Chapter 6

Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable

Energy Production from Biomass

Lucia Lijó, Sara González-García, Daniela Lovarelli, Maria Teresa Moreira,

Gumersindo Feijoo and Jacopo Bacenetti

Abstract Among the different alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, the produc-
tion of renewable energy from biomass (i.e. bioenergy) is regarded as an interesting
option since it involves the valorisation of waste streams, residues and non-food crop
biomass. Although a standardised framework regulates the Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) methodology, its application in practice poses some methodological difficul-
ties. This chapter reviews the main methodological issues that a LCA practitioner
has to face when it comes to the environmental assessment of bioenergy systems.
Despite its complexity, consequential LCA is considered an interesting approach
for informing policy-makers and decision-makers about the indirect effect of a spe-
cific strategy. In this sense, indirect environmental burdens such as indirect land
use change should be included in the study. Moreover, the selection of the system
function and system boundaries are other methodological issues that directly affect
the results obtained and, therefore, the comparability of LCA studies, intensified in
particular in the case of bioenergy systems due to their complexity. In more detail,
some bioenergy systems co-produce multiple products, increasing the variability of

L. Lijó · S. González-García · M. T. Moreira · G. Feijoo

Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Santiago de
Compostela, 15782 Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
S. González-García
e-mail: [email protected]
M. T. Moreira
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Feijoo
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Lovarelli
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences—Production Landscape,
Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Bacenetti (B)
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 81

R. Basosi et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Systems
and Sustainable Energy Technologies, Green Energy and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93740-3_6
82 L. Lijó et al.

the functions provided by the system, as well as of the system boundaries chosen
to overcome multifunctionality (subdivision, system expansion or allocation). The
selection of the appropriate methodology and impact categories, as well as the gaps
in characterisation factors, is other methodological drawbacks.

Keywords Biomass · Life cycle assessment · Methodological issues

Bioenergy systems

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Interest in Renewable Energy Production and Use

Energy is a potential indicator of economic and social development and improved

quality of life (Ahiduzzaman and Sadrul Islam 2011). Currently, about 85% of the
world’s energy requirements are supplied by conventional fossil fuels (Srirangan
et al. 2012). However, there are important issues regarding the sustainability of their
use, including (i) depletion of fossil reserves, (ii) significant environmental impacts
and (iii) large price fluctuations. Society’s concerns about environmental and health
issues arising from the use of fossil fuels has increased due to the increasing con-
centration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 , CH4 , CFCs, ozone, N2 O and
halons in the atmosphere. The release of these gases derives mainly from human
activities, which threaten not only environmental sustainability but also the socio
economic situation, favouring global climate change and its related societal conse-
quences (Berners-Lee et al. 2012). In this sense, there is abundant scientific evidence
that changes in global climate are caused by anthropogenic activity. The effects of
climate change are manifested even on a daily basis through the multiplication of
extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods and droughts, the distribution
of vector-borne diseases and their impact on disaster risk and malnutrition (Panwar
et al. 2011). However, facing global climate change represents a great challenge
(Ahiduzzaman and Sadrul Islam 2011). Effective measures to counteract the drivers
of ongoing climate change and improve public response to its consequences are
essential (Adamo 2015). Moreover, the concept of Green Economy has received
increasing support from researchers and policy-makers. In this context, the devel-
opment of renewable energy can reduce GHG emissions into the atmosphere, while
contributing to solve other crucial challenges, such as improving the reliability of
energy supply, saving fossil energy sources, securing local energy supply, creat-
ing ‘green jobs’ opportunities and ensuring sustainable development in rural areas
(Panwar et al. 2011; Gasparatos et al. 2017).
With this aim, the European Commission published in 1997 ‘Energy for the future:
Renewable sources of energy’, a White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action
Plan laying the foundations of the European Union (EU) policy on renewable energy
(European Commission 1997). This document proposed to increase the share of
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 83

renewable energy in the European gross energy consumption to 12% by 2010. There-
after, the EU promoted the production of electricity from renewable energy sources
under Directive 2001/77/EC (European Parliament 2001). In 2007, the European
Commission proposed an integrated Energy and Climate Change programme, which
included the commitment to achieve a reduction of at least 20% of GHG emissions
by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Subsequently, EU Directive 2009/28/EC set the
target of achieving a 20% share of renewable energy in gross energy consumption
and 10% of renewable energy in transport by 2020 (European Parliament 2009). To
this purpose, each Member State has its own target for the share of energy from
renewable sources and should have implemented a set of policies to achieve this
objective. Therefore, the Member States had to prepare National Renewable Energy
Action Plans with detailed roadmaps and measures to reach the 2020 renewable
energy targets (Scarlat et al. 2015). Despite these activities, renewable energy cur-
rently accounts for a relatively small proportion of global final energy consumption
(~19% of global primary energy); however, it has the potential to supply all human
energy needs (Edenhofer et al. 2011; Ahiduzzaman and Sadrul Islam 2011). Recently,
new targets for 2020–2030 have been introduced through the 2030 Framework for
Climate and Energy. The targets are to achieve a 40% cut in GHG emissions com-
pared to 1990 levels, at least 27% of renewable energy consumption and at least 27%
energy savings compared to the business-as-usual scenario. The European Commis-
sion has therefore proposed specific policies to support the achievement of these
targets, mainly by means of trading schemes and indicators for competitiveness and
security of the energy system.

