The efficient use of lignocellulosic biomass for the production of advanced fuels and bio‐based materials has become increasingly relevant. In the EU, regulatory developments are stimulating the mobilization and production of bio‐based chemicals / materials and biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass. We used an attributional life‐cycle assessment approach based on region‐specific characteristics to determine the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) performance of different supply‐chain configurations with internationally sourced lignocellulosic biomass (stem wood, forest residues, sawmill residues, and sugarcane bagasse) from the USA, the Baltic States (BS), and Brazil (BR) for the simultaneous production of lactide and ethanol in a biorefinery located in the Netherlands (NL). The results are compared with a biorefinery that uses locally cultivated sugar beets. We also compared GHG emissions savings from the supply‐chain configurations with the minimum GHG saving requirements in the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) and relevant fossil‐based counterparts for bio‐based materials. The GHG emissions ‘from cradle to factory gate’ vary between 692 g CO_2eq/kg_lactide (sawmill residues pellets from the BS) and 1002 g CO_2eq/kg_lactide (sawmill chips from the USA) for lactide and between 15 g CO_2eq/MJ_ethanol (sawmill residues pellets from the BS) and 28 g CO_2eq/MJ_ethanol (bagasse pellets from BR) for ethanol. Upstream GHG emissions from the conversion routes have a relatively small impact compared with biomass conversion to lactide and ethanol. The use of woody biomass yields better GHG emissions performance for the conversion system than sugarcane bagasse or sugar beets as result of the higher lignin content that is used to generate electricity and heat internally for the system. Only the sugar beet from the NL production route is able to comply with RED II GHG savings criteria (65% by 2021). The GHG savings from polylactide acid (a derivate of lactic acid) are high and vary depending on choice of fossil‐based counterpart, with the highest savings reported when compared to polystyrene (PS). These high savings are mostly attributed to the negative emission credit from the embedded carbon in the materials. Several improvement options along the conversion routes were explored. Efficient feedstock supply chains (including pelletization and large ocean vessels) also allow for long‐distance transportation of biomass and conversion in large‐scale biorefineries close to demand centers with similar GHG performance to biorefineries with a local biomass supply. © 2019 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Advanced biofuels produced from lignocellulosic crops grown on marginal lands can become an important part of the European Union (EU) climate change mitigation strategy to reduce CO₂ emissions and meet biofuel demand. This study quantifies spatially explicit the availability of marginal land in the EU, its production biomass potentials for eight different crops, and the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of advanced biofuel supply chains. Available land is mapped based on land marginality and Renewable Energy Directive Recast (REDII) land‐related sustainability criteria. Biomass potentials are assessed with a water‐use‐to‐biomass‐production approach while considering the available land, location‐specific biophysical conditions and crop‐specific phenological characteristics. The GHG balance of advanced biofuels from energy crops produced on marginal lands is assessed considering both land‐related carbon stock changes and supply chain emissions with the carbon footprint approach from the REDII. Available marginal land that meets REDII criteria is projected at 20.5–21 Mha 2030 and 2050, respectively. Due to biophysical limitations, not all available land is suitable for energy crop production. The maximum biomass potential of lignocellulosic energy crops (optimal crop choice with maximum yield for each available location) varies between 1951 PJ year⁻¹ in 2030 and 2265 PJ year⁻¹ in 2050. The GHG emission performance (net emissions) of different advanced biofuel supply chains varies on average between −32 g CO₂‐eq MJ_fuel⁻¹ for poplar/willow diesel to 38 g CO₂‐eq for reed canary grass renewable jet fuel. The large variability in GHG performance is strongly determined by the spatial heterogeneity, which dictates the type of feedstock produced under specific local biophysical conditions, the crop characteristics, and the best conversion pathway. Negative GHG emissions are related to increased carbon stocks for the biomass and soil organic carbon pools compared to the land prior to conversion. When for each location, the advanced biofuel supply chain with the highest GHG performance (lowest net GHG emissions) is selected, 618 PJ year⁻¹ of advanced biofuels can be produced by 2030. Under REDII GHG emission criteria, slightly less (552 PJ year⁻¹) is viable. Smart choices on location, crop type and supply chain design are paramount to achieve maximum benefits of bioenergy systems.

In the past decades, sugarcane production in Brazil has expanded rapidly to meet increasing ethanol demand. The large majority of this expansion occurred in Sao Paulo state. We used an integrated approach considering location-specific biophysical characteristics to determine the environmental impacts of sugarcane expansion and their spatial variation in Sao Paulo state (2004–2015). The included environmental impacts are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity, soil erosion, and water quantity. All impacts were integrated into a single environmental performance index to determine trade-offs between impacts. Our results show a strong spatial variation in environmental impacts and trade-offs between them. The magnitude and direction of these impacts are mostly driven by the type of land use change and by the heterogeneity of the biophysical conditions. Areas where expansion of sugar cane has resulted in mostly negative environmental impacts are located in the center and east of the state (related to the change of shrublands, eucalyptus, and forest), while areas where sugar cane expansion has resulted in positive impacts are located in the center-west and north (related to the change of annual crops). Identifying areas with mainly positive and negative impacts enables the development of strategies to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive ones for future sugarcane expansion.