Fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass constitutes a promising technology to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. The product, pyrolysis liquids, can either substitute heavy fuel oil directly, or be upgraded via e.g. hydroprocessing to diesel and petrol. This study presents a systematic evaluation of production costs and CO2 mitigation potentials of different fast pyrolysis value chain configurations. The evaluation considers types of localisations, emissions from electricity and hydrogen production, biomass feedstocks, and final products. The resulting production costs were found to be in the range of 36–60 EUR/MWh for crude pyrolysis liquids, and 61–90 EUR/MWh upgraded to diesel and petrol. Industrial integration was found to be favoured. The CO2 mitigation potential for the pyrolysis liquids was in the range of 187–282 t-CO2/GWh biomass. High variations were found when upgraded to diesel and petrol –best-case scenario resulted in a mitigation of 347 t-CO2/GWh biomass, while worst-case scenarios resulted in net CO2 emissions. Favourable policy support, continued technology development, and/or increased fossil fuel prices are required for the technology to be adapted on an industrial scale. It was concluded that integration with existing industrial infrastructure can contribute to cost reductions and thus help enable the transformation of traditional forest industry into biorefineries.

Biorefineries for the production of fuels, chemicals, or materials can be an important contributor to reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The economic performance of the biorefinery supply chain can be increased by, for example, industrial integration to utilise excess heat and products, increasing size to improve economy of scale, and using intermediate upgrading to reduce feedstock transport cost. To enable a large-scale introduction of biorefineries it is important to identify cost efficient supply chain configurations.

This work investigates a lignocellulosic biorefinery concept integrated with forest industry, focusing on how different economic conditions affect the preferred supply chain configurations. The technology investigated is black liquor gasification, with and without the addition of pyrolysis liquids to increase production capacity. Primarily, it analyses trade-offs between high biomass conversion efficiency and economy of scale effects, as well as the selection of centralised vs. decentralised supply chain configurations.

The results show the economic advantage for biomass efficient configurations, when the biorefinery investment is benefited from an alternative investment credit due to the replacement of current capital-intensive equipment at the host industry. However, the investment credit received heavily influenced the cost of the biorefinery and clearly illustrates the benefit for industrial integration to reduce the cost of biorefineries. There is a benefit for a decentralised supply chain configuration under very high biomass competition. However, for lower biomass competition, site-specific conditions will impact the favourability of either centralised or decentralised supply chain configurations.

In Sweden, the iron and steel industry (ISI) is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most of the emissions result from the use of fossil reducing agents. Nevertheless, the use of fossil fuels for other purposes must also be eliminated in order to reach the Swedish emissions reduction targets. In this study, we investigate the possibility to replace fossil gaseous and liquid fuels used for heating in the ISI, with liquefied biomethane (LBG) produced through gasification of forest residues. We hypothesize that such utilization of fuels in the Swedish ISI is insufficient to independently drive the development of large-scale LBG production, and that other sectors demanding LBG, e.g., for transportation, can be expected to influence the economic potential for the ISI to switch to LBG. The paper investigates how demand for LBG from other sectors can contribute to, or prevent, a phase-out of fossil fuels used for heating purposes in the ISI under different future energy market scenarios, with additional analysis of the impact of a CO2 emissions charge. A geographically explicit cost-minimizing biofuel production localization model is combined with heat integration and energy market scenario analysis. The results show that from a set of possible future energy market scenarios, none yielded more than a 9% replacement of fossil fuels used for heating purposes in the ISI, and only when there was also a demand for LBG from other sectors. The scenarios corresponding to a more ambitious GHG mitigation policy did not achieve higher adoption of LBG, due to corresponding higher biomass prices. A CO2 charge exceeding 200 EUR/tonCO2 would be required to achieve a full phase-out of fossil fuels used for heating purposes in the ISI. We conclude that with the current policy situation, substitution of fossil fuels by LBG will not be economically feasible for the Swedish ISI.

Biofuels and biochemicals play significant roles in the transition towards a fossil-free society. However, large-scale biorefineries are not yet cost-competitive with their fossil-fuel counterparts, and it is important to identify biorefinery concepts with high economic performance. For evaluating early-stage biorefinery concepts, one needs to consider not only the technical performance and process costs but also the economic performance of the full supply chain and the impacts on feedstock and product markets. This article presents and demonstrates a conceptual interdisciplinary framework that can constitute the basis for evaluations of the full supply-chain performance of biorefinery concepts. This framework considers the competition for biomass across sectors, assumes exogenous end-use product demand, and incorporates various geographical and technical constraints. The framework is demonstrated empirically through a case study of a sawmill-integrated biorefinery producing liquefied biomethane from forestry and forest industry residues. The case study results illustrate that acknowledging biomass market effects in the supply chain evaluation implies changes in both biomass prices and the allocation of biomass across sectors. The proposed framework should facilitate the identification of biorefinery concepts with a high economic performance which are robust to feedstock price changes caused by the increase in biomass demand.

Large-scale implementation of forest-based biofuel production will have an impact on biomass prices, something which in turn will affect biofuel production costs. The profitability of emerging biofuel production technologies is usually assessed using techno-economic or market approaches. While techno-economic approaches have a detailed description of technologies within plant-level or supply chain system boundaries, they build on exogenously given static biomass prices. Conversely, market approaches have a consistent description of the economic system including market interactions for prices within local or national boundaries, but they generally lack technological depth. This paper combines these two approaches using an iterative framework for a case study optimising the production cost of liquefied biomethane (LBG) using different configurations of sawmill-integrated biomass gasification.

Cost estimates are developed using system boundaries surrounding a LBG production plant, and the Swedish national borders, reflecting the plant-owner and policymaker perspectives, respectively. The results show that different plant configurations are favoured depending on the choice between minimising the biofuel production cost for the plant-owner or for the policymaker. Market dynamics simulated by the iterative procedure show that a direct policy support of 36–56 EUR/MWh would be needed to sustain large-scale LBG production, which is 12–31% higher than the necessary policy support estimated based on static biomass prices.

Uncertain and unstable policy support has often been claimed to be a major cause of the slower than expected deployment of technologies for production of advanced biofuels. We investigate the economic rationale of this claim by applying a real options framework incorporating uncertainties regarding energy prices, investment costs, and prevalence of policy support, in terms of an economic support per produced unit of biofuel depending on the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential. Six industrially relevant forest-based technologies for production of drop-in biofuels were evaluated. The technologies were integrated with a pulp mill and an oil refinery and are at different stages of their technical development. The results show that there is a limited economic rationale behind the claim that policy uncertainties are a major source for the stalled deployment of forest-based biorefinery technologies. Only technologies that require very high policy support to become economically viable, with associated low likeliness of investment, showed any significant sensitivity to the policy uncertainty. The results show that the stalled deployment is mainly related to the uncertainties regarding investment costs and future energy prices — and not related to the specific policy uncertainty. The results show that the stalled deployment is mainly related to the uncertainties regarding investment costs and future energy prices. This results in technologies with lower sensitivity with respect to these uncertainties have a larger chance of becoming commercially relevant investment options. The findings show that reduced policy uncertainty will neither lead to earlier investments nor improve the commercial viability of emerging biorefinery technologies. Literature citing policy uncertainty as the main hindrance for commercial deployment cannot do so from an economic perspective without simultaneously investigating the impacts from investment cost and market price uncertainties. Additionally we find that if policy support is intended to promote investment in technologies with high GHG performance, it must be directed specifically to these technologies, otherwise, it is more beneficial to invest in technologies with more favourable conditions for investment and operational costs, but lower GHG performance.