Abstract
Biodiesel production showed an immense increase worldwide in the past decade. Since the comprehensive analyses of biodiesel production processes and their comparative evaluation are both rare and not informative enough, e.g., for scientists and decision makers, in this work different, favored biodiesel production alternatives (rapeseed, soybean and palm) are analyzed from multiple viewpoints and compared. A complex examination is carried out with Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) analysis, where cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis is incorporated and performed within PESTLE factors. Life cycle inventory is set up based on Ecoinvent 3.3 database, while life cycle impact assessments are achieved by IPCC 2013, IMPACT 2002+, EPS 2000 and 2015dx methods. Monte Carlo analysis is also carried out in order to make certain about the robustness of input data. The investigated factors are weighted and ranked with multi-criteria decision analysis, wherein Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method is applied for the comparison of alternatives. Our work presents a clear methodology for the comprehensive evaluation of biodiesel production alternatives, but the guideline can be followed for the evaluation of other production alternatives. In spite that the life cycle analysis shows the palm oil as the best alternative, the results of our comprehensive analysis show that the highest overall TOPSIS score can be achieved with rapeseed-based biodiesel pathway, especially for the European region.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- B30:
-
30% Blend with normal diesel
- FAME:
-
Fatty acid methyl ester
- FU:
-
Functional unit
- EROI:
-
Energy return on investment
- GWP:
-
Global warming potential
- LCA:
-
Life cycle analysis
- LCI:
-
Life cycle inventory
- LCIA:
-
Life cycle impact assessment
- PBB:
-
Palm-based biodiesel
- RBB:
-
Rapeseed-based biodiesel
- SBB:
-
Soybean-based biodiesel
References
Abbaszaadeh A, Ghobadian B, Omidkhah MR, Najafi G (2012) Current biodiesel production technologies: a comparative review. Energy Convers Manag 63:138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.02.027
Barba FC, Sánchez GMD, Seguí BS, Darabkhani HG, Anthony EJ (2016) A technical evaluation, performance analysis and risk assessment of multiple novel oxy-turbine power cycles with complete CO2 capture. J Clean Prod 133:971–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.189
Boutesteijn C, Drabik D, Venus TJ (2017) The interaction between EU biofuel policy and first- and second-generation biodiesel production. Ind Crops Prod 106:124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.067
BP (2017) BP statistical review of world energy. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-full-report.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
Datta A, Mandal BK (2017) An experimental investigation on the performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a variable compression ratio diesel engine using diesel and palm stearin methyl ester. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19(5):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1328-3
dos Santos SF, Brandi HS, Borschiver S, de Souza V (2017) Estimating vulnerability to risks: an application in a biofuel supply chain. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:1257–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1320-y
EC Committee (2017) Oilseeds and protein crops market situation—Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cereals/presentations/cereals-oilseeds/market-situation-oilseeds_en.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017
Ecoinvent (2016) Ecoinvent 3.3 Database. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-33/ecoinvent-33.html. Accessed 11 July 2017
EIA (2014) International Energy Statistics. https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=000000g&c=ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1urvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvnvvuvo&ct=0&ug=8&tl_id=79-A&vs=INTL.81-1-AFG-MT.A&cy=2014&vo=0&v=H&start=2000&end=2014. Accessed 10 July 2017
EPOA (2014) European Palm Oil Alliance The Palm Oil Story. http://www.ajanajanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/8_European_Palm_Oil_Alliance_Factsheet_2014-palm-yagi-uretimi.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
European Commission (2009) Renewable energy directive. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive. Accessed 7 July 2017
Ewing M, Msangi S (2009) Biofuels production in developing countries: assessing tradeoffs in welfare and food security. Environ Sci Policy 12(4):520–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.002
Fozer D, Sziraky FZ, Racz L, Nagy T, Tarjani AJ, Toth AJ, Haaz E, Benko T, Mizsey P (2017a) Life cycle, PESTLE and multi-criteria decision analysis of CCS process alternatives. J Clean Prod 147:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.056
Fozer D, Valentinyi N, Racz L, Mizsey P (2017b) Evaluation of microalgae-based biorefinery alternatives. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19(2):501–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1242-8
Gaskell J (2012) The palm oil revolution in Asia. Stanford University, Stanford. https://purl.stanford.edu/zc839jm3057. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
Harding KG, Dennis JS, von Blottnitz H, Harrison STL (2008) A life-cycle comparison between inorganic and biological catalysis for the production of biodiesel. J Clean Prod 16(13):1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.07.003
