Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Applicability of Compact Aerating Reactors for the Improvement of Water Quality in a Small Water Body Functioning in an Agricultural Catchment
Next Article in Special Issue
Environmental Impact of Poultry Manure Gasification Technology for Energy and Ash Valorization
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Spatial Equity of Urban Park Green Space Layout from the Perspective of Resident Heterogeneity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Solid Biofuel Production: Transforming Sewage Sludge and Pinus sp. Sawdust into Resources for the Circular Economy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/su16135633
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Production Cost of Biocarbon and Biocomposite, and Their Prospects in Sustainable Biobased Industries

by
Poritosh Roy
1,2,*,
Arturo Rodriguez-Uribe
2,
Amar K. Mohanty
1,2,
Devashish Pujari
3,*,
Mike Tiessen
4,
Atul Bali
4 and
Manjusri Misra
1,2
1
School of Engineering, Thornbrough Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
2
Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre, Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
3
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON LS8 4M4, Canada
4
Competitive Green Technologies, 7 Seneca Rd., Leamington, ON N8H 5P2, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5633; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135633
Submission received: 11 April 2024 / Revised: 14 June 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 30 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life Cycle Assessment of Agri-Food Industries and Agri-Food Waste Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the economic prospects of biocarbon and biocomposite in the automotive industry and bioeconomy. The production cost of biocarbon produced from Miscanthus (a perennial grass), biocarbon-reinforced polypropylene (PP) composite (hereafter referred to as biocomposite), and automotive components are determined. The production cost of biocomposite was compared with inorganic filler-reinforced polymer composite (a conventional composite, i.e., talc reinforced PP composite). The production cost of biocarbon and biocomposite is estimated to be $513.1/ton and between $3536.7–$3647.3/ton, respectively (all dollar figures are in Canadian dollars). On the other hand, the cost of the conventional composite is likely to be $3544.8/ton. However, the production cost of an automotive component can be reduced by 9–11% compared with the conventional component if the components are produced from biocomposite. Further, this study determined the net present values (NPV) of a biocarbon plant and a composite manufacturing plant. The NPV of a biocarbon plant ($42.9 million) and a composite manufacturing plant ($34.0–$34.8 million for biocomposite and $34.7 million for conventional composite) showed that both the biocarbon and composite manufacturing phases are economically attractive. We concluded that by taking an industrial symbiosis approach, the biocomposite industry can be financially more attractive and contribute more to the bioeconomy.

1. Introduction

The growing concerns about fuel economy, cost and climate change have steered companies towards the use of renewable biomaterials in automotive industries. In recent years, biocarbon (carbon derived from biomass) from the pyrolysis of biomass has gained attention as a filler material for biocomposites used in the automotive industry [1,2]. Pyrolysis is a technology used to produce bio-oils, renewable biomaterial (namely biocarbon), and non-combustible gas (NCG) from lignocellulosic biomass. The emission regulations and fuel economy are driving the automotive industry to adopt biomaterials for the fabrication of lightweight components [3,4] and to portray a cleaner image in the market. Consequently, the filler market has risen to about US$45 million in 2015 [3]. The rising filler market can be attributed to the increasing cost of conventional plastics and the environmental benefits of biocomposites, as well as to their better mechanical and thermal performance [5].
Biocarbon and bio-oil, the two main products of the pyrolysis process, can be used for heat and power generation [6,7], soil amendment [8,9,10], and as a filler material in the automotive industry that can help mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in this sector [1,11,12]. The environmental benefits gained from renewable filler materials are mainly due to weight reduction, resulting in fuel-saving opportunities during the use phase of automotive components that incorporate these materials [1,2]. In addition, countries are also encouraging the application of biomaterials for producing high-value products to improve farm income, abate GHG emissions [13,14], and reduce the production cost of composites [5]. For example, the Canadian government has launched an intensive program for enhancing bioeconomy, which attracted considerable investment from both the public and private sectors generating sales of $4 billion each year [15].
Various biomaterials have been used for producing lightweight biocomposite because of cost and environmental advantages compared with their counterparts [4,16,17,18,19,20]. Consequently, the interest in the use of composite materials, especially natural fiber-reinforced plastic composites, is growing. However, the hydrophilic property of natural fiber, as well as its low thermal resistance, restricts its wide application as a reinforcement material in plastics/biocomposite used in the automotive industry [21,22]. On the other hand, biocarbon’s ability to be compatibilized with polymers, its high thermal stability, and its renewability made it an attractive filler material for biocomposite used in the automotive industry [23,24]. Although various types of lignocellulosic biomass are being used to produce biomaterials, technical and economic constraints restrict their supply to the bioindustry [25,26]. On the other hand, Miscanthus (a perennial grass) that can be grown on marginal land, without competing with food crops for the land, is recognized as a promising feedstock for biomaterials [27,28], and is improving farm income [29,30].
The economic and environmental viability of biomaterials and biocomposite is crucial for their commercial applications in the automotive industry which can be assessed by examining life cycle costing (LCC). Several researchers have studied the economics of pyrolysis/biorefinery processes/products for bioenergy systems [31,32,33,34,35], the functional properties of biomaterials and biocomposites [1,36,37,38,39], and their environmental impacts [3,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. Venkatesan et al. (2023) studied the effect of nitrogen and phosphorous doped composite on packaging applications [48,49]. Economic and social impacts of biocomposite produced by incorporating potato pulp have also been reported [50]. However, studies on the economics of biocomposite in automotive components incorporating pyrolysis products i.e., biocarbon are scarce, barring a few examples [5]. To date, there have been no studies on the LCC of biocarbon from Miscanthus grown on marginal land, biocomposite for the automotive industry, and automotive components that incorporate biocarbon. This study evaluated the LCC of biocarbon produced from Miscanthus, biocomposite, and automotive components with or without employing the industrial symbiosis approach. Further, this study also calculated the net present value (NPV) of a biocarbon plant and a biocomposite plant to determine the prospects of biocarbon and biocomposite in the sustainable biobased industry.

2. Materials and Methods

The cost analysis was conducted in two phases—biocarbon and composite manufacturing. At first, the LCC of biocarbon and the NPV of a biocarbon plant were determined. Then, the production cost of PP-reinforced biocomposite, and the NPV of a composite plant were estimated by adopting a widely used methodology [33,51]. Both the estimated and assumed data as well as the data from the literature were used in this study (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). The life span of the biocarbon plant (50 dry tons of feedstock per day) and the composite manufacturing plant are considered to be 20 years each. The system boundary encompasses (1) Miscanthus cultivation, chipping (required to reduce the long stems of Miscanthus into small pieces to be introduced in the pyrolyzer or a biocarbon plant), transportation and pyrolysis, (2) transportation of fillers, and (3) composite manufacturing process (Figure 1). The biocarbon plant and composite manufacturing plant are assumed to be operated daily for 24 h and 330 days per year. The straight-line depreciation, labor, operation, maintenance, mortgage, feedstock, and fuel costs were considered to determine the life cycle production cost of biobased filler material (biocarbon) and the composites for producing automotive components as well as the NPV of a biocarbon plant and a composite manufacturing plant. Additionally, taking an industrial symbiosis approach, a biocarbon plant was assumed to be adjacent to the biocomposite plant. Thus, no transportation cost of biocarbon was considered; however, a handling cost was assigned (10% of the biocarbon transportation cost of the standard case). The effects of feedstock prices (i.e., Miscanthus, biocarbon, PP, etc.) and potential government grants due to bioeconomy initiatives, market prices of biocarbon, and bio-oil that are produced from the pyrolysis process were also evaluated.

