The Impact of BioLPG’s on Carbon Footprint: A Context of European Countries

Abstract

There is an urgent requirement for transition to better sustainable bioeconomy techniques due to global worries about the depletion of the fossil fuel supply in the world. Alternative fuels have gained interest as the world strives to create sustainable energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. BioLPG, a renewable shape of Condensed Petroleum Gas [LPG], has emerged as an attractive option in response to energy demands and environmental concerns. Using biomass feedstocks, such as agricultural residues, forestry waste, and waste cooking oil, bioLPG is a carbon-neutral alternative to traditional LPG. Compared with conventional LPG, bioLPG offers several benefits, including reduced net greenhouse gas emissions and lower carbon intensity. Moreover, bioLPG production can utilize multiple biomass feedstocks and maximize waste value. This chapter assesses the current state of research on bioLPG, identifies critical challenges and issues, and presents potential solutions for the broad adoption of bioLPG. BioLPG’s footprint varies and depends on the feedstock and situation in the European bases. However, it is often eligible for government support through financial credits and meets biofuel requirements by EU countries under the Renewable Energy Directive.

1. Introduction

There is an urgent requirement to transition to better sustainable bioeconomy techniques due to global worries about depleting fossil fuel supply [1, 2]. The worldwide hunt for alternative fuels is expanding due to concerns about climate change and a desire to lessen reliance on fossil fuels. It is also possible for liquefied petroleum gas [LPG], a fuel combination mostly made up of Propane and butane in different ratios [3], to become a partly renewable fuel if it is made from feedstocks such as vegetable oils, biomass, and oily wastes. Proponents of decarbonization and the LPG sector are keen to increase the amount of BioLPG produced. The hydro treatment of vegetable oils (HVO) pathway, which involves hydrogenating the triglycerides contained in that raw vegetable material, is a technologically proven method for this to happen sustainably [4]. The method yields Propane [bioLPG] as a byproduct and HVO biodiesel (commonly known as “green” diesel as the primary product when carried out under carefully regulated temperature and pressure conditions [5]. From this angle, bioLPG appears to be a promising drop-in fuel—that is when replacing fossil LPG, it does not require any modifications to the infrastructure or equipment that will be used [6], and it also has fewer adverse environmental effects related to energy generation [7].

Research on the potential function of bioLPG in decarbonizing transportation still needs to be done. It has been proved that LPG may be used in a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell to provide supplementary power for transportation. Net-zero carbon transition options that economically sustainably decarbonize current energy routes provide significant advantages when meeting the growing and pressing demands of mitigating climate change worldwide. As the world moves toward a circular economy, producing bioLPG from renewable resources would be a profitable way to deliver climate-friendly fuel to LPG distributing and user ecosystems, which are currently present in almost every nation and can grow [8]. In the current global effort to develop renewable energy sources and lower greenhouse gas emissions, alternative fuels are becoming more and more attractive. BioLPG, a renewable version of liquefied petroleum gas, has become a desirable alternative in response to environmental concerns and energy needs. It is crucial to ascertain the effects of the fuel of interest on the environment, particularly about carbon footprint. This chapter aims to determine how bio LPG affects carbon footprint. It evaluates the status of bioLPG research as it is now, highlights essential problems and obstacles, and offers possible solutions to promote the widespread use of bioLPG.

2. Production of BioLPG

Using commercial procedures employing HydroDeoxygenation (HD) reactors, including Universal Oil Products (UOP’s) Eco-fining technique and Neste Renewable Diesel Process (NRDP), a range of (lower-molecular weight) (LMW) biofuels, comprising bioLPG, are being created from vegetable oil and animal fats [9]. With a biodiesel:bioLPG output ratio of around 9–10:1 in weight, bioLPG is often recovered as byproducts from the manufacture of hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) or Hydrotreated Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) biodiesel [10]. Triglycerides are found in common fats and oils [11]. A three-carbon backbone is joined via ester linkages to three long-chain hydrocarbons. By adding hydrogen to the ester to change its oxygen to water, the HVO process disrupts these bonds. It splits one triglyceride molecule into three long-chain hydrocarbon molecules, each with an average of 16–18 carbons, and one propane molecule [C3H8]. The hydrogenation of natural fats and oils into biodiesel and bioLPG in the HVO process is shown in the equation below [12].

