Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01404-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Exergoeconomic and Environmental Analysis of a Palm Oil Biorefinery

for the Production of Bio‑Jet Fuel
Alisson Aparecido Vitoriano Julio1   · Eric Alberto Ocampo Batlle2 · Christian Jeremi Coronado Rodriguez3 ·
José Carlos Escobar Palacio1

Received: 24 August 2020 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published online: 5 March 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
The production of biofuel from biomass is a viable option, due to the availability of biomass and its renewable character.
This work aims to explore the production of bio-jet fuel via different routes in the context of a biorefinery in which the pro-
duction of the bio-jet fuel is integrated with a palm oil mill and a transesterification plant for the production of biodiesel. In
addition to handling the extraction and transesterification phases, the system has also a second-generation ethanol plant and
facilities for the production of bio-jet fuel via HEFA and ATJ. The biorefinery has a cogeneration plant that is responsible
for supplying all the processes with thermal and electric energy. The system is evaluated using the first and second laws of
thermodynamics, and is shown to have efficiencies of 37% and 55%, respectively. An exergoeconomic and economic analysis
is also carried out in this study. The thermodynamic analysis highlights the immature character of the bio-jet fuel produc-
tion chain, due to the irreversibilities, in the HEFA scenario, 47 MW, and in the for the combination of 2G-ethanol and ATJ
plants, 82 MW. In the ATJ process, the highest thermoeconomic costs were found for the biofuels. However, although the
surplus of electricity produced had a higher cost than for any other product, at 65.53 US$/MWh, this was within the margins
of market competitiveness in Brazil. The economic analysis showed that the project was not attractive due to the high initial
investment required. From an environmental standpoint, the production of bio-jet fuel is an alternative that can mitigate the
effects of global warming compared to fossil jet fuel, with reductions in emissions of 84.7% and 72.8% for HEFA and ATJ
bio-jet fuels, respectively. In summary, it is shown that although diversification of the biorefinery’s products can contribute
to the finances of the plant, the production chains are not fully prepared, and the processes of bio-jet acquisition has low
production yields and a high level of irreversibility.
Graphic Abstract

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

5612 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Keywords  Palm oil · Bio-jet fuels · Biorefinery · Exergoeconomic · Life cycle analysis

Abbreviations Statement of Novelty

ANEEL Brazilian National Agency of Electric
Energy Evaluating the production of renewable jet fuel integrated to
ANP Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum, a palm oil mill and a biodiesel plant, as a biorefinery, con-
Natural Gas and Biofuels tributes to the diversification of feedstock for energy matters
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials in Brazil. In addition, contributes with the decision making,
ATAG​ Air transport action group regarding how to explore the potential of palm biomass, by
ATJ Alcohol-to-jet means of a complete thermodynamic, economic and envi-
BJF Bio-jet fuel ronmental evaluation of the biorefinery.
CEPCI Chemical engineering plant cost index
CPKO Crude palm kernel oil
CPO Crude palm oil
E2G Second generation ethanol Introduction
EFB Empty fruit bunches
EPE Brazilian Energy Research Company Due to humanity’s influence on nature, the effects of global
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the warming have been becoming stronger every year, especially
United Nations over the last six decades. Climate change has been intensi-
FFB Fresh fruit bunches fied by increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
GHG Greenhouse gases arising from the strong dependence of the energy industry
HEFA Hydroprocessing of esters and fatty acids on fossil fuels. Moreover, the growth and development of
IATA​ International Air Transport Association modern society, in terms of economics, is directly associated
LCA Life cycle analysis with the industrialisation, urbanisation, and development of
LCI Life cycle inventory the means of transport and its infrastructure. In view of this,
MF Mesocarp fibres it is clear that the model of development for modern soci-
PKS Palm kernel shells ety will contribute to increases in energy consumption on a
POM Palm oil mill yearly basis.
R&T Refining and transesterification Data provided by the IEA show that the global supply
SPK Synthetic paraffinic kerosene and consumption of energy have increased since 1971. GHG
UBRABIO Brazilian Union for Biodiesel and emissions have also grown proportionately, since 79.7% of
Biokerosene the energy supplied to the world is derived from fossil fuels
Symbols [1]. Renewable sources of energy have been identified as an
α Cost balance factor alternative in order to mitigate the effects of climate change,
CF Cash flow and biomass has been named the most promising renew-
Ḃd Energy destroyed able resource to replace fossil fuels in terms of demand and
Ep Surplus electricity produced applications. Hence, biomass and biorefineries are expected
ES Surplus electricity index to develop on a mutual basis to meet the rising market for
H Annual working hours energy [2, 3].
ηglobal Global energetic efficiency Biorefineries are important tools in the research, devel-
ηexe Exergetic efficiency opment, and innovation agenda of every developed and
I Total investment emerging country with a commitment to environmental
LHV Lower heating value missions and goals in terms of mitigating the effects of
n Plant lifetime climate change. However, the use of biorefining requires
N Annual working hours trustworthy information on feedstock processing, in order
NPV Net present value to provide products with environmental benefits that are
O&MF Fixed costs of operation and maintenance also financially attractive. To achieve this on a commer-
O&MV Variable costs of operation and maintenance cial scale, the challenges are numerous; among the many
Pb Payback period technical bottlenecks, the most important is the cost of pro-
Z Hourly cost rate duction, although the efficiency of land use, supply chains
and storage also need to be improved. Another barrier to
the development of the biorefining market is competition

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5613
with other forms of industry in terms of feedstock, such as
the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, and mainly the
food industry [4]. Biorefineries allow for better exploitation
of the versatility of biomass, and can be classified based
on the type of resource that is processed. First-generation
biorefineries were used to process vegetable oils, sugar cane,
cornstarch, and other types of feedstock that are also used in
the food industry. One convenient possibility is to integrate
the concept of biorefining into existing complexes; in this
way, residues could be processed into valuable assets, such
as biofuels and chemicals, and the energy efficiency could
be improved. It should be highlighted that this could be an
advantageous strategy in terms of the economic and envi-
ronmental aspects [5, 6].
In the era of biorefining, since there is a need to explore
alternative, more environmental friendly resources, biomass
is likely to play a significant role as a source of renewable
energy. Composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen
and minerals, biomass is a versatile feedstock in terms of
its energetic aspects. This means that it can be processed
in a wide range of scenarios, and with different technolo-
gies, such via thermochemical, chemical, biological and
biochemical routes of conversion [7, 8]. Biomass is also a
resource for which the ­CO2 released through combustion and
utilisation will not lead to an increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide, if the feedstock is from biogenic origins. This type
of feedstock is therefore treated as hugely important by the
energy industry, in the search for sustainable development
and mitigation of climate change [9].
In the context of exploring the use of biomass in biorefin-
ery complexes, Brazil is an interesting country, due both to
the large-scale production of biomass and a long history of
the use of biofuels and renewable sources of energy, such as
wind power and hydroelectric stations. The Brazilian gov-
ernment began to incentivise the use of biofuels through
national policies in 1975 with PROALCOOL, a federal pro-
gram that promoted the use of sugarcane to produce ethanol
and the development of flex-fuel technology. In 2003, the
federal government launched the PNPB (National Program
for the Production and Use of Biodiesel), which incentivised
the existing agricultural industry to provide feedstock for
biodiesel production. The program also introduced biodiesel
to the Brazilian market through the action of nationwide
laws [10, 11].
However, the strong dependence that this created on sug-
arcane and soybeans for ethanol and biodiesel production
was not positive for Brazil’s markets, since both of these
are food crops and soybeans have a low oil/crop production
ratio [12]. In addition, the biodiesel supply chain requires
a more reliable feedstock in terms of availability, cost of
acquisition, and logistics. One oilseed that has been widely
studied and reported to be a good alternative is palm oil; this
is a perennial seed with production higher up to 10 times,
on yielding oil crop production, than soybean. The cultiva-
tion of palm oil also has environmental advantages such as
carbon sequestration and the restoration of degraded areas
of tropical forest [13, 14].
In this study, the different feedstocks and processes
required to obtain bio-jet fuels (BJFs) from palm oil are eval-
uated using thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses.
In addition, the financial situation with regard to the produc-
tion of this plant is studied and the environmental behav-
iour of the biorefinery complex is analysed. GateCycle®
software is used to model the mass and energy balances of
the refinery, and to carry out a life cycle analysis (LCA), we
used IMPACT 2002+ from SimaPro®. The main contribu-
tion and novelty of the present work is therefore a complete
thermodynamic, economic and environmental evaluation
of a biorefinery that exploits an emergent feedstock in the
Brazilian context.
General Overview
Biodiesel and Biorefinery Opportunities in Brazil
In addition to the production of palm oil, palm fruits yield
a considerable and valuable amount of lignocellulosic bio-
mass after oil extraction. However, only a small part of this
biomass is currently being exploited or has applications in
Brazil. The use of this residual palm biomass by a biorefin-
ery for biofuel production could therefore contribute to the
energy sector, allowing it to become more environmentally
friendly and increasing the contribution of biomass to the
national energy matrix. This offers an opportunity to develop
the palm oil market in Brazil, and to meet the goal set by the
Biodiesel Agenda of 15% of nationwide biodiesel production
from renewable feedstock that is not based on animal fat or
soybean oil. In addition, it would promote higher revenues,
new businesses, sustainability, efficiency and competitive-
ness with conventional fossil fuels [14–16].
Brazil has the potential to consume over 400,000 tons of
palm oil per year. However, it still is dependent on imports
for this palm oil. A report from Abrapalma states that palm
production could reach a yield of 19.4 tons of fresh fruit
bunches (FFBs) per hectare of plantation [13]. In 2018,
Brazil registered 236,000 hectares of planted area that were
reserved for palm cultivation with the Ministry of Livestock,
Agriculture, and Supplements [17]. However, the FAO
reports different data for the same year, and states that 1.56
million tons of FFB was produced in Brazil, over an area of
109,044 hectares. This means that the Brazilian yield was
14.35 t ­ha−1, and there is therefore a great deal of room for
improvement; 127,000 hectares of land have been neglected,
an area high enough to provide feedstock to a palm oil mill
(POM) with a capacity of 250 t ­h−1 [18].
13