Helwani Z, Othman MR, Aziz N, Fernando WJN, Kim J (2009) Technologies for production of biodiesel focusing on green catalytic techniques: a review. Fuel Process Technol 90(12):1502–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.07.016
ICTSD (2010) Sustainability criteria in the EU renewable energy directive: consistent with WTO rules? http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2011/12/sustainability-criteria-in-the-eu-renewable-energy-directive-consistent-with-wto-rules.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2017
Krautgartner R, Lefebvre L, Rehder LE, Boshnakova MD, Flach B, Wilson J, Faniadis D, Guerrero M, Williams B (2016) Oilseeds and Products Annual, EU-28. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications Oilseeds and Products Annual_Vienna_EU-28_4-1-2016.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
Lima AMF, Torres EA, Kiperstok A, Santos GF (2017) Environmental impacts of the biodiesel production chain of cotton seed in Bahia, Brazil. Clean Technol Environ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1347-8
Malça J, Coelho A, Freire F (2014) Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations. Appl Energy 114:837–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.048
Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York
Mattson J (2012) Life cycle impact assessment—a study of the EPS method for use within SCA. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/168240/168240.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017
Milazzo MF, Spina F, Vinci A, Espro C, Bart JCJ (2013) Brassica biodiesels: past, present and future. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Elsevier 18:350–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.033
Naylor RL, Higgins MM (2017a) The political economy of biodiesel in an era of low oil prices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 77:695–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.026
Naylor RL, Higgins MM (2017b) The rise in global biodiesel production: implications for food security. Global Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.004
Piastrellini R, Arena AP, Civit B (2017) Energy life-cycle analysis of soybean biodiesel: Effects of tillage and water management. Energy 126:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.028
REN21 (2017) Renewable energy policy network for the 21st century, renewables 2016 global status report. http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17-8399_GSR_2017_Full_Report_0621_Opt.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
RFA (2016) Renewable fuel association—Industry statistics, word fuel ethanol production. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/statistics/#1454099103927-61e598f7-7643 Accessed 10 July 2017
Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, Renó MLG, Olmo OA (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: A meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:435–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.036
Saluja RK, Kumar V, Sham R (2016) Stability of biodiesel—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 62:166–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.001
Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2013) Sustainability assessment of palm biodiesel production in Thailand. Biofuel Technol Rec Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34519-7_2
Thamsiriroj T, Murphy JD (2010) Can rape seed biodiesel meet the European union sustainability criteria for biofuels? Energy Fuels 24(3):1720–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34519-7_210.1021/ef901432g
Thiyagarajan S, Geo VE, Martin LJ, Nagalingam B (2017) Simultaneous reduction of NO-smoke-CO2 emission in a biodiesel engine using low-carbon biofuel and exhaust after-treatment system. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19(5):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34519-7_210.1007/s10098-016-1326-5
UN/DESA (2017) World Economic and Social Survey 2017. United Nations, New York
Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT (2009) Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel: revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl Energy 86:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.014
Zalengera C, Blanchard RE, Eames PC, Juma AM, Chitawo ML, Gondwe KT (2014) Overview of the Malawi energy situation and A PESTLE analysis for sustainable development of renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 38:335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.050
Zhang YL, Cao F (2015) Is it time to tackle PM2.5 air pollutions in China from biomass-burning emissions? Environ Pollut 202:217–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.02.005
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful for the financial support of the Hungarian National Scientific Research Foundations (OTKA) nr.: 112699 project, the ÚNKP-17-3-I New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship. This research was supported by the European Union and the Hungarian State, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund in the framework of the GINOP-2.3.4-15-2016-00004 project and aimed to promote the cooperation between the higher education and the industry.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Racz, L., Fozer, D., Nagy, T. et al. Extensive comparison of biodiesel production alternatives with life cycle, PESTLE and multi-criteria decision analyses. Clean Techn Environ Policy 20, 2013–2024 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1527-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1527-1