2.1. Biocarbon Production (Chipping, Transportation, and Pyrolysis)

Miscanthus grown on the New Energy Farm, Leamington, Canada, is assumed to be used as a feedstock for biocarbon. The baled feedstock (spring harvest; moisture content 20%) is loaded on a chipper by an excavator to produce Miscanthus chips, which are directly poured into the bins. The loaded bins were transported to the biocarbon plant by roll-off trucks (speed 60 km/h). The transportation distance was assumed to be 50 km. The round trip was considered to calculate the transportation cost of Miscanthus. Fuel consumption (chipping and transportation) is estimated based on the capacity of machines, specific fuel consumption (152 g/hp-h), and operating hours. The biocarbon plant is equipped with a dryer that dries the Miscanthus chips before pyrolysis at 450 °C to produce biocarbon, bio-oil, and non-condensable gas (NCG). The energy requirement in the pyrolysis process was met with diesel (only for start-up, once a week) and the entire NCG. Two motors are required to run the dryer (110 HP) and the reactor (25 HP). The cost information for chipping, transportation, and pyrolyzer is reported in the following tables (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). One-way transportation (100 km) is considered for diesel that is consumed in this process. Biocarbon and bio-oil outputs from each ton of dry Miscanthus chips are 0.35 ton and 0.35 ton, respectively. The remaining portion was considered to be NCG [52]. Chipping, transportation, and pyrolysis costs were assigned to biocarbon and bio-oil based on their energy content.
Table 1. Cost information in the chipping stage.
Table 1. Cost information in the chipping stage.
ParametersChipperExcavatorSource
Equipment price, $350,000300,000[53]
Life span, years55 *[54,55,56] * Assumed
Capacity, ton/h (green wood chips) 10-[53]
Interest rate, %88[51],
Salvage value, %2020 *[55,56]; * Assumed
Operation and maintenance cost/year, %55[53]
Insurance & registration, $/year25002500Assumed
Operation, h/day94[53]
Labor cost, $/h2020[51]
Fuel consumption, L/day20974Estimated
Fuel cost (diesel), $/L11Assumed
* Note: Loan ($655,000) represents the 1st year investment (including registration and insurance); average life cycle labor cost is $22.2/h (calculated based on reported cost by Cleary et al., 2015 [51] and the inflation rate of 1.1%); $ amount in Canadian dollar; salvage value, operation, and maintenance cost are estimated based on the purchase price of the equipment.
Table 2. Cost information in the transportation stage.
Table 2. Cost information in the transportation stage.
ParametersTruckContainers/BinsSource
Equipment cost, $150,000100,000[53]
Life span, years10 *10* [51]
Trips/day55[53]
Interest rate, %88[51]
Salvage value, %1515[51]
Maintenance cost, %55[53]
Insurance cost, %2.52.5[51]
Registration, $/year25002500[51]
Fuel consumption, L/day536-Estimated
Fuel cost (diesel), $/L11Assumed
* Note: Loan ($258,750) represents the 1st year investment (including registration and insurance); transportation capacity, 10 dry tons per trip; average life cycle labor cost is assumed to be $22.2/h; investment in the 11th year is estimated to be $287,652; salvage value, maintenance, and insurance cost are estimated based on the purchase price of the equipment.
Table 3. Cost information in the pyrolysis process.
Table 3. Cost information in the pyrolysis process.
ParametersDataSource
Loan, $4,365,000Estimated
Shelter & storage tank, $500,000[53]
Price of the pyrolysis unit, $3,500,000[53]
Interest rate, %8[51]
Salvage value, %12[51]
Operation and maintenance cost, %5[53]
Insurance & registration, $/year5000Assumed
Labor cost, $/year360,000Assumed
Corporate tax (Small business), %15[57]
Note: 3 shifts/day (an operator: $50,000/year and an engineer: $70,000/year for each shift); the loan is assumed to be equivalent to one year’s salary for engineers and operators, cost of pyrolyzer, shelter, and registration and insurance; the life cycle of the pyrolyzer is 20 years; salvage value and operation and maintenance are estimated based on the purchase price of the pyrolysis unit; corporate tax is estimated based on the net profit.

2.2. Composite Manufacturing (Compounding and Molding) Plant

The compounding processes considered in this study involve blending a PP polymer matrix with filler and reinforcement material for preparing a homogenous compound and some additives (for material composition of the compounding process, see the Supporting Information, Table S1). The process consists of hoppers/feeders for different materials and an extruder. A twin-screw extruder has been used in the compounding process (MIC27/GL-48D, Leistritz, Markgrafenstrasse 29-39, Berlin, Germany). The compound is then transferred to a molding machine (SpritzgieBmachine-215159, Arburg Allrounder Inc., Lossburg, Germany), and the desired molded parts are produced, i.e., automotive components (441 cm3/piece). Table 4 represents the cost information for the composite manufacturing plant.
Table 4. Cost information for composite manufacturing plant (capacity, 3 tons/day).
Table 4. Cost information for composite manufacturing plant (capacity, 3 tons/day).
ParametersDataSource
Loan, $4,514,882Estimated
Shelter & storage, $500,000Assumed
* Compounding/extrusion machine, $2,929,591Author-defined
* Molding machine, $720,291Author-defined
Interest rate, %8[51]
Salvage value, %12[51]
Maintenance cost, %1Assumed (BDDC, University of Guelph)
Insurance & registration, $/year5000Assumed
Labor cost, $/year360,000Assumed
Corporate tax (Small business), %15[57]
Note: * The equipment cost is estimated based on the price of the pilot plant, extrusion: 10 kg/h ($500,000); molding: 120 kg/h ($700,000); 3 shifts/day (an operator: $50,000/year and an engineer: $70,000/year for each shift); the loan is assumed to be equivalent to one year salary for operators, the cost of composite manufacturing plant including the shelter and registration; the life cycle of the manufacturing plant is 20 years; salvage value and maintenance cost are estimated based on the purchase price of composite manufacturing plant; corporate is estimated based on the profit.

2.3. Life Cycle Costing of Biocarbon and Net Present Value (NPV) of Biocarbon Plant

The life cycle cost (LCC) of biocarbon consists of the costs of Miscanthus chipping, transportation, and the operation of the pyrolysis process. The cost of each stage is calculated and summarized to determine the total LCC. The LCC of the pyrolysis process is calculated from the following equation (Equation (1)).
L C C p = C c + T c + P c
where, L C C p = Life cycle cost of pyrolysis process, C c = chipping cost, T c = transportation cost, and P c = pyrolysis cost. Equation Equation (2) provides the net present value, NPV, where R t and C t are the revenue and cost, respectively, in future years t; C t = L C C + corporate tax.
N P V = ∑ t = 1 y ( R t − C t ) / ( 1 + r ) t
In the above equation (Equation (2)), ‘r’ is the nominal discount rate, which is calculated as the sum of the interest rate ‘i’ and the inflation rate ‘f’ i.e., when nominal and real interest are considered, the term (1 + r) in Equation (2) can be replaced by (1 + i) × (1 + f) to calculate the NPV (Equation (3)) [33]. The interest rate and inflation rate are assumed to be 8% [51,58] and 1.1% [59], respectively. We assumed that chipping and transportation are completed on the contractual agreement, providing a 20% profit margin on the incurred costs. For the biocarbon plant, revenue is generated from the market value of biocarbon ($1000/ton) and bio-oil ($921.6/ton), which are assumed to be sold at the plant gate. The market price of biocarbon and bio-oil might vary over time; however, in this study, the market price is assumed to be constant for the duration of the project.
N P V = ∑ t = 1 y ( R t − C t ) / ( ( 1 + i ) × ( 1 + f ) ) t

