Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Research article

Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis for the renewable jet fuel
production process
Hsin-Wei Hsu a, Emmanuel Binyet b, Yu-Hsuan Chang c, Wei-Cheng Wang c,⁎
a
Department of Industrial and System Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan City 40704, Taiwan
b
Research Center for Environmental Changes, Academia Sinica, Taipei 11529, Taiwan
c
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Blending conventional petroleum jet fuel with renewable fuel obtained from hydro-processing of cooking oil
Received 3 May 2022 wastes can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the aviation sector. Renewable jet fuel (RJF) remains for
Received in revised form 27 June 2022 the most part more expensive than conventional jet fuel and the life-cycle emissions reduction depends on the
Accepted 28 June 2022
feedstock. For promoting mass production of used cooking oil (UCO) based jet fuel, a 3E (energy/exergy, environ-
Available online 2 July 2022
mental and economic) analysis of a simulated processing plant is carried out. Hydrogen is the main component in
Editor: Dr. José María Ponce-Ortega the two-step process: hydro-processing and hydro-cracking/isomerization. Hydrogen production and exergy de-
struction in the process significantly influence the life-cycle emissions of the RJF. The low exergy efficiency of the
process units where significant heat transfer occurs generates an increase in the price of the products. Results
Keywords: show a life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions reduction from 41 % to 81 % when combusting the hydro-processed
Hydro-processed renewable jet jet fuel instead of conventional jet fuel. The minimum fuel selling price could be very close to conventional jet
Used cooking oil fuel (about 18 % more expensive) if an effective cooking oil wastes collection system is in place. Moreover,
Biofuels when implementing a carbon tax above $37/tCO2 the price becomes equal to conventional jet fuel. UCO is the
Techno-economic analysis
most sustainable feedstock as there is no competition with the food market and the environmental benefits jus-
Exergy
tify government spending for promoting mass production.
Aviation emissions reduction
© 2022 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Global warming is becoming an overwhelming issue that strongly
relates to the increasing amount of global carbon emissions. The global
aviation community has set a target of reducing the net aviation carbon
emissions by 50 % of the 2005 level by 2025 (Air Transport Action Group
(ATAG), n.d.). This will be done by improving the fleet fuel efficiency by
up to 1.5 % per annum and by promoting alternative fuel use. Indeed,
with the current technology, carbon emissions in the aviation sector
can only be abated by switching to biofuel blends. Alternative fuels re-
main for the most part more expensive than petroleum-based fuels
which is why it is important to keep striving to bring the production
costs down while keeping a sustainable and ethical approach.
RJF made from sustainable raw materials (Gutiérrez-Antonio et al.,
2017; Zhang et al., 2016) can achieve a significant reduction in carbon
emissions compared to conventional fuel. RJF can be produced using
the following techniques: Fischer-Tropsch (FT), hydrothermal liquefac-
tion (HTL), pyrolysis, hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) and
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wilsonwang@mail.ncku.edu.tw (W.-C. Wang).
alcohol to jet (ATJ) (Carter et al., 2011; Elgowainy et al., 2012). HEFA is
the most common method used for producing alternative jet fuel
(Stratton, 2010). In general, the HEFA process involves fatty acid con-
version into straight-chain alkanes by hydro-treatment process. The
HEFA process utilizes various raw materials from biomass, animal fats
and waste oils which allows to produce a sustainable fuel totally inde-
pendent from the petrochemical industry (Rathore et al., 2016). Such
RJF is also found to have an equally high heating value compared to tra-
ditional fuels (Seber et al., 2014). Chen and Wang (2019) have thor-
oughly described the hydro-processing of waste cooking oil (WCO) to
obtain straight-chain alkanes. They detailed the influence of the key pa-
rameters on the alkane composition of the product; parameters such as
reaction temperature, catalysts, hydrogen feed pressures, volumetric
flow rate, hydrogen-to-oil ratio, time of conversion.
To promote the development of alternative fuel production, techni-
cal feasibility and thermodynamic parameters involved in the produc-
tion process are the main consideration. Exergy analysis is utilized to
determine the availability of energy in the system. A comprehensive
study can be performed to evaluate the performance and improve the
efficiency of an industrial process by reducing the exergy destruction
within the working system (Saidur et al., 2007). Chang et al. (2021)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.026
2352-5509/© 2022 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

