ONLINE RESOURCE 1

(1)

Waste and Biomass Valorisation_Hagman and Feiz_Advancing the circular economy through organic by-product valorisation—A multi-criteria assessment of a wheat-based biorefinery_ Linköping University_ linda.hagman@liu.se

ONLINE RESOURCE 1

Multi-criteria assessment framework for assessing feasibility,

performance, and risk-avoidance of different by-product

management options in biorefineries or biobased industrial systems

1. Data collection

In this framework, the reference case reflects the existing situation, and the alternative development options (scenarios) need to be clearly defined—both verbally and visually. Development scenario can be by-product management alternatives, new product developments or new technologies. The relevant context, historical background, the involved actors, their roles and expected gains/losses should be explained. The main reasons behind the initiative for change are clarified. The main flows—inputs, outputs, intermediates, wastes, by-products, main products, etc.—are described in proper quantitative parameters with amounts and units (Table 1). If not all the values are known, the best estimates can be used.

Table 1. Main information and parameters that could be required to characterise the reference case and the development scenarios.

Element Description Parameters

Description A text describing the main characteristics of the development scenario and highlighting the differences with the reference case. For the reference case, add information regarding the historical background and the main reasons behind the initiative for change.

Visualisation Visualisation of the development scenario consisting of the main processes, the interflows and connections. Actors The list of the main actors involved in the development scenario, their role & responsibilities, and potential or

expected gains & losses as a result of their participation. (You may distinguish among the actors who are involved in the biorefinery or the biobased industrial cluster (core system), and their suppliers or customers.) Parameters Outputs (products, by-products) of the system:

How much products and by-products are produced (leaving the system)?

- Amount of food products - Amount of biogas - Amount of biofertiliser - Amount of electricity - Amount of heat - Amount of fodder - Other

Inputs of the system:

How much material and energy is used as an input to the system?

- Amount of electricity

- Amount of heat (also temperature) - Amount of fuel (diesel)

- Amount of raw material - Amount of fresh water - Other

Intermediate flows - Amount and characteristics of intermediate flows How much direct waste is produced?

The waste flow should leave the system, otherwise, consider it as an intermediate flow.

- Amount of wastewater - Amount of sludge

- Amount of materials for incineration - Amount of materials for landfill

- Amount of waste for further treatment elsewhere How much direct emissions are produced? - Release of N to water

- Release of P to water - Release of CO2 to air

- Release of CH4 to air

- Toxic products - Other (BOD COD)?

(2)

2. Key areas and indicators

2.1. Energy and environmental performance

Any industrial activity is associated with some positive and/or negative environmental impacts and has implications on the resource efficiency. Considering the full life-cycle, these impacts may operate on a global scale—such as emission of greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, or on the

local/regional scale—for example, emissions which contribute to acidification, eutrophication or the release of toxic or undesirable materials, or can be linked to more (or less) efficient use of key resources such as macro nutrients. Therefore, this key area is expressed by this key question: in comparison to the reference case “Will this development scenario contribute to a more efficient energy use, more efficient nutrient recycling,

and better environmental conditions?” This key area is represented by four indicators: nutrients recirculation, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas efficiency, and local/regional environmental impacts.

Nutrient recirculation

Living organisms require macro nutrients to grow, therefore, organic materials (biomass) contain nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. Aside from the types of products that the studied bio-based industrial system delivers, the efficient use of nutrients is an important aspect related to its overall resource efficiency and (indirectly) to its energy and environmental performance. Nutrient recirculation can be expressed by the share (in %) of the total nutrient input to the system that is either delivered as products, or is processed in such a way that can potentially lead to better nutrient recycling— for example by substituting mineral fertilisers.

Table 2. Definition of the indicator “Nutrients recirculation”

Value Scale definition

Considering the macro nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous:

Good In this development scenario, almost all the nutrients input (the content of the raw

materials) to the system are used for producing products or are processed for potential nutrient recycling (about 70–90% of the nutrient input is recovered/recycled).

Poor In this development scenario, only a minor share of the nutrients input (the content of the

raw materials) to the system are used for producing products or are processed for potential nutrient recycling (about 10–30% of the nutrient input is recovered/recycled). Comment on possible taking up of significant amount of nutrients, or localised discharge of significant amount nutrients. Also comment on the amounts of the nutrients throughput in each scenario.