2.4. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) of Biocomposite and Net Present Value (NPV) of a Biocomposite Manufacturing Plant

We assumed that all the processes preceding the manufacturing of talc or biocarbon-based composites are provided by contractors, who are paid at a 20% profit margin. Biocarbon and PP transportation distances are estimated to be 100 km and 1690 km, respectively. The transportation distance of chopped Miscanthus and the colorant is considered to be the same as that of the filler and the matrix, respectively. The talc transportation distance is estimated to be 165 km. The LCC of the manufacturing plant, L C C M a n f is obtained from the following equation (Equation (4)).
L C C M a n f = F c + T c + M A N F c
where, F c = feedstock (filler, matrix, and additives) cost; T c = transportation cost (filler, matrix, and additives), M A N F c = Manufacturing cost.
The investment costs in manufacturing machines (extrusion and molding) are estimated based on the equation in Equation (5) [60,61]. The filler and matrix materials are assumed to be transported by similar trucks that are used for the transportation of diesel by considering the loading factor based on the density of materials. NPV of the manufacturing plant is determined based on the equation that has been used for the NPV of the biocarbon plant (Equation (2)). In this case, revenue is generated from the assumed market price of composite materials ($8000/ton). We also assumed that the bioeconomy initiative from the government, mandates/assures a constant price of biocomposite for the project period.
C n e w = C o ( S n e w / S O ) f
where, C n e w = n e w   c o s t ; C o = o r i g i n a l   c o s t ; S n e w = n e w   s i z e ;   S o = o r i g i n a l   s i z e ; f = c a p i t a l   c o s t   s c a l i n g   f a c t o r (0.7).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of Biocarbon and Bio-Oil

The production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil from a biocarbon plant comprises Miscanthus cultivation and harvesting, transportation, chipping, and pyrolysis. The estimated chipping, transportation, and pyrolysis costs of feedstock are $28.4/ton (dry ton), $28.7/ton, and $76.7/ton, respectively. The estimated LCC of the pyrolysis process is $303.7.4/ton dry Miscanthus. However, the cost of chipping, transportation, and pyrolysis reached $34.0.6/ton (dry ton) $34.4/ton, and $92.0/ton, respectively, when a 20% profit margin is assigned at each stage. The feedstock cost is assumed to be $170.0/ton [62,63]. These costs are then assigned to biocarbon and bio-oil to determine the production cost of biocarbon. The non-condensable gas (NCG) produced in the pyrolysis process is assumed to be used in the process itself as an energy source for drying the feedstock. Consequently, no cost is assigned to NCG. The LCC of the pyrolysis process rises to $240.6/ton of Miscanthus when a 20% profit margin is allowed to the pyrolysis stage if the composite or automotive industry produces biocarbon on a contract basis. The production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil is $513.1/ton and $354.7/ton, respectively (Figure 2). With a 20% profit margin for each stage of the pyrolysis process, the production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil reach to $558.2/ton and $386.0/ton, respectively. A similar production cost has also been reported in other studies; however, it should be noted that the cost of biocarbon depends on the biocarbon yield [64]. The higher cost of biocarbon from forest residues has also been reported where the pyrolysis plant operated for only 100 days/year [45].
Figure 2 indicates that feedstock is the most cost-intensive stage, followed by the pyrolysis, transportation, and chipping stage for biocarbon and bio-oil. The pyrolysis process has also been identified as the most expensive stage in a bioenergy production process [33,65]. Kim et al. [65] evaluated a mobile pyrolyzer to determine the production cost of biochar (i.e., biocarbon) from forest residues, where the biocarbon plant operated for eight hours/day and 260 days/year. The cost of the pyrolysis process was $390.54/ton from forest residues [65], which is greater than our study has found. This difference may be because of lower yearly operating periods. The machinery (grinder and excavator) used is the main contributor to costs (68%) in the chipping stage, followed by labor cost (16.1%) and fuel (diesel) (15.8%). On the other hand, fuel is the main contributor to costs (56%) in transportation, followed by labor (26%) and investment (17%). The contribution of the biocarbon plant, labor, and fuel (energy) is about 66%, 29%, and 5%, respectively, in the pyrolysis process. Transportation costs would vary with the changes in transportation distance and fuel cost. The results also depict that a bioeconomy policy that allows grants or interest-free loans for building biocarbon plants might help reduce the production cost of biocarbon.

3.2. Net Present Value (NPV) of a Biocarbon Plant

Although the production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil is lower than their reported market price, the NPV has been calculated based on their minimum market price [66,67]. The costs of biocarbon and bio-oil are assumed to be $1000/ton [66] and $921.6/ton [67], respectively. The estimated net present value (NPV) of the biocarbon plant is $42.9 million, while the initial investment was $4.4 million. These results indicate that the biocarbon industry can be an attractive bioindustry when the market price of biocarbon and bio-oil remain at $1000/ton and $921.6/ton, respectively. The positive NPV of the biocarbon plant indicates that the prospects of thriving biocarbon industries are promising, provided that the market prices of biocarbon and bio-oil remain stable. In contrast, the negative NPV of mobile pyrolysis has been reported by several researchers [68,69], which may be influenced by the shorter life span (10 years) and operating periods. Conversely, a biochar-based energy system is reported to be viable; however, its profitability depends on the availability of feedstock, processing cost, and revenue generation from carbon sequestration [33]. The biorefinery process that produces multiple products from grape pomace was also noted to be economically viable; however, the biochar price had the dominant influence [35]. Consequently, the economic performance of the biorefinery process would depend on a stable market price of its products.

3.3. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) of Biocomposite and Automotive Components, and NPV of Biocomposite Plant