5614
If biorefineries explore the production of biofuels from
biomass, there is the possibility of a growth business model
based on aviation biofuels or BJFs. However, the transport
sector as a whole presents a problem in terms of a transi-
tion to a more environmental friendly economy, since the
nature of air pollutants poses huge risks to people, especially
in developing countries; for example, Brazilian road traffic
has been more harmful to air quality than the thermoelectri-
cal plants operating in the country [19]. Furthermore, the
production of biofuels must be treated as a priority across
the entire transportation section, including the air, land and
water transportation of cargo and people, in order to improve
sustainability, the economy and climate change mitigation.
This can be achieved by widening the range of engineering
techniques, exploring different paths to biofuels and optimis-
ing existing routes, as shown by Panahi et al. [20].
It is known that between 2 and 3% of all C ­ O2 emissions
worldwide are due to the combustion of jet fuel, meaning
that the use of biofuels could reduce this carbon footprint
[1]. BJFs are also known as synthetic paraffinic kerosenes
(SPKs), which are hydrocarbons with properties close to
those conventional jet fuels; in some cases, these proper-
ties may even be improved, such as better cloud points. The
combustion of renewable jet fuels emits less C ­ O2 and S­ O x,
since renewable fuel has a lower amount of sulphur in its
composition. The main barrier to the marketing of BJFs is
the high cost of production, which arises due to difficulties
in scaling up plants, competition with fossil fuel prices, and
competition for feedstock purchase [21].
In addition to uncertainties in the supply chain of feed-
stock to production, the costs of manufacture of BJFs have
risen and revenues have dropped; nevertheless, in a biore-
finery that uses a large spectrum of products, it is possible
to minimise these financial obstacles. To ensure a viable
market for biofuel for aviation, airports, airline companies,
aircraft manufacturers, biofuel companies, distribution com-
panies must work in harmony, and public regulation will be
a valuable form of support, for example government poli-
cies on the introduction of biodiesel to the energy matrix
[22, 23].
In this context, the newest Brazilian policy on biofuels
was conceived. RenovaBio has the goal of building strat-
egies for valorising biofuels by means of decarbonisation
credits, which will be commercialised with the main goal
of diversifying the range of biofuels that are processed in
Brazil and introducing novel technologies, such as those for
the production of fuels with drop-in quality. The program
also aims to provide energy security, and mitigation of GHG
emissions of the existing biofuels has been commercialised
with the goal of meeting the commitments of the Paris Cli-
mate Agreement in 2015 [24]. The Rota 2030 programme is
another federal policy that aims to develop the entire chain
of the transport sector to include biofuels. This programme
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
uses direct financing for research and development and tax
subsidies to promote sustainability and to reach short-term
commitments, such as a total of 15% biodiesel in the com-
mercialised mixture by 2023 [25].
Conventional aircraft fuels are produced from crude oil
and have specific properties that are controlled by interna-
tional standards draw up by the ASTM. The ASTM also is
responsible for the standardisation of renewable jet fuels.
For direct use, renewable fuels should be blended with jet
fuels in ratios of between 10 and 50%, depending on the
production route chosen. Currently, four processes are stand-
ardised for BJF production: the hydroprocessing of esters
and fatty acids (HEFA), Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, alcohol-
to-jet (ATJ), and the synthesis of isoparaffins [26]. In addi-
tion to all the restrictions and economic issues, lower GHG
emissions and concerns over the finite character of fossil
sources should be reasons to consider the production of BJFs
[27]. However, many studies have reported a lack of political
incentive mechanisms [28, 29].
In Brazil, the EPE (an energy research company) has
highlighted that the production of renewable jet fuel has
great potential for the country, and has identified several
advantages such as drop-in quality, decentralised offers of
fuel for the whole country, and cost reductions in terms of
logistics. However, the ANAC (the National Agency of
Civil Aviation) has stated that policies encouraging the use
of renewable jet fuel and government interventions are lack-
ing, and are needed in order to reach the current goals for
market inclusion [30].
Recent Studies and Approaches Evaluating
Biorefineries and the Production of Bio‑Jet Fuels
Klein et al. [26] carried out technical–economic and envi-
ronmental analyses of self-sufficient biorefineries in Brazil
that produce BJF through HEFA, ATJ and Fischer–Tropsch
synthesis to meet a proportion of the Brazilian demand for
aircraft fuel. In their study, fuel from Fischer–Tropsch syn-
thesis gave better economic performance, while HEFA fuel
had higher conversion ratios and efficiency, and all of the
refineries had certain environmental advantages, including
a reduction of at least 70% in ­CO2 emissions.
Alves et al. [22] evaluated the use of different feedstocks
for the co-production of BJF and chemicals in biorefineries
located in Brazilian territories. For the production of bio-jet
fuel, the HEFA and ATJ routes gave the most promising
results, and the production of succinic acid and lactic acid
were the most promising chemical processes studied due
to the high market value of these products. However, the
authors highlighted that these scenarios had high levels of
uncertainty and even higher financial risks, due to the level
of development of each technology.
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5615
In the face of the financial difficulties identified by studies
on BJFs, the IEA has reported that at this level of develop-
ment, government subsidies will be necessary in order to
conduct a stable transition to a low-carbon economy. The
agency also suggested that governments should be respon-
sible for the financing of research, the creation of infrastruc-
ture and international collaboration [1]. The International
Air Transport Association (IATA) has also stated that gov-
ernment action to guarantee a low-carbon economy in avia-
tion should include engagement in public–private partner-
ships, affirmative policies on the production and distribution
of renewable fuels, research financing, and the adoption of
unique international standards for global networking [31].
Based on this discussion, the present work aims to study
the application of a biorefinery integrated into a POM in
Brazil. This biorefinery will produce biodiesel via the trans-
esterification of palm oil, which is already being produced
from palm feedstock in Brazil, and will then integrate this
production with BJF plants via the HEFA and ATJ routes.
These plants, which are integrated into a co-generation sys-
tem that can provide the energy for the necessary processes,
would contribute to the development of aviation biofuels
in Brazil, boost the production of biodiesel from palm, and
expand the use of residual palm oil biomass as an energetic
feedstock for the country, which could relieve the burden on
soybean and sugarcane.
The biorefinery is evaluated using the first and second
laws of thermodynamics, and the thermoeconomic con-
cepts of costs, economics, and environmental methodolo-
gies. This study aims to contribute to decision making and
business modelling for bioenergy in Brazil, and especially
with respect to aviation biofuels. The thermoeconomic
approach, which is based on an exergoeconomic assessment,
will contribute to a deeper understanding of the formation
of costs for each product, and allow us to identify avenues
for improvement.
In their work, Amid et al. [32] carried out exergy, exer-
goeconomic and exergoenvironmental evaluations of the
production of ethanol on an industrial scale from sugar
molasses, a second-generation feedstock. Inspired by the
actual conditions in a Iranian ethanol plant, the data col-
lected fulfilled the data requirements for exergy balance
with molasses and energy as input, and ethanol, vinasse
and ­CO2 as output. An approach based on Specific Exergy
Costing theory was chosen to explore the exergoeconom-
ics, and the IMPACT 2002+ method was used to carry out
an environmental evaluation with an exergoenvironmental
assessment, which gave an overall result of 98.7 mPts for
the daily environmental impact rate of the plant. These
methods helped the authors to elaborate strategies for tech-
nical and environmental improvements, for example via
the substitution of natural gas with a renewable source
of energy, since this fuel was responsible for the highest
contributions to exergy loss and environmental impact.
The authors also proposed exploiting the byproducts of
the plant in order to enhance sustainability, such as turn-
ing vinasse into biogas or syngas as a substitute for natural
gas.
Aghbashlo et al. [8] carried out a detailed exergy analysis
in order to evaluate a biorefinery synthesising gypsum-free
lactic acid with the co-production of electricity from sugar-
cane bagasse and brown leaves, in a plant annexed to a sug-
arcane mill; the aim was to maximise the products derived
from residual biomass, but also to mitigate the waste streams
generated, with the purpose of identifying the environmen-
tally friendly aspects and the economical viability of multi-
product lignocellulosic biorefineries. This exergy evaluation
was able to pinpoint likely approaches to thermodynamic
improvement, since 47% of all exergy input was destroyed,
and led the authors to conclude that the importance of this
analysis was that it highlighted the locations and quantified
the resource destruction associated with biorefinery systems,
both in this particular case and generally. Furthermore, the
authors suggested that future work would include corrobo-
rating the eco-friendly and cost-effective goals of a lignocel-
lulosic biorefinery, in order to systematically improve the
thermodynamic, economic, and environmental performance
of the system based on their exergoeconomic and exergoen-
vironmental analysis.
Again in the sugarcane industry, Soltanian et al. [33] car-
ried out an exergoeconomic evaluation of lactic acid and
power production in a biorefinery. The authors concluded
that the biorefinery could produce lactic acid and generate
electricity and steam at a competitive cost compared with
biomass-based combined heat and power plants. A discus-
sion was presented of the accumulation of costs in the steam
generation unit, which led to a consensus on the necessity
of concentrating resources and efforts to improve both the
steam generator and the lactic acid synthesis unit. Over-
all, this research showed that the exergoeconomic method
can pave the way for the actual design and development of
resource-efficient and cost-effective biorefineries in the sug-
arcane industry.
Aghbashlo et al. [34] stated that exergoeconomics were a
valuable source of insight concerning the technical and eco-
nomic aspects of energy systems, and could provide infor-
mation that could not be otherwise obtained through either
exergy analysis or economic accounting. This approach
was developed by the authors for a detailed evaluation of a
large-scale municipal solid waste digestion plant, using real-
world operating data, with the goal of providing valuable
information for designers and researchers working in the
waste-to-energy industry. They found the main bottlenecks
of this plant to be the genset and the digestion unit, which
they called hotspots of the cost losses. They concluded that
these units should be the main points on which efforts should
13

5616
be concentrated to optimise the system, reduce costs and
improve exergy performance.
In another study by Aghbashlo et al. [35], the authors car-
ried out exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses
to investigate and optimise the production of biodiesel from
waste cooking oil with an ultrasound-assisted reactor. Based
on the useful insights that these methods were able to offer
in terms of better cost-effectiveness and the environmental
friendly engineering of processes, the results were applied
to rationalise decision making on the operational conditions
of the reactors. The most favourable conditions of operation
for the ultrasound-assisted transesterification of waste cook-
ing oil, from an exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental
perspective, were 60 °C and a molar ratio of 7.4 alcohol/
oil with a residence time of 10 min. Finally, the authors
stated that these conditions were recommended for industrial
applications, since they met the ASTM standards for yield,
and accounted for a production cost of 2.23 US$/GJ and an
environmental impact of 1.32 mPts/GJ.
The production of empty fruit bunches (EFBs), mesocarp
fibres (MFs), and palm kernel shells (PKSs) in the extraction
of palm oil forms residual biomass that can be used to feed a
cogeneration boiler. The case study presented here therefore
focuses on the expansion of a POM facility that is integrated
with a biodiesel plant, a plant for hydroprocessing of esters
and fatty acids, a second-generation ethanol (2G-ethanol)
plant, and an alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) plant.
The HEFA plant processes the palm oil into BJF through
decarboxylation, hydrocracking, and hydroisomerisation
to give a suitable size of hydrocarbon chain that meets the
standards for jet fuel. All of these procedures take place
at high temperatures and pressures [36]. ATJ technology
produces BJF by upgrading short-chain alcohols such as
ethanol, and this process consists of three steps: dehydra-
tion, oligomerisation, and hydrocracking. These reactions
need to take place at pressures of 30–40 bar and a tempera-
ture of 250 °C [37, 38]. The ethanol used as feedstock for
ATJ production is also produced in the biorefinery, from the
fermentation, hydrolysis, and distillation of EFB biomass;
this has a high concentration of cellulose and hemicellulose,
and is produced as one of the residues from the extraction
of palm oil.
Methodology
The definition of the plant processing capacity is a vitally
important aspect of an analysis of a biorefinery, as this deter-
mines the quantities of products that can be obtained from
the plant and the amount of residual biomass that is available
for use by emerging technologies for biofuel production.
The methodology used in the present study involved five
stages, and these are presented below.
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
• Stage 1 Sizing of the plant and selection of technolo-
gies: the processing capacity of the plant and the dif-
ferent production processes making up the biorefinery
were defined, and based on this, the cogeneration system
needed to meet the demand for electrical and plant ther-
mal energy was determined.
• Stage 2 Thermodynamic analysis: the mass, energy and
exergy balances of the plant were found in order to calcu-
late several different performance indicators for the palm
biorefinery.
• Stage 3 Exergoeconomic and conventional economic
analysis: based on the results for the exergetic aspects of
the main flows in the plant, an exergoeconomic analysis
was carried out using the productive structure method
with total exergy to calculate the exergy costs and unit
monetary costs. The unit monetary costs were then used
in a conventional economic analysis to calculate the eco-
nomic performance of the plant.
• Stage 4 Environmental analysis: using SimaPro software,
life cycle inventories (LCIs) of palm production were
carried out to allow us to undertake an analysis of the
main environmental impacts produced by the biorefinery
using the IMPACT 2002+ method.
• Stage 5 Conclusions: from the results obtained in Stages
2, 3 and 4, the conclusions of the work were drawn up,
taking into account the thermodynamic, economic and
environmental performance of the plant.
Figure 1 presents a flowchart that illustrates how this
methodology was applied in order to obtain the results.
Description of the Biorefinery
For each ton of FFB that enters the extraction process,
200 kg of palm oil, 220 kg of empty bunches, 130 kg of
fibres, and 70 kg of peel are obtained. In current practice,
fresh bunches, due to their relative humidity of 57%, are
commonly used in the field as fertilisers for the crop itself.
The fibres and peels, with relative humidity values of 37%
and 21%, respectively, are burned in conventional boilers,
which are inefficient [14].
Prior works that have studied the operation of biorefin-
eries that exploit palm oil and its biomasses have usually
reported the total capacity of these plants. The authors of
[39] reported that the capacity of extracting plants varied
between 30 and 60 ­th−1 FFB. The work in [14] was based on
a structure that held 100 t­ h−1 of FFBs, while in [40], it was
stated that the capacity of a mill typically reaches up to 120
­th−1 of FFBs, and in [41], it was reported that with currently
available technology, it was possible to extract palm oil with
a capacity of 150 ­th−1.
For a plant operating for 6000  h per year, with the
capacity to process 150 tons per hour of FFB, with a
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5617
Fig. 1  Methodology flowchart
productivity of 19.4 tons of FFB per hectare, a planted
area of 77,320 hectares is necessary. This area corresponds
to 1.1% of the 7 million hectares available for palm culti-
vation in Brazil [17].
The case study is carried out on the assumption that
the processes are sized based on the biomass produced by
the extraction plant. The producing stations are positioned
adjacent to the cogeneration plant, so that the power cycle
meets the demands of each process for electrical and ther-
mal energy. Thus, the HEFA and transesterification stations
are designed to operate based on the amount of palm oil
extracted. The ethanol plant is dimensioned to work with the
number of empty bunches available, as long as the energy
self-sufficiency of the biorefinery is guaranteed, i.e. the
quantity sent for combustion is discounted from the quantity
produced in the extraction. The ATJ process is sized based
on the amount of ethanol produced at the plant, and there is
a supply of ethanol for the transesterification reaction. The
cogeneration plant was therefore configured to produce a
nominal power of 55 MW, and uses the residual biomass left
over from extraction as fuel. The surplus power produced
after supplying these processes can be sold to the grid.
For the cogeneration plant, the parameters of operation
are as follows:
• Extraction/condensing turbines are used;
• The boiler operates at 80 bar and 480 °C;
• The boiler efficiency is 85%;
• The condensing pressure is 8 kPa;
• The isentropic turbine and pump efficiencies are 88% and
80%, respectively;
• All available quantities of PKS and MF are destined for
burning in the boiler;
• The pressure of the steam supplied for transesterification
is 2.5 bar;
• The steam pressure supplied for the operation of the E2G
plant is 2.5 bar;
• The steam pressure supplied to operate the BJF produc-
tion routes is 30 bar for HEFA and 38 bar for ATJ;
• The thermal and electrical demands of all processes are
met by the cogeneration cycle.
We also need to consider the operating parameters for
the mass and energy balances of the processes, which are
based on the data reported in [21, 22, 32, 39, 42–45]. These
parameters are shown in Table 1.
Case Study
In the scenario studied here, the palm oil extracted from the
POM is divided between the biodiesel production plants,
which use transesterification, and aeronautical biofuels,
which use HEFA technology. Each one receives 15 ­th−1 of
this input for its operation. The biorefinery therefore has two
plants for the production of aviation biofuels, i.e. a cellulosic
ethanol plant and a biodiesel plant, in addition to the extrac-
tor and the cogeneration cycle.
Division of the EFBs is necessary in order to balance
the production of ethanol and the supply of fuels from the
boiler. As a result, 50% of the EFBs are designated for the
production of ethanol, producing 0.795 ­Ls−1 of biofuel. All
the ethanol produced in the second-generation plant goes to
the ATJ station, and the biodiesel plant carries out transes-
terification via the methyl route. The distribution of biomass
produced by extraction and the energy required by each pro-
cess are shown in Fig. 2.
Transesterification is the chemical reaction through the
which the triglycerides present in vegetable oil, the raw
material for biodiesel production, react with short-chain
alcohols (methanol or ethanol) in the presence of a catalyst
(typically sodium or potassium hydroxide) to give esters and
glycerol. Before this reaction is carried out, it is necessary to
apply a refinement stage to the oil to be used as raw material.
13