$${\text{C}}_{57}{\text{H}}_{104}{\text{O}}_6+12{\text{H}}_2\to {\text{C}}_{17}{\text{H}}_{36}+2{\text{C}}_{18}{\text{H}}_{38}+C{O}_2+4{\text{H}}_2\text{O}+{\text{C}}_3{\text{H}}_8$$E1

The Eco-fining process for the co-production of green diesel and bioLPG from the hydrogenation of vegetable oil is shown in Figure 1. The vegetable oil is hydrogenated in the reactor, and the resulting products are separated into water and carbon dioxide through HydroDeoxygenation (HD) and DeCarboxylation (DC), respectively. The hydrocarbons are then fractionated by distillation to obtain the bioLPG, Naphtha, and diesel [13].

Figure 1.

The complete process of the bioLPG component.

Through the HVO procedure, hydrogen reacts with a triglyceride vegetal (or animal) oil to produce sustainable diesel, an aliphatic hydrocarbon having 16 to 18 carbons. Other reaction products include carbon dioxide, water, and a combination of smaller hydrocarbons, namely Propane. Within the HVO procedure, processes such as decarboxylation (DCO) and hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) take place. One reaction may be preferred by modifying the catalyst and process parameters, albeit a combination of the two will always occur. Preferring DCO or HDO significantly alters the outputs’ makeup. According to [14], the theoretical results for the input of brown grease include 15.5% weight% CO₂ for DCO and 12.7% weight% H₂O hydrodeoxygenation (HD). The hydrogen ions will remain unsaturated regardless of the chosen option since hydrogen is needed for the saturation of the olefin carbon linkages.

3. Impact of bioLPG on carbon footprint

After analyzing the carbon emissions of BioLPG at the points of production and consumption, the influence on carbon footprint may be determined. Its emissions during consumption are similar to that of fossil LPG; it is chemically comparable to fuel and could be safe for human health [8]. Islam et al. [15] report that the highest carbon emissions in combustion are discovered at Φ = 2.32 for the steady-state scenario of BioLPG consumption within a high-pressure liquid rocket powering system. At Φ = 1.50, the maximal specific impulse is 327.92. Fortunately, lean mixture utilization is preferred for clean fuel combustion and a lower carbon impact. With Φ = 1.50, the carbon release is 41%, a much higher value for this process. Conversely, the CO emission from the lean blend at Φ = 0.80 at the nozzle exit is relatively low, at 14.7%. Having 310.96 for Φ = 0.80, developing power is 57.73 MW, comparable to that found for Φ = 1.50. The optimal combustibility of BioLPG in Φ = 0.80 is suitable for environmentally friendly clean burring.

Processing bioLPG has an adverse environmental impact but to a lesser extent than that of its non-renewable competitors. Therefore, methodically examining the fuel’s environmental performance, identifying any possible effects, and suggesting remedies for its reduction or eradication is an effective strategy for handling this issue [16]. Because of its systematic and quantitative qualities, The life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach can definitively conduct such an evaluation [17].