6.1.2 Renewable Energy Sources: The Potential of Biomass

According to the literature (Ellabban et al. 2014), renewable energy sources have
the potential to supply the total present global energy needs. Among the different
alternatives, the use of biomass for bioenergy production is considered one of the
most promising sources (Cherubini and Strømman 2011) and its potential adds up
to 20 times the current global energy requirements, being superior to hydroelectric,
marine and geothermal energy.
The term biomass includes all organic material (containing residues) derived from
crops, plants and trees and the biomass-based energy implies its conversion into
heat, electricity and biofuels (Ellabban et al. 2014). Therefore, sources for bioen-
ergy production can be very different and may include several different production
processes, such as wood for thermal energy production or oilseeds production for
oil extraction to produce biofuels. All biomass sources are regarded as an alternative
capable of replacing fossil resources by producing different fuels and chemicals due
to its carbon content. Biomass is synthesised through the photosynthetic process
that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide and water into sugars, which are used by
plants to produce complex materials, generically known as biomass. In bioenergy
systems, it is important to ensure the supply of renewable, consistent and regular
84 L. Lijó et al.

feedstock. In particular, feedstock can be sourced from different parts of plants, dis-
tinguishing the biomass-to-energy production in first, second and third generation.
First-generation biofuels are those produced from dedicated crops that compete with
food and feed production, resulting in multiple ethical, political and environmen-
tal concerns (Cherubini 2010). Second-generation biofuels come from raw materials
based on waste, residues or biomass from non-food crops. They are considered a sus-
tainable alternative to fossil fuels and to first-generation biofuels as well (Cherubini
2010). Third generation biofuels are derived from algae and microalgae cultivation.
Ensuring the environmental sustainability of biomass production is a crucial
issue for the sustainable production of biofuels (Cherubini 2010). The Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) methodology has been widely used to compare the environmen-
tal impacts produced by fossil and renewable energy sources. With regard to climate
change, the LCA studies available in the literature showed that bioenergy entails, in
most cases, a reduction of GHG emissions. However, these benefits are not unam-
biguously obtained in all the environmental impact categories studied. Biomass pro-
duction has been identified as an important source of other environmental impacts,
affecting impact categories such as land use, acidification, eutrophication and ecotox-
icity, among others. Additionally, large-scale cultivation of dedicated biomass (i.e.
energy crops) could affect bioenergy potential, global food prices and water scarcity.
To ensure the sustainable development of bioenergy, integrated policies for energy,
land use and water management are needed, along with international cooperation,
regulations, certification mechanisms and sustainability criteria (Popp et al. 2014).
In this sense, a strategy has been proposed based on the development of biorefinery
and biotransformation technologies to transform biomass feedstock into clean forms
of energy (An et al. 2011; Kamm and Kamm 2004; Srirangan et al. 2012; Volsky
and Smithhart 2011).

6.1.3 Environmental Aspects Linked to Bioenergy

It is generally believed that the use of renewable energies contributes to mitigating

the environmental impacts associated with the use of fossil fuels. When biomass is
burned or used after conversion into other biofuels (e.g. biodiesel, ethanol, biogas),
its carbon content is released into the atmosphere as CO2 , which had been previously
captured by the plant in the photosynthetic process. Therefore, biomass-based energy
is considered carbon neutral. In addition, the use of biomass reduces NOX and SOX
emissions into the environment (compared to the use of conventional fossil fuels) as
it contains less nitrogen and sulphur than, for example, coal (Herbert and Krishnan
2016).
However, numerous studies indicate that biomass energy is not entirely clean
(Field et al. 2008; Rahman et al. 2013; Herbert and Krishnan 2016). Increased
production of biomass for renewable energy has the potential to offset fossil fuels
requirements, but negative aspects can also be identified that threaten ecosystem
conservation and diminish food/feed security (Field et al. 2008).
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 85

The production of biomass-based energy always involves the indirect use of fossil
energy for the cultivation, transport or manufacturing phases of the process. Culti-
vation of bioenergy crops could hypothetically damage the environment due to agri-
cultural practices and land and water degradation (Bindraban et al. 2009; Herbert
and Krishnan 2016). Biodiversity loss, water harvesting, reduced soil productivity,
introduction of invasive energy crops, use of agrochemicals (e.g. pesticides, herbi-
cides and fertilisers) and their derived effects on the aquatic environment, as well as
air emissions associated with NOX , SO2 , NH3 , N2 O should not be omitted. In this
sense, the use of non-food biomass produced on marginal land is considered as a
potential sustainable option (Bindraban et al. 2009). Significant amounts of biomass
could be produced in the short term without displacing food crops. It is therefore
justified that we need to address the environmental impacts associated with biomass
production, including background processes.
In addition, other negative aspects are also linked to the production and use of
biomass. Managing biomass for energy production requires a large amount of stor-
age space, as well as land and water. Soil erosion reduces soil productivity due to
agriculture activities (Pimentel 2001), which contributes to water and nutrients run
off and subsequently, eutrophication. In addition, changes in soil carbon content
resulting from some agricultural activities that can lead to deforestation problems
are well known. In this sense, the type of crop may behave differently. According to
the literature (Field et al. 2008), management of agricultural land declassified with
perennial grassland can increase carbon content, mainly due to the inputs to the soil,
including roots and leaf litter.
Therefore, promoting biomass-based renewable energy requires knowledge of
the risks (e.g. food security, soil degradation) and opportunities (increasing energy
independence, improving rural economies and offsetting climate change) in the area.
The modernisation of biomass conversion technologies, together with more efficient
biomass production and conversion routes, are challenges to be undertaken. In addi-
tion, it is essential to promote standards, practices and regulations to protect the
environment.

