What Is the Best Use of Biomass? A Harmonized LCA-TEA Framework Quantifying Economic and Environmental Metrics for Bioenergy Pathways

IF 4.9 3区 工程技术 Q1 AGRONOMY
Saurajyoti Kar, Troy R. Hawkins, Doris Oke, Udayan Singh, Ling Tao, Arpit Bhatt
{"title":"What Is the Best Use of Biomass? A Harmonized LCA-TEA Framework Quantifying Economic and Environmental Metrics for Bioenergy Pathways","authors":"Saurajyoti Kar,&nbsp;Troy R. Hawkins,&nbsp;Doris Oke,&nbsp;Udayan Singh,&nbsp;Ling Tao,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

生物质的最佳用途是什么?一个统一的LCA-TEA框架量化生物能源途径的经济和环境指标
生物资源利用有望在补充现有能源途径和增强能源弹性方面发挥关键作用。本研究开发了一个统一的生命周期评估(LCA)和技术经济分析(TEA)框架来评估生物能源途径的温室气体(GHG)减排潜力、最低燃料销售价格(MFSP)和边际减排成本(MAC)。我们分析了19种途径,包括液体生物燃料(通过催化快速热解、费托合成和气化)、生物电和生物质制氢,有或没有碳捕获和储存(CCS)。温室气体影响使用GREET 2022模型进行评估,而2016年美国十亿吨生物质可用性预测用于估计扩大潜力。此外,我们还评估了低碳电网对路径性能的影响。我们的研究结果表明,CCS的实施将碳强度(CI)降低到几种途径的净负值,避免了每公吨(MT)二氧化碳当量32至600美元的MAC。使用CCS的生物电途径实现最低的MAC(32 - 68美元/吨二氧化碳当量),而液体生物燃料和氢途径对于航空和重工业等难以减排的行业仍然至关重要。具有净正电力需求的途径受益于低碳电网,而那些联产电力的途径在较低电网CI情景下的MAC增加。这个开源框架为生物能源途径的统一评估提供了一个强大的工具,使决策者和利益相关者能够确定大规模生物质利用和碳减排的成本效益战略。研究结果强调了CCS、副产品信用额度和原料可用性在优化生物能源部署以实现低碳经济中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Change Biology Bioenergy
Global Change Biology Bioenergy AGRONOMY-ENERGY & FUELS
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
96
审稿时长
1.5 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书