Many life cycle assessments of bio-based and biodegradable materials neglect the post-consumer waste treatment phase because of a lack of consistent data, even though this stage of the life cycle may strongly influence the conclusions. The aim of this paper is to approximate carbon and energy footprints of the waste treatment phase and to find out what the best waste treatment option for biodegradable materials is by modelling home and industrial composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration. We have compiled data-sets for the following biodegradable materials: paper, cellulose, starch, polylactic acid (PLA), starch/polycaprolactone (MaterBi), polybutyrate-adipate- terephthalate (PBAT, Ecoflex) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) on the basis of an extensive literature search, experiments and analogies with materials for which significant experience has been made. During biological waste treatment, the materials are metabolised so a part of their embodied carbon is emitted into air and the remainder is stored as compost or digestate. The compost or digestate can replace soil conditioners supporting humus formation, which is a benefit that cannot be achieved artificially. Experimental data on biodegradable materials shows a range across the amount of carbon stored of these materials, and more trials will be required in the future to reduce these uncertainties. Experimental data has also shown that home and industrial composting differ in their emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, but it should be noted that data availability on home composting is limited. The results show that anaerobic digestion has the lowest footprint for the current level of technology, but incineration may become better in the future if energy efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. Home composting is roughly equal to incineration with energy recovery in terms of carbon and energy footprint when carbon credits are considered. The same applies to industrial composting if carbon credits are assigned for compost to replace straw. Carbon credits can therefore considerably affect the results, but there are significant uncertainties in how they are calculated. Incineration may become better than home composting in the future if the average energy efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. However, biological waste treatment options should be chosen when soil carbon is a limiting factor.

The use of polymer materials for photovoltaic applications is expected to have several advantages over current crystalline silicon technology. In this paper, we perform an environmental and economic assessment of polymer-based thin film modules with a glass substrate and modules with a flexible substrate and we compare our results with literature data for multicrystalline (mc-) silicon photovoltaics and other types of PV. The functional unit of this study is '25 years of electricity production by PV systems with apower ofl watt-peak (W _p)^'. Because the lifetime of polymer photovoltaics is at present much lower than of mc-silicon photovoltaics, we first compared the PV cells per watt-peak and next determined the minimum required lifetime of polymer PV to arrive at the same environmental impacts as mc-silicon PV. We found that per watt-peak of output power, the environmental impacts compared to mc-silicon are 20-60% lower for polymer PV systems with glass substrate and 80-95% lower for polymer PV with PET as substrate (flexible modules). Also in comparison with thin film CuInSe and thin film silicon, the impacts of polymer modules, per watt-peak, appeared to be lower. The costs per watt-peak of polymer PV modules with glass substrate are approximately 20% higher compared to mc-silicon photovoltaics. However, taking into account uncertainties, this might be an overestimation. For flexible modules, no cost data were available. If the efficiency and lifetime of polymer PV modules increases, both glass-based and flexible polymer PV could become an environment friendly and cheap alternative to mc-silicon PV.

The production of bulk chemicals from biomass can make a significant contribution to solving two of the most urgent environmental problems: climate change and depletion of fossil energy. We analyzed current and future technology routes leading to 15 bulk chemicals using industrial biotechnology and calculated their CO₂ emissions and fossil energy use. Savings of more than 100% in non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are already possible with current state of the art biotechnology. Substantial further savings are possible for the future by improved fermentation and downstream processing. Worldwide CO₂ savings in the range of 500-1000 million tons per year are possible using future technology. Industrial biotechnology hence offers excellent opportunities for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing dependence on fossil energy sources and therefore has the potential to make inroads into the existing chemical industry.