LCA research on biofuels generated by the HVO approach has been documented in the literature for the last 15 years; however, they are rare [18]. A screening life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to assess the environmental effects of diesel produced by hydrotreating Jatropha oil versus diesel produced using traditional technology that consumes crude oil. Various processing conditions for agricultural produce, soil types, and byproduct utilization are considered when assessing the alternate route. In terms of usage of resources, global warming, and summertime smog, the HVO process for Jatropha fared better than petroleum diesel. However, it did worse in terms of acidification and eutrophication. According to [18], greenhouse gas (GHG) dynamics depend on biomass and carbon stocks as vegetation cover changes. GHG emissions are also influenced by modifications in soil transformation brought about by the establishment of jatropha crops. Researchers have also emphasized how farming on low-carbon soils has a tremendous potential to mitigate global warming. [19] conducted a comparable, however more comprehensive, study in which they contrasted the production of renewable diesel derived from palm oil, rapeseed, and Jatropha to that of fossil fuel. Their findings support the findings of [18] since, for every feedstock they looked at, the “green” energy had a much lower global warming potential (GWP). [20] carried out an LCA assessment of HVO biodiesel produced in an oil refinery’s hydrotreatment unit by co-processing soy oil with traditional fossil fuel. In such a scenario, the predicted environmental advantages of the mix encompass a primary energy demand (PED) decrease of as much as 2.0% and a GWP decline of 9.0% when compared to the energy purely fossil, even with the assumption of 13% v/v renewable blend.

According to the publications mentioned above, life cycle studies on the HVO approach concentrate on producing “green diesel,” with bioLPG as a byproduct of this process. On the other hand, used the opposite approach and calculated the environmental impact of biopropane HVO made from plant-based inputs (palm oil, rapeseed, palm fatty acid distillate (PFAD), and soy oil) as well as one animal source (tallow, used cooking oil: UCO). The life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using a “cradle-to-gate” perspective, considering 1.0 MJ of energy related to the bioLPG Functional Unit. However, they are restricted to the impact of global warming. The consequences ranged from 5.2 g CO₂/MJ—for Used Cooking oil and taking into account energy allotment at the HVO unit—to 102 g CO₂/MJ—for rapeseed oil, including indirect land utilization changes as well as energy allocation [12]. The author concluded that this spectrum of effects resulted from the kind of input the HVO technology uses and how this input influences the operating environment.

They found [12] that when the model is run using palm oil substrate to make Renewable energy, the output is 40 g CO2/MJ. Its main components are methane from the decomposition of palm oil mill effluents (POME), carbon emissions from gas-intensive activities that produce hydrogen and nitrogenous fertilizer, and carbon emissions from palm oil plantation activities (mostly from logistic vehicle emissions). The span of “official” estimations for this finding is 39 to 50 g CO₂/MJ. Outside of the stated range, there are other approximations. According to research by Eco-invent, for example, the footprint of palm oil alone is estimated to be 42 g CO₂/MJ. This likely results in a renewable diesel footprint of more than 50 g CO₂/MJ when HVO emissions are accounted for by [12]. [21] estimated that palm oil footprint is 241 g CO₂/MJ. This seems significantly more comprehensive than a footprint computed using traditional techniques and likely contains a significant indirect land use change (Ilic) component [22].

The HVO biopropane footprint is determined in [12], applying economic allocation and the calibrated footprint method, resulting in to16 g CO₂/MJ. This represents the first accurate, publicly available footprint assessment for HVO biopropane. [23] Research conducted in 2014 estimates CO₂/MJ to be between 10 and 50 g; however, it did not provide a base scenario [24]. The HVO bio LPG footprint varies significantly under different estimated conditions. The bioLPG footprint increases by about 16 g, and the biodiesel footprint falls somewhat when the allocation is changed from economics to energy. Additionally, this alters the oil mill’s footprint. By including methane collection, the footprint is sunk by over 7 g. Then, there is the issue of indirect land use change (ILUC). An (ILUC) magnitude of 55 CO₂/MJ is suggested for “oil crops” in Annexes V and VIII of the December 17, 2012 Modification to the EU Renewable Energies Act and the Fuel Quality Act. Many questions still need to be answered about whether (ILUC) should be incorporated and its criteria. They reported that the range of presently suggested parameters for palm oil is 44–231 CO₂/MJ.

