NANOlab Center of Excellence literature database -- Query Results

“Circular economy monitoring –, How to make it apt for biological cycles?”.Navare K, Muys B, Vrancken KC, Van Acker K, Resources Conservation And Recycling 170, 105563 (2021). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.105563 Abstract: Circular economy (CE) principles distinguish between technical and biological cycles. Technical cycles involve the management of stocks of non-renewable abiotic resources that cannot be appropriately returned to the biosphere, whereas, biological cycles involve the flows of renewable biotic resources that can safely cycle in and out of the biosphere. Despite this distinction, existing CE monitors are typically developed for technical cycles, and focus mainly on the extent to which resources are looped back in the technosphere. These monitors seem less apt to assess the circularity of biological cycles. This study aims to identify this gap by critically reviewing the CE monitoring criteria and CE assessment tools, and evaluate if they include the four key characteristics of biological cycles. Firstly, biotic resources, although renewable, require to be harvested sustainably. Secondly, while abiotic resources can be restored and recycled to their original quality, biotic resources degrade in quality with every subsequent use and are, hence, cascaded in use. Thirdly, biotic resources should safely return as nutrients to the biosphere to support the regeneration of ecosystems. Fourthly, biological cycles have environmental impacts due to resource extraction, resulting from land-use and resource-depletion and biogenic carbon flows. The CE monitoring criteria lack in thoroughly assessing these characteristics. With the growing demand for biotic resources, the gap in the assessment could exacerbate the overexploitation of natural resources and cause the degradation of ecosystems. The study discusses measures to bridge this gap and suggests ways to design a CE assessment framework that is also apt for biological cycles. Keywords: A1 Journal article; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL) Impact Factor: 3.313 DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.105563 Additional Links: UA library record; WoS full record; WoS citing articles show.php?record=7666
“Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass : a state of the art evaluation of assessment tools”. Buytaert V, Muys B, Devriendt N, Pelkmans L, Kretzschmar JG, Samson R, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 15, 3918 (2011). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.036 Abstract: Biomass is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the greening of energy supply. Nevertheless, concerns are rising about the sustainability of large-scale energy crop production. Impacts must be assessed carefully before deciding whether and how this industry should be developed, and what technologies, policies and investment strategies should be pursued. There is need for a comprehensive and reliable sustainability assessment tool to evaluate the environmental, social and economic performance of biomass energy production. This paper paves the way for such a tool by analysing and comparing the performance and applicability of a selection of existing tools that are potentially useful for sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems. The selected tools are: Criteria And Indicators (C&I), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Exergy Analysis (EA) and System Perturbation Analysis (SPA). To evaluate the tools, a framework was constructed that consists of four evaluation levels: sustainability issues, tool attributes, model structure, area of application. The tools were then evaluated using literature data and with the help of a Delphi panel of experts. Finally, a statistical analysis was performed on the resulting data matrix to detect significant differences between tools. It becomes clear that none of the selected tools is able to perform a comprehensive sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems. Every tool has its particular advantages and disadvantages, which means that trade-offs are inevitable and a balance must be found between scientific accuracy and pragmatic decision making. A good definition of the assessment objective is therefore crucial. It seems an interesting option to create a toolbox that combines procedural parts of C&I and EIA, supplemented with calculation algorithms of LCA and CBA for respectively environmental and economic sustainability indicators. Nevertheless, this would require a more comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to align the different tool characteristics and focuses. Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL) DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.036 Additional Links: UA library record; WoS full record; WoS citing articles show.php?record=8682

Abstract: Circular economy (CE) principles distinguish between technical and biological cycles. Technical cycles involve the management of stocks of non-renewable abiotic resources that cannot be appropriately returned to the biosphere, whereas, biological cycles involve the flows of renewable biotic resources that can safely cycle in and out of the biosphere. Despite this distinction, existing CE monitors are typically developed for technical cycles, and focus mainly on the extent to which resources are looped back in the technosphere. These monitors seem less apt to assess the circularity of biological cycles. This study aims to identify this gap by critically reviewing the CE monitoring criteria and CE assessment tools, and evaluate if they include the four key characteristics of biological cycles. Firstly, biotic resources, although renewable, require to be harvested sustainably. Secondly, while abiotic resources can be restored and recycled to their original quality, biotic resources degrade in quality with every subsequent use and are, hence, cascaded in use. Thirdly, biotic resources should safely return as nutrients to the biosphere to support the regeneration of ecosystems. Fourthly, biological cycles have environmental impacts due to resource extraction, resulting from land-use and resource-depletion and biogenic carbon flows. The CE monitoring criteria lack in thoroughly assessing these characteristics. With the growing demand for biotic resources, the gap in the assessment could exacerbate the overexploitation of natural resources and cause the degradation of ecosystems. The study discusses measures to bridge this gap and suggests ways to design a CE assessment framework that is also apt for biological cycles.

Abstract: Biomass is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the greening of energy supply. Nevertheless, concerns are rising about the sustainability of large-scale energy crop production. Impacts must be assessed carefully before deciding whether and how this industry should be developed, and what technologies, policies and investment strategies should be pursued. There is need for a comprehensive and reliable sustainability assessment tool to evaluate the environmental, social and economic performance of biomass energy production. This paper paves the way for such a tool by analysing and comparing the performance and applicability of a selection of existing tools that are potentially useful for sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems. The selected tools are: Criteria And Indicators (C&I), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Exergy Analysis (EA) and System Perturbation Analysis (SPA). To evaluate the tools, a framework was constructed that consists of four evaluation levels: sustainability issues, tool attributes, model structure, area of application. The tools were then evaluated using literature data and with the help of a Delphi panel of experts. Finally, a statistical analysis was performed on the resulting data matrix to detect significant differences between tools. It becomes clear that none of the selected tools is able to perform a comprehensive sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems. Every tool has its particular advantages and disadvantages, which means that trade-offs are inevitable and a balance must be found between scientific accuracy and pragmatic decision making. A good definition of the assessment objective is therefore crucial. It seems an interesting option to create a toolbox that combines procedural parts of C&I and EIA, supplemented with calculation algorithms of LCA and CBA for respectively environmental and economic sustainability indicators. Nevertheless, this would require a more comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to align the different tool characteristics and focuses.

Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)

DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.036

Additional Links: UA library record; WoS full record; WoS citing articles

show.php?record=8682