4.0 Article

The use of maize stover and sugar beet pulp as feedstocks in industrial fermentation plants - An economic and environmental perspective

期刊

CLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cesys.2020.100005

关键词

Lignocellulosic feedstocks; Life cycle assessment; Environmental economics; Bioeconomy

资金

  1. iFermenter [790507]
  2. Xunta de Galicia [GRC2013-032, ED431E2018/01]
  3. FEDER (EU) [GRC2013-032, ED431E2018/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the environmental and economic profile of maize stover and sugar beet pulp as potential cellulosic raw materials to be valued in a biorefinery. Results show that maize stover would reduce the total environmental burdens and production costs.
The transition from a fossil to bio-based economy has promoted the valuation of renewable raw materials in biorefineries. Waste and by-products from industrial processing and agricultural activities are potential renewable feedstocks. This study investigates the environmental and economic profile of maize stover and sugar beet pulp as potential cellulosic raw materials to be valued in a biorefinery. Four scenarios were considered: beet pulp in France (BP -FR) and the United Kingdom (BP - UK); and maize stover in Italy (MS - IT) and Belgium (MS - BE). The functional unit is 1 GJ and the impact categories are: climate change (CC), terrestrial acidification (TA); freshwater eutrophication (FE); marine eutrophication (ME); human toxicity (HT); photochemical oxidant formation (POF); particulate matter formation (PM); and fossil depletion (FD). The economic analysis assessed the internal and external cost indicators. The results show that maize stover would reduce the total environmental burdens and production costs. The outcomes show total costs ranging from 22 (sic) (MS -IT) to 174 (BP -UK) (sic) per FU. The environmental results show that BP - UK scenario also represents the worst case. For CC, for instance, in the MS-IT scenario, the impact dropped by more than 80%, compared to BP - UK.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据