Primary energy performance

Primary energy performance is used to estimate the amount of primary energy required for the operation of

the studied system. In order to compare different alternatives—which can have different inputs and production portfolios—the energy use is adjusted based on the relative economic value of the products or services that are delivered. A high-value product or service might require higher amount of energy in absolute terms, but in relative terms can still have better performance. In short, the primary energy used or avoided (from a life-cycle perspective including system expansion) related to the reference case is set in relation to a valorisation coefficient (kv) based on the ratio of the economic value of products and

services produced in the scenario to the economic value of products and services produced in the reference case (Table 3).

Table 3. Definition of the indicator “Primary energy performance”

Considering the reference case, and the valorisation factor (Kv) defined as

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, and estimated using the following formula:

𝑃𝐸 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑃𝐸𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑥 𝐾𝑣 − 𝑃𝐸𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑃𝐸𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

(3)

Good This development scenario has 10–30% higher primary energy performance compared to the reference case (after correction for the value of the products)

Poor This development scenario has 10–30% lower primary energy performance compared to

the reference case (after correction for the value of the products)

Climate change performance

Climate change performance indicates the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of the studied development

scenarios. Since different development scenarios may deliver different amounts and types of products and services, the climate change performance is adjusted based on the relative economic value of the products and services generated in that scenario (compared to the reference case). This is based on the notion that higher valued products and services may require additional processing and produce more GHG-emissions but valorisation can partly offset their higher GHG emissions. Therefore, the GHG emissions generated or avoided (from a life-cycle perspective including system expansion) related to the reference case is set in relation to a valorisation coefficient (kv) based on the ratio of the economic value of products and

services produced in the scenario to the value of products and services produced in the reference case (Table 4).

Table 4. Definition of the indicator “Climate change performance”

Considering the reference case, and the valorisation factor (Kv) defined as

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, and estimated using the following formula:

𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑥 𝐾𝑣 − 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

Good This development scenario has 10–30% lower GHG emissions compared to the reference

case (after correction for the value of the products)

Poor This development scenario has 10–30% higher GHG emissions compared to the

reference case (after correction for the value of the products)

Local/regional environmental impacts

This indicator covers a diverse range of environmental aspects that are not captured by the previous two indicators (not directly linked to primary energy use and climate impact). They are associated with more local/regional environmental impacts; such as impacts on soil (erosion, organic content, nutrient losses, …), impacts on water (eutrophication, acidification, …), impacts on biodiversity/ecosystems (habitats, food chains), and other local/regional impacts (local air quality, smell, noise, …). For definition of the scales see Table 5.

Table 5. Definition of the indicator “Local/regional environmental impacts”

Considering the following environmental impacts: • Land/soil effects

• Impact on water resources

• Other impact on biodiversity/ecosystems • Other local/regional impacts such as odour

Good All of the following points are correct for this development scenario:

- There are many positive environmental effects

- The negative environmental effects are limited and are on the acceptable levels - Overall, this development scenario has good local/regional environmental impacts

Poor At least one of the following points are correct for this development scenario:

- This scenario leads to some significant negative environmental effects—although there might be some positive environmental effects.

(4)

2.2. Economic feasibility

This key area is expressed by this key question: “Is this development scenario profitable or cost-efficient?”. This means that in comparison to the reference case, the involved actors have a better economic condition; for example, have higher revenue, lower costs, or both. This key area is represented by three indicators:

profitability or cost efficiency, transportation efficiency, and reduced load on waste-management system. Profitability or cost efficiency

The first indicator related to this key area is profitability or cost efficiency of the scenario as a whole. It can be assessed qualitatively, insofar as there is sufficient evidence, but it is recommended to support the

qualitative assessment by quantitative analysis of the main sources of revenue and cost. The scales for this indicator are defined in Table 6.

Table 6. Definition of the indicator “Profitability or cost-efficiency”

Considering the reference case and if required, using monetary cost-benefit estimates as a measure of economic performance:

Good This development scenario is likely to contribute to profitability due to higher revenue or lower cost (in comparison to the reference case), even if investments in new

plants/facilities/infra-structures are required. Investment and operating costs are less than the revenues by a significant margin (10–30% more profitability)

Poor This development scenario is likely to lead to less profitability due to lower revenue or higher cost (in comparison to the reference case), even if no investments in new

plants/facilities/infra-structures are required. Aside from the investment-related costs, the operating costs are more than the revenues (10–30% less profitability).