6.2 Key Methodological Aspects in LCA of Biomass-Based

Energy System

LCA has evolved from its origins in the early 1970s into a complex tool that is now
being widely applied in research, industry, policy and standards and continues to
expand as it is able to determine the environmental impact of products or systems
(McManus and Taylor 2015). Renewable energy policies are increasingly consider-
ing LCA as the driving tool for selecting the most adequate bioenergy pathways and
guiding decision-makers (European Commission 2014). As part of the EU sustain-
ability framework for biofuels and bioliquids, the EU Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) (2009/28/EC) and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) (2009/30/EC) contain
86 L. Lijó et al.

minimum GHG emission requirements that biofuels must meet on a mandatory basis
in order to obtain public funding (Edwards et al. 2017). In more detail, GHGs must
be reduced by 35% compared with fossil fuels in installations built before Octo-
ber 2015, while the threshold is raised to 50% for installations working from 2017
(Edwards et al. 2017). In order to standardise the quantification of these environ-
mental impacts, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) reissued
a regulatory framework for LCA studies during the period 1997–2000. Updates to
these documents were completed in 2006, so that the previous standards were com-
bined in ISO 14040 (2006) and ISO 14044 (2006). However, in some aspects, these
standards are rather generic, leading to some difficulties in the practical application of
this tool, especially when associated with the assessment of complex processes such
as bioenergy systems. Among the studies on bioenergy available in the literature,
there are often important differences in results, not only due to different approaches
to biomass production, conversion technologies and end-use options, but also due to
the definition of system boundaries, functional units, allocation methods, assump-
tions in the building of life cycle inventory (LCI), the fossil energy reference system,
etc. (Cherubini et al. 2009), which makes it difficult to compare the different studies.

6.2.1 Life Cycle Model

Traditionally, the life cycle model of LCA studies included all the processes that
are identified to make a significant contribution to the supply chain of the system,
known as attributional LCA (aLCA). aLCA describes the potential environmental
impacts that can be directly attributed to a process or product throughout its life
cycle, assuming that it is embedded into a static technosphere (Wolf et al. 2010).
With regard to biomass-based energy production, the current trend is to move
to life cycle assessments in more complex decision-making contexts that describe
how environmental impacts could change in response to possible policy decisions.
This approach, named consequential LCA (cLCA), integrates the supply chain as
theoretically expected from the consequence of the decision taken, including the
changes resulting from the interaction between the system and markets (Wolf et al.
2010). Hence, this model does not reflect the actual or estimated supply chain, but
rather models a hypothetical generic supply chain through market-mechanisms and
potentially includes policy interactions and changes in consumer behaviour.
Compared to conventional aLCA, the consequential approach has proven to be
particularly interesting in informing policy and decision-makers about the indirect
effects of a specific strategy (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2014). However, this perspective
adds great complexity to the LCA study, as it often means that it should include
additional economic aspects such as marginal costs and market effects (McManus
and Taylor 2015). Moreover, a consistent approach for cLCA has not yet been estab-
lished by LCA practitioners. The coexistence of these two different approaches with
markedly different perspectives is one of the greatest challenges faced by the LCA
community (Zamagni et al. 2012; McManus and Taylor 2015). The potential appli-
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 87

cation of cLCA to the different processes for the production of renewable energy
from biomass is particularly interesting, even if biomass waste is used as feedstock,
due to
• The multifunctionality of these systems since the production of co-products and
by-products (e.g. heat and digestate in the biogas-to-electricity production pro-
cess; press cake or glycerol in the production of first-generation biofuels) adds
complexity to the analysis;
• The presence of a framework of public subsidies for the energy produced, since
the environmental consequences due to changes in subsidies could be evaluated;
• The reduction of the carbon storage in soil derived from the removal of biomass
residues from agricultural or forestry land to produce bioenergy (Cherubini et al.
2009);
• The expansion of land use due to the creation of a market for biomass residues or
by-products (Cherubini et al. 2009).
According to Ahlgren et al. (2015), the choice of the LCA approach (aLCA or
cLCA) is closely related to the question of research. Despite the assertions made
in the ILCD Handbook (JRC 2010), the choice of aLCA or cLCA is not always
straightforward. In particular, careful considerations should be given to every study
whether the methodological choices that have been made supply meaningful answers
to the research questions.

6.2.2 Function of the System and Functional Unit

In every LCA study, the selection of the function of the system is an important
methodological step, as it is directly related to the identification of the functional unit
(FU) and to the delimitation of the system boundaries. The FU is a key aspect when
comparing biofuels with the appropriate fossil reference, since it should guarantee
that both systems provide the same service (Cherubini and Strømman 2011).
The selection of the FU in LCA studies focusing on renewable energy systems
is not trivial; it is important to note that it is closely related to the objective of the
study. Among the different LCA studies of bioenergy systems, there is a remarkable
variability in the FU used, making it difficult to compare the results obtained in these
studies. In fact, depending on the objective, more than one FU may be appropriate
(Cherubini and Strømman 2011). According to the literature (Ahlgren et al. 2015;
Cherubini and Strømman 2011), it can be identified:
• The input-based FU such as ‘feedstock use’, suitable for determining the best
use of land or biomass, which allows comparison between different uses for a
given feedstock. This approach is particularly interesting for first-generation crops
since it allows the quantification of land use efficiency (Cherubini 2010). For
example, González-García et al. (2013) considered 1 tonne of dry biomass for
the environmental comparison of the production of three different energy crops
(maize, triticale and wheat) cultivated for biogas production in Italy;
88 L. Lijó et al.

