Assessing the aggregated environmental benefits from by-product and utility synergies in the Swedish biofuel industry

References

• Keyzer MA, Merbis MD, Voortman RL. The Biofuel controversy. De Economist. 2008;156:507–527.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan JJ. Biofuels and the conundrum of sustainability. Current opinion in biotechnology. 2009;20:318–324.
   Google Scholar
• Peck P, Grönkvist S, Hansson J, et al. Systemic constraints and drivers for production of forest-derived transport biofuels in Sweden – Part A: Report. Göteborg, Sweden: f3-The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. L140/16-62: Official Journal of the European Union. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Styles D, Gibbons J, Williams AP, et al. Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass energy options within an arable crop rotation. GCB Bioenergy. 2015;7:1305–1320.
   Google Scholar
• Valin H, Peters D, van den Berg M, et al. The land use change impact of Biofuels consumed in the EU: quantification of area and greenhouse gas impacts. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Annex VIII of EU Directive 2015/1513, provisional estimated indirect land-use change emissions from biofuel and bioliquid feedstocks. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F. Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. ‎J Ind Ecol. 2014;18:73–83.
   Google Scholar
• Martin M, Svensson N, Eklund M. Who gets the benefits? an approach for assessing the environmental performance of industrial symbiosis. J Clean Prod. 2015;98:263–271.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlgren S, Björklund A, Ekman A, et al. LCA of Biorefineries – identification of key issues and methodological recommendations. Göteborg, Sweden: f3 -The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlgren S, Di Lucia L. Indirect land use changes of biofuel production - a review of modelling efforts and policy developments in the European Union. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014;7:35.
   Google Scholar
• Höglund J, Hansen K, Cederberg C, et al. Biofuels and land use in Sweden – an overview of land-use change effects. Göteborg, Sweden: f3 -The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Energy Agency. Drivmedel och biobränslen 2015. Mängder, komponenter och ursprung rapporterade i enlighet med drivmedelslagen och hållbarhetslagen (in Swedish). Eskilstuna, Sweden: Swedish Energy Agency; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarevic D, Martin M. Life cycle assessments, carbon footprints and carbon visions: Analysing environmental systems analyses of transportation biofuels in Sweden. J Clean Prod. 2016;137:249–257.
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson P, Tufvesson L, Lantz M. Livscykelanalys av svenska biodrivmedel. Lund, Sweden: Environmental and Energy System Studies, Lund University; 2010. ( no. ISSN: 1102-3651).
   Google Scholar
• Martin M. Quantifying the environmental performance of an industrial symbiosis network of biofuel producers. J Clean Prod. 2015;102:202–212.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren KM, Andersson E, Berntsson T, et al. Gasification-based methanol production from biomass in industrial clusters: characterisation of energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy. 2014;69:622–637.
   Google Scholar
• Wetterlund E, Pettersson K, Magnusson M. Implications of system expansion for the assessment of well-to-wheel CO2 emissions from biomass-based transportation. Int J Energy Res. 2010;34:1136–1154.
   Google Scholar
• Martin M. Potential of biogas expansion in Sweden: identifying the gap between potential studies and producer perspectives. Biofuels. 2015;6:233–240.
   Google Scholar
• Cecp. Regional resource synergies for sustainable development in heavy industrial areas: an overview of opportunities and experiences. Perth, Australia: Center of Excellence in Cleaner Production (CECP). Curtin University of Technology; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Martin M, Eklund M. Improving the environmental performance of biofuels with industrial symbiosis. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2011;35:1747–1755.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Government Official Reports. Fossilfrihet på väg (On its way to fossil fuel independence, in Swedish). SOU. 2013;84:2013.
   Google Scholar
• Grahn M, Hansson J. Prospects for domestic biofuels for transport in Sweden 2030 based on current production and future plans. WIREs Energy Environ. 2015;4:290–306.
   Google Scholar
• Martin M, Larsson M, Oliveira F, et al. Reviewing the environmental implications of increased consumption and trade of biofuels for transportation in Sweden. Biofuels. 2017;1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent Data v 3.1. In: http://www.ecoinvent.org, Ecoinvent; Zurich, Switzerland. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lantmännen Agroetanol. Information on Ethanol production in 2015 and future projections. Personal Communication. Lantmännen Agroetanol AB, Sweden. March 5, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• ST1. Etanolix. Online, Available: http://www.st1.se/etanolix-english-version#.WPX_tm_yi00 . ST1 Sverige AB, Sweden. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Domsjö Fabriker. Information on process and future plans. Personal communication Björn Edström. Domsjö Fabriker AB, Sweden. June 7, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Barta Z, Kreuger E, Björnsson L. Effects of steam pretreatment and co-production with ethanol on the energy efficiency and process economics of combined biogas, heat and electricity production from industrial hemp. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013;6:56.
