Evaluation of sugar feedstocks for bio‐based chemicals: A consequential, regionalized life cycle assessment

Abstract

AbstractFermentable sugars are an attractive feedstock for the production of bio‐based chemicals. However, little is known about the environmental performance of sugar feedstocks when demand for sugars increases, and when local conditions and sensitivities of receiving ecosystems are taken into account. Production of monosaccharides from various first‐ and second‐generation feedstocks (sugar beet, sugar cane, wheat, maize, wood, residual woodchips, and sawdust) in different geographic locations was assessed and compared as feedstock for monoethylene glycol (MEG) using consequential, regionalized life cycle assessment. Sugar cane grown in Thailand performed best in all three areas of protection, that is, for life cycle impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources (respectively, equal to −7.6 × 10−5 disability‐adjusted life years, −1.2 × 10−8 species‐years and −0.046 US dollars per amount of feedstock needed to produce 1 kg of MEG). This was mainly due to benefits from by‐products—incineration of sugar cane bagasse generating electricity and use of sugar cane molasses for the production of bioethanol. The wood‐based feedstocks and maize performed worse than sugar cane and sugar beet, but their evaluation did not consider that sugar extraction technology from lignocellulose is immature, while identification of marginal suppliers of the marginal crop is particularly uncertain for maize. Wheat grown in Russia performed the worst mainly due to low agricultural yields (with impacts equal to 8.9 × 10−5 disability‐adjusted life years, 6.9 × 10−7 species‐years, and 1.8 US dollars per amount of feedstock required to produce 1 kg of bio‐based MEG). Our results suggest that selection of sugar feedstocks for bio‐based chemicals should focus on (i) the intended use of by‐products and functions they replace and (ii) consideration of geographic differences in parameters that influence life cycle inventories, while spatial differentiation in the life cycle impact assessment was less influential.