• The output-based FU, such as energy production, which identifies the best way
to supply a product such as biogas or electricity from different feedstocks. For
instance, for the comparison of two different feedstocks for biodiesel production
in Italy, Bacenetti et al. (2017) considered 1 GJ of energy contained in each biofuel,
while Carneiro et al. (2017) suggest using 1 MJ of energy contained in ethanol;
• The function-based FU, which represents the best choice according to the ISO
standard. For example, in biofuels studies, if the aim is to compare different fuels,
travelled distance may be a good option, as fuels have different engine conversion
efficiencies. A simple comparison with 1 MJ of fuels would not reflect the diversity
of the fuels. As an example, González-García et al. (2012) considered a distance of
1 km driven by a mid-size flexi-fuel vehicle that uses an 85% blend of ethanol and
gasoline for the environmental comparison of ethanol production from different
fast-growing wood crops.

6.2.3 Managing Multifunctionality

The problem becomes more complex as some bioenergy systems have more than
one function and provide more than one product or service. In this sense, the one
selected to define the FU depends on the goal and scope of the study. As regards the
production of biodiesel from oil crops such as soybean, sunflower and rapeseed, the
extraction of crude vegetable oil also includes the production of press cake, while
during transesterification, in addition to biofuels, glycerol is also produced. In addi-
tion, the conversion of wood biomass into electricity by means of Organic Rankine
Cycle (ORC) or by gasification and pyrolysis coupled to a Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) plant involves the co-production of heat (Wolf et al. 2016). Another example
in renewable energy systems is anaerobic digestion of biomass for biogas produc-
tion. These systems involve the co-production of different products, both from the
anaerobic digestion process and the end-use of the biogas produced. Moreover, this
is especially relevant when anaerobic digestion is selected as a treatment option for
organic waste management, as resource recovery from waste results in cost-effective
multifunctional systems (Heimersson et al. 2017). In more detail, in these systems
the main function may be the treatment of organic waste, while other secondary
functions can be identified, such as: (i) the production of biogas, (ii) the production
of electricity, heat and/or biomethane from biogas and (iii) the production of diges-
tate to be used as organic fertiliser. Therefore, the way these multiple products are
considered in LCA studies is becoming increasingly important (Heimersson et al.
2017). Different approaches to solving multifunctionality have been proposed. The
choice of the most appropriate one depends, among others, on the goal of the study,
available data and information, and the characteristics of the multifunctional process
or product (Wolf et al. 2010). In detail:
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 89

Fig. 6.1 System expansion. Acronyms: I—inputs, R—resources, E—emissions, W—wastes,

A—product A, B—product B

• Subdivision refers to the collection of data individually for several mono-functional

processes that are components of the multifunctional process and give rise to the
production of the product under study;
• System expansion includes two options: (i) adding another function to make the
system comparable (i.e. system expansion in the stricter sense) or (ii) extracting
the non-required function of the system by subtracting the processes that provide
an equivalent function (i.e. substitution by system expansion). System expansion
should only be applied if a direct substitution effect can be robustly modelled. The
Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission 2009) requires allocation by
partitioning, based on the lower heating value (LHV) of the products, with the
exception of excess electricity, which is addressed by system expansion;
• Allocation solves multifunctionality by partitioning the flows of individual inputs
and outputs between the co-products according to certain criteria. According to
ISO 14044, allocation should be avoided whenever possible by applying sub-
division or system expansion (ISO 14044 2006). When unavoidable, the inputs
and outputs of the system should be partitioned between its different products or
functions in such a way that reflects a relationship between them, either physical,
economic, energetic or exergetic.
In these complex systems, subdivision cannot be conducted since it is not possible
to inventory the system in such detail that it allows each flow to be linked to each
product (Heimersson et al. 2017). The use of substitution to avoid allocation is
consistent with the recommendations of ISO 14044 and the International Reference
Life Cycle Data (ILCD) Handbook (ISO 14044 2006; Wolf et al. 2010). This can be
done by giving to the system a credit for secondary functions, awarding the system
with the avoided negative impacts of the avoided product or service that the secondary
functions replace, as shown in Fig. 6.1.
This perspective was followed, for example, in the study performed by Lijó et al.
(2017) to manage the multifunctionality of a biogas system. In this case, anaerobic
digestion is a co-production system in which biogas (product A) and digestate (prod-
uct B) are co-produced. As shown in Fig. 6.1, given that biogas was identified as
the main product, the burdens of an alternative system providing the same function
as the digestate (i.e. fertilisation of agricultural soil) were subtracted. However, this
alternative adds uncertainty to the results obtained due to the lack of primary data
for the replaced processes. Moreover, this approach should be considered carefully
90 L. Lijó et al.

Fig. 6.2 Life cycle chain and system boundaries of bioenergy systems

since biogas systems using agricultural feedstock (e.g., cereal silages), digestate can
be used as an organic fertiliser for the production of the energy crop; therefore, it
does not leave the system boundaries. Moreover, if biogas is produced from animal
manure, the digestate may play the same role as animal waste if it has not been
diverted to anaerobic digestion. Fernández-Tirado et al. (2016) first performed a
system expansion to address multifunctionality due to biodiesel and press cake co-
production; however, subsequently, economic allocation between oils (for biodiesel)
and meals co-produced was also considered. Similarly, Bacenetti et al. (2017) per-
formed an economic allocation between crude vegetable oil and press cake, as well as
between biodiesel and glycerol in the LCA of two biodiesel systems. Moreover, War-
denaar et al. (2012) conducted an analysis considering different allocation methods
(economic, physical and substitution).