5618 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Table 1  Parameters for the mass and energy balances for operation of vegetable oils, while second-generation ones are related to
the biorefinery reused oil and animal fats. This is the most widely used pro-
POM cess in a commercial context for the production of biodiesel
 Electricity consumption [kWh/ton FFB] 22 [47]. Methanol was chosen as a reagent, as its lower water
 Process steam consumption at 4 bar [ton/ 0.5 content in relation to ethanol can prevent saponification, a
ton FFB] parallel and undesired reaction, thereby increasing the effi-
 EFB availability [ton/ton FFB] 0.22 ciency of the plant [46]. An alkaline catalyst was chosen,
 PKS availability [ton/ton FFB] 0.07 since this allows the reaction to take place at lower tem-
 MF availability [ton/ton FFB] 0.13 peratures, which can improve the economic and availability
 CPO availability [ton/ton FFB] 0.20 aspects. The input used in this study was sodium hydroxide
Biodiesel plant (R&T) (NaOH), which can accelerate reactions at low pressures and
 Electricity consumption [kWh/ton CPO] 22 this give greater efficiency with a lower reaction time [48].
 Process steam consumption at 2.5 bar [ton/ 0.56 The HEFA process is capable of converting vegetable
ton CPO] oils into aviation fuels. This process was certified by ASTM
 Methanol consumption [L/ton CPO] 138.8 through standard D7655 for procedures for obtaining aer-
 Biodiesel [L/ton CPO] 1102 onautical biofuels, and has a technical readiness level of
 Glycerol [ton/ton CPO] 0.11 eight, according to [22]. The BJFs must be equivalent to
Ethanol 2G plant conventional fossil fuels in terms of properties, and must
 Electricity consumption [kWh/ton EFB] 92.5 have a specific mass of between 0.775 and 0.84 kg/L, a calo-
 Process steam consumption at 2.5 bar [ton/ 0.995 rific value of 43 MJ/kg and an ignition point of 42 °C. The
ton EFB] HEFA process includes four phases: hydrogenation, hydro-
 NaOH consumption [ton/ton EFB] 1.59 cracking, hydroisomerization, and separation of products.
 ­H2SO4 consumption [L/ton EFB] 740 The separation phase gives biodiesel and BJFs in addition
 Ethanol 2G [L/ton EFB] 173.4 to other byproducts such as naphtha and light gases. Dur-
 Lignin [ton/ton EFB] 0.078 ing distillation, unreacted components and other impurities
HEFA are removed to give aviation biofuels with a high degree of
 Electricity consumption [kWh/ton CPO] 175
purity [22, 49].
 Process steam consumption at 30 bar [ton/ 5.66
In the production of second-generation ethanol, fer-
ton CPO]
mentation is the main process. At this point, the sugars
 ­H2 consumption [ton/ton PO] 0.032
obtained from the hydrolysis steps are converted into etha-
 Bio-jet fuel [ton/ton PO] 0.48
nol. The fermentation and hydrolysis processes are allowed
 Green diesel [ton/ton PO] 0.021
to take place separately (SHF), as this is the methodology
 Naphtha [ton/ton PO] 0.115
with the highest technical readiness level. The use of EFBs
ATJ
in this process is attractive, due to the high cellulose and
 Electricity consumption [kWh/ton E2G] 2.15
hemicellulose content in this feedstock: around 73.6% of
 Process steam consumption at 30 bar 0.005
[ton/L E2G] it is composed of either cellulose or hemicellulose [50].
 ­H2 consumption [ton/L E2G] 0.015 The breakdown of cellulose and hemicellulose hydrocar-
 Bio-jet fuel [ton/L E2G] 4.8 E−04 bons into sugars occurs due to enzymes, which leave the
 Green diesel [ton/ton E2G] 1.3 E−05 sugars ready for fermentation. The process is carried out
in batches, which give pentoses and hexoses, and these
then undergo fermentation. Following this, a separation or
This preparation of the input for this reaction aims to reduce distillation process and an evaporation process are applied,
acidity and humidity through a neutralisation process, which which are analogous to those in the distillation of conven-
is followed by dehumidification and drying. Refining can tional ethanol, to obtain biofuel. The procedures applied
be done chemically or physically. In the present study, the in the ethanol plant lead to the production of biofuel and
physical method was chosen, since it has the advantages of a co-product, effluents rich in lignin. Lignin can be used
higher yield, and uses fewer chemical products and gives a as a fuel for burning in a boiler, if separated, or can be
lower production of effluents. To obtain biodiesel, the pro- exploited for the production of biogas and biomethane in
cedure involves preparation of the oil, the reaction itself, addition to the effluents [4, 52].
separation of the phases, recovery of water and alcohol, and The ATJ process was certified by ASTM D7566 in its
purification of the ester and glycerol [46]. fifth annex, which relates to the production of biofuels for
Transesterification can produce first- and second-gen- aviation using alcohols as input, with a technical readiness
eration biodiesel: first-generation biodiesels are related to level of six, according to [22]. The physical and chemical

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Fig. 2  Schematic diagram of the processes in the proposed biorefinery

13
5619

5620
properties of aviation fuels produced from ethanol must be
similar to those of conventional aviation fuels. The conver-
sion process has three stages: dehydration, oligomerisation
and hydrogenation [35]. The use of EFB in the production
of aviation biofuels is justified by the fact that it does not
compromise the distribution of edible inputs, and does not
conflict with the sectors of nutrition and animal feed, due
to the lower expenditure on water and energy resources that
these substrates require [51].
The electricity consumption for this biorefinery is
11.9 MW, and the thermal energy consumption is 147 MW
for the supply of all processes. Thus, the fuel consumption in
the boiler is 18.87 kg/s. Hence, for a processing capacity of
150 ­th−1 in the POM, 5.95 kg of biomass must be acquired
for the cogeneration stage, from an external source to the
biorefinery, to meet the demand for boiler fuel. The biore-
finery is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Thermodynamic Evaluation
In our thermodynamic analysis, we examine the performance
of the biorefinery by using the first law of thermodynamics
to calculate the global efficiency of the plant, and determine
Fig. 3  Schematic diagram of the biorefinery from the perspective of cogeneration
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
the electricity surplus based on the mass and energy bal-
ances. We also use the second law of thermodynamics and
the concept of exergy, which allows us to determine the
destruction of the total exergy of the plant and the division
of these quantities between the various processes involved.
We also calculate the energy efficiency.
• Global plant efficiency (ηglobal): this is the ratio between
the useful energy from the products obtained (electric-
ity, biodiesel, aviation biofuels, bio-naphtha, glycerol)
and the energy of the inputs used (energy per FFB), as
shown in Eq. 1. The energy values for both the products
and inputs were calculated by multiplying the material
flow by the calorific value.
∑
Ep + Eproducts
𝜂global = (%) (1)
∑
EFFB
• Surplus electricity (ES): this is the ratio of the surplus
electricity produced per cycle (­ Ep) to the amount of bio-
mass inputs that enter the biorefinery (­ tFFB) in tons per
hour, as shown in Eq. 2, in which the processing capacity
of the biorefinery is assumed to be 150 ­th−1:
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5621
Ep
ES = (kWh∕tCFF )
tCFF
  Having defined these indexes based on the first law of
thermodynamics, we now define one based on the second
law, as follows:
• Exergetic efficiency of the plant (ηexe): the efficiency
based on the second law, as expressed in Eq. 3, deals
with the ratio between the sum of the net electric power
produced by the system and the exergy of each product
divided by exergy per FFB:
̇ LIQ + Ḃ biodiesel + Ḃ glycerol + ∑ Ḃ HEFA,biofuels + ∑ Ḃ
W ATJ,biofuels
𝜂exe = (%)
∑ ̇
Bfeedstock
• Balance of exergy and exergy destroyed (Ėd): in this case
study, the plants used for biofuel produce irreversibilities,
due to the energy intensity (heat demand and high pres-
sures) and the chemical reactions that are undergone in
the conversion process. Equation 4 expresses the destruc-
tion of exergy, based on the assumption of a steady state,
through the balance of exergy between the inflows and
outflows.
. nance must be zero. The monetary unit cost of the external
. .
( ) .
∑ T . ∑ . ∑
1− 0 Q−W + mexin −
T in
e s
where the term (1 – ­T0/T) Q̇ represents the time rate of
exergy transfer accompanying heat transfer, at the rate occur-
ring at a location on the boundary where the instantaneous
temperature is T. The term represents the time rate of energy
transfer through work. m ­ in is the internal mass flow and m
­ out
is the mass flow outside the system or subsystem. Finally,
­exin and ­exout, are the specific exergy for each correspondent
flow, and Ḃd represents the time rate of exergy destruction
due to irreversibilities within the system.
Exergoeconomic Evaluation
To determine the exergy/monetary costs of the allocation of
external resources to the final products, in order to assess
the exergetic and the monetary unit costs of both the inter-
nal flows and final products, a thermoeconomic model must
be used. This can be defined as a set of cost equations that
mathematically describes the cost formation process of the
final products of the system.
A physical or productive diagram can be used to build this
thermoeconomic model [52]. A productive structure repre-
sents the cost formation process of the system in a graphical
way. Rectangles represent real units (or subsystems) that
form the real equipment (or process) of the system, while
rhombi and circles are fictitious units known as junctions
and bifurcations, respectively. Each productive unit has inlet
(2) and outlet arrows that indicate its fuel (or resource) and
products, respectively. Some productive units have a small
junction to indicate that they have more than one fuel, and/or
a small bifurcation to indicate that they have more than one
product [53]. Equation 5 is used to express the cost balances
in each subsystem of the productive structure.
∑( ) ∑(
(5)
)
cout .Yout − cin .Yin = Ż + cf .Q̇ f
where ­cout and cin are the monetary unit cost flows at the
outlet and the inlet of the subsystems, respectively; ­Yout and
­Yin represent the internal flows (in MW) at the inlet and
outlet of the subsystem, and can be assessed using any ther-
(3) modynamic quantity, such as (i) power (Ẇ); (ii) total exergy
(B); or (iii) enthalpy (H). Ż represents the external hourly
cost of the subsystem based on the capital, operation and
maintenance costs (in $/h); ­cf is the external fuel cost per
exergy unit; and Q̇f is the external exergy consumption of
the plant (in MW).
Equation 5 can be modified to Eq. 6 to calculate the exer-
getic unit costs ­(kout and ­kin) for each flow, and the costs of
the subsystems due to capital costs, operation and mainte-
fuel exergy is also replaced by the exergetic unit cost.
. .
m exout − B = 0
out d ∑( ) ∑(
(6)
)
kout .Yout − kin .Yin = kf .Q̇ f
(4)
The higher the number of flows involved, the higher the
number of subsystems, and hence the more auxiliary equa-
tions that are necessary [54].
The production structure for the plant studied here is
shown in Fig. 4, and was constructed based on Fig. 3. In
this structure, FFB, H­ 2 and C
­ H3OH are the main external
inputs to the biorefinery. There is also an external biomass
flow that is needed to meet the demands of the plant.
When the productive structure had been constructed, it
was possible to build the exergoeconomic model for the
biorefinery, which consisted of a system of equations that
represent the productive structure in a mathematical way.
This model allows us to determine the unit costs of the
products and the intermediate costs of the system, and to
monitor the construction of all the costs associated with
the system. A model of this type has at least as many equa-
tions as there are components of the productive structure.
The model is presented in the Supplementary Material,
and allows us to determine the exergetic, monetary and
environmental unit costs of the products, and the inter-
mediate flows.
Based on the production capacity of the entire biore-
finery complex, which is composed of several different
production units, it is possible to estimate the investment
costs for the system. To estimate the investment required
13

