article · Energy Science & Engineering
Spent coffee grounds from the coffee brewing industry offer a viable biomass feedstock for cleaner biofuel production, but their environmental effects require careful evaluation. This research evaluated the environmental impacts of six biomass-to-fuel conversion routes using spent coffee grounds: fast pyrolysis, fermentation, anaerobic digestion, hydrothermal liquefaction, gasification, and biodiesel production. Using Aspen Plus simulation data for mass and energy balances, a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment was conducted through OpenLCA software with ReCiPe 2016 midpoint and Eco-Indicator 99 methods. Across all pathways, electricity generation and carbon dioxide emissions generated the largest environmental impacts. Anaerobic digestion emerged as the most environmentally friendly option with the lowest total weighted score of 160, whereas hydrothermal liquefaction had the poorest performance with a score of 893. Sensitivity analysis showed that overall environmental performance is heavily driven by energy inputs and the sources used to generate that energy.
Decarbonising the energy sector requires replacing fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives, but converting organic waste into fuels can still generate substantial environmental burdens. By identifying which conversion technologies produce the lowest emissions and resource impacts, this assessment helps ensure that processing coffee waste into renewable energy delivers genuine ecological benefits rather than displacing emissions elsewhere.
The findings can inform technology selection for biofuel project developers, waste valorisation companies, and coffee processing operations seeking the lowest-impact conversion routes. Because the evaluation relies on Aspen Plus simulations and lifecycle modelling rather than operational plants, the insights represent early-stage planning and design guidance rather than near-market deployment data. Adoption will depend heavily on the availability of clean energy inputs at the production site.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Abstract In the strategy to combat climate change that has been caused by the world's overdependence on fossil fuels, current research is focusing on the decarbonisation of the energy sector through the production of renewable cleaner energy, such as biofuels. Spent coffee grounds (SCGs), the waste stream of the coffee brewing industry, are a potential feedstock for the production of valuable products, including biofuels. However, the environmental implications for the valorisation of this valuable waste need to be investigated. This study assesses the environmental impacts of six biomass‐to‐fuel processing technologies using SCGs as a feedstock, with the aim of identifying the most environmentally friendly technology. A cradle‐to‐gate life‐cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted on fast pyrolysis, fermentation, anaerobic digestion (AD), hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), gasification, and biodiesel production. The mass and energy balances obtained from Aspen Plus simulations served as the life‐cycle inventory data. Using the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H) and Eco‐Indicator 99 as the assessment methods, potential environmental impacts were calculated in OpenLCA software. Electricity generation and carbon dioxide emissions were the biggest contributors of environmental impacts. For each category, the maximum result was set to 100% and the results of the other variants were displayed in relation to this result. AD, with the smallest total weighted score (160), was the most environmentally friendly biomass‐to‐fuel processing route, while HTL, with the biggest total weighted score (893), was the worst. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the environmental performance of biofuel production from SCGs was highly influenced by energy input flows and the source of energy generation.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1002/ese3.1933
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