Does crude HVO bio LPG footprint fall within the residual category? This makes sense since glycerine from manufacturing Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAME) biodiesel is categorized as a residue within Research, Evaluation, and Development RED. It is produced in a manner comparable to HVO propane, meaning it is an inevitable result of the synthesis of biodiesel [25]. Nevertheless, the UK Government has decided that HVO bioLPG is a co-product and not a residue, expressly rejecting this designation [26]. The HVO bio LPG footprint could be around 8 CO₂/MJ if crude HVO propane is considered a residue [12]. Additionally, there is the possibility that palm oil may be categorized as a residue or trash.

The footprint for the palm fatty acid distillate (PFAD) feedstock economic-allocation example is 15 g CO₂/MJ, with the majority of its elements being the same as those for HVO biodiesel, naturally. Depending on the circumstance, its footprint varies between 5 g and 80 g CO₂/MJ. The economic allocation for tallow yields a footprint of 17 g CO₂/MJ. Its main components are the HVO process and the relatively energy-intensive tallow manufacturing [27]. Tallow significantly reduces the footprint if it is considered a residue. It decreases to 5 g CO₂/MJ with economic provisioning, while the footprint increases to 11 g under energy allotment. Rapeseed oil, a popular frying oil in Europe, is presumed by utilized cooking oil to have been the oil that was used in the fryer. According to reference [12], the utilized cooking oil footprint in the economic-allotment scenario is 9 g CO₂/MJ. Its main components are producing hydrogen, rapeseed, nitrogenous fertilizer, and steam (from the oil mills and HVO reactor). The footprint decreases to 5 g over economic allotment and 11 g over energy allotment if utilized cooking oil is categorized as a residue. Under the economic-allotment scenario, the footprint of rapeseed oil is 19 g CO₂/MJ. Its main components are the HVO process, the manufacturing of nitrogen fertilizer, and rapeseed. If energy is allocated instead of economic significance, the footprint increases to 47 g CO₂/MJ. Should an iLUC component be used in addition, the footprint increases to 102 g. In the economic scenario, the footprint of soybean oil is 17 g CO₂/MJ. Its main components include soybean cropping, hydrogen generation, and the HVO mechanism. If energy is allocated instead of economic benefit, the footprint increases to 40 g CO₂/MJ. If an iLUC component is put on top of it, the footprint increases to 95 g CO₂/MJ.

This technique considered the environmental impact of bioLPG on carbon footprint varies substantially based on the feedstock and circumstances. However, it is frequently qualified for government support through financial credits and mandates for biofuels issued by EU members in compliance with the Renewable Energy Directive [28]. According to the footprint calculation, there are documented instances of this footprint fluctuation, including research on forklifts [29] and products made from forest products [30]. Among the footprint users who should be aware of this potential volatility are regulators, suppliers, and consumers.

4. BioLPG projects and benefits in Europe context

Currently manufacturing bioLPG in Europe are the following companies: Repsol (Spain), Neste (the Netherlands), Global Bioenergies (France), Eni (Italy), and Global Bioenergies (France). According to estimates, the annual consumption of branded bio LPG—a product clearly labeled as such and accessible on the market—was around 100 kilotonnes in 2018. Today, the remaining 100 kilotonnes of bioLPG generated annually are used internally as process fuel5. BioLPG is present in modest but constantly increasing amounts. BioLPG is accessible in various European markets, including the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Belgium.

Renewable liquid gas provides a long-term, affordable option to cut carbon emissions and air pollutants from difficult-to-decarbonize industries like transportation and rural heating. It is backed by regulations that encourage R&D efforts and innovative production methods. Among the cleanest fuels on the market is LPG, especially compared to traditional, high-carbon fuels like coal, heating oil, diesel, and gasoline. CO₂ outflows can be reduced by up to 55% while utilizing LPG and by as much as 83% after adopting bioLPG and replacing an oil boiler with an LPG boiler [31]. In addition, compared to other energy sources, LPG-derived renewable resources offer a substantial potential to lower air pollution. Ordinary warming frameworks, such as gas boilers and combined heat and power (CHP) units, may also smoothly employ LPG. Due to its compatibility with current heating systems, businesses may see a reduction in investment costs and a smoother transition from fossil fuels with more significant carbon emissions to LPG and bioLPG, equal to renewable energy. Modern, cutting-edge heating systems, including hybrid and gas-driven heat pumps, may be powered by LPG in commercial and industrial settings. LPG boilers produce 80–99% less PM and 50–75% less nitrogen oxide (NOx) than solid or liquid fuels (such as biomass, peat, heating oil, and coal).