5622
for each constituent process, we used known reference
data and applied them to a mathematical relationship that
adapted them to the dimensions and capacity of the plant
considered here. The investment costs taken from prior
references did not correspond to the current costs at the
time of writing, and it was therefore necessary to correct
these using an index that took inflation into account. The
index selected for this study was the Chemical Engineer-
ing Plant Cost Index (CEPCI), which was developed for
chemical reaction processing plants. It provides a dimen-
sionless factor that can be used to correct investment costs
for different dates. The costs for different years were cor-
rected based on the last CEPCI, released in October 2019,
with a value of 607.5 [55].
The investment costs for each biorefinery were obtained
from data available from the literature, and are shown in
the Supplementary Material. Using Eq. 7 for the cost bal-
ance, we calculated the investment value for each process
based on its respective capacity.
Capacity2 𝛼
( )
Cost2 = Cost1 . (7)
Capacity1
This dimensionless relation includes a factor α that is
used to balance the cost as a function of capacity. The value
Fig. 4  Productive structure of the palm oil biorefinery
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
of this index is typically 0.6 for both generating plants and
processing plants [56] (Table 2).
Based on the total investment in the plant and its use-
ful life, we can calculate the annual hours of operation, the
interest rate, the fixed and variable costs, and the hourly cost
of each of the processes, which determine the configuration
of the biorefinery. Equation 8 shows the calculation of the
hourly costs, where Z represents the cost rate in US$/h; I is
the total investment in the plant, in US$; O&MF and O&MV
are the fixed and variable costs of operation and mainte-
nance, respectively, and are both in US$. H is the number of
hours that the biorefinery is in operation each year; j is the
interest rate; and n is the life of the plant in years.
[ ]
j.(1+j)n
.I + O&M F + O&M V
(1+j)n −1 (8)
Z=
H
Economic Evaluation
The monetary unit costs calculated for the products can be
seen as the production costs allocated to each of the biofuel
products, together with the costs of the surplus electricity
and the byproducts of the reactions. Hence, by compar-
ing the production value with the market value for these
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5623

substrates, the possible revenue arising from production can
be calculated. To assess the attractiveness of an investment,
the indicator applied here is the net present value (NPV).
Equation 9 shows the expression used for this calculation.
25
NPV =
∑ Cash Flow
− I (9)
n=1
(1 + i)n
Payback is an indicator that represents the period of
return on investment. It is usually considered as a contribut-
ing factor in the decision on whether to accept or reject a
certain investment project, and is shown in Eq. 10. It is a
useful tool for determining the feasibility of an investment,
as it represents the period required for the project to recuper-
ate all the expenses incurred.
CFA
Pb = A + (10)
CF A+1
where Pb is the payback period, A is the year that indicates
the last negative accumulated flow, and CF is the cash flow.
To calculate the cash flow, the variable costs correspond-
ing to the acquisition of feedstock must be deducted from the
revenue obtained, for example expenses arising from metha-
nol and hydrogen gas, and fixed costs related to salaries,
operation and maintenance of the plants, which correspond
to 5% of the investment. In addition, there are taxes, which
are proportional to the revenue: IPI, ICMS, PIS, COFINS
taxes amount to 18% of the total income, while IRPJ/CSSL
taxes account for 35% of the income. The parameters used to
conduct our economic analysis are shown in Table 3.
The investment required to implement the plant can be
analysed in several different ways, and we consider this
based on two conditions: the first relates to the entire con-
struction of the biorefinery, starting from scratch, while the
second is associated with the construction of only the biofuel
production units, since there is already a cogeneration plant
that can be adapted to the selected operating parameters.
Life Cycle Assessment
We apply an LCA to study the environmental perfor-
mance of the studied biorefinery. This tool allows us to
assess the environmental impacts created by a product
over the course of its life [60]. This method makes it pos-
sible to measure the potential for environmental degra-
dation in particular case studies, and to compare these
with each other. To carry out an environmental analysis,
the IMPACT 2002+ method from SimaPro® v8 software
was used. In order to conduct an LCA of the biorefineries
studied here, it is first necessary to define the four concepts
that characterise the methodology: its scope and objec-
tives, the allocation method used, the LCI and the impact
assessment [61].
In the present study, we do not consider the capture
of ­CO2eq from the planting and cultivation of palm trees.
The chemical inputs used in this process, such as cata-
lysts and reagents, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and
fossil fuels, are modelled using the Ecoinvent 3 library
of SimaPro®. These inventories are divided based on the
processes making up each biorefinery, and the LCAs and
associated emissions are presented in separate sections.
• Goal the aim of LCA is to establish the carbon footprint
created by each product of the biorefineries studied
here, and to compare them in order to identify the best
alternative.
• Function the function of the biorefineries studied here
is to produce biofuels and surplus electricity from the
exploitation of biomass obtained from the extraction of
palm oil. We assume that the biofuels produced in this
way are not a final product, but an intermediary, under
the terms of the LCA. The analysis performed here is
therefore ‘cradle to gate’, as it focuses on the produc-
tion of biofuels rather than on their final application.
• Functional unit the functional unit used here is 1 ton
of FFB (1 t FFB), which represents a reference flow for
the assembly of LCIs. The input and output data and
the analysis results are therefore based on this quantity.

Table 2  Parameters used to Reference cost Capacity Year CEPCI

estimated investment costs for (M US$)
the biorefinery, adapted from
[22] Cogeneration plant [57] 290.3 50 MW 2016 541.7
POM 9.2 5.6 t ­h−1 2006 499.6
R&T 7.415 4.6 toil ­h−1 2008 575.4
E2G Plant
 Fermentation reactor 14.1 3333.3 t ­h−1 2010 550.8
 Distillery 10.7 34.7 tEthanol ­h−1 2010 550.8
HEFA 800 69.4 toil ­h−1 2013 567.3
ATJ [58] 75 1.1 tBJF ­h−1 2013 567.3

13

5624 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Table 3  Values of parameters Parameter Value Reference

used for economic evaluation
IPI, ICMS, PIS, COFINS* 18% –
IRPJ/CSLL (income and social contributions)* 35% –
Interest rate 4% –
Project lifetime 25 years –
Time of construction 2 years [56]
Hours of operation per year 6,000 –
Depreciation (linear) 10 years –
Contingencies and working capital 5% of investment –
Methanol price 0.26 US$/L [59]
H2 price 1190 US$/t [22]

*Brazilian taxes

However, different units were used for the different pro- Results and Discussion
cesses taking place in each biorefinery. The units used
in the analysis of each process in this case study are in Thermodynamic Performance
accordance with the inventories presented in Supple-
mentary Material B. The amounts of biomass directed to the boiler (EFB, PKS,
• Impact category global warming potential; and MF) from the POM have LHVs of 14.3, 16.6, and
• System limits these are defined based on the cultivation 16.7 MJ/kg. Hence, the LHV for the balanced mixture is
and transport of FFB to the biorefineries, the produc- 15.25 MJ/kg. For this energy density, the fuel consumption
tion of biofuels and the generation of electricity. of the boiler is 18.87 kg/s, meaning that an supplementary
amount of of 5.95 kg/s of biomass needs to be purchased.
Using the boundaries for the LCA that were established in The energetic efficiency of the biorefinery is a measure of
the methodology section and an exergetic allocation method, how the energy is utilised by the system to produce biofuels.
an LCA was conducted to analyse the environmental perfor- In our case study, biodiesel, green diesel, naphtha, and BJF
mance of the biorefinery. The allocation method refers to the are the products, and account for a production of 29,310 L of
distribution of the environmental impact (here, the global fuel per hour. Of this amount, 56% is biodiesel, 28.2% is the
warming potential) among the products and coproducts of HEFA-BJF, and 5.4% is ATJ-BJF. The energetic efficiency
each process. The allocation method used in this study was of the plant is therefore 37%. The energetic efficiency was
exergy-based, and the coefficients used for each stage of the
biorefinery are shown in the Table 4.
The inventory data were constructed based on 1 ton of Table 4  Allocation factors for exergy-based life cycle assessment
FFB for the POM, 1 ton of palm oil for the R&T stage, 1 Product stream Allocation factor
ton of ethanol for the plant of ethanol 2G, 1 kWh for the (%)
cogeneration system, and 1 ton of BJF for both the HEFA
Electric power generation
and ATJ processes. These data were drawn from previous
Net electric power 11.72
work [26, 41, 53, 55, 57]. The ATJ reaction does not add
Refining and transesterification
emissions to the air [21], and we therefore considered only
Biodiesel 43.56
the production of BJF and green diesel in this process. The
Glycerol 2.86
LCIs for all stages from the cultivation of the FFB to the pro-
 E2G plant
duction biofuels are given in the Supplementary Material.
Ethanol 4.2
The inventories for pesticides, insecticides and fossil fuels
Lignin 1.53
are based on data from the EcoInvent database.
 HEFA plant
Bio-jet fuels 24.77
Naphtha 5.75
Green diesel 0.85
 ATJ plant
Bio-jet fuels 4.72
Green diesel 0.1