   Google Scholar
• Barta Z, Reczey K, Zacchi G. Techno-economic evaluation of stillage treatment with anaerobic digestion in a softwood-to-ethanol process. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2010;3:21:1-11.
   Google Scholar
• Ekman A, Wallberg O, Joelsson E, et al. Possibilities for sustainable biorefineries based on agricultural residues – a case study of potential straw-based ethanol production in Sweden. Applied Energy. 2013;102:299–308.
   Google Scholar
• Joelsson E, Erdei B, Galbe M, et al. Techno-economic evaluation of integrated first- and second-generation ethanol production from grain and straw. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:1:1-16.
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson P, Ahlgren S, Barta Z, et al. Sustainable performance of lignocellulose-based ethanol and biogas co-produced in innovative biorefinery systems. Report no. 087. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Studies and the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3); 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Perstorp BioProducts. Information about current and future production at Perstorp. Personal communication Annette Wendt, Perstorp Bioproducts AB, Sweden. May 23, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Ecobränsle. Information about current and future production. Personal communication Claes Ramel, Ecobränsle AB, Sweden. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Energy Agency. Produktion och användning av biogas och rötrester år 2015 (in Swedish). Eskilstuna, Sweden: Swedish Energy Agency; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren S, Liljeblad A, Cerruto J, et al. Practical biogas potential in Sweden by 2030 from digestion and gasification [Realiserbar biogaspotential i Sverige år 2030 genom rötning och förgasning] (in Swedish). Stockholm: WSP; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lönnqvist T, Silveira S, Sanches-Pereira A. Swedish resource potential from residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013;21:298–314.
   Google Scholar
• Hellsmark H, Jacobsson S. Realising the potential of gasified biomass in the European Union—Policy challenges in moving from demonstration plants to a larger scale diffusion. Energy Policy. 2012;41:507–518.
   Google Scholar
• Hellsmark H. Unfolding the formative phase of gasified biomass in the European Union: the role of system builders in realising the potential of second-generation transportation fuels from biomass. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Lundgren J, Waldheim L, Marklund M, et al. Strategisk innovationsagenda Biomassaförgasning och pyrolys - Nycklar till fossilfrihet. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Energy Agency. Hållbara biodrivmedel och flytande biobränslen under 2015. ER. 2016;2016:12. (in Swedish).
   Google Scholar
• SverigesRadio. Sverige exporterar bra etanol och importerar dålig. Online 16 Aug 2016. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6497020. Sveriges Radio. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Energy Agency. Marknaderna för biodrivmedel 2016 (in Swedish). Eskilstuna, Sweden: Swedish Energy Agency; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• IEA. Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives 2016. 2016. (no. 9788292874240).
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson P, Prade T, Lantz M, et al. Energy crop-based biogas as vehicle fuel—the impact of crop selection on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas performance. Energies. 2015;8:6033–6058.
   Google Scholar
• Lantz M, Börjesson P. Greenhouse gas and energyassessment of the biogas from co-digestion injected into the natural gas grid: a Swedish case-study including effects on soil properties. Renewable Energy. 2014;71:387–395.
   Google Scholar
• SBI. Personal communication regarding biogas digestate and market. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Vaneeckhaute C, Meers E, Michels E, et al. Ecological and economic benefits of the application of bio-based mineral fertilizers in modern agriculture. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2013;49:239–248.
   Google Scholar
• Vaneeckhaute C, Meers E, Michels E, et al. Closing the nutrient cycle by using bio-digestion waste derivatives as synthetic fertilizer substitutes: a field experiment. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2013;55:175–189.
   Google Scholar
• Rehl T, Müller J. Life cycle assessment of biogas digestate processing technologies. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2011;56:92–104.
   Google Scholar
• Martin M, Svensson N, Fonseca J, et al. Quantifying the environmental performance of integrated bioethanol and biogas production. Renewable Energy. 2014;61:109–116.
   Google Scholar