In this stage, the LCC of biocomposite is estimated by taking into account the production cost of biocarbon (referred to as industrial symbiosis approach: Biocomposite-Insys) as well as the market price of biocarbon (biocomposite), the market price of PP, their transportation cost to the composite manufacturing plant, and the costs associated with the composite manufacturing plant. The main difference in this analysis is the cost of biocarbon. Finally, production cost and NPV are compared with its counterparts, i.e., a conventional composite made of talc, PP, and colorant. The estimated transportation cost of biocarbon, talc, and PP is found to be $33.3/ton, $26.1/ton, and $542.9/ton, respectively. Similar to the pyrolysis stage, fuel cost is the main contributor to the transportation cost of biocarbon, PP, and talc, followed by labor and the cost associated with an investment in trucks. We assumed that similar transportation equipment is used for both composites. The transportation cost varied mainly because of the variation in transportation distance and the varied loading capacity due to the density of materials. The loading factors for biocarbon, PP, and talc are assumed to be 0.5, 0.9, and 0.3, respectively, based on their density (the base loading factor is assumed to be 0.9 in the case of talc). Longer distance and lower loading factor of PP resulted in the highest transportation cost.
The production costs of biocomposite, biocomposite-Insys, and conventional composite are estimated to be $3647.2/ton, $3536.7/ton, and $3544.7/ton, respectively, when no profit margin is considered for the manufacturing stage (Figure 3). Materials are the main contributor to the life cycle cost of composites, followed by manufacturing and transportation. The production cost reached to $3885.5/ton and $3782.9/ton for biocomposite and conventional composite (talc-composite), respectively, if a 20% profit margin is considered for the manufacturing stage. The production cost of each unit mass of biocomposite is found to be greater compared with the conventional composite because of the higher market price of biocarbon compared with talc. The market prices of biocarbon, PP, talc, chopped Miscanthus, and colorant are assumed to be $1000/ton and $2605/ton [69], $550/ton [70], $186.1/ton and $2000/ton, respectively. However, the production cost of biocomposite reaches $3774.9/ton if the industrial symbiosis is applied where biocarbon is produced on a contract basis within 10 km from the composite manufacturing plant. Alternately, the production cost of an automotive component (441 cm3, which corresponds to a conventional component weighting 500 g) is estimated to be $1566.7–$1772.3, and $1768.3 if the component is produced from biocomposite and conventional composite, respectively, mainly because of the lightweighting. The weight of an automotive component that is produced from biocomposite is estimated to be 0.442 kg. These results confirm that the lightweighting solution can reduce the production cost (9–11%) of an automotive component [3,4].
The NPV of a biocomposite plant is determined with the assumed market price of composite materials ($8000/t) instead of using the estimated production cost of this study because the market prices have been used for other materials. The productivity of the composite manufacturing plant (both the compounding and molding) is also assumed to be 3 tons/day for each composite manufacturing process. Based on this productivity, the price of composite, as well as the fixed and variable costs associated with the manufacturing phase, the NPV of a composite plant is determined. The NPVs are found to be $34.0–$34.8 million and $34.7 million for biocomposite and talc-composite respectively. Initial investment in a composite plant is assumed to be $4.5 million. Although the production cost of biocomposite is slightly greater than the conventional composite, the lower production cost of biocomposite is observed from an industrial symbiosis perspective. The NPV values indicate that biocomposite would be a viable option economically and help abate environmental impacts in the automotive industry if conventional composite materials are replaced with biocomposite. The NPV values in this study also demonstrate that the use of biocomposites would contribute to the circular economy initiatives in Canada. It is worth noting that any financial benefits from the abatement of embodied carbon emissions would enhance the economic sustainability of biobased industries.

3.4. Sensitivity Analysis

The federal government of Canada and provincial governments have initiated the bioeconomy program to enhance the rural economy and the sustainability of bioindustries in Canada [71,72]. With the emerging bioproducts and biorefining industries, feedstock (either Miscanthus or other lignocellulosic biomass) demand, their market price may rise in the near future. Consequently, the effect of feedstock cost on the production cost of biocarbon, as well as the production cost of biocomposite are estimated. On the other hand, the expansion of biomaterial and biorefining industries may be limited to the market for biomaterials and biocomposite, acceptance, availability of feedstock, impending investment, and government policy. Therefore, the effect of feedstock price (i.e., Miscanthus, biocarbon, PP, etc.), potential grant towards bioindustries, variation in the market price of pyrolysis products (biocarbon and bio-oil), and biocomposite are evaluated to determine the prospects of bioindustries in Canada.

3.4.1. Effect of Miscanthus Price on the Life Cycle Costing of Biocarbon and Composite Manufacturing Plants

The production cost of Miscanthus may vary because of the yield variation in different regions [73], the use of fertilizer [74], and irrigation for biomass cultivation which may exacerbate water stress [75,76]. Therefore, the effect of Miscanthus has also been determined. The production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil varies from $411.7/ton to $614.4/ton and $284.7/ton to $424.8/ton, respectively, when the price of Miscanthus changes from $110/ton to $230/ton (Figure 4). The production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil increases with the increase of Miscanthus price. However, the NPV of a biocarbon plant decreases with an increase in Miscanthus price because of the increasing production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil, thus reducing revenue generation from the pyrolysis process. The NPV of a biocarbon plant varied from $50.4–$35.3 million with a change of Miscanthus price from $110/ton to $230/ton (Supporting Information, Figure S1). It seems that even though the Miscanthus price reaches $230/ton, the pyrolysis process would be economically viable and remain attractive. The production cost of biocarbon and the NPV of a biocarbon plant are also varied on the interest and inflation rates.
The production cost of biocarbon is reported to be $51/ton to $386/ton [77,78], which is highly dependent on feedstock cost, plant capacity, products, the yield of the pyrolysis process, and the location of production sites [77,79,80]. Another study found the production cost of bio-oil is about $230/t, where the feed rate was 1 ton/h, and the cost associated with biocarbon was not taken into account [78]. On the other hand, on a large scale (70,000 tons/year) pyrolysis process, bio-oil production cost varied from $102/ton to $144/t, where bio-oil yield was considered to be 78% [81]. It seems the biocarbon and bio-oil production costs of this study are beyond the range of the reported production cost because of the higher value of Miscanthus compared with other studies.
Similarly, the production cost of biocomposite and conventional composite are also affected by a change in feedstock price (i.e., chipped Miscanthus, biocarbon, PP, talc, and colorant). The estimated production costs of biocomposite and conventional composite vary from $3191.5–$4103.1/t and $3101.9–$3987.5/t, respectively, for a ±25% change in feedstock cost (Figure 5a,b). These figures indicate that the price of PP has the highest effect on the production cost of composites because the greater amount is used compared with other materials and has a higher market price. With the same variations of the price of feedstock, the production cost of biocomposite varies from $3039.4–$3950.7/ton in an industrial symbiosis approach. The NPV of the composite manufacturing plant falls with an increase in materials prices because the production cost of composite rises with the increasing feedstock price (Supporting Information, Figure S2). Conversely, as expected, with a decrease in feedstock price, the NPV of the manufacturing plants rises. For a change in feedstock price (±25%), the NPV of biocomposite and conventional composite manufacturing plants varies from $23.7–$44.4 million and $24.7–$44.8 million, respectively. However, for the same variation in the feedstock price, the NPV varies from $24.6–$45.5 million in an industrial symbiosis approach in the case of the biocomposite manufacturing plant. It is important to note that the initial investment is assumed to be the same for biocomposite and conventional composite plants. These results indicate that similar to the biocarbon plant, the profitability of the composite manufacturing plant also depends on the feedstock cost. It is noteworthy to mention that changes in interest and inflation rates affect the production cost of biocomposite and the NPV of a biocomposite manufacturing plant.

3.4.2. Effect of Grant for Biocarbon and Composite Manufacturing Plants

Yearly mortgage on investment is dependent on the amount of investment, which can be minimized if a grant is provided to the bioindustry. A potential grant affects not only the production cost of the products from the biocarbon and composite manufacturing plants but also the NPV of biocarbon and biocomposite plants. The production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil falls to $486.2/ton and $323.7/ton, respectively, when the entire investment cost on the biocarbon plant is met by a grant (Figure 6a). Similarly, the production cost of biocomposite and talc-composite falls to $3189.5/ton and $3086.9/ton, respectively (Figure 6b). However, the production cost of biocomposite with a similar grant falls to $3066.55/ton (Figure 6b) if an industrial symbiosis approach is employed mainly because of the reduced cost in materials transportation and production cost of biocarbon. Figure 6 indicates that with every increment in the grant to biocarbon and biocomposite plants, the production cost of bioproducts decreases. On the other hand, NPV improves with every increment in the grant for biocarbon and composite manufacturing plants. The NPVs of biocarbon and composite manufacturing plants rise to $54.4–$59.9 million and $38.2–$39.4 million, respectively. Consequently, the production cost of bioproducts can be reduced if biocarbon and bicomposite plants are subsidized through low-interest loans under the bioeconomy initiative by the government.