Additional information (if relevant) may also be gathered. For example: - Do business models exist and are evaluated?

- What are the main changes regarding economic risks?

- What are the estimated changes in operating costs, maintenance costs, investment costs? - What is the estimated revenue gain from selling products and by-products?

- What is the overall contribution to profitability or cost-efficiency?

- Investment costs and financial feasibility (if too high upfront investment is needed, etc.)

Transportation efficiency

The second indictor related to this key area is related to transportation: transportation efficiency. Since we are dealing with by-products from biorefineries or bio-based industrial systems, it is often the case that wet and bulky materials must be handled and transported, often at relatively high costs. Therefore, the amount of transportation in each scenario can be an indirect indicator of its economic and environmental performance (although not a definitive indicator). One can assume that in most cases, the less bulky materials are transported over far distances, the less costs and impacts would occur. The transportation efficiency is compared to the reference case: the change in transportation activities can occur for any reason, for example due to new suppliers or a different need for external waste management ( Table 7). For this indicator, it is OK to have a narrow system boundary, for example considering transportation to the treatment facility and not all other transportations that may occur further in downstream.

This indicator may have overlaps with another key areas such as geographical and physical suitability, and

environmental performance. But here we have assumed that extensive transportation of bulky materials over

large distances is primarily linked to economic feasibility.

Table 7. Definition of the indicator “Transportation efficiency”

Considering the reference case and transportation of bulky material (typically having low economic value per tonne) using tonne-km as a measure of transport (gross weight multiplied by transportation distance):

(5)

Good This development scenario will decrease the need for transports (10–30% less transport).

Poor This development scenario will increase the need for transports (10–30% more transport).

Reduced load on waste-management system

The third indicator related to the key area of profitability or cost efficiency is reduced load on

waste-management system. Many biorefineries or bio-based industrial systems must deal with significant amounts

of process/wastewater with low dry matter content, and treatment of wastewater is a typical concern. Therefore, this indicator can show if the wet waste and/or wastewater treatment options are improved due to the proposed development scenarios or not: the economic improvement can (directly, or indirectly) arise from a more efficient waste treatment methods, or due to less wastewater being

produced. Waste management can also be costly and therefore a reduced load on the waste management system would be positive for the development scenario. For this indicator, it is OK to have a narrow system boundary, for example considering reduced load to the relevant treatment facilities and do not perform detailed analysis of the load on other processes downstream. For definition of the scales for this indicator see Table 8.

Table 8. Definition of the indicator “reduced load on waste-management system”

Considering the reference case—excluding the intermediate flows, since they are not considered as waste anymore—and using common parameters such as BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR), COD (chemical oxygen demand), TOD (total oxygen demand), TOC (total organic carbon), or the cost of waste treatment, as measures of the load on waste management system:

Good This scenario leads to significantly lower load on waste treatment and waste management

systems compared to the reference case (10–30% less load).

Poor This development scenario leads to significantly higher load on waste treatment and waste

management systems compared to the reference case (10–30% more load).

2.3. Geographical and physical suitability

The geographic location of the studied biorefinery or bio-based industrial system and physical conditions of the main site as well as its surrounding environment is an important aspect regarding its

implementability and performance. This key area is represented by the key question “Geographical and

physical suitability: Is the location and its surrounding environment physically and geographically suitable?” and is

represented by a single indicator with the same name.

Geographical and physical suitability

This indicator assesses the suitability of the development site(s) and the surrounding environment from geographic and physical perspectives. A suitable geographic location does not lead to potential

interferences or problems with other existing urban or natural areas. In addition, the resources required for its operation are in a physical form that make them reasonably easy to be accessed and supplied. For definition of this indicator see Table 9.

Table 9. Definition of the indicator “Geographical and physical suitability”

Considering the development site or sites:

Good In this development scenario, all of the following points are correct:

- The development site is reasonably far from protected urban or natural areas

- There are no major physical or geographical barriers within or without the development site.