6.2.4 System Boundaries

The system boundaries define which unit processes belong to the analysed system,
since they are necessary to provide the function to the system. Therefore, the system
boundaries separate the analysed system from the rest of the technosphere and nature,
defining where the system exchanges elementary flows with nature, and, therefore,
produces the environmental impacts (Wolf et al. 2010).
Figure 6.2 depicts the processes included within the system boundaries when the
overall life cycle chain of bioenergy system is under study. However, depending on the
goal of each LCA study, the system boundaries of the bioenergy chain may change.
For example, for the comparison of different feedstock for biodiesel production,
a cradle-to-gate approach may be considered, i.e. considering the background and
foreground processes up to the gate of the biodiesel factory (Fernández-Tirado et al.
2016; Bacenetti et al. 2017).
By maintaining the example of biogas production, the definition of the system
boundaries of some systems for the anaerobic digestion of organic waste streams
may be conflicting. In more detail, the distribution of the burdens related to waste
production between the production system and the treatment system may be prob-
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 91

lematic (Doka 2007). The question is whether waste can be regarded as a valuable
product, as it can produce biogas or a waste material that needs to be managed.
Organic waste is considered as a zero-value product because biogas plants do not
usually have to pay for it. In these cases, it is common practice in LCA studies to
consider that the production of organic waste such as manure, food and industrial
wastes are excluded from the system boundaries of the biogas system, as they are
considered to be waste streams from other production systems (i.e. livestock and
food sectors).
Broadly speaking, although its use in biogas plants is an option for its management,
the production of this waste would not be influenced by a change in the biogas
management scheme. A similar analysis can be applied to the digestate fraction
from anaerobic digestion. Farmers who use the produced digestate as an organic
fertiliser do not usually have to pay for it; therefore, it can be considered as a waste
and the environmental impacts of its handling should be allocated to the anaerobic
digestion process. This poses a major problem when applying digestate to agricultural
land; while emissions of mineral fertilisers or animal manure are fully attributed to
the agricultural production, emissions from the digestate would be allocated to the
biogas system. This would lead to questionable conclusions from the LCA studies.
According to Doka (2007), there are good reasons to include the application of
digestate as a waste in LCA of biogas systems, there are also equally justified reasons
to set the cut-off limit that includes the application of digestate in agriculture as a
recycled material.
Unlike animal manure in the biogas process, for the wood-to-energy production
chain, the use of lignocellulosic matrices as feedstock for energy purposes cannot
be managed with the zero-value approach. When biomass such as pruning residues,
leaves or branches from forestry utilisation are used as feedstock for energy plants,
their production is included in the system boundary and, usually, allocation is per-
formed (Muench and Guenther 2013; Patel et al. 2016).
In order to quantify the environmental gains of bioenergy production, a fossil-
based reference system is required. Therefore, its definition can also play a key role
in the outcomes obtained for a specific study. The reference system should reflect the
most representative conventional way of providing the same function as the bioen-
ergy system under study for a specific geographical location. When analysing the
production of electricity from biogas, the reference fossil-based electricity system
can be produced from coal, oil or natural gas, which entails different potential envi-
ronmental burdens used as reference (Cherubini and Strømman 2011). For example,
Van Stappen et al. (2016) displaced electricity from oil and natural gas, while Lijó
et al. (2017) considered the average electricity production in the country mix of the
site under study.
Following the issue of system boundaries, the consideration (or not) of biogenic
carbon within the boundaries of LCA studies also deserves special mention. This bio-
genic carbon is temporarily stored in vegetation, litter, dead wood and soil (Cherubini
and Strømman 2011). Therefore, this consideration is particularly important when
dealing with bioenergy systems, since they use biomass as feedstock, whether energy
crops, by-products or organic waste, which can be considered a temporary carbon
92 L. Lijó et al.

storage. Biogenic carbon is defined as the carbon contained or derived from biomass
that accumulates during plant growth as a result of photosynthesis (Wiloso et al.
2012). Conventionally, LCA studies do not assign any environmental burden to car-
bon dioxide emissions from biogenic sources (Brandão et al. 2013). In these cases,
carbon neutrality is considered on the basis that the expected uptake of carbon diox-
ide from biomass growth equals the expected carbon emitted over the full life cycle,
whether it is naturally decomposed or burned (Wiloso et al. 2012). Therefore, it is
considered that there is no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content and the
benefits of temporarily removing it from the atmosphere and the impacts related to
its subsequent emission are excluded from many LCA studies (Brandão et al. 2013;
Wiloso et al. 2012).
However, with the aim of validating this assumption, the previously harvested
biomass should be replaced by a new biomass growing in the short term. In this sense,
the use of annual crops may not increase the amount of atmospheric carbon due to
compensation by the relatively undelayed photosynthesis (Wiloso et al. 2012). Many
authors disagree with this statement. Carbon sequestration during biomass growth
can be considered as a negative emission in LCA. The argument to support this
approach is that during the time between biomass harvesting and its decomposition
or combustion, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases
temporarily and radiative forcing is partially avoided.
Other authors support the idea that temporary storage of biogenic carbon may have
a negative effect due to the change in the concentration gradient between atmosphere
and oceans, causing oceans to absorb less carbon dioxide (Wiloso et al. 2012). The
consideration of temporary carbon storage and delayed emissions within the system
boundaries of LCA studies is discouraged by the ILCD Handbook, unless the goal of
the study clearly includes it (Wolf et al. 2010). In any case, the inclusion of biogenic
carbon within the system boundaries in LCA studies is still under discussion. Timing
of emissions is usually not included in LCA of renewable energy. However, according
to Ahlgren et al. (2015), when there are significant differences in time between CO2
uptake and emissions from the system under study, this should not be ignored and
discussed in the study, promoting efforts to quantify the impact.
However, biogenic carbon in biomass is not the only one to be considered; changes
in biogenic carbon contained in the soil should be taken into consideration. By
changing the way land is used, named as land use change (LUC), these storage pools
may change until they reach a new equilibrium (
Cherubini 2010). The consideration of these carbon changes is directly related
with cLCA studies (Carneiro et al. 2017) and has an important impact on the carbon
balance of bioenergy systems due to the large quantities of carbon in soil. Therefore,
emissions due to land use change may reduce GHG savings from bioenergy systems
when comparing to fossil-based alternatives, especially when considering dedicated
energy crops or agricultural and forestry residues as raw material (Cherubini 2010).
Direct land use change (dLUC) occurs when the use of land is changed to produce
energy crops for bioenergy purposes, displacing previous land use. Depending on
the earlier use of the land and the energy crop to be established, carbon stock in
soil can increase or decrease (Cherubini 2010). For example, if a forest land is con-
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 93