3.4.3. Contribution of Biocarbon and Biocomposite Plants to the Bioeconomy

Numerous efforts are underway in different jurisdictions to address climate change and to grow the bioeconomy. Canada has an adequate land base consisting of a significant amount of marginal land (the land class not suitable for conventional cash crops; Supporting Information: Tables S2 and S3) which is mostly used for animal grazing or treed which can be used for energy crops cultivation without significantly affecting food crops cultivation [82,83]. The sustainable production and utilization of biomass can play an important role in bioeconomy initiatives in Canada. Canada plans for an annual export of $20 billion of bioeconomy products by 2025 [84]. In Canada, the available marginal land is about 9.48 million hectares [83]. The declining cattle industry in Ontario (the number of cattle raised in Ontario declined about 23.8% from 1996 to 2011) resulted in a surplus of hay and pasture land (349648 ha) [85]. Consequently, we can assume that 20% of marginal land can be used for energy crop cultivation (e.g., Miscanthus) for the biocarbon industry. Yearly Miscanthus production in Canada would be about 15.8 million tons if Miscanthus productivity on the marginal lands is assumed to be 8.4 tons/ha/year [82]. We assumed that half of the produced Miscanthus might be available for the biocarbon industry, thus about 7.9 million tons of Miscanthus can be used for the pyrolysis process which requires about 480 biocarbon plants (50 dry tons/day/plant; operating 24 h/day and 330 days/year) and may generate 2878 green jobs. In Canada, 5618 workers were engaged in 190 bioproduct-based industries in 2015 and created $2.9 billion in domestic sales and $1.4 billion in exports (United States, European Union, Japan, and China), respectively [86]. Yearly, Canada invests about $31.4 billion in research and development [87]. Canadian bioeconomy growth is projected to be 1.5% per year employing more than 223,000 workers by the end of the decade [88].
Generally, biocarbon is used for either bioenergy, [89], soil amendment [90,91], water treatment [92], or as a filler for composite materials [93,94]. As a conservative estimate, we assumed that only about 10% of biocarbon will be available or used for composite industries producing 1.2 million tons of biocomposite materials (biocarbon reinforced PP composite) and requires 1217 small-scale composite manufacturing plants. Again, these plants can directly create 7300 green jobs. Consequently, this study reveals that about 10,000 green jobs can be created (Supplementary Materials, Section S4), which may not only enhance farm income in rural Canada but also contribute to the bioeconomy initiative and help abate embodied GHG emissions from biomass in Canada. In addition, an industrial symbiosis approach would save about $60 million ($5.5/ton) if 1.2 million tons of conventional composite can be replaced with biocomposite. Moreover, the bioeconomy initiative may also create many indirect opportunities (such as transportation, chipping, etc.) in rural areas in Canada.

4. Discussion and Implications

This study reveals that biocarbon from energy crops (Miscanthus) will be economically viable if the assumed cost parameters remain stable; however, it requires high investment in the biocarbon industry. Similarly, biocarbon-reinforced composites would also be economically competitive with talc-composite or even better if an industrial symbiosis approach is employed. The bioeconomy policy, i.e., a guaranteed market for pyrolysis products and biocomposite generated by reinforcing the biocarbon with PP or other matrix materials, would be necessary to attract more investment in these industries. In general, conventional filler materials (talc, glass beads, calcium carbonate) are used to produce composites and are used in various applications, including the automotive industry. Replacing these materials with a lighter biomaterial will lead to the production of lightweight components for the automotive industry, thus reducing fuel consumption during the use phase of the automobile. However, the biocarbon and biocomposite production and distribution network has to be built to enhance the use of biomaterials in various applications without compromising the quality and safety of the components.
At different phases, the production cost may also be affected by the availability of feedstock, i.e., the capacity factor of biocarbon and composite manufacturing plants. In this study, the capacity of biocarbon and the composite plant is considered to be 50 tons/day and 3 tons/day. Therefore, any changes in productivity will affect the production cost and profitability. Availability of feedstock, plant capacity, and the market of biomaterials need to be considered for any future investment. The government initiative and potential investment from business communities are essential to expanding these industries. Pyrolysis is an emerging technology, producing biocarbon, bio-oil, and NCG, which requires more skilled workforces compared with other stages of bioindustry [33] requiring the continuous presence of an engineer. However, as this technology develops further and matures, it may not always need continuous supervision by an engineer-level employee. Replacing engineers with trained technicians for both the pyrolysis and composite manufacturing plants can offer some savings that may help reduce the production cost of biomaterials, and improve the profitability and NPV of the plants.

5. Conclusions

The economic analysis reveals that biocarbon from Miscanthus can be economically feasible; however, biocarbon plants require higher investment. The production cost of biocarbon, biocomposite, and conventional composite was $513.1/ton and between $3536.7–$3647.3/ton, respectively while the cost of the conventional composite was observed to be $3544.8/ton. It is worth noting that lightweighting solution (automotive components from biocomposite) reduces 9–11% of the production cost of automotive components. The industrial symbiosis approach reduces the production cost of biocomposite, thus improving the competitiveness with its counterpart (conventional composite, i.e., talc-composite) because the lower production cost of biocomposite generates more revenue and improves NPV. The production cost and NPV have indicated that both biocarbon and composite manufacturing plants would be an attractive investment decision with the assumed market price of biocarbon, bio-oil, and biocomposite. The bioeconomy initiatives, in the form of grants or lending money with marginal interest rates, may help in reducing production costs improving the profitability of these industries, and attracting more investment. These industries also have the potential to generate environmental benefits and create green jobs in the rural community, strengthening their economic growth. However, for a smooth transition to bioproducts and enhancement of these industries, a stable market, stakeholder participation, and acceptance/adoption of bioproducts are essential. Light-weighting incumbent applications with biocarbon-based biocomposites would provide a fillip to stakeholder participation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16135633/s1, Figure S1: Effect of miscanthus price on NPV of pyrolysis plant; Figure S2: Effect of the change in material cost on the NPV of composite manufacturing plants; Table S1: Material composition of compounding process of this study; Table S2: Land area in different regions of Canada (km2). Table S3: Marginal land classes in Canada; Section S4: Job creation. References [95,96,97] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

P.R.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft Preparation. A.R.-U.: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—Review and Editing. M.M.: Project Conceptualization, Methodology, Administration, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing—Review and Editing. A.K.M.: Project Conceptualization, Methodology, Administration, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing—Review and Editing. D.P.: Supervision, Writing—Review and Editing. M.T.: Writing—Review and Editing. A.B.: Writing—Review and Editing. All authors contributed to the discussion and approval of the manuscript for publication. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Collaborative Research and Development Grants (CRD) (Project No. 401637); the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)/University of Guelph–Bioeconomy for Industrial Uses Research Program (Project Nos.030331 and 030332); The NSERC, Canada Research Chair (CRC) program (Project No. 460788); the NSERC Canada Discovery Grants Project No. 401111 and the Ontario Research Fund, Research Excellence Program; Round 9 (ORF-RE09) Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, Canada (Project Nos. 053970 and 054345).