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5625
calculated based on the LHVs of the biorefinery products,
the biofuels, the electricity and the co-products. The effi-
ciency of the plant is therefore associated with the amount of
biofuel produced, and mainly the drop-in biofuels from the
HEFA and ATJ processes, since these have a higher energy
density compared to ethanol and biodiesel.
The surplus electricity could be sold to the electrical
energy company’s grid. The surplus energy produced by the
biorefinery is expressed as a relation between the surplus
electricity and capacity of the plant to process FFBs, i.e. 150
­th−1. Biorefineries can operate with energy self-sufficiency
to supply the demand from other processes. In this case,
cogeneration operates with 55 MW of power generation, and
the internal demand is 11.94 MW. Hence, for the biorefinery
in this case study, the surplus electricity is 288.8 kWh/tFFB.
In terms of the second law of thermodynamics, the exer-
getic efficiency normally tends to decrease as the plant’s
dimensions are scaled up, due to the irreversibilities that
increase at larger scales. Irreversibilities that lead to exergy
destruction are concentrated in the boiler, due to the high
level of heat exchange and the combustion reaction, and
also in the conversion reactors responsible for producing
the biofuels, due to the chemical reaction processes and heat
exchange. Hence, in addition to the efficiency based on the
second law and the rate of exergy destruction, it is impor-
tant to explore the division of irreversibility between the
processes making up the biorefinery. Although the total rate
of exergy destruction in this plant was 277.83 MW and the
efficiency was 55%, the cogeneration system accounted for
122.89 MW of exergy destruction, the largest share for the
whole biorefinery, representing 47.9% of the total exergy
destruction. The second largest value was seen for the etha-
nol plant, which was responsible for 73.93 MW of exergy
destruction, representing 26.1% of all the exergy destruction
in the biorefinery and 22.1% of the exergy input. The next
largest was the HEFA plant, which destroyed 47.33 MW of
exergy, representing 16.7% of all energy destruction and
7.72% of the exergetic input.
The high values for exergy destruction associated with
the production of biofuels are due to the chain of chemical
reactions that take place in order to convert the biomass
to biofuel. In a second-generation ethanol plant, using fig-
ures for the mass and exergy balance from [43], the exergy
efficiency can be calculated as 22.16%, including the bio-
mass pre-treatment, hydrolysis, fermentation and distillation
phases. By this, the assess of the cellulosic and hemicel-
lulosic content in the EFBs, passes through the breaking
of lignin embracing those, it is chemically intense and is
reflected as a high level of exergy destruction. In the hydro-
processing of palm oil, the reactions are different, and the
plant converts the triglycerides in the oil by saturating the
double and triple bounds, and then withdrawing the oxygen
atoms of the hydrocarbon chain, via hydrogen pumping. The
following stages involve hydrocracking and isomerisation to
obtain biofuels of drop-in quality for road and air transporta-
tion, in the form of green diesel and BJF, respectively. Based
on the mass and exergy balance, the efficiency of HEFA
plant is 70%, a value that is better than for the production
of 2G-ethanol, although this process is demanding in terms
of temperature and pressure, which increases the exergy
destruction. The higher exergy efficiency is therefore due
to the stability and development status of the technology,
which can provide better biofuel yields than the 2G-ethanol
process.
Figure 5 illustrates the division of exergy destruction in
the biorefinery, along with the exergy efficiency of the sys-
tem, while Fig. 6 presents a flow diagram that can be used
in an exergy analysis to clarify the distribution shown in the
previous illustration. Table 5 shows the amount of surplus
power produced in the system, along with the efficiency
based on the first and second laws and the exergy destruc-
tion in each stage of the plant.
Exergoeconomic Performance
An exergoeconomic analysis was conducted in order to
obtain the costs of the products. These costs refer to the
quantity of resources needed to produce a flow of material
or energy [62], and based on this analysis, it is possible to
calculate the exergy, the monetary unit costs of the biofuels
and the power produced, by means of the thermoeconomic
model.
To calculate the cost rate Z, we assumed a plant opera-
tion of 6000 annual hours, an interest rate of 4.25%, and
a lifetime of 25 years. The cost rate is a necessary factor
in the exergoeconomic model that is used to calculate the
monetary unit costs of the electricity and biofuels. The cost
rate for each biorefinery stage is shown in Table 6 with the
capacity of the plants and the investment needed to put them
into operation.
Based on the cost rates shown above, the monetary
costs can be obtained. The main streams of biofuels pro-
duced (BJFs, biodiesel and ethanol) have values that are
higher than those for the secondary streams, such as the
green diesel from the HEFA and ATJ facilities. This is
reflected by the amount of fuel produced, and for green
diesel, there is one less stage in the process. The produc-
tion of 2G-ethanol from EFB had a monetary cost of 1.363
US$/L, the second highest identified from the exergoeco-
nomic analysis, and this has further impacts on the refinery
when the BJFs for ATJ are generated, resulting in a high
cost of production of 3.513 US$/L. Biodiesel had a mon-
etary unit cost of 0.327 US$/L, which reflects the readi-
ness and efficiency of this process, as compared with the
other processes that are currently in development.
13

5626
Fig. 5  Exergy efficiency and division of exergy destruction in the
plant
Figure 7 compares the monetary unit costs to the costs
of production identified in other studies. It can be observed
that the costs calculated for biodiesel in the present work
were lower than those reported by Kermani et al. [63], who
also considered the use of palm oil to produce biodiesel in
a biorefinery scenario, and substantially lower than those
reported by Aghbashlo et al. [8], a result that is due to
the higher capital investment required for the ultrasound-
assisted reactor technology considered by these authors.
Fig. 6  Sankey diagram for an exergy analysis of the studied biorefinery
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
Furthermore, the cost of biodiesel was below the com-
mercial market price in Brazil.
Similarly to biodiesel, BJF produced via HEFA was
favoured in terms of the production costs due to the struc-
ture of the biorefinery, with a value that was lower than
for standalone units, such as those considered by Died-
erichs et al. [36] and biorefinery configurations, such as
those investigated by Klein et al. [26]. However, the costs
for ATJ in these same studies [26, 39] were substantially
lower than our results. As discussed above, this is due to
the higher accumulation of irreversibilities from ethanol
production.
The exergy unit cost for electricity generation was
7.33  MW/MW, and the production of biodiesel had an
exergy unit cost of 1.33 MW/MW. The second-generation
ethanol from the hydrolysis and fermentation of EFBs had
an exergy unit cost of 5.23 MW/MW. The BJFs produced
via HEFA technology had an exergy unit cost of 3.49 MW/
MW, while the cost of BJF from ATJ was 7.55 MW/MW.
In terms of the overall exergy allocation of the plant, it is
clear that the processes that used developing technologies,
the ATJ and 2G-ethanol production chains, involved higher
exergy consumption for the production of BJFs and etha-
nol, respectively. Meanwhile, the stable technology used for
transesterification had a lower exergetic cost and a better
conversion yield. The HEFA process had an intermediate
level of cost within the biorefinery considered here, a fac-
tor that supports the emerging character of this technology,
which over the next few years is likely to be well established
on the market.
The values for all unit costs, both exergetic and monetary,
are shown in Table 7.
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5627

Table 5  Output of the thermodynamic evaluation

Parameter Value

Surplus electricity [kWh/tFFB] 288.8

Global energetic efficiency 37%
Global exergy efficiency 55%
Biorefinery stages Exergy destruction (MW) Distribution of exergy destruction (%) Exergy efficiency
(%)

Cogeneration 122.89 47.9 58

HEFA 47.33 16.7 70
E2G plant 73.93 26.1 22.1
ATJ 8.42 3.00 68
R&T 14.40 2.5 89
POM 10.86 3.8 49.3

Table 6  Biorefinery investment and exergoeconomic results Economic Performance

Stage Capacity Investment Z (US$/h)
(M US$) By treating the monetary unit costs as the costs of produc-
tion for each product and coproduct, including electricity,
Cogeneration 55 MW $325.57 $5393.89
we can carry out an economic evaluation of the biorefinery.
 POM 150 ­tFFB/h $80.22 $ 922.66
These costs were compared to market prices in Brazil. For
 R&T 15 ­tCPO/h $16.02 $5604.66
biofuels, we used the mean prices on the market between
 HEFA 15 ­tCPO/h $341.58 $4276.78
2015 and 2020, following ANP [59]. For the generation
E2G plant 16.5 ­tEFB/h $2.93 $4908.75
of electricity, the monetary unit cost was compared to the
 ATJ 2.26 ­tBJF/h $121.10 $1433.82
ANEEL (National Agency of Electric Energy) tariff for
March 2020 of 98.26 US$/MWh, based on a dollar quota-
tion of 5 R$/US$ [64].

Fig. 7  Comparison of costs for $4.00

biofuel production

$3.50
Biofuel production costs [US$/L]

$3.00

$2.50

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$-
Present Klein et al. Diederichs Klein et al. Diederichs Present Present Kermani et Aghbashlo
work (2018) et al. (2018) et al. work work al. (2017) et al.
(2016) (2016) (2018)
Bio-Jet Fuel (HEFA) Bio-Jet Fuel (ATJ) Biodiesel
Market price of jet fuel in Brazil (ANP, 2020) Market price of diesel in Brazil (ANP, 2020)

13

5628 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

The cost of production of green diesel via ATJ and HEFA 2015 and 2020. The potential revenues are presented in
was also compared to the cost of biodiesels, since in Brazil Table 8.
there are still no regulations on the commercialisation of this From the values for the required investment, the revenue,
biofuel. The average price of biodiesel between 2015 and and the economic parameters presented in Table 3, we can
2020 was 0.50 US$/L, and glycerol, a coproduct of trans- calculate the NPV of the biorefinery based on the definition
esterification, was reported as being exported from Brazil of the plant’s economic viability. In addition to the NPV, we
for 132.62 US$/t [65]. The cost of production of BJF was evaluated whether a return on investment would be shown
compared to the average price of A1 jet fuel in Brazil, which within 25 years of operation, based on the payback calcula-
was 0.46 US$/L [59]. The production cost of naphtha, the tion. The NPV was analysed under two conditions: in Con-
HEFA coproduct, was also compared to the average price dition I, the total cost of installation of the biorefinery was
of fossil-derived naphtha in Brazil between 2015 and 2020, considered (i.e. cogeneration plus all biofuel production
which was 0.37 US$/L. Figures 8 and 9 show a comparison plants); and in Condition II, the pre-existence of the cogen-
of these costs, allowing us to observe which products are eration system was assumed, giving a reduction on the initial
potential sources of profit or loss. investment of $325.57 million.
The annual revenue of the plant can then be calculated Under Condition I, the NPV was − 689.66 million dollars,
based on the production costs, an estimate of 6000 annual meaning that the biorefinery was not economically viable
hours of operation by the biorefinery, the volume of produc- or attractive. A return on investment would not be available
tion of each biofuel, and the average price in Brazil between within 25 years of operation of the plant. Under Condition
II, the NPV was better, at − 425.85 million dollars, but it
was still not economically viable and payback could not be
Table 7  Exergoeconomic unit costs for the biorefinery expected within 25 years. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the
Exergy unit cost Monetary unit cost payback in Conditions I and II, respectively.
The economic analysis does not exactly reflect the real
Surplus electricity 7.33 MW/MW 65.53 US$/MWh
market, so we carried out a sensitivity analysis to further
R&T
investigate the influence of the economic output of the
 Biodiesel 1.30 MW/MW 0.327 US$/L
plant. Using this sensitivity analysis, it was possible to
 Glycerol 1.30 MW/MW 27.29 US$/t
observe the variation in NPV with variations in the eco-
E2G plant
nomic parameters, working hours, taxes, interest rate, cost
 Ethanol 5.23 MW/MW 1.363 US$/L
of resources, and the selling price of the products.
HEFA
Under Condition I, expenses due to the acquisition
 BJF 3.49 MW/MW 0.496 US$/L
of FFBs had a stronger effect on NPV, accounting for
 Green diesel 3.49 MW/MW 0.017 US$/L
40.9% of the variation. The IRPJ/CSLL and IPI, ICMS,
 Naphtha 3.49 MW/MW 0.090 US$/L
PIS, COFINS taxes accounted for 2.3% and 1.2% of the
ATJ
variation in NPV, respectively. Contingencies and work-
 BJF 7.55 MW/MW 3.513 US$/l
ing capital were responsible for a variation of 1.3% in the
 Green diesel 7.55 MW/MW 0.074 US$/l
NPV, while a variation in working hours of between 3360

Fig. 8  Cost of production and $140.00 $132.62

market prices for glycerol and
electricity $120.00
brazilian market prices.
Costs of production and

$100.00
$82.32
$80.00 $73.01

$60.00

$40.00
$27.44
$20.00

$-
Glycerol (US$/t) Electricity (US$/MWh)

Costs of production Market price in Brazil

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5629

Fig. 9  Cost of production and $4.00

market price of biofuels $3.51

Biofuels costs of production

$3.50

$3.00

$2.50

(US$/L)
$2.00

$1.50

$1.00 $0.51
$0.50 $0.46 $0.46
$0.50 $0.33 $0.37
$0.09
$-
Biodiesel (R&T) BJF (HEFA) Naphtha BJF (ATJ)