Poor In this development scenario, any of the following points is correct:

- The development site is prohibitively near—or interferes with—protected urban or natural areas—or conflicts with other users’ interests.

- There are major geographical barriers within or without the development site.

- The required resources are physically difficult to access (for example, they are available in a diluted form, located deep down in the sea or in a very wide surface areas).

(6)

- Are there any involved actor that are located very far from the rest, leading to transport of required/produced bulky materials over very long distances? Explain.

- Are there any bulky raw material/product/wastes that is required to be shipped to very far locations? Explain. - Are the any physical or geographical challenges? Explain.

(distances farther than 100 km can be considered far, 50–100 km rather far, 10–50 km rather near; and less then 10km near).

2.4. Technical feasibility

This key area evaluates whether the required technologies are already developed and available in an efficient and well-proven manner; and the required infrastructures are available for the specific

environment in which the development scenarios take place. It is expressed by the key question “Are the

required technologies and infrastructures—considering the full life-cycle—available and ready to use?” and is represented

by two indicators: technological readiness and infrastructural readiness.

Technological readiness

This indicator shows whether the technologies required for the scenario is available or not. This can be judged by adopting a life-cycle perspective and assessing the required technologies in different parts of the system (in the development site, as well its upstream and downstream). The technological readiness can also be estimated by Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), which is a common scale for assessing the status of the technology considering its entire innovation chain. There are different ways of defining TRLs, however, the European definition is from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) [1]. For definition of this indicator see Table 10.

Table 10. Definition of the indicator “Technological readiness”

Considering a life-cycle perspective:

Good In this development scenario, any of the following points is correct:

- All the required technologies and technical practices are established—they are applied in different industries, several places, and under various conditions.

- All the required technologies and technical practices have the highest Technology Readiness Level (TRL =7– 8).

- Some of the main technologies and technical practices are not ready or are in their early development stage.

- Some of the main technologies and technical practices have low Technology Readiness Level (TRL<=4).

Comment on technical simplicity and maintainability; are the required technologies and processes—considering the full life-cycle—simple to operate and maintain?

Infrastructural readiness

This indicator shows whether common infrastructures such as roadways, communication network, electricity grid, pipelines for water or gas, and waste water treatment facilities are in place and can be used in the development scenario; and if there are any missing elements, they can be installed using the

available resources within each scenario. For definition of this indicator see Table 11.

Table 11. Definition of the indicator “Infrastructural readiness”

Considering a life-cycle perspective:

- All the critical infrastructures required for the implementation and operation of this development scenario are currently available and applicable to use.

- Installation of any missing infrastructures is already planned by the actors within the studied industrial system and is viewed as part of this development scenario.

(7)

- At least one critical infrastructure required for the implementation and operation of this scenario is not available (or its capacity is not enough) and it is not clear how and when it will be.

- Installation (or expanding) of the missing infrastructures is beyond the capabilities of the actors within the studied industrial system.

Comment on

- What infrastructures are needed, and what infrastructures are missing? - How the missing infrastructures can be added? (by whom, when)

2.5. Organisational feasibility

This key area evaluates whether the required organisation among the actors who are involved in the implementation of the studied development scenario is formed. It is expressed by the key question “Are

all the required actors with suitable knowledge (including technical/organisational knowledge and considering the full life-cycle), available and cooperating toward the common goal of implementation of this development scenario?” and is

represented by a single indicator: actors readiness.

Actors readiness

This indicator shows whether the required actors are present, have sufficient technical knowledge, and have formed proper organisational arrangement in order to implement the studied development scenario. For definition of this indicator see Table 12.

Table 12. Definition of the indicator “Actors readiness”

- All of the main actors for the implementation of this development scenario are already present, know their roles and responsibilities, trust each other, and have agreed to cooperate. It is possible that some other actors have to be contacted/join the system. - The development scenario is based on existing and already implemented solutions and does not require significant amount of network-building, knowledge or technology transfer, or organisational learning.

- At least one major actor who plays a role required for the implementation of this development scenario is absent from the network and it is not clear who and how will take that responsibility (their role cannot be played by the others).

- Lack of trust between several actors makes it very difficult for them to cooperate. - The development scenario constitutes a major departure from existing situation, which means it requires significant amount of network-building, knowledge or technology transfer, or organisational learning.