Informed Consent Statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability Statement

No publicly archived research data to share.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, T.; Rodriguez-Uribe, A.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Sustainable Carbonaceous Biofiller from Miscanthus: Size Reduction, Characterization, and Potential Bio-Composites Applications. BioResources 2018, 13, 3720–3739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Behazin, E.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Sustainable Biocarbon from Pyrolyzed Perennial Grasses and Their Effects on Impact Modified Polypropylene Biocomposites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 118, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Civancik-Uslu, D.; Ferrer, L.; Puig, R.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Are Functional Fillers Improving Environmental Behavior of Plastics? A Review on LCA Studies. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 927–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Penciuc, D.; Le Duigou, J.; Daaboul, J.; Vallet, F.; Eynard, B. Product Life Cycle Management Approach for Integration of Engineering Design and Life Cycle Engineering. AI EDAM 2016, 30, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Venkateshwaran, N.; ElayaPerumal, A.; Alavudeen, A.; Thiruchitrambalam, M. Mechanical and Water Absorption Behaviour of Banana/Sisal Reinforced Hybrid Composites. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 4017–4021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lehto, J.; Oasmaa, A.; Solantausta, Y.; Kytö, M.; Chiaramonti, D. Review of Fuel Oil Quality and Combustion of Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oils from Lignocellulosic Biomass. Appl. Energy 2014, 116, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Biederman, L.A.; Stanley Harpole, W. Biochar and Its Effects on Plant Productivity and Nutrient Cycling: A Meta-Analysis. GCB Bioenergy 2013, 5, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kern, J.; Tammeorg, P.; Shanskiy, M.; Sakrabani, R.; Knicker, H.; Kammann, C.; Tuhkanen, E.-M.; Smidt, G.; Prasad, M.; Tiilikkala, K. Synergistic Use of Peat and Charred Material in Growing Media–an Option to Reduce the Pressure on Peatlands? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Homagain, K.; Shahi, C.; Luckai, N.; Sharma, M. Biochar-Based Bioenergy and Its Environmental Impact in Northwestern Ontario Canada: A Review. J. For. Res. 2014, 25, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Downie, A.; Munroe, P.; Cowie, A.; Van Zwieten, L.; Lau, D.M.S. Biochar as a Geoengineering Climate Solution: Hazard Identification and Risk Management. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 42, 225–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ogunsona, E.O.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Sustainable Biocomposites from Biobased Polyamide 6,10 and Biocarbon from Pyrolyzed Miscanthus Fibers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chang, B.P.; Rodriguez-Uribe, A.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. A Comprehensive Review of Renewable and Sustainable Biosourced Carbon through Pyrolysis in Biocomposites Uses: Current Development and Future Opportunity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boland, C.S.; De Kleine, R.; Keoleian, G.A.; Lee, E.C.; Kim, H.C.; Wallington, T.J. Life Cycle Impacts of Natural Fiber Composites for Automotive Applications: Effects of Renewable Energy Content and Lightweighting. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Akhshik, M.; Panthapulakkal, S.; Tjong, J.; Sain, M. Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Engine Beauty Cover in Comparison with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Counterpart. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 65, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. AAFC. Investing in Canada’s Bioeconomy to Help Provide Opportunities for Farmers and Grow the Clean Economy. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2019/04/investing-in-canadas-bioeconomy-to-help-provide-opportunities-for-farmers-and-grow-the-clean-economy.html (accessed on 27 April 2019).
  16. Kim, H.C.; Wallington, T.J. Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Benefits of Lightweighting in Automobiles: Review and Harmonization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6089–6097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, S.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Mu, C.; Huang, X. High-Strength Charcoal Briquette Preparation from Hydrothermal Pretreated Biomass Wastes. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 171, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hesser, F. Environmental Advantage by Choice: Ex-Ante LCA for a New Kraft Pulp Fibre Reinforced Polypropylene Composite in Comparison to Reference Materials. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 79, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ten, E.; Vermerris, W. Recent Developments in Polymers Derived from Industrial Lignin. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015, 132, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roy, P.; Tadele, D.; Defersha, F.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Environmental and Economic Prospects of Biomaterials in the Automotive Industry. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1535–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fogorasi, M.; Barbu, I. The Potential of Natural Fibres for Automotive Sector—Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 252, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Väisänen, T.; Das, O.; Tomppo, L. A Review on New Bio-Based Constituents for Natural Fiber-Polymer Composites. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 582–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akampumuza, O.; Wambua, P.M.; Ahmed, A.; Li, W.; Qin, X.H. Review of the Applications of Biocomposites in the Automotive Industry. Polym. Compos. 2017, 38, 2553–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Das, O.; Sarmah, A.K.; Bhattacharyya, D. A Sustainable and Resilient Approach through Biochar Addition in Wood Polymer Composites. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 512–513, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brown, D.; Rowe, A.; Wild, P. A Techno-Economic Analysis of Using Mobile Distributed Pyrolysis Facilities to Deliver a Forest Residue Resource. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 150, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kludze, H.; Deen, B.; Weersink, A.; van Acker, R.; Janovicek, K.; De Laporte, A. Assessment of the Availability of Agricultural Biomass for Heat and Energy Production in Ontario; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010; pp. 1–125. [Google Scholar]
  27. Allison, G.G.; Morris, C.; Clifton-brown, J.; Lister, S.J.; Donnison, I.S. Genotypic Variation in Cell Wall Composition in a Diverse Set of 244 Accessions of Miscanthus. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4740–4747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Clifton-brown, J.; Hastings, A.; Mos, M.; Jon, P.; Ashman, C.; Awty-carroll, D.; Cerazy, J.; Chiang, Y.; Cosentino, S.; Cracroft-eley, W.; et al. Progress in Upscaling Miscanthus Biomass Production for the European Bio-Economy with Seed-Based Hybrids. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2017, 9, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cuthbertson, D.M. The Production of Pyrolytic Biochar for Addition in Value-Added Composite Material. Master’s Thesis, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lu, H.R.; El Hanandeh, A. Life Cycle Perspective of Bio-Oil and Biochar Production from Hardwood Biomass; What Is the Optimum Mix and What to Do with It? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dang, Q.; Hu, W.; Rover, M.; Brown, R.C.; Wright, M.M. Economics of Biofuels and Bioproducts from an Integrated Pyrolysis Biorefinery. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2016, 10, 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, W.; Dang, Q.; Rover, M.; Brown, R.C.; Wright, M.M. Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Advanced Biofuels, Biochemicals, and Hydrocarbon Chemicals via the Fast Pyrolysis Platform. Biofuels 2016, 7, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Homagain, K.; Shahi, C.; Luckai, N.; Sharma, M. Life Cycle Cost and Economic Assessment of Biochar-Based Bioenergy Production and Biochar Land Application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. For. Ecosyst. 2016, 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bergman, R.; Sahoo, K.; Englund, K.; Mousavi-Avval, S.H. Lifecycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochar Pellet Production from Forest Residues and Field Application. Energies 2022, 15, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jin, Q.; O’Keefe, S.F.; Stewart, A.C.; Neilson, A.P.; Kim, Y.