The Application of Circular Footprint Formula in Bioenergy/Bioeconomy: Challenges, Case Study, and Comparison with Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Methods

Antonio Carlos Farrapo (), Thiago Teixeira Matheus, Ricardo Musule Lagunes, Remo Filleti, Fabio Yamaji and Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva
Additional contact information
Antonio Carlos Farrapo: Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil
Thiago Teixeira Matheus: Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil
Ricardo Musule Lagunes: Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Veracruzana, Coatzacoalcos 96538, Mexico
Remo Filleti: Research Nucleus for Energy, Materials, and Sustainability (NUPEMAS), Post-Graduate Program in Production Engineering (PPGEP), Methodist University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP), Piracicaba 13423-170, Brazil
Fabio Yamaji: Biomass and Bioenergy Research Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil
Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva: Research Group on Sustainability Engineering (EngS Group), Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Sorocaba 18052-780, Brazil

Sustainability, 2023, vol. 15, issue 3, 1-17

Abstract: Allocation methodological choices in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a relevant issue for the Circular Bioeconomy context. The recent Product Environmental Footprint Guide from the European Commission includes the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) as a new way to deal with energy recovery/recycling processes. This paper investigated CFF vs. other different LCA allocation methods in Brazilian briquette production. A cradle-to-gate LCA study was conducted considering 1 MJ of energy from recovered and dedicated Eucalyptus briquette production. Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) were selected as the impact categories to evaluate the allocation methods choice that influences the potential impacts. LCA results were compared regarding four allocation methods. Eucalyptus wood as a biomass supply scenario achieved impact results up to 4.3 kg CO 2 -eq. for GWP and 0.0272 MJ-eq. for CED. The recovery wood scenario presented LCA burdens reduction by up to 206% for GWP, however a 492% increase in the CED results. CFF provided the lowest results for both impact categories. However, the CFF method still doesn’t address particular aspects of circular bioenergy systems. Biomass and bioenergy LCA require further adjustments focusing on biochemical flows in the CFF calculation procedure to lead the development of innovative circular business models.

Keywords: circular economy; energy recovery; recycling; life cycle engineering; circular business models (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2339/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2339/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2339-:d:1048486

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().