Comment on the tangible or intangible steps that are taken toward implementation of this development scenario (for example, pre-studies or lab/pilot studies performed, permits obtained, network-building, etc.)

2.6. Public acceptance and institutional feasibility

This key area evaluates the feasibility of the studied development scenario from the perspective of rules and regulations, as well as the general public. It is expressed by the key question: “Is this development scenario

supported by the governmental rules and regulations, public institutions, local communities and the general public?” If the

public and actors from civic society find this development scenario problematic, or if there are restrictive or unclear regulatory conditions, the feasibility of the scenario can be severed. This key area is represented by three indicators: public acceptance, institutional support and efficient administration, and planning horizon and

clarity of business implications. Public acceptance

This indicator shows the opinion of the public—local community, civic actors, and the general public— toward the implementation of the studied development scenario. For definition of this indicator see Table 13.

(8)

Table 13. Definition of the indicator “Public acceptance”

Good Regarding this development scenario, all of the following points are correct:

- This development scenario is supported by the local community

- The general public opinion seems to be positive—there is no obvious disturbances or controversies around it.

Poor Regarding this development scenario, any of the following points is correct:

- This development scenario is criticised by the local community

- The general public opinion seems to be negative—there are some main disturbances or controversies around it.

Institutional support and efficient administration

This indicator shows if the existing regulatory conditions are supporting or hindering the implementation of the studied development scenario, and whether the required administrative processes are easy and efficient or are difficult and inefficient. For definition of this indicator see Table 14.

Table 14. Definition of the indicator “Institutional support and efficient administration”

- There are some support—such as mandatory targets, tax exemptions, or subsidies—in the existing or forthcoming regulations or guidelines.

- The administrative processes—for example those related to obtaining the required permits—are reasonable, easy, or efficient.

- There are some regulatory barriers—such as bans or taxes—in the existing or forthcoming regulations or guidelines.

- The administrative processes—for example those related to obtaining the required permits—are burdensome or inefficient.

Comment on the specification of the rules, regulations, and guidelines that are supporting or hindering this development scenario. Note that this is not limited only to environmental regulations and can encompass any relevant regulation.

Planning horizon and clarity of business implications

This indicator assesses the long-term stability of the relevant regulations and also whether they are specific and clear enough for the involved actors. For definition of this indicator see Table 15.

Table 15. Definition of the indicator “Planning horizon and clarity of business implications”

- the relevant rules and conditions are established for at least 2–5 years.

- the relevant rules and conditions are rather well specified, in such a way that their business implications for the involved actors are clear.

- the relevant rules and conditions are established for a short term (< 1 year) and their medium or long-term implications are unclear.

- the relevant rules and conditions are wage and not well-specified, and consequently their business implications for the involved actors are unclear.

(9)

2.7. Market accessibility and control

This key area assesses the level of access and control that the actors can have over the supplies of the required raw materials, and markets for the produced by-products and products. It also includes assessment of alternative and potentially competing options. This key area is expressed by the key

question: “Is it possible to control/secure the provision of the required energy and materials and the market for the products

and by-products?” and is represented by three indicators: upstream accessibility and control, downstream accessibility and control, sidestream accessibility and control.

Upstream accessibility and control

This indicator assesses whether the studied development scenario has a reasonable level of access to and control over the required raw materials, and also if there are competing interests and applications regarding the use of those raw materials that can potentially lead to future challenges regarding access to and control over them. For definition of this indicator see Table 16.

Table 16. Definition of the indicator “Upstream accessibility and control”

Considering the main inputs—raw materials and energy carriers:

Good Regarding the actors within this development scenario, any of the following points is

correct:

- It is possible to control or secure long-term access (at least for 5 years) for all the main inputs. For example, through long-term contracts or other mechanisms.

- There is an established and open market for all the main inputs from which it is always possible to obtain them at a reasonable quality.

Poor Regarding the actors within this development scenario, all of the following points are

correct:

- Some of the main inputs are not controlled, and access to them can at-best be secured for a short-term (yearly).

- There is no established and open market for some of the main inputs. Their supply is monopolised, limited, or unreliable.

Comment on:

- Who controls the main inputs?

- What are the characteristics of the upstream market (e.g. size, main actors, openness to newcomers)? Downstream accessibility and control

Downstream accessibility and control assesses whether there are sufficient access to and control over the potential customers and the required actors downstream the main development site. In addition, it assesses whether there are competing alternatives for the produced products and by-products in the market. For definition of this indicator see Table 17.

Table 17. Definition of the indicator “Downstream accessibility and control”

Considering the main outputs—products and by-products (and wastes):

Good Regarding the actors within this development scenario, any of the following points is

correct:

- It is possible to secure long-term (at least for 5 years) sale of the main outputs to the customers.

- There is an established and open market for all the main outputs in which it is always possible to sell them.

Poor Regarding the actors within this development scenario, all of the following points are

correct:

- Usage of some of the main outputs cannot be controlled and their delivery to customers can be secured at-best for a short-term (yearly).

- There is no established and open market for some of the main outputs. The demand for them can be limited or unreliable.

(10)

Sidestream accessibility and control

Here the term sidestream is used to refer to intermediate flows within the development scenarios. When the intermediate flows are sent and received by the actors within the development scenario, this indicator assesses whether it is possible for the actors in both ends to have access to and have reasonable control over the usage or supply of these intermediate flows. For definition of this indicator see Table 18.

Table 18. Definition of the indicator “Sidestream accessibility and control”

Considering the main intermediates—products or by-products that are used within the studied industrial system and by the involved actors in the development scenario:

Good It is possible to supply and use the main intermediates within the studied industrial system in an expected and timely manner.

Poor The usage or the supply of some of the intermediates cannot be guaranteed in a timely

manner, because their quality or amount may unexpectedly vary.

2.8. Risk avoidance

This key area assesses the capability of the studied industrial system to avoid major risks in long-term. It is expressed by the key question “Considering the full spectrum of business and social activities, does this development

scenario appear to be viable, and low-risk in the long run, that is, resilient?” and is represented by two indicators: long-term risk-avoidance and biocascading.

Long-term risk-avoidance

Looking at long-term prospect of this development scenario, this indicator assesses whether there are potential developments that can endanger the continuity of the studied system in future. For definition of this indicator see Table 19.

Table 19. Definition of the indicator “Long-term risk-avoidance”

Excluding catastrophic events or general risks, and instead focusing on the long-term risks specific to the studied industrial system:

Good There is no major risk which can lead to significant problems in the long-run (from 5–10

years and beyond.

- The are at least one major risk which is very likely to create significant problems for the continuity of this development scenario in the long-run (more than 10 years perspective) - The are a few major risks which are likely to create significant problems for the continuity of this development scenario in the relatively long-run (next 5–10 years)

Biocascading

The biocascading principle is based on the general idea that it is better to first extract high-value materials and then lower-value (often bulkier) ones. It emphasises the importance of upcycling or true recycling in comparison to down-cycling. Following this principle does not necessarily lead to higher resilience and long-term risk avoidance, but it can be highly relevant to it. Producing high value products (higher level of valorisation) make the biorefinery competitive considering other alternatives and it is less likely that such valorisation pathways become outcompeted in future, while a broadened product portfolio lowers the risk as the biorefinery can act on serveral markets. This argument is similar to the downstream or sidestream products and by-products. For definition of this indicator see Table 20.

(11)

Table 20. Definition of the indicator “Biocascading”

- Value is predominantly created through bio-cascading principle—first high-value materials are extracted and then lower-value—often bulkier—products are produced from the rest.

- The raw materials that are used in the system are predominantly low-grade (from the bottom of the eco-pyramid) and are valorised through conversion into to higher-grade products.

Poor Regarding this development scenario, all of the following points are correct:

- Value is to a large extent not created through biocascading principle—input materials are directly converted to bulk products or energy carriers with low inherent value.

- The raw materials that are used in the system are predominantly high-grade (high in eco-pyramid), and are converted to lower-grade products.

Comment on possible ways that you have used to estimate the bio-cascading (if available):

- Total monetary value of products and by-products, over total monetary value of the input materials and energy carriers. - Portfolio of outputs, compared to portfolio of inputs (in relation to the ladders of bio-cascading)

- The share of high value products and by-products out of total output (in relation to the ladders of bio-cascading)

3. References

1. European Commission: Technology readiness levels. I: Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2016– 2017; General Annexes (2016)