verted into palm plantations, there would be a loss of carbon stocks; while, when
the abandoned land is converted into sustainable maize cultivation, carbon stock
may increase (Cherubini and Strømman 2011). Indirect land use change (iLUC) (or
leakage) occurs when land currently used for feed or food crops is transformed into
the production of feedstock for bioenergy and the demand for the previous land
use (i.e. feed, food) remains, the displaced agricultural production will be shifted to
other places where unfavourable land use change may occur. For instance, Buchspies
and Kaltschmitt (2018) analysed different first and second-generation ethanol pro-
duction, considering the mechanisms of LUC linked to straw removal in Germany,
transformation from scrubland to soybean cultivation in Brazil and decrease in forest
cover due to oil palm cultivation in Indonesia and Malaysia.

6.2.5 Building the Life Cycle Inventory

In LCA studies, the LCI is built by collecting data for each unit process defined at
the system boundary and it is expressed on the basis of the FU selected. Collected
data would include energy inputs, raw material inputs, ancillary inputs, other phys-
ical inputs, products, co-products and waste, emissions to air, discharges to water
and soil and other environmental aspects. Two types of data can be distinguished: i)
foreground data that refer to the process data required to produce the product under
study and ii) background data that include data from processes required to produce
generic materials, energy, transport and waste management. In accordance with ISO
14044, data quality requirements shall be specified to ensure compliance with the
goal and scope of the LCA. It should include time-related coverage (data age and
the minimum period of time for data collection), geographical coverage (area from
which data should be collected for each unit process), technology coverage, accuracy
(measurement of variability in data values for each process), completeness (percent-
age of flow that is measured or estimated), consistency (assessment of whether the
methodology for data collection is uniformly applied to the data collection process),
reproducibility (assessment of the extent to which information on the methodology
and data values would allow an independent practitioner to reproduce the study),
data sources and uncertainty of the information.
Specifically, regarding LCA studies of bioenergy systems, the calculation of dif-
ferent foreground data is required in different unit processes and at different stages of
the life cycle, especially data related to direct emissions, such as those from storage
or application of digestate, since they are not usually measured due to their difficulty.
Estimating this type of data is a crucial issue in biogas LCA studies because they play
an important role in the environmental outcomes. Therefore, to consider these emis-
sions within the system, they are usually estimated using the methodologies available
in the literature. Numerous studies have shown that the most important hotspots in
biogas systems are associated with emissions, especially in the eutrophication and
acidification impact categories (Lijó et al. 2017). However, there are several differ-
ent methodologies and there is no a general consensus on which of them should
94 L. Lijó et al.

be selected. And, therefore, in the literature, these emissions are generally estimated
using different methodologies (De Vries et al. 2012; Fantin et al. 2015). These differ-
ences translate into disparities in LCA studies. For example, Bacenetti et al. (2017)
used the Estimation of Fertilisers Emissions-Software (EFE-So) model to calculate
emissions from the fertilisation of two non-conventional oilseed crops for biodiesel
production in Italy. Moreover, Lijó et al. (2017) and Fantin et al. (2015) conducted a
sensitivity analysis to quantify the effect on the results obtained on different method-
ologies.
Following the topic of data quality, uncertainty analyses are also recommended.
In LCA literature, Monte Carlo simulations are the most commonly used method-
ologies, for example in Van Stappen et al. (2016) or Fantin et al. (2015); however,
this assessment is not performed in most cases.