-T.; Huang, H. Techno-Economic Analysis of a Grape Pomace Biorefinery: Production of Seed Oil, Polyphenols, and Biochar. Food Bioprod. Process. 2021, 127, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Indra Reddy, M.; Anil Kumar, M.; Rama Bhadri Raju, C. Tensile and Flexural Properties of Jute, Pineapple Leaf and Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Hybrid Composites. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 458–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Snowdon, M.R.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Miscibility and Performance Evaluation of Biocomposites Made from Polypropylene/Poly(Lactic Acid)/Poly(Hydroxybutyrate-Co-hydroxyvalerate) with a Sustainable Biocarbon Filler. ACS Omega 2017, 2, 6446–6454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hassan, A.; Ding, W.; Aslam, M.A.; Bian, Y.; Liu, Q.; Sheng, Z. Microwave Absorption Property of Coffee Waste Bio-Carbon Modified by Industrial Waste MnFe2O4 Particles. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 12869–12879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guo, Z.; Ren, P.; Zhang, Z.; Dai, Z.; Lu, Z.; Jin, Y.; Ren, F. Fabrication of Carbonized Spent Coffee Grounds/Graphene Nanoplates/Cyanate Ester Composites for Superior and Highly Absorbed Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Performance. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2022, 102, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Beigbeder, J.; Soccalingame, L.; Perrin, D.; Bénézet, J.-C.; Bergeret, A. How to Manage Biocomposites Wastes End of Life? A Life Cycle Assessment Approach (LCA) Focused on Polypropylene (PP)/Wood Flour and Polylactic Acid (PLA)/Flax Fibres Biocomposites. Waste Manag. 2019, 83, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akhshik, M.; Panthapulakkal, S.; Tjong, J.; Sain, M. The Effect of Lightweighting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Life Cycle Energy for Automotive Composite Parts. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Akhshik, M.; Panthapulakkal, S.; Tjong, J.; Sain, M. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Based Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission and Social Study: Natural Fibre versus Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic Automotive Parts. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2018, 15, 350–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boland, C.; Dekleine, R.; Moorthy, A.; Keoleian, G.; Kim, H.C.; Lee, E.; Wallington, T.J.; Co, F.M. A Life Cycle Assessment of Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites in Automotive Applications. SAE Tech. Pap. 2014, 1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Delogu, M.; Zanchi, L.; Dattilo, C.A.; Pierini, M. Innovative Composites and Hybrid Materials for Electric Vehicles Lightweight Design in a Sustainability Perspective. Mater. Today Commun. 2017, 13, 192–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sahoo, K.; Upadhyay, A.; Runge, T.; Bergman, R.; Puettmann, M.; Bilek, E. Life-Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochar Produced from Forest Residues Using Portable Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tadele, D.; Roy, P.; Defersha, F.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. A Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Talc-and Biochar-Reinforced Composites for Lightweight Automotive Parts. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020, 22, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roy, P.; Defersha, F.; Rodriguez-Uribe, A.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Evaluation of the Life Cycle of an Automotive Component Produced from Biocomposite. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 123051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Venkatesan, R.; Sana, S.S.; Ramkumar, V.; Alagumalai, K.; Kim, S.C. Development and characterization of poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)(PBAT) composites with N, P-doped carbons for food packaging. Carbon Lett. 2023, 33, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Venkatesan, R.; Rajeswari, N. TiO2 nanoparticles/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) bionanocomposite films for packaging applications. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2017, 28, 1699–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, W.; Oldfield, T.L.; Cinelli, P.; Righetti, M.C.; Holden, N.M. Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment of Potato Pulp Valorisation in Biocomposite Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cleary, J.; Wolf, D.P.; Caspersen, J.P. Comparing the Life Cycle Costs of Using Harvest Residue as Feedstock for Small-and Large-Scale Bioenergy Systems (Part II). Energy 2015, 86, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jahirul, M.I.; Rasul, M.G.; Chowdhury, A.A.; Ashwath, N. Biofuels Production through Biomass Pyrolysis—A Technological Review. Energies 2012, 5, 4952–5001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fransham, P.; (Abri-Tech Inc., Namur, QC, Canada). Personal Communication, 2016.
  54. Morey, R.V.; Kaliyan, N.; Schmidt, D.R.; Tiffany, D.G. A Biomass Supply Logistics System. In 2009 Reno, NV, USA, 21–24 June 2009; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2009; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  55. Thakur, A. Power Generation from Forest Residues. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  56. Westbrook, M.D., Jr.; Dale Greene, W.; Izlar, R.L. Utilizing Forest Biomass by Adding a Small Chipper to a Tree-Length Southern Pine Harvesting Operation. South J. Appl. For. 2007, 31, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Canada-Revenue-Agency. Corporation Tax Rates. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/corporation-tax-rates.html (accessed on 16 April 2019).
  58. KPMG, L.L.P. Wood Pellet Plant Cost Study for the Algoma and Martel Forests in the Western Portion of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Forest; Bay Adeland Centre: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  59. Statistics Canada. Consumer Price Index, Historical Summary (1996 to 2015). Statistics Canada. Available online: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ46a-eng.htm (accessed on 15 September 2016).
  60. Aden, A.; Ruth, M.; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan, J.; Wallace, B.; Montague, L.; Slayton, A.; Lukas, J. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  61. Stephenson, A.L.; Dupree, P.; Scott, S.A.; Dennis, J.S. The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Potential Bioethanol from Willow in the UK. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 9612–9623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. New Energy Farms; Miscanthus Production Cost; (Leamington, Essex County, ON, Canada). Personal Communication, 2020.
  63. Bali, A.; (Competitive Green Technologies, Leamington, ON, Canada). Personal Communication, 2020.
  64. Nematian, M.; Keske, C.; Ng’ombe, J.N. A Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochar Production and the Bioeconomy for Orchard Biomass. Waste Manag. 2021, 135, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, D.; Anderson, N.M.; Chung, W. Financial Performance of a Mobile Pyrolysis System Used to Produce Biochar from Sawmill Residues. For. Prod. J. 2015, 65, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. International-Biochar-Innitiative. State of the Biochar Industry 2013. 2013. Available online: https://biochar-international.org/resources/state-of-the-biochar-industry/ (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  67. Canola-Council-Canada. Historic Canola Oi, Meal and Seed Prices. 2016. Available online: https://www.canolacouncil.org/markets-stats/exports/ (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  68. Palma, M.A.; Richardson, J.W.; Roberson, B.E.; Ribera, L.A.; Outlaw, J.L.; Munster, C. Economic Feasibility of a Mobile Fast Pyrolysis System for Sustainable Bio-Crude Oil Production. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  69. TPE. Industry News. The Plastic Exchange: Commodity Plastic Resin. Available online: http://www.theplasticsexchange.com/ (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  70. MRNFP. Exploring for Talc in Quebec. Available online: https://mern.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/mines/minerals/talc.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  71. AAFC. The Canadian Bioeconomy. Available online: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aac-aafc/A22-12322-2015-eng.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2016).
  72. BIC. BIC’s BioProducts Agriculture Science Cluster Gets $7.1 Million Support from AAFC. Available online: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b22338_398bebcbe31b493ca57042af3f25ffd5.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2019).
