|
|
“Assessment of the sustainability guidelines of EU Renewable Energy Directive : the case of biorefineries”. Maes D, Van Dael M, Vanheusden B, Goovaerts L, Reumerman P, Luzardo NM, Van Passel S, Journal Of Cleaner Production 88, 61 (2015). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.04.051
Abstract: Sustainability guidelines can help to safeguard the sustainable use of biological materials. When these guidelines are legally prescribed, their influence on the economic viability of bioenergy, biofuel and bioliquid projects is increased substantially, through their impact on national subsidy regimes and international trade. One of the key examples is the European directive 2009/28/EC, or the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and the related COM/2010/11 that integrate guidelines for calculating greenhouse gas impact for various bioenergy pathways. This paper looks further into the sustainability results when influenced by principal decisions that are legally open for debate. Therefore, a concise review is conducted of the legal state-of-the-art on whether a product is waste or not. The review pinpoints uncertainty, leading to four potential legal scenarios. The sustainability of a complex biorefinery is analysed for each scenario. The results show (i) a high sensitivity to the principal decisions on the nature of waste materials in the scenarios, and (ii) to the definition of boundaries between the processes. More detailed rules for the application of the RED guidelines are needed, and should be complemented with methods specifically targeting all relevant sustainability aspects, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of the sustainability of the process. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 5.715
Times cited: 25
DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.04.051
|
|
|
|
“Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? 2 : economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production”. Witters N, Mendelsohn R, Van Passel S, Van Slycken S, Weyens N, Schreurs E, Meers E, Tack F, Vanheusden B, Vangronsveld J, Biomass &, Bioenergy 39, 470 (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
Abstract: Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 ( 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between 55 and 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over normal biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 3.219
Times cited: 38
DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
|
|
