Table 1 Comparative impact assessment of biorefinery generations.
From: Life-cycle assessment of three biorefinery pathways across different generations
Impact types | Metrics | First-generation | Second-generation | Third-generation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental impact | GHG emissions (kg-CO2-eq./mmBTU product) | 140–150/mmBTU bioethanol | 55–65/mmBTU biodiesel | −10 to 5/mmBTU biodiesel |
Energy consumption (MJ/mmBTU product) | 2–3/mmBTU bioethanol | 190–200/mmBTU biodiesel | 2500–2600/mmBTU biodiesel | |
Water requirement (L) | 39,000–40,500 | 24,000–25,000 | 650–700 | |
Land use (ha) | 5–6 | 0.5–0.7 | 0.2–0.4 | |
Economic impact | Production cost ($/L) | 2.9–3.1 | 2.8–3.0 | 2.7–2.9 |
Market price ($/L) | 3.0–3.1 | 2.8–2.9 | 2.5–2.7 | |
Social impact | Job creation (number of jobs) | Moderate (agriculture) | High (specialised processing jobs) | High (research and technology jobs) |
Community development programs | Limited | Growing | Extensive, especially in rural areas | |
Efficiency metrics | Biomass conversion efficiency (%) | 30–40 | 50–60 | 60–80 |
Production yield (kg/ton of biomass) | 200–250 | 300–350 | 400–500 | |
Sustainability indicators | Renewable energy use (%) | 20–30 | 40–50 | 60–80 |
Waste reduction (%) | 30–40 | 50–60 | 70–90 | |
Recyclability of by-products (%) | 40–50 | 60–70 | 80–90 |