5. Challenges and issues of bioLPG Europe context

The complexity of biomass and the problems associated with growing, harvesting, and transferring less dense feedstock to centralized bioreactors make n complex [32]. Apart from the logistical obstacle, more processing phases are still involved in transforming biomass into liquid fuel for transportation, such as hydrolysis, microbial fermentation, fuel separation, and pretreatment [33]. It can take longer than anticipated for lignocellulosic biofuels to reach the market due to these difficulties and a lack of government initiatives to generate demand for them. The synthesis of biofuels using feeds of lignocellulosic background, especially from algal biomass, presents more challenges regarding catalyst choice and hydrogen utilization [34].

Understanding the implications of the shift for their current business model and commercial, industrial, and agricultural enterprises is a problem as Europe moves toward a climate-neutral economy. Quick changes to the law may impact the demand for their goods and services, adding value to the switch to longer-term, lower-emission fuels for Europe’s energy mix [35]. The lack of government initiatives to generate demand for bioLPG is also a significant concern. Different regulations apply to BioLPG in various EU members, leaving investors uncertain and making cross-border trademarks difficult. Differences in excise duties and carbon pricing mechanisms prevailing from country to country make BioLPG less competitive than fossil fuels. Furthermore, frequent changes in regulations and support schemes discourage long-term investment into BioLPG production infrastructure.

6. Result and conclusion

This chapter of the book titled “The Impact of BioLPGs on Carbon Footprint in a Context of European Countries” presents a comprehensive overview of the potential impact of BioLPGs on carbon footprint. We contend that there is an urgent requirement to transition to better sustainable bioeconomy techniques due to global worries about depleting the fossil fuel supply and the need for alternative fuels that generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The chapter highlights the potential of BioLPG as a renewable version of LPG made from biomass feedstocks such as rural buildups, ranger service waste, and waste cooking oil. BioLPG is a carbon-neutral alternative to traditional LPG and offers several benefits, including reduced net greenhouse gas emissions and lower carbon intensity.

The chapter evaluates the current state of research on BioLPG. It identifies critical challenges and issues, including the need for more research on the potential function of BioLPG in decarbonizing transportation. The authors also present potential solutions for broadly adopting BioLPG, such as utilizing multiple biomass feedstocks and maximizing waste value.

This chapter discusses the production process of BioLPG using commercial procedures employing hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) reactors, including the hydro treatment of vegetable oils (HVO) pathway, which involves hydrogenating the triglycerides contained in the raw vegetable material and yielding Propane [bioLPG] as a byproduct. We should mention that BioLPG’s footprint varies and depends on the feedstock and situation cited in the European states.

In conclusion, the chapter presents BioLPG as a promising alternative to traditional LPG with several benefits, including reduced net greenhouse gas emissions and lower carbon intensity. We should mention that BioLPG is often eligible for government support through financial credits and meets biofuel requirements by EU countries under the Renewable Energy Directive. In general, the chapter gives a comprehensive outline of the potential impact of BioLPG on carbon footprint and highlights the need for sustainable bioeconomy techniques. We are adding value to the switch to longer-term, lower-emission fuels for Europe’s energy mix. The lack of government initiatives to generate demand for bioLPG is also a significant concern. Different regulations apply to BioLPG in various EU members, leaving investors uncertain and making cross-border trademarks difficult. Differences in excise duties and carbon pricing mechanisms prevailing from country to country make BioLPG less competitive than fossil fuels. Furthermore, frequent changes in regulations and support schemes discourage long-term investment into BioLPG production infrastructure.