  73. Li, W.; Ciais, P.; Stehfest, E.; Van Vuuren, D.; Popp, A.; Arneth, A.; Di Fulvio, F.; Doelman, J.; Humpenöder, F.; Harper, A.B.; et al. Mapping the Yields of Lignocellulosic Bioenergy Crops from Observations at the Global Scale. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020, 12, 789–804. [Google Scholar]
  74. Li, W.; Ciais, P.; Han, M.; Zhao, Q.; Chang, J.; Goll, D.S.; Zhu, L.; Wang, J. Bioenergy Crops for Low Warming Targets Require Half of the Present Agricultural Fertilizer Use. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 10654–10661. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cheng, Y.; Huang, M.; Lawrence, D.M.; Calvin, K.; Lombardozzi, D.L.; Sinha, E.; Pan, M.; He, X. Future Bioenergy Expansion Could Alter Carbon Sequestration Potential and Exacerbate Water Stress in the United States. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabm8237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stenzel, F.; Greve, P.; Lucht, W.; Tramberend, S.; Wada, Y.; Gerten, D. Irrigation of Biomass Plantations May Globally Increase Water Stress More than Climate Change. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Suopajärvi, H.; Fabritius, T. Towards More Sustainable Ironmaking—An Analysis of Energy Wood Availability in Finland and the Economics of Charcoal Production. Sustainability 2013, 5, 1188–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Meyer, S.; Glaser, B.; Quicker, P. Technical, Economical, and Climate-Related Aspects of Biochar Production Technologies: A Literature Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9473–9483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ahmed, M.B.; Zhou, J.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W. Insight into Biochar Properties and Its Cost Analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 84, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fornes, F.; Belda, R.M.; Lidón, A. Analysis of Two Biochars and One Hydrochar from Different Feedstock: Focus Set on Environmental, Nutritional and Horticultural Considerations. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. McCarl, B.A.; Peacocke, C.; Chrisman, R.; Kung, C.-C.; Sands, R.D. Economics of Biochar Production, Utilization and Greenhouse Gas Offsets. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 341–358. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kludze, H.; Deen, B.; Weersink, A.; van Acker, R.; Janovicek, K.; De Laporte, A. Impact of Land Classification on Potential Warm Season Grass Biomass Production in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, T.; Ma, Z.; McConkey, B.; Kulshreshtha, S.; Huffman, T.; Green, M.; Liu, J.; Du, Y.; Shang, J. Bioenergy Production Potential on Marginal Land in Canada. In Proceedings of the 2012 First International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics (Agro-Geoinformatics), Shanghai, China, 2–4 August 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. EDC (Exploring Canada’s Cleantech). Exploring Canada’s Cleantech Sector. 2023. Available online: https://www.edc.ca/en/guide/edc-explore-canada-cleantech-sector.html (accessed on 27 March 2024).
  85. OFA. Assessment of Hay Crop Acreage and Pasture Land for Biomass Production in Ontario. Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Available online: www.ofa.on.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/haycropreport-final.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2017).
  86. Rancourt, Y.; Neumeyer, C.; Zou, N. Results from the 2015 Bioproducts Production and Development Survey; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  87. NRCAN (Natural Resources Canada). A Forest Bioeconomy Framework for Canada [WWW Document]. Natural Resources Canada. 2017. Available online: https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/39162.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  88. BioTalent. Close-Up on the Bio-Economy: Labor Market Intelligence [WWW Document]. BioTalent Canada. 2021. Available online: https://www.biotalent.ca/wp-content/uploads/BioTalent-Canada-LMI-DemandandSupply-13OCT2021-1.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  89. Roy, P.; Dias, G. Prospects for Pyrolysis Technologies in the Bioenergy Sector: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hitzl, M.; Corma, A.; Pomares, F.; Renz, M. The Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) Plant as a Decentral Biorefinery for Wet Biomass. Catal. Today 2015, 257, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fang, J.; Zhan, L.; Sik Ok, Y.; Gao, B. Minireview of Potential Applications of Hydrochar Derived from Hydrothermal Carbonization of Biomass. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 57, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Takaya, C.A.; Fletcher, L.A.; Singh, S.; Anyikude, K.U.; Ross, A.B. Phosphate and Ammonium Sorption Capacity of Biochar and Hydrochar from Different Wastes. Chemosphere 2016, 145, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Behazin, E.; Misra, M.; Mohanty, A.K. Compatibilization of Toughened Polypropylene/Biocarbon Biocomposites: A Full Factorial Design Optimization of Mechanical Properties. Polym. Test. 2017, 61, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Behazin, E.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Sustainable Lightweight Biocomposite from Toughenned Polypropylene and Biocarbon for Automobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Composite Materials, Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017; pp. 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  95. Kludze, H.; Deen, B.; Dutta, A. Impact of agronomic treatments on fuel characteristics of herbaceous biomass for combustion. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 109, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. OMAFRA. Classifying Prime and Marginal Agricultural Soils and Landscapes: Guidelines for Application of the Canada Land Inventory in Ontario. Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2015. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/government-ontario (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  97. StatCan. Land Area by Province and Territory. Stat. Canada. 2015. Available online: http://www.statcan.gc.ca (accessed on 13 June 2024).
Sustainability 16 05633 g001
Figure 1. System boundary of this study (encircled by the dotted line) (T: transportation).
Figure 1. System boundary of this study (encircled by the dotted line) (T: transportation).
Sustainability 16 05633 g001
Sustainability 16 05633 g002
Figure 2. Cost breakdown of the life cycle of biocarbon and bio-oil.
Figure 2. Cost breakdown of the life cycle of biocarbon and bio-oil.
Sustainability 16 05633 g002
Sustainability 16 05633 g003
Figure 3. Cost breakdown of the life cycle of composite materials (Insys: industrial symbiosis).
Figure 3. Cost breakdown of the life cycle of composite materials (Insys: industrial symbiosis).
Sustainability 16 05633 g003
Sustainability 16 05633 g004
Figure 4. Effect of feedstock cost on the production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil.
Figure 4. Effect of feedstock cost on the production cost of biocarbon and bio-oil.
Sustainability 16 05633 g004
Sustainability 16 05633 g005
Figure 5. Effect of feedstock cost (Miscanthus, biocarbon, talc, colorant, PP) on the composite production cost ((A): biocomposite; (B): talc-composite).
Figure 5. Effect of feedstock cost (Miscanthus, biocarbon, talc, colorant, PP) on the composite production cost ((A): biocomposite; (B): talc-composite).
Sustainability 16 05633 g005
Sustainability 16 05633 g006
Figure 6. Effect of the grant on the production cost of biomaterials ((A): biocarbon and bio-oil; (B): composite; Insys: industrial symbiosis).
Figure 6. Effect of the grant on the production cost of biomaterials ((A): biocarbon and bio-oil; (B): composite; Insys: industrial symbiosis).
Sustainability 16 05633 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roy, P.; Rodriguez-Uribe, A.; Mohanty, A.K.; Pujari, D.; Tiessen, M.; Bali, A.; Misra, M. Production Cost of Biocarbon and Biocomposite, and Their Prospects in Sustainable Biobased Industries. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135633

AMA Style

Roy P, Rodriguez-Uribe A, Mohanty AK, Pujari D, Tiessen M, Bali A, Misra M. Production Cost of Biocarbon and Biocomposite, and Their Prospects in Sustainable Biobased Industries. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135633

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roy, Poritosh, Arturo Rodriguez-Uribe, Amar K. Mohanty, Devashish Pujari, Mike Tiessen, Atul Bali, and Manjusri Misra. 2024. "Production Cost of Biocarbon and Biocomposite, and Their Prospects in Sustainable Biobased Industries" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135633

APA Style

Roy, P., Rodriguez-Uribe, A., Mohanty, A. K., Pujari, D., Tiessen, M., Bali, A., & Misra, M. (2024). Production Cost of Biocarbon and Biocomposite, and Their Prospects in Sustainable Biobased Industries. Sustainability, 16(13), 5633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135633

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop