Abstract
The current global climate change, the 2030 Agenda, and the planetary boundaries have driven new development strategies, such as the circular economy, bioeconomy, and biorefineries. In this framework, this study analyzes the potential availability and sustainability of the wood supply chain for a small-scale biorefinery aiming at producing 280–300 L of bioethanol per ton of dry biomass, consuming 30,000 t of dry biomass per year harvested in a 50 km radius. This wood production goal was assessed from Eucalyptus grandis stands planted for solid wood in northeastern Uruguay. Moreover, to understand the environmental performance of this biomass supply chain, the energy return on investment (EROI), carbon footprint (CF), and potential soil erosion were also assessed. The results showed that the potential wood production would supply an average of 81,800 t of dry mass per year, maintaining the soil erosion below the upper threshold recommended, an EROI of 2.3, and annual CF of 1.22 kg CO2−eq m−3 (2.6 g CO2−eq MJ−1). Combined with the environmental performance of the bioethanol biorefinery facility, these results would show acceptable values of sustainability according to EU Directive 2009/28/ec because the bioethanol CF becomes 1.7% of this petrol’s CF.
Highlights
According to forest plans presented to DGF, the effective area occupied by Eucalyptus grandis plantations for sawmilling and plywood mills in the northern region is 39,772 ha
Plantation forests managed for sawmills are long-rotation crops; regional yearly yield variations are likely related to the age of the stands and the number of hectares ready to be harvested or thinned each year
Based on the current results, it is possible to meet the feedstock requirements of a second-generation biorefinery considering the following criteria: (i) biomass availability larger than 30,000 tDM ha−1 ; (ii) soil loss originated by crop less than 7 t−1 ; (iii) energy return on investment (EROI) larger than 2; and (iv) a carbon footprint (CF) lower than Petrol’s CF
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. From a public policy viewpoint, objectives and/or strategies have been proposed to solve these problems, through proposals such as sustainable development [1], the Elkington [2] triple bottom line (social, economic, and physical-natural), or multidimensional assessments with life cycle assessment (LCAs) [3]. Approaches that, in general, only allow a relative comparison of development styles or production strategies, without being able to identify sustainability in absolute terms. Rockström et al [4] highlighted the need to work according to natural systems limits because any economic or social arguments that try to overpass these natural limits will always have negative consequences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