Costs of production Market price in Brazil

Table 8  Annual revenue from each stage of the biorefinery
R&T
 Biodiesel
 Glycerol
HEFA
 BJF
 Green diesel
 Naphtha
ATJ
 BJF
 Biodiesel
 Surplus electricity
Total revenue
and 8640 caused 1.4% of the variation. The interest rate
elevated the NPV in 17.5% when is 8.5% and retreat it in
23.4% when was 0. The selling price of the biodiesel and
biofuel produced in higher volumes by the biorefinery had
the strongest influence on the NPV, at 45.9%. For the other
main products, the loss on BJF sales could be minimised
by up to 24.6% when the selling price was doubled. For the
surplus electricity, the variation in NPV was 23.2% with
a variation in selling price. Figure 12 shows all of these
variations under Condition I.
Under Condition II, the NPV was more sensitive to var-
iation in the IRPJ/CSLL and IPI, ICMS, PIS and COFINS
taxes, which caused 3.7% and 1.9% of the variation in
NPV, respectively. Expenses due to contingencies and
working capital and variations in the refinery’s working
hours also were more sensitive under this condition, caus-
Annual
ing 2.1% and 2.2% of the variation in NPV, respectively.
revenue (M Expenses arising from FFB acquisition were also higher in
US$) comparison with Condition I, at 65.8%. The main products
had also more influence on the NPV under this condi-
tion: biodiesel could affect 77.3% of the NPV if its selling
$16.83
prices were varied, the electricity 37.3% and for the BJFs,
$1.08
the variation was 39.6%. Figure 13 shows these variations
for Condition II.
$− 1.83
$1.02
Environmental Performance
$4.23
Figure 14 illustrates the potential impact on global warming
$− 28.90
from the biofuels produced in the biorefinery and the influ-
$0.11
ence of each stage on the final product. Most of the impact
$10.85
from BJF from HEFA and biodiesel from transesterification
$3.39
arises from the cultivation stage, and this is known to be a
problem when first-generation feedstock such as palm oil is
used. 2G-ethanol has the highest global warming impact,
which arises from the extraction stage, since the EFB, feed-
stock that gives fermentable sugars and then ethanol is a
residue from the extraction of palm oil, meaning that carries
the footprint of that biorefining stage. The BJF from the ATJ
plant is responsible for the largest proportion of the carbon
footprint from the ethanol plant, due to the use of sulphuric
acid, the low conversion yields and the accumulated impact
from the extraction stage.
Comparing the emissions arising from the lifecycle of
each biofuel in this biorefining scenario with those caused
by the production of conventional aviation fuel from crude
oil and the emissions reported by other studies on biofuels,
the proposed scenario can be used to justified.
Biodiesel produced from any vegetable oil should have a
smaller carbon footprint than the production of fossil diesel,

13

5630 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Fig. 10  Cashflow from the Year

investment over the years, under
Condition I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
$0.00

-$100.00

-$200.00

-$300.00

NPV M US$
-$400.00

-$500.00

-$600.00

-$700.00

-$800.00

-$900.00

-$1,000.00

Fig. 11  Cashflow from invest- Year

ment over the years, under
Condition II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
$0.00

-$100.00

-$200.00

-$300.00
NPV (M US$)

-$400.00

-$500.00

-$600.00

-$700.00

-$800.00

-$900.00

and the same trend is expected from all the alternative fuels
from renewable sources.
Figure 15 shows the environmental load from the produc-
tion of biodiesel via transesterification with that of fossil-
derived diesel and biodiesel from other feedstocks, such as
palm oil in the study by Kermani et al. [63]. The emissions
arising from the plant in the biorefinery studied here are pre-
sented with values from the existing literature for biodiesel,
and conventional diesel from fossil sources, as reported by
Liu et al. [66].

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5631

A $0.00 A $200.00

-$200.00 $0.00
-$400.00
NPV (M US$)

NPV (M US$)
-$200.00
-$600.00
-$400.00
-$800.00
-$1,000.00 -$600.00

-$1,200.00 -$800.00
-$1,400.00
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% -$1,000.00
Variation in economical parameters (%) -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

IRPJ / CSLL IPI, ICMS, PIS, COFINS Variation in economical parameters (%)
Contingencies and working capital Interest rate
FFB cost Methanol cost IRPJ / CSLL IPI, ICMS, PIS, COFINS
H2 cost
Contingencies and working capital Interest rate
B -$200.00 FFB cost Methanol cost
H2 cost
-$400.00
B
NPV (M US$)

$200.00
-$600.00
$0.00
-$800.00

-$200.00

NPV (M US$)
-$1,000.00

-$400.00
-$1,200.00
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
Variation in economical parameters (%) -$600.00

Electricity price Biodiesel price Glycerol price

-$800.00
BJF price Naphtha price Working hours
-$1,000.00
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
Fig. 12  Sensitivity analysis for Condition I: a effects of taxes, interest
Variation in economical parameters (%)
rate, contingencies and feedstock cost on NPV; b effects of the selling
price of products and working hours on NPV Electricity price Biodiesel price Glycerol price
BJF price Naphtha price Working hours

The figure above shows that the biodiesel derived from

palm oil in the present study has a smaller carbon footprint
than the palm biodiesel studied by Kermani et al. [63], in
which an LCA was carried out based on exergetic alloca-
tion, giving a value of 517 kg ­CO2eq/t. The biodiesel in this
study also showed environmental gains in comparison to
fossil diesel.
In our approach, a better environmental index was found
for the palm biodiesel than the value of 553 kg C ­ O2eq/t
reported for second-generation biodiesel from waste oil by
Fonteinis et al. [67]; however, the biodiesel from algae feed-
stock studied by Passel et al. [68], which can be considered
a third-generation product, was clearly a substantially better
alternative than all the other biofuels evaluated here.
The ethanol produced in this case study was compared to
other ethanol products, such as the first-generation produc-
tion reported by Souza et al. [69], which used sugarcane as
feedstock and had a value of 20.8 g ­CO2eq/MJ; the produc-
tion of ethanol from first- and second-generation feedstock
from the sugarcane industry, investigated by Maga et al.
[70], which gave values of 22.43 g ­CO2eq/MJ; and second-
generation ethanol from energy cane studied by Bressanin
et  al. [71], sugarcane molasses reported by Soam et  al.
[72] and sugarcane bagasse studied by Gnansounou et al.
Fig. 13  Sensitivity analysis for Condition II: a effects of taxes, inter-
est rate, contingencies and feedstock cost on NPV; b effects of selling
price of products and working hours on NPV
[73], which gave values of 10.2, 29.7 and 52.2 g ­CO2eq/MJ,
respectively. The ethanol produced in the present case study
therefore had a carbon footprint value that was intermedi-
ate compared to the other values expressed in the available
literature, as illustrated in Fig. 16. The figure also compares
the emissions from the production of ethanol and the pro-
duction of gasoline as reported by Cavalett et al. [74].
The production of BJFs from the hydroprocessing of
palm oil had lower emissions than the values reported in
most of the other studies, at 14.17 g C ­ O2eq/MJ, with the
exception of one of the scenarios evaluated by Vasquez et al.
[75], in which the hydrogen for the reaction was produced
from renewable energy sources, involving the reforming of
syngas. In their other scenario for palm oil, these authors
reported emissions of 14.20 g ­CO2eq/MJ for palm oil BJF
via HEFA, based on the carbon sequestration of the palm
cultivation stage and the production of hydrogen from natu-
ral gas steam reforming.

13

5632 Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637

Fig. 14  Global warming poten- 1200

tial of the main products in the

Global warming potential

case study
1000
HEFA

(kg CO2eq/t)
800 Ethanol Plant
Cogeneration
600 Transesterification
Refining
400
Extraction
200 Cultivation

0
Biodiesel Bio-Jet 2G-Ethanol Bio-Jet
Fuel,HEFA Fuel,ATJ

Fig. 15  Comparison of the 800

global warming potential of 720.62
biodiesel
Biodiesel production [gCO2eq/t]

700
Global Warming Potential of

600 Biodiesel from Algae, Passel

et al. (2013)
500
Biodiesel, present work
400 344.92
Biodiesel from Palm Oil,
300 Kermani et al. (2018)
Waste-Oil Biodiesel, from
200 Fonteinis et al. (2020)
100 Fossil Diesel, Liu et al.
(2020)
0
Biodiesel

The value reported by Wong [76] for the production of
A1-Jet was 19.95 g ­CO2eq/MJ, with a total value of 92.8 g
­CO2eq/MJ for its whole life cycle, meaning that the majority
of its environmental load arises from combustion. However,
according to Stratton et al. [77], well-to-wake emissions,
which are most commonly used to study BJFs [78], are suit-
able for the assessment of aviation fuels, and are based on
the assumption that the emissions from fuel combustion are
equal and opposite to those absorbed from the atmosphere
during crop cultivation. We therefore compare the whole
life cycle of the fossil aviation fuel reported in [76] with the
emissions for renewable jet fuels.
In view of the aims of low-carbon aviation, the BJFs
produced in this case study are expected to give fewer
emissions than conventional fuels. In their work, Klein
et al. [26] examined three HEFA scenarios in which maca-
cauba, soybean and palm oil were processed, and found
values in the range 17–23 g C ­ O2eq/MJ for economic alloca-
tion. These values are at the same level as those reported
by Shonnard et al. [79] in an energy allocation assessment
of the hydroprocessing of camelina oil into jet-fuels.
Wong [76] also reported the global warming potential of
the hydrotreatment of soybean oil to BJF; at 37.2 g C ­ O2eq/
MJ, this was higher than for the values discussed above,
but was similar to a value for canola oil BJF from Ukraew
et al. [80] of 36 g ­CO2eq/MJ, and a value for sunflower oil
BJF from Sieverding et al. [81] of 37.9 g ­CO2eq/MJ, based
on analyses that considered the energy allocation.
Figure 17 presents a comparison between the BJF pro-
duced in our case study from HEFA technology with the
A1 jet fuel reported in [76] and other reports by authors
exploring the hydroprocessing of esters and fatty acids.
Figure 18 shows a similar comparison for the ATJ tech-
nology based on values available from the literature. The
BJF produced via ATJ in this study was a stronger pollut-
ant than the HEFA product, with 25.25 g ­CO2eq/MJ, and
even stronger than the production phase of the fossil jet fuel
reported in [76]. This was due to the immature status of the

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5633

80 2G-Ethanol from energy cane,

Global Warming Potential of Ethanol

69.9 Bressanin et al. (2020)
70
1G-Ethanol from sugarcane, Souza et

production [gCO2eq/MJ]
60 al., (2019)

50 1G2G-Ethanol from sugarcane, Maga

et al. (2018)
40 2G-Ethanol, Present work
30 27.19
2G-Ethanol from Sugarcane
20 molasses, Soam et al. (2015)

10 2G-Ethanol from sugarcane straw,

Gnansounou, Vaskan & Pachón
0 (2015)
Ethanol

Fig. 16  Comparison of the global warming potential of ethanol

technology, which has a low conversion yield, and also due
to the high global warming potential of the production of
2G-ethanol. However, when the LCI of the global warming
potential was compared with data on 1G-ethanol reported by
Klein et al. [26], the difference was only 17%. In addition,
data presented by Capaz et al. [82] showed that ATJ-BJF
had a lower carbon footprint (20.1 g ­CO2eq/MJ) than Klein’s
value for 1G-ethanol (21 g C ­ O2eq/MJ). The comparison in
Fig. 18 therefore indicates that one tool for improving the
carbon footprint of ATJ technology would be to explore
not only ethanol but also butanol, which has a better global
warming impact potential as a feedstock.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Work
The biorefinery proposed here was evaluated in terms of
the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the ther-
moeconomics method. Several performance indicators and
exergoeconomic costs were calculated.
A coproduction and biorefinery context was explored
due to the conjuncture of BJFs and related economic issues.
The main limitation preventing the biofuels reaching a mar-
ket level of development was the elevated cost of produc-
tion, which arose due to the immaturity of these conver-
sion technologies. The goal of designing a multi-production

100 Palm Oil BJF, Vazquez et al., (2019)

92.80
90 BJF-HEFA, Present work
Global Warming Potential of Jet Fuel

80 Palm Oil BJF, Vazquez et al. (2019)

Production [gCO2eq/MJ]

70 Soybean Oil, Klein et al. (2018)

60 Macauba Oil, Klein et al. (2018)

50 BJF from Camelina Oil, Shonnard et al.

(2010)
40 Palm Oil, Klein et al. (2018)

30 BJF from Canola Oil, Ukraew (2016)

20 14.17 BJF from Soybean Oil, Wong (2008)
10
BJF from Sunflower Oil, Sieverding et al.
(2016)
0
A1-Jet, Wong (2008)
Jet Fuel