6.2.6 Selecting the Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Methodologies and Impact Categories

According to the ILCD Handbook, the selection of the impact categories and char-
acterisation models should be internationally accepted (Hauschild et al. 2011). In
addition, the category indicators shall include those relevant for the specific study
performed in accordance with the goal and scope, as well as to the results of the
LCI. The characterisation model for each category indicator shall be scientifically
and technically valid. Moreover, all the characterisation factors should not have
significant gaps in the coverage of the impact category to which they relate. For
the selection of relevant impact categories, initial knowledge based on experience
gained from studies of similar systems may help to identify which impact categories
are of significant global relevance and which may seem irrelevant to a specific system
(Hauschild et al. 2011). In previous reviews focused on renewable energy produc-
tion from biomass (Von Blottnitz and Currain 2007; Hijazi et al. 2015; Bacenetti
et al. 2016), a great variation in the number of impacts considered and the Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods used to estimate them was found. In
a review focused on agricultural biogas production carried out by Bacenetti et al.
(2016) considering 105 studies, the number of impact categories ranged from 1 to 18
and LCIA method used included almost all known LCIA methods, such as EcoIndi-
cator 99, CML 2001, Impact 2002+, ReCiPe and ILCD methods. Undoubtedly, the
carbon footprint (also called global warming potential or climate change) was the
most widely used environmental indicator. Nevertheless, different assessment meth-
ods were also used for this impact category: IPCC (2007), RED (European Union
2009) as well as the standard ISO/TS 14067:2013 (ISO, 2013). Moreover, tackling
the carbon footprint alone offers a very limited version of the overall environmental
performance of a bioenergy system. Regarding this issue, Venkatesh and Elmi (2013)
criticised the importance of focusing on climate change and noted the importance
of avoiding problem shifting; i.e. reducing the environmental impacts produced in
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 95

climate change by increasing them to other impact categories, including acidification

or eutrophication categories.

6.3 Conclusions

The LCA has been widely applied to assess the environmental impacts of renewable
energy production systems. Although LCA has proven to be a valid methodology
for environmental assessments of bioenergy supply chains, some methodological
choices remain critical and challenging, and still lead to inconsistent conclusions.
This chapter analyses these unsolved issues and methodological choices to pro-
vide a solid basis for further harmonisation of the LCA evaluation activities. In
particular, the aim is to improve the robustness of LCA results and the awareness
about the methodological choices, as well as to make the outcomes of different stud-
ies comparable. Critical methodological factors such as goal definition, selection of
FU, system boundaries and allocation have been discussed.
This chapter contributes to the current debate on harmonisation of environmental
impact assessment using LCA for the different and more common renewable energy
processes.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the STAR-ProBio project funded by the Euro-
pean Union’s Horizon 2020 Program research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No. 727740. Dr. S. González-Garcia would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry
of Economy and Competitiveness for financial support (Grant reference RYC-2014-14984). The
authors (L. Lijó, S. González-García, G. Feijoo and M.T. Moreira) belong to the Galician Compet-
itive Research Group GRC2013-032 and to the CRETUS Strategic Partnership (AGRUP2015/02).
All these programmes are co-funded by FEDER (UE).

References

Adamo SB (2015) About mitigation, adaptation and the UNFCCC’s 21st Conference of the Parties.
Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População 32(3):609–618
Ahiduzzaman Md, Sadrul Islam AKM (2011) Greenhouse gas emission and renewable energy
sources for sustainable development in Bangladesh. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:4659–4666.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.086
Ahlgren S, Björklund A, Ekman A, Karlsson H, Berlin J, Börjesson P, Strid I (2015) Review of
methodological choices in LCA of biorefinery systems-key issues and recommendations. Biofuels
Bioprod Biorefin 9(5):606–619
An H, Wilhelm WE, Searcy SW (2011) Biofuel and petroleum-based fuel supply chain research: a
literature review. Biomass Bioenerg 35:3763–3774
Bacenetti J, Sala C, Fusi A, Fiala M (2016) Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: what LCA
studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable. Appl
Energ 179:669–686
Bacenetti J, Restuccia A, Schillaci G, Failla S (2017) Biodiesel production from unconventional
oilseed crops (Linum usitatissimum L. and Camelina sativa L.) in Mediterranean conditions:
96 L. Lijó et al.

environmental sustainability assessment. Renew Energy 112:444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

renene.2017.05.044
Berners-Lee M, Hoolohan C, Cammack H, Hewitt CN (2012) The relative greenhouse gas impacts
of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 43:184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.
054
Bindraban PS, Bulte EH, Conijn SG (2009) Can large-scale biofuels production be sustainable by
2020? Agric Syst 101:197–199
Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Jørgensen SL, Jørgensen SV,
Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Chomkhamsri K (2013) Key issues and options in accounting
for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting.
Int J Life Cycle Ass 18(1):230–240
Buchspies B, Kaltschmitt M (2018) A consequential assessment of changes in greenhouse gas
emissions due to the introduction of wheat straw ethanol in the context of European legislation.
Appl Energy 211:368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.105
Carneiro MLNM, Pradelle F, Braga SL, Gomes MSP, Martins ARFA, Turkovics F, Pradelle RNC
(2017) Potential of biofuels from algae: comparison with fossil fuels, ethanol and biodiesel in
Europe and Brazil through life cycle assessment (LCA). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:632–653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.152
Cherubini F (2010) The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and
chemicals. Energy Convers Manag 51:1412–1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.01.
015
Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and
future challenges. Bioresource Technol 102(2):437–451
Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009) Energy-
and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and rec-
ommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.
03.013
De Vries JW, Groenestein CM, De Boer IJM (2012) Environmental consequences of processing
manure to produce mineral fertilizer and bio-energy. J Environ Manage 102:173–183. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.032
Doka G (2007) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services part IV wastewater treatment.
Database 60
Edenhofer O, Pichs R, Madruga Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eicke-
meier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, Von Stechow C (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy
sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Edwards R, Padella M, Giuntoli J, Koeble R, O’Connell A, Bulgheroni C, Marelli L (2017) Defini-
tion of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation, Version 1c.
ISBN 978-92-79-66185-3, https://doi.org/10.2760/284718, JRC104483
Ellabban O, Abu-Rub H, Blaadjerb F (2014) Renewable energy resources: current status, future
prospects and their enabling technology. Renew and Sustain Energy Rev 39:748–764. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113
European Commission (1997) Com (97) 599: energy for the future: renewable sources of ener-
gy—white paper for a community strategy and action plan 53
European Commission (2014) State of play on the sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass used
for electricity, heating and cooling in the EU—commission staff working document. Igarss 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
European Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/77/EC of the European parliament and of the council
of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources
in the internal electricity market
European Parliament (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and of the council
of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. COD(2008)0016. EC, Brussels
6 Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production from Biomass 97