introducing additive materials such as potassium hydroxide and sulfuric

Nomenclature
acid into the process catalyst could significantly reduce energy losses. In
addition, Modarresi et al. (2012) performed a pinch and exergy analysis
ATJ Alcohol to jet
considering the production of bioethanol and biomethane combined
CGS Co-generation system
with a complex heat exchanger and steam turbine system for co-
x Component mole fraction
generating part of the heat and power demand of the system. Their re-
o Dead state
sults showed that the combined bioethanol production process has the
DCO Decarbonylation
highest exergy efficiency. 3E analysis consists in involving the energetic,
DCO2 Decarboxylation
economic and environmental aspects into a whole study. Carneiro and
η Energy efficiency
Gomes (2019) performed a 4E analysis involving energy, exergy and a
H Enthalpy (kJ)
new environmental-economic approach for hybrid waste-to-energy
S Entropy (kJ/°C)
plants combining natural gas and municipal wastes combustion. Each
j Exit state
kg of waste can produce 7 MJ of energy according to their system
FT Fischer-Tropsch
whereas only 2.5 MJ/kg is generated with traditional waste-to-energy
gen Generation
plants. The report predicted a thermal efficiency of 36 %, an ecologic ef-
GWP Global warming potential
ficiency of 89 % (where 100 % denotes zero pollution) and a levelized
GHG Greenhouse gas
cost of electricity production in the range of $64–89/MWh; which is at-
HDO Hydrodeoxygenation
tractive compared to traditional waste-to-energy facilities. In the case of
HEFA Hydro-processed esters and fatty acids
fired heaters in petroleum refineries, Shekarchian et al. (2013) analyzed
β Ratio for calculating chemical exergy
the benefits of including heat recovery and air preheating using a 4E ap-
0 Reference value
proach (energy, exergy, environmental and economic). The thermal and
RED Renewable Energy Directive
exergy efficiencies were increased and the fuel consumption decreased;
RJF Renewable jet fuel
however, the costs of adding a preheater unit to an existing fire heater
V Specific volume
are not justified. Additionally, Ifaei et al. (2019) studied the perfor-
SNG Synthetic natural gas
mance of fossil fuel-burning integrated energy conversion systems by
TEA Techno-economic analysis
analyzing energy, exergy, economy, environment, and hazardous risk
th Thermodynamic
(4ER) aspects for the power and cooling co-generation system (CGS)
UCO Used cooking oil
and multi-generation system (MGS). Their results showed that the
WCO Waste cooking oil
MGS performs better in all aspects. A 4E analysis has been proposed
W Work transfer rate (kW)
by Sanaye and Shirazi (2013), aiming to reduce peak electric demand
HRD Hydro-processed renewable diesel
in air-conditioning applications by incorporating an ice thermal energy
HRJ Hydro-processed renewable jet fuel
storage. Compared to a conventional air-conditioning system, the elec-
HTL Hydrothermal liquefaction
tricity demand was 10.9 % lower and the costs of the new proposed sys-
i Inlet state
tem would be paid back through 3.39 years of electricity consumption
U Internal energy
savings. Furthermore, significantly less CO2 is emitted into the
irrev Irreversible
atmosphere.
LHV Lower heating value
Apostolakou et al. (2009) carried out a techno-economic analysis of
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
a production process of biodiesel resulting from the transesterification
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/h)
of vegetable oil or animal fats using alcohols and a catalyst. De Jong
MFSP Minimum jet fuel selling price
et al. (2015) performed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) for RJF pro-
MGS Power generation system
duction and showed the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of six con-
NRTL Non-random two-liquid model
version pathways. The HEFA pathway yields the lowest minimum fuel
P Pressure
selling price at €29.3/GJ or €1289/ton. They also highlighted that the
ĖX Rate of exergy (kW)
co-production strategies reduced the MFSP by 4–8 %. Wang (2019)
T Temperature (°C)
used a techno-economic analysis and process simulation to compare
Ė Rate of energy (kW)
the different oil or fat feedstocks for production of HRJ in Taiwan. The
MFSP for the different feedstocks was given; greases lead to cheaper re-
newable fuel prices however more investment in the processing plant is
used a simulation to conduct an exergy and pinch analysis of a plant needed than with an oil feedstock. According to the work of
producing hydro-processed jet fuel from UCO. The plant was set to pro- Domenichini et al. (2010) and Martinez-Hernandez et al. (2013),
cess 135.28 tons of feedstock per hour; which yields a sufficient amount where pinch analysis is combined with economic evaluation: improving
of RJF for the leading local airline company when the product is blended the thermal efficiency reduces the energy use and the costs.
at a 20 % rate with petroleum jet fuel. Indeed, China Airlines reported a Reