Jan Weik

The transition toward a circular bioeconomy requires sustainable alternatives to fossil‐based platform chemicals. This study investigates the techno‐economic and environmental feasibility of producing 5‐hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) from potato residues, an abundant agro‐industrial waste in Germany. Using Aspen Plus software (V14), a process simulation was developed for two biorefinery Scales: a small on‐farm biorefinery (100 kg/h feedstock) and a larger urban plant (2000 kg/h). Both concepts were evaluated through techno‐economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) following ISO 14040/44 standards. The results indicate that scaling up production reduces the minimum selling price (MSP) of HMF from 22.91 €/kg to 4.86 €/kg due to significant economies of scale. Energy demand was identified as the dominant cost driver, particularly during hydrolysis, dehydration, and purification. The assessment of a numbering‐up strategy indicates that process learning effects and increasing automation have the potential to further reduce the MSP, thereby enhancing the overall economic viability of HMF production. LCA results (ReCiPe 2016 method) showed that climate impacts decrease from 2.7 kg CO ₂ eq/kg HMF at Scale 1 to 2.6 kg CO ₂ eq/kg HMF at Scale 20. Major environmental hotspots included ethanol production and incineration, sulfuric acid use, and sodium hydroxide production. The study shows that potato residues offer a viable, low‐cost feedstock for HMF production, supporting waste valorization and sustainable platform chemical manufacturing. However, pilot‐scale validation is required to confirm process robustness and marketability.

Earlier in this book, sustainability was introduced as a key principle of the bioeconomy. While bioeconomy systems are not sustainable per se, science-based assessment methods are required to address this principle in both novel and traditional bioeconomy systems. This chapter provides an overview of sustainability assessment methods that support the evaluation of products, services, systems and organisations within the bioeconomy. The chapter begins with a brief refresher on the concepts of sustainability and explains the relevance of sustainability assessment. It then characterises sustainability assessment methods, followed by an introduction to sustainability indicators as a means of quantifying different sustainability aspects. This brief overview is followed by dedicated sections on environmental, social and economic assessment methods with a focus on Life Cycle Assessments, Social Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing. The concepts of end-point results, multi-criteria decision analysis and true cost accounting are also introduced, particularly in the context of improved communication. The final part of the chapter is dedicated to the use of sustainability assessment in the bioeconomy. Areas of application are described, and the challenges associated with the assessment of agricultural systems, novel technologies and regional specificities are highlighted.

Miscanthus is a particularly promising lignocellulosic biomass as it can also grow under marginal conditions and can be used for a wide range of products including energy and material applications. The latter, including applications in the construction, textile, chemical, or agricultural sector, is becoming increasingly relevant today. In general, it is hypothesised that biobased products are advantageous in terms of their greenhouse gas (GHG) performance when compared to conventional—in particular fossil—alternatives. To investigate this, the life cycle assessment methodology is typically applied. However, assessments are subject to uncertainty and variability due to assumptions and methodological choices. Given the increasing interest in miscanthus‐derived material applications, this study aims to draw more general conclusions about their GHG performance and relative mitigation potential. This should support a better understanding of their contribution to climate change mitigation objectives and guide the selection of promising products or product groups. A systematic review of peer‐reviewed literature was conducted. In total, 20 studies reporting on 188 comparisons of the GHG performance of miscanthus‐derived and alternative products were assessed. Most comparisons indicated potential GHG mitigation through miscanthus‐derived products, with the majority ranging between 20% and 100% savings. Key parameters defining the relative performance include the selection of the reference product, consideration of soil carbon changes, changes in product and process design, as well as the incorporation of indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) impacts. Overall, we conclude that miscanthus‐derived material applications have the potential to contribute to GHG emission mitigation if iLUC effects are minimised. Given the limited availability of agricultural land, miscanthus‐derived products with high absolute GHG mitigation potential per unit of biomass used and long product lifetime are preferable. For future development, potential environmental trade‐offs need to be monitored.

This study reviews a variety of “bioeconomy approaches” (BAs) to assess their potential contribution to resilience in agricultural systems, focusing on benefits that can improve multi‐functionality regarding private and public goods. It is based on Meuwissen et al.'s framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Drawing on literature and expert knowledge, this indicator framework is adapted to develop a new framework which is then applied to seven contrasting BAs (miscanthus, perennial flowering wild plant mixtures, permanent grassland, nutrient recycling, agrivoltaics, urban agriculture, and microalgae). The major outcomes are: 1) the extended indicator framework can help evaluate BAs for their potential to foster resilience in future agricultural systems, 2) all BAs are characterized by their ability to provide multiple private and public goods simultaneously, 3) the strongest contribution of BAs to public goods is their function in maintaining the good condition of natural resources and resource‐use efficiency, 4) all BAs can enhance resilience in agricultural systems by contributing diversity, multifunctionality, environmental sustainability, and autonomy, 5) the mitigation of potential drawbacks of BAs implementation requires ex‐ante assessment, favorable BAs combinations, and stakeholder involvement, 6) context‐specific analysis of each BAs is required to assess their qualitative and quantitative contribution to resilience.

Agroecosystems provide numerous ecosystem services (ESs) such as provisioning, regulating, habitat and cultural services. At the same time, the management of these agroecosystems can cause various negative impacts on the environment such as the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the way humans manage agroecosystems often focuses only on the production of agricultural goods, which yield monetary benefits in the short term but do not include the positive and negative external effects on ESs. In order to enable a holistic assessment of the economic and environmental costs and benefits, the current study combines the production costs, the monetary value of the ESs provided and the monetization of the environmental impacts caused by the management of agroecosystems using the perennial crop miscanthus as an example. Depending on the scenario assessed, the cultivation of miscanthus leads to a net benefit of 140 to 3051 EUR ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. The monetary value of the ESs provided by the miscanthus cultivation thereby considerably outweighs the internal and external costs. The approach applied allows for a holistic assessment of the benefits and costs of agroecosystems and thus enables management decisions that are not only based on the biomass yield but include the various interactions with the environment.