European Union (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and of the council of
23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official J European Union 2009;
52:L 140/16-L 140/62
Fantin V, Giuliano A, Manfredi M, Ottaviano G, Stefanova M, Masoni P (2015) Environmental
assessment of electricity generation from an Italian anaerobic digestion plant. Biomass Bioenerg
83:422–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.015
Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M (2016) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel
in Spain: comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish production versus Argentinean
imports. Energy Sustain Dev 33:36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005
Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2008) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource.
Trends Ecol Evol 23:65–72
Gasparatos A, Doll CNH, Esteban M, Ahmed A, Olang TA (2017) Renewable energy and biodiver-
sity: implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 70:161–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030
González-García S, Moreira MT, Feijoo G, Murphy RJ (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of
ethanol production from fast-growing wood crops (black locust, eucalyptus and poplar). Biomass
Bioenerg 39:378–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.028
González-García S, Bacenetti J, Negri M, Fiala M, Arroja L (2013) Comparative environmental
performance of three different annual energy crops for biogas production in Northern Italy. J
Clean Prod 43:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.017
Hauschild M, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver
A (2011) ILCD handbook: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European
context, Vasa. https://doi.org/10.278/33030
Heimersson S, Svanström M, Cederberg C, Peters G (2017) Improved life cycle modelling of
benefits from sewage sludge anaerobic digestion and land application. Resour Conserv Recycl
122:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.016
Herbert GMJ, Krishnan AU (2016) Quantifying environmental performance of biomass energy.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59:292–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.254
Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B (2015) Effenberger M (2016) Review of life cycle assessment for
biogas production in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:1291–1300
IPCC (2007) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L,
Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme.
IGES, Japan
ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management-life cycle assessment—principles and framework.
Geneve, Switzerland
ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management/life cycle assessment/requirements and guidelines.
Geneve, Switzerland
ISO/TS 14067 (2013) Greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guide-
lines for quantification and communication
JRC Joint Research Centre (2010) ILCD Handbook. International reference life cycle data system.
General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance, 1st edn. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg
Kamm B, Kamm M (2004) Principles of biorefineries. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 64:137–145
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-003-1537-7
Lijó L, González-García S, Bacenetti J, Moreira MT (2017) The environmental effect of substituting
energy crops for food waste as feedstock for biogas production. Energy. 137:1130–1143. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.137
McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenerg
82:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.024
Muench S, Guenther E (2013) A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments. Appl Energy
112:257–273
98 L. Lijó et al.

Panwar NL, Kaushik SC, Kothari S (2011) Role of renewable energy sources in environmental
protection: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:1513–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2010.11.037
Patel M, Zhang X, Kumar A (2016) Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellu-
losic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
53:1486–1499
Pimentel D (2001) Biomass utilization, limits of. Encyclopedia of physical science and technology.
EN002C-60. P1:FJU/LPBP2:FJU. http:// www.energyjustice.net/files/ethanol/pimentel2001.pdf
Popp J, Lakner Z, Harangi-Rákos M, Fári M (2014) The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy,
and environment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 32:559–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.
056
Rahman SR, Mahmud NA, Rahman M, Hussain MdY, Ali MdS (2013) Overview of biomass energy.
Int J Eng Res Technol 2(11):379–385
Scarlat N, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, Banja M, Motola V (2015) Renewable energy pol-
icy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union—an overview from national
renewable energy action plans and progress reports. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51:969–985.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.062
Srirangan K, Akawi L, Moo-Young M, Chou CP (2012) Towards sustainable production of clean
energy carriers from biomass resources. Appl Energy 100:172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.05.012
Van Stappen F, Mathot M, Decruyenaere V, Loriers A, Delcour A, Planchon V, Goffart JP, Stilmant D
(2016) Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas plant. J Environ
Manage 175:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.020
Vázquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E (2014) Applying consequential LCA to support
energy policy: land use change effects of bioenergy production. Sci Total Environ 472:78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.097
Venkatesh G, Elmi RA (2013) Economic-environmental analysis of handling biogas from sewage
sludge digesters in WWTPs (wastewater treatment plants) for energy recovery: case study of
Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway). Energy 58:220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.05.025
Volsky R, Smithhart R (2011) A brief perspective on biomass for bioenergy and biofuels. J Trop
For Environ 1:1–13
Von Blottnitz H, Curran MA (2007) A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a trans-
portation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J
Clean Prod 15(7):607–619
Wardenaar T, Van Ruijven T, Beltran AM, Vad K, Guinée J, Heijungs R (2012) Differences between
LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in
bio-energy policies. Int J Life Cycle Ass 17(8):1059–1067
Wiloso EI, Heijungs R, De Snoo GR (2012) LCA of second generation bioethanol: a review and
some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:5295–5308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.035
Wolf MA, Chomkhamsri K, Brandao M, Pant R, Ardente F, Pennington DW, Manfredi S, De Camillis
C, Goralczyk M (2010) ILCD handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed
guidance. https://doi.org/10.2788/38479
Wolf C, Klein D, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of life
cycle assessments for wood energy services. J Ind Ecol 20(4):743–763
Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential
LCA. Int J Life Cycle Ass 17(7):904–918