatement cost (MAC) of bioenergy pathways. We analyze 19 pathways, including liquid biofuels (via catalytic fast pyrolysis, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, and gasification), bioelectricity, and biomass-to-hydrogen, with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS). The GHG impacts are assessed using the GREET 2022 model, while U.S. Billion-Ton 2016 biomass availability projections are used to estimate scale-up potential. Additionally, we evaluate the influence of a low-carbon electricity grid on pathway performance. Our results show that CCS implementation reduces carbon intensities (CI) to net-negative values for several pathways, with MAC ranging from $32 to $600 per metric ton (MT) CO2e avoided. Bioelectricity pathways with CCS achieve the lowest MAC ($32–$68/tCO2e), while liquid biofuels and hydrogen pathways remain critical for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy industry. Pathways with net-positive electricity demand benefit from a low-carbon grid, whereas those co-producing electricity experience increased MAC under lower electricity grid CI scenarios. This open-source framework provides a robust tool for harmonized evaluation of bioenergy pathways, enabling policymakers and stakeholders to identify cost-effective strategies for biomass utilization and carbon abatement at scale. The findings underscore the importance of CCS, co-product credits, and feedstock availability in optimizing bioenergy deployment for a low-carbon economy.
期刊介绍:
GCB Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers, review articles and commentaries that promote understanding of the interface between biological and environmental sciences and the production of fuels directly from plants, algae and waste. The scope of the journal extends to areas outside of biology to policy forum, socioeconomic analyses, technoeconomic analyses and systems analysis. Papers do not need a global change component for consideration for publication, it is viewed as implicit that most bioenergy will be beneficial in avoiding at least a part of the fossil fuel energy that would otherwise be used.
Key areas covered by the journal:
Bioenergy feedstock and bio-oil production: energy crops and algae their management,, genomics, genetic improvements, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation, integrated logistics, production modeling, composition and its modification, pests, diseases and weeds of feedstocks. Manuscripts concerning alternative energy based on biological mimicry are also encouraged (e.g. artificial photosynthesis).
Biological Residues/Co-products: from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (stover, sugar, bio-plastics, etc.), algae processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW).
Bioenergy and the Environment: ecosystem services, carbon mitigation, land use change, life cycle assessment, energy and greenhouse gas balances, water use, water quality, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.
Bioenergy Socioeconomics: examining the economic viability or social acceptability of crops, crops systems and their processing, including genetically modified organisms [GMOs], health impacts of bioenergy systems.
Bioenergy Policy: legislative developments affecting biofuels and bioenergy.
Bioenergy Systems Analysis: examining biological developments in a whole systems context.