This study evaluates the environmental impacts of biorefinery products using consequential (CLCA) and attributional (ALCA) life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches. Within ALCA, economic allocation method was used to distribute impacts among the main products and the coproducts, whereas within the CLCA system expansion was adopted to avoid allocation. The study seeks to answer the questions (i) what is the environmental impacts of process integration?, and (ii) do CLCA and ALCA lead to different conclusions when applied to biorefinery?. Three biorefinery systems were evaluated and compared: a standalone system producing bioethanol from winter wheat-straw (system A), a standalone system producing biobased lactic acid from alfalfa (system B), and an integrated biorefinery system (system C) combining the two standalone systems and producing both bioethanol and lactic acid. The synergy of the integration was the exchange of useful energy necessary for biomass processing in the two standalone systems. The systems were compared against a common reference flow: "1MJEtOH+1kgLA", which was set on the basis of products delivered by the system C. Function of the reference flow was to provide service of both fuel (bioethanol) at 99.9% concentration (wt. basis) and biochemical (biobased lactic acid) in food industries at 90% purity; both products delivered at biorefinery gate. The environmental impacts of interest were global warming potential (GWP100), eutrophication potential (EP), non-renewable energy (NRE) use and the agricultural land occupation (ALO). Regardless of the LCA approach adopted, system C performed better in most of the impact categories than both standalone systems. The process wise contribution to the obtained environmental impacts also showed similar impact pattern in both approaches. The study also highlighted that the recirculation of intermediate materials, e.g. C5 sugar to boost bioethanol yield and that the use of residual streams in the energy conversion were beneficial for optimizing the system performance.

This study evaluates environmental impacts of an integrated mixed crop-livestock system with a green biorefinery (GBR). System integration included production of feed crops and green biomasses (Sys-I) to meet the demand of a livestock system (Sys-III) and to process green biomasses in a GBR system (Sys-II). Processing of grass-clover to produce feed protein was considered in Sys-II, particularly to substitute the imported soybean meal. Waste generated from the livestock and GBR systems were considered for the conversion to biomethane (Sys-IV). Digestate produced therefrom was assumed to be recirculated back to the farmers' field (Sys-I). A consequential approach of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method was used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a combined production of suckler cow calves (SCC) and Pigs, calculated in terms of their live weight (LW). The functional unit (FU) was a basket of two products "1kgLW-SCC+1kgLW-Pigs", produced at the farm gate. Results obtained per FU were: 19.6kg CO2 eq for carbon footprint; 0.11kg PO4 eq for eutrophication potential, -129MJ eq for non-renewable energy use and -3.9 comparative toxicity units (CTUe) for potential freshwater ecotoxicity. Environmental impact, e.g. greenhouse gas (GHG) emission was primarily due to (i) N2O emission and diesel consumption within Sys-I, (ii) energy input to Sys-II, III and IV, and (iii) methane emission from Sys-III and Sys-IV. Specifically, integrating GBR with the mixed crop-livestock system contributed 4% of the GHG emissions, whilst its products credited 7% of the total impact. Synergies among the different sub-systems showed positive environmental gains for the selected main products. The main effects of the system integration were in the reductions of GHG emissions, fossil fuel consumption, eutrophication potential and freshwater ecotoxicity, compared to a conventional mixed crop-livestock system, without the biogas conversion facility and the GBR.