Fig. 17  Comparison of the global warming potential of HEFA bio-jet fuel

13

5634
30
Global Warming Potential of Jet Fuel
25.25
25
Production [gCO2eq/MJ]
20
15
10
5
0
Jet Fuel
Fig. 18  Comparison of the global warming potential of ATJ bio-jet fuel
biorefinery was to minimise the expenditure and maximise
the utilisation of resources, in order to produce cost-com-
petitive biofuels and achieve viability of the plant in a more
environmentally friendly manner. The main conclusions of
this work are as follows:
• The irreversibilities that lead to exergy destruction in
the biorefinery are associated with the dimensions of
the plant. However, these can be reduced through the
integration of multiple processes and better efficiency of
biomass;
• The production of biodiesel, glycerol, and surplus elec-
tricity were economically viable. The costs of production
for these products were below the market prices in Brazil;
• The production of BJFs via the HEFA and ATJ routes
was not financially viable. The production costs for BJFs
at the chosen scale of the biorefinery and based on the
relevant Brazilian fiscal parameters exceeded the market
values and represented a potential source of loss.
• HEFA technology is technically more mature than ATJ.
The BJF produced from HEFA reactions had a lower pro-
duction cost, better conversion yield, and fewer exergy
costs. Its disadvantage lay in the high initial investment
that would be required for its installation;
• A biorefinery with a higher capacity for HEFA pro-
duction would reduce the production costs, making it
competitive on the market, and the whole plant would
become economically attractive;
• Government legislation and subsidies could improve the
scenario with respect to BJF. Tax relief could help the
BJF biorefinery business to be more reliant;
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
1G-Butanol-to-Jet, Klein et al. (2018)
2G-Ethanol-to-Jet, Capaz et al. (2020)
1G-Ethanol-to-Jet, Klein et al. (2018)
1G2G-Ethanol-to-Jet, Klein et al. (2018)
BJF-ATJ, Present work
2G-Ethanol-to-Jet, Capaz et al. (2020)
• The lower conversion yield of ATJ contributed to the
higher pollution from the BJF created via this technology
compared to that from HEFA;
• The carbon footprint of BJF from HEFA technology was
lower than for conventional jet fuel from fossil origins.
These biofuels can therefore contribute to the use of
lower-carbon aviation fuels.
Although the fact that this plant for the production of
different BJFs in Brazil was not financially viable appears
to be a negative result, the environmental performance of
the fuels on life cycle analysis implies an environmental
gain. This means that with advances in the development of
conversion technologies, such as optimisation techniques,
process integration and intensification, enhanced conversion
yields, improved thermodynamic efficiencies and reduced
irreversibilities, plants like the one proposed in this study
may achieve economic feasibility, and will then be able to
play an important role in the transition towards a circular
economy that promotes sustainability. To help reach this
stage of development, detailed analyses must be carried out,
such as advanced exergy and exergoenvironmental analyses,
which should contribute to defining the avoidable, unavoid-
able, endogenous and exogenous parts of the exergy flows
and impact rate, and will also give a deeper understanding
of the relationships between the components that make up
the biorefinery as a whole.
In order to promote the use of BJFs in the context of
Brazil, there is a need to introduce government policies such
those previously applied to ethanol and biodiesel, as high-
lighted by the Brazilian Union of Biokerosene and Biodiesel
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5635
[83]. However, it will also be necessary to involve the differ-
ent layers of Brazilian society in order to reduce the carbon
footprint of the current scenario, such as family farming,
logistics, waste recovery and population awareness. Renova-
Bio appears to be an effective policy that involves the com-
mercialisation of descarbonization credits, and which can
be a valuable tool for promoting a more sustainable country,
not only in the transportation sector but in all other energy
sectors.
From this perspective, the outlook for Brazil can be
viewed with optimism, due to the existence of government
incentives, the availability of biomass, and prior expertise
in dealing with renewable energy sources.
Supplementary Information  The online version of this article (https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1264​9-021-01404​-2) contains supplementary mate-
rial, which is available to authorized users.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the Research Support
Foundation of the state of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for financial
support through PPM-00601-18, the National Council for Scien-
tific and Technological Development (CNPq) by specific Grants
(312121/2018-0 and 305741/2019-5) and the Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher-Level Personnel (CAPES). This work was
also supported by the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and
Biofuels (ANP), grant number PRH-ANP n°46.
References
1. International Energy Agency (IEA).: Tracking clean energy pro-
gress overview (2019). https​://www.iea.org/tcep/trans​port/biofu​
els. Accessed Dec 2019
2. Ptasinski, K.J.: Biomass production. In: Efficiency of biomass
energy, pp. 123–152. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)
3. Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F.: The future role of bioenergy. In:
Lago, C., Caldés, N., Lechón, Y. (eds.) The role of bioenergy in
the bioeconomy, pp. 435–547. Academic Press, Cambridge (2019)
4. Lindorfer, J., Lettner, M., Hesser, F., Fazen, K.; Rosenfeld, D.,
Annevelink, B., Mandl, M.: Technical, economic and environ-
mental assessment of biorefinery concepts (2019)
5. Farzad, S., Mandegari, M.A., Guo, M., Haigh, K.F., Shah, N.,
Görgens, J.F.: Multi-product biorefineries from lignocelluloses:
a pathway to revitalisation of the sugar industry? Biotechnol. Bio-
fuels 10(1), 87 (2017)
6. Ozdenkçi, K., Blasio, C.D., Muddassar, H.R., Melin, K., Oinas,
P., Koskinen, J., Sarwar, G., Järvinen, M.: A novel biorefinery
integration concept for lignocellulosic biomass. Energy Con-
vers. Manage. 149, 974–987 (2017)
7. Sikarwar, V.S., Zhao, M., Fennell, P.S., Shah, N., Anthony, E.J.:
Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 61, 189–248 (2017)
8. Aghbashlo, M., Mandegari, M., Tabatabaei, M., Farzad, S., Sou-
fiyan, M.M., Görgens, J.F.: Exergy analysis of a lignocellulosic-
based biorefinery annexed to a sugarcane mill for simultaneous
lactic acid and electricity production. Energy 149, 623–638
(2018)
9. Tursi, A.: A review on biomass: importance, chemistry, classifica-
tion, and conversion. Biofuel Res J 22, 962–979 (2019)
10. Cortez, L.A.B., Cruz, C.H.B., Souza, G.M., Cantarella, H., Sluys,
M.A.V., Filho, R.A.: Proálcool—Universidades e Empresas: 40
Anos de Ciência e Tecnologia para o Etanol Brasileiro. Blucher,
pp. 199–223 (2016). Accessed Dec 2019
11. Ministério de Minas e Energia do Brasil (MME).: Relatório de
Consolidação dos Testes para Validação da Utilização de Misturas
com Biodiesel B15 em Motores e Veículos (2019). http://www.
mme.gov.br/
12. Cardoso, B.F., Shikida, P.F.A., Finco, A.: Development of Brazil-
ian biodiesel sector from the perspective of stakeholders. Energies
10(3), 399 (2017)
13. Abrapalma. A.: Palma no Brasil e no Mundo (2019). http://www.
abrap​alma.org/pt/a-palma​-no-brasi​l-e-no-mundo​/. Accessed Dec
2019
14. Ahmad, F.B., Zhang, Z., Doherty, W.O., O’Hara, I.M.: The out-
look of the production of advanced fuels and chemicals from inte-
grated oil palm biomass biorefinery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
109, 386–411 (2019)
15. Marques, A.C.V., Silva, G.R., Amaral, D.F., Flávio, J.J.P., Men-
ezes, R.S., Beltrão, S., Donadello, Z.: Agenda de Inovação para a
Cadeia de Produção do Biodiesel 1, 40 (2019) (in Portuguese)
16. Severo, I.A., Siqueira, S.F., Deprá, M.C., Maroneze, M.M., Zepka,
L.Q., Jacob-Lopes, E.: Biodiesel facilities: what can we address
to make biorefineries commercially competitive? Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 112, 686–705 (2019)
17. Ministério de Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento do Brasil.:
Diagnóstico da Produção Sustentável da Palma de Óleo (2018).
https​://www.gov.br/agric​ultur​a/pt-br/. Accessed Dec 2019
18. FAO (FAOSTAT).: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (2018). http://www.fao.org/faost​at. Accessed Dec
2019
19. SEEG.: Estimativas do SEEG Brasil—2016: Sistema de Estima-
tivas de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa (2016). https​://plata​
forma​.seeg.eco.br/total​_emiss​ion
20. Panahi, H.K.S., Dehhaghi, M., Kinder, J.E., Ezeji, T.C.: A review
on green liquid fuels for the transportation sector: a prospect of
microbial solutions to climate change. Biofuel Res. J. 23, 995–
1024 (2019)
21. Gutiérrez-Antonio, C., Gómez-Castro, F., de Lira-Flores, J.,
Hernández, S.: A review on the production processes of renew-
able jet fuel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 709–729 (2017)
22. Alves, C.M., Valk, M., Jong, S., Bonomi, A., van der Wielen,
L.A., Mussatto, S.I.: Techno-economic assessment of biorefinery
technologies for aviation biofuels supply chains in Brazil. Biofuels
Bioprod. Biorefin. 11(1), 67–91 (2017)
23. Wang, Z., Kamali, F.P., Osseweijer, P., Posada, J.A.: Socioeco-
nomic effects of aviation biofuel production in Brazil: a scenar-
ios-based input-output analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 1036–1050
(2019)
24. Ministério de Minas e Energia do Brasil (MME).: O RenovaBio,
a Nova Política Nacional de Biocombustíveis (2018). http://www.
mme.gov.br/. Accessed Dec 2019
25. Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços do Brasil
(MDIC).: Rota 2030—Mobilidade e Logística (2020). http://www.
mdic.gov.br/. Accessed June 2020
26. Klein, B.C., Chagas, M.F., Junqueira, T.L., Rezende, M.C., de
Fátima, C.T., Cavalett, O., Bonomi, A.: Techno-economic and
environmental assessment of renewable jet fuel production in
integrated Brazilian sugarcane biorefineries. Appl Energy 209,
290–305 (2018)
27. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).: ICAO’s Role
in Alternative Fuels (2019). https​://www.icao.int/envir​onmen​tal-
protec​ tion/​ GFAAF/​ Pages/​ Facts-​ Figure​ s.aspx. Accessed Dec 2019
28. Noh, H.M., Benito, A., Alonso, G.: Study of the current incentive
rules and mechanisms to promote biofuel use in the EU and their
13

5636
possible application to the civil aviation sector. Transp. Res. D 46,
298–316 (2016)
29. Bann, S.J., Malina, R., Staples, M.D., Suresh, P., Pearlson, M.,
Tyner, W.E., Hileman, J.I., Barrett, S.: The costs of production of
alternative jet fuel: a harmonized stochastic assessment. Biores.
Technol. 227, 179–187 (2017)
30. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Energética (EPE).: Análise de
Conjuntura dos Biocombustíveis: Ano 2018 (2019). www.epe.
gov.br. Accessed Dec 2019
31. International Air Transport Association (IATA).: IATA Sustain-
able Aviation Fuels Fact Sheet (2018). https​://www.iata.org/press​
room/facts​_figur​es/fact_sheet​s/docum​ents/fact-sheet​-alter ​nativ​
e-fuels​.pdf
32. Amid, S., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M., Karimi, K., Nizami,
A.S., Rehan, M., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Soufiyan, M.M.,
Peng, W., Lam, S.S.: Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoen-
vironmental aspects of an industrial-scale molasses-based ethanol
production plant. Energy Convers. Manage. 227, 113637 (2021)
33. Soltanian, S., Aghbashlo, M., Farzad, S., Tabatabei, M., Mande-
gari, M., Görgens, J.F.: Exergoeconomic analysis of lactic acid
and power cogeneration from sugarcane residues through a biore-
finery approach. Renew. Energy 143, 872–889 (2019)
34. Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabei, M., Soltanian, S., Ghanavati, H.,
Dadak, A.: Comprehensive exergoeconomic analysis of a munici-
pal solid waste digestion plant equipped with a biogas genset.
Waste Manage. 87, 485–498 (2019)
35. Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabei, M., Hosseinpour, S.: On the exergo-
economic and exergoenvironmental evaluation and optimization
of biodiesel synthesis from waste cooking oil (WCO) using a low
power, high frequency ultrasonic reactor. Energy Convers. Man-
age. 164, 385–398 (2018)
36. Diederichs, G.W., Mandegari, M.A., Farzad, S., Görgens, J.F.:
Techno-economic comparison of biojet fuel production from lig-
nocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane juice. Biores. Technol.
216, 331–339 (2016)
37. Wang, W.C., Tao, L.: Bio-jet fuel conversion technologies. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 801–822 (2016)
38. Wang, W.C., Tao, L., Markham, J., Zhang, Y., Tan, E., Batan, L.,
Warner, E., Biddy, M.: Review of biojet fuel conversion technolo-
gies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2016). http://www.
nrel.gov/publi​catio​ns
39. Garcia-Nunez, J.A., Rodriguez, D.T., Fontanilla, C.A., Ramirez,
N.E., Lora, E.E.S., Frear, C.S., Stockle, C., Amonette, J., Garcia-
Perez, M.: Evaluation of alternatives for the evolution of palm oil
mills into biorefineries. Biomass Bioenergy 95, 310–329 (2016)
40. Sabartly, R.: Membrane technology for water and wastewater
treatment in rural regions. Engineering Science Reference. CRC
Press, Boca Raton (2020)
41. Garritano, A.N., Faber, M.O., De Sá, L.R.V., Ferreira-Leitão,
V.S.: Palm oil mill effluent (POME) as raw material for biohy-
drogen and methane production via dark fermentation. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 676–684 (2018)
42. Geng, A.: Conversion of oil palm empty fruit bunch to biofuels.
In: Fang, Z. (ed.) Liquid gaseous and solid biofuels. IntechOpen,
Rijeka (2013). https​://doi.org/10.5772/53043​
43. Lee, K.T., Ofori-Boateng, C.: Sustainability of biofuel production
from oil palm biomass. Springer, Singapore (2013)
44. Albarelli, J.Q., Santos, D.T., Ensinas, A.V., Maréchal, F., Mato,
F.A., Cocero, M.J., Meireles, M.A.A.: Thermo-economic and
environmental comparison of supercritical water and enzymatic
hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse in a biorefinery concept. Energy
141, 139–148 (2017)
45. Batlle, E.A.O., Santiago, Y.C., Venturini, O.J., Palacio, J.C.E.,
Lora, E.E.S., Maya, D.M.Y., Arrieta, A.R.A.: Thermodynamic
and environmental assessment of different scenarios for the
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637
insertion of pyrolysis technology in palm oil biorefineries. J.
Clean. Prod. 250, 119–134 (2020)
46. Kuss, V.V., Kuss, A.V., da Rosa, R.G., Aranda, D.A., Cruz, Y.R.:
Potential of biodiesel production from palm oil at Brazilian Ama-
zon. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1013–1020 (2015)
47. Cremonez, P.A., Feroldi, M., Nadaleti, W.C., de Ross, E., Feiden,
A., de Camargo, M.P., Cremonez, F.E., Klajn, F.F.: Biodiesel
production in Brazil: current scenario and perspectives. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 415–428 (2015)
48. Živković, S.B., Veljkovic, M.V., Bankovic-Ilic, I.B., Krstic, I.M.,
Konstantinovic, S.S., Ilic, S.B., Avramovic, J.M., Stamenkovic,
O.S., Veljkovic, V.B.: Technological, technical, economic, envi-
ronmental, social, human health risk, toxicological and policy
considerations of biodiesel production and use. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 79, 222–247 (2017)
49. Tao, L., Milbrandt, A., Zhang, Y., Wang, W.C.: Techno-economic
and resource analysis of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel. Bio-
technol. Biofuels 10, 261 (2017)
50. Palamae, S., Dechatiwongse, P., Choorit, W., Chisti, Y., Prasert-
san, P.: Cellulose and hemicellulose recovery from oil palm empty
fruit bunch (EFB) fibers and production of sugars from the fibers.
Carbohydr. Polym. 155, 491–497 (2017)
51. Diniz, A., Sargeant, R., Millar, G.J.: Stochastic techno-economic
analysis of the production of aviation biofuel from oilseeds. Bio-
technol Biofuels 11, 1–5 (2018)
52. de Faria, P.R., Santos, J.J.C., dos Santos, R.G., Barone, M.A.,
Miotto, B.M.: On the allocation of residues cost in thermoeco-
nomics using a comprehensive diagram. In: Proceedings of ECOS
2020: 33rd International Conference on Efficiency Cost, Optimi-
zation, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems,
Osaka, Japan (2020)
53. Santos, J.J.C., Silva, J.A.M., Palacio, J.C.E., Moreira, H.L.: On
the exergy disaggregation for thermoeconomic analysis of a gas
turbine cogeneration system. In: Proceedings of ENCIT 2010:
13th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering,
Uberlândia, Brazil (2010)
54. de Araújo, L.R., Morawski, A.P., Barone, M.A., et al.: On the
effects of thermodynamic assumptions and thermoeconomic
approaches for optimization and cost allocation in a gas turbine
cogeneration system. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 42, 323 (2020)
55. Chemical Engineering Online.: Current economic trends CEPCI
(2019). https​://www.cheme​ngonl​ine.com/2019-chemi​cal-engin​
eerin​g-plant​-cost-index​-annua​l-avera​ge/. Accessed Jan 2020
56. Júnior, J.C.F., Palacio, J.C.E., Leme, R.C., Lora, E.E.S., da
Costa, J.E.L., Reyes, A.M.M., Olmo, O.A.: Biorefineries produc-
tive alternatives optimization in the Brazilian sugar and alcohol
industry. Appl. Energy 259, 113092 (2019)
57. US Energy Information Administration.: Capital cost estimates
for utility scale electricity generating plants (2016)
58. Gebremariam, S., Marchetti, J.: Economics of biodiesel produc-
tion: review. Energy Convers. Manage. 168, 74–84 (2018)
59. Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis
(ANP).: Historical series of fuel market prices (2020). http://www.
anp.gov.br/precos​ -e-defesa​ -da-concor​ renci​ a/precos​ /levant​ ament​ o-
de-preco​s/serie​-histo​rica-do-levan​tamen​to-de-preco​s-e-de-marge​
ns-de-comer​ciali​zacao​-de-combu​stive​is
60. Batlle, E.A.O.: Avaliação Termodinâmica e Ambiental de Com-
plexos Integrados de Biorrefinarias que utilizam Cana e Palma.
PhD Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Institute, Federal University
of Itajubá, Brazil (2019)
61. Palacio, J., Renó, M., Reyes, A.M., de Souza, G.F., Batlle, E.A.O.,
del Olmo, O.A.A., Lora, E.E.S.: Exergy and environmental analy-
sis of a polygeneration system of alcohol industry. Waste Biomass
Valoriz. 11, 1539–1554 (2020)
62. Rúa, O.D.: Operadores Exergéticos: uma Nova Abordagem
de Diagnóstico Termoeconômico para Identificar Anomalias
Waste and Biomass Valorization (2021) 12:5611–5637 5637
Intrínsecas em Ciclos Térmicos de Potência. PhD thesis, Mechani-
cal Engineering Institute, Federal University of Itajubá, Brazil
(2017)
63. Kermani, M., Celebi, A.D., Wallerand, A.S., Ensinas, A.V., Kan-
tor, I.D., Maréchal, F.: Techno-economic and environmental
optimization of palm-based biorefineries in the Brazilian context.
In: Espuña, A., Graells, M., Puigjaner, L. (eds) 27th European
Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering. (Computer
Aided Chemical Engineering, vol. 40, pp. 2611–2616. Elsevier,
Amsterdam (2017)
64. Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL).: Relatório de
Tarifa Média de Fornecimento. http://relat​orios​.aneel​.gov.br.
Accessed Apr 2020
65. Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços do Brasil
(MDIC).: Estatísticas de Comércio Exterior (2020). http://www.
mdic.gov.br/. Accessed Mar 2020
66. Liu, Y., Lu, S., Yan, X., Gao, S., Cui, X., Cui, Z.: Life cycle
assessment of petroleum refining process: a case study in China.
J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120–142 (2020)
67. Foteinis, S., Chatzisymeon, E., Litinas, A., Tsoutsos, T.: Used-
cooking-oil biodiesel: life cycle assessment and comparison with
first- and third-generation biofuel. Renew. Energy 153, 588–600
(2020)
68. Passell, H., Dhaliwal, H., Reno, M., Wu, B., Amotz, A.B., Ivry,
E., Gay, M., Czartoski, T., Laurin, L., Ayer, N.: Algae biodiesel
life cycle assessment using current commercial data. J. Environ.
Manage. 129, 103–111 (2013)
69. de Souza, N.R.D., Fracarolli, J.A., Junqueira, T.L., Chagas, M.F.,
Cardoso, T.F., Watanabe, M.D., Cavalett, O., Filho, S.P.V., Dale,
B.E., Bonomi, A., Cortez, L.A.B.: Sugarcane ethanol and beef cat-
tle integration in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 120, 448–457 (2019)
70. Maga, D., Thonemann, N., Hiebel, M., et al.: Comparative life
cycle assessment of first- and second-generation ethanol from
sugarcane in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 266–280 (2019)
71. Bressanin, J.M., Klein, B.C., Chagas, M.F., Watanabe, M.D.B.,
Sampaio, I.L.D.M., Bonomi, A., Morais, E.R.D., Cavalett, O.:
Techno-economic and environmental assessment of biomass gas-
ification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis integrated to sugarcane
biorefineries. Energies 13(17), 4576 (2020)
72. Soam, S., Kumar, R., Gupta, R.P., Sharma, P.K., Tuli, D.K., Das,
B.: Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from sugarcane molas-
ses in northern and western India and its impact on Indian biofuel
programme. Energy 83, 307–315 (2015)
73. Vaskan, P., Pachón, E.R., Gnansounou, E.: Techno-economic and
life-cycle assessments of biorefineries based on palm empty fruit
bunches in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3655–3668 (2018)
Authors and Affiliations
Alisson Aparecido Vitoriano Julio1   · Eric Alberto Ocampo Batlle2 · Christian Jeremi Coronado Rodriguez3 ·
José Carlos Escobar Palacio1
* Alisson Aparecido Vitoriano Julio
alissonvjulio@gmail.com
* José Carlos Escobar Palacio
jocescobar@unifei.edu.br
1
Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed
Generation – NEST., Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
Federal University of Itajubá – UNIFEI, Av. BPS, 1303,
Itajubá, MG CEP: 37500‑903, Brazil
74. Cavalett, O., Chagas, M., Seabra, J., Bonomi, A.: Comparative
LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA
methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 647–658 (2013)
75. Vásquez, M.C., Martínez, A., Castillo, E.F., Lora, E.E.S.: Holis-
tic approach for sustainability enhancing of hydrotreated aviation
biofuels, through life cycle assessment: a Brazilian case study. J.
Clean. Prod. 237, 117–196 (2019)
76. Wong, H.M.: Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions
from alternative jet fuels. Masters dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (2008). Retrieved from https:​ //dspace​ .mit.
edu/bitst​ream/handl​e/1721.1/50611​/46905​9627-MIT.pdf
77. Stratton, R.W., Wolfe, P.J., Hileman, J.I.: Impact of aviation
non-CO2 combustion effects on the environmental feasibility of
alternative jet fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(24), 10736–10743
(2011)
78. Zemanek, D., Champagne, P., Mabee, W.: Review of life-cycle
greenhouse-gas emissions assessments of hydroprocessed renew-
able fuel (HEFA) from oilseeds. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 14,
935–949 (2020)
79. Shonnard, D.R., Williams, L., Kalnes, T.N.: Camelina-derived
jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ. Prog.
Sustain. Energy 29, 382–392 (2010)
80. Ukaew, S., Shi, R., Lee, J.H., Archer, D.W., Pearlson, M., Lewis,
K.C., Bregni, L., Shonnard, D.R.: Full chain life cycle assessment
of greenhouse gases and energy demand for canola-derived jet
fuel in North Dakota, United States. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.
4(5), 2771–2779 (2016)
81. Sieverding, H.L., Zhao, X., Wei, L., Stone, J.J.: Life-cycle assess-
ment of oilseeds for biojet production using localized cold-press
extraction. J. Environ. Qual. 45(3), 967–976 (2016)
82. Capaz, R.S., de Medeiros, E.M., Falco, D.G., Seabra, J.E.A.,
Osseweijer, P., Posada, J.A.: Environmental trade-offs of renew-
able jet fuels in Brazil: beyond the carbon footprint. Sci. Total
Environ. 714, 136696 (2020)
83. UBRABIO.: Bioquerosene: Temos Matéria Prima e Tecnologia,
Falta Política Pública (2019). https​://ubrab​io.com.br/2019/08/22/
bioqu​erose​ne-temos​-mater​ia-prima​-e-tecno​logia​-falta​-polit​ica-
publi​ca/ (in Portuguese). Accessed Feb 2020
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
2
Excellence Center in Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency – EXCEN, Federal University of Itajubá –
UNIFEI, Av. BPS 1303, Itajubá, MG, Brazil
3
Group of Studies in Energy Conversion Technologies –
GETEC., Federal University of Itajubá – UNIFEI, Av. BPS,
1303, Itajubá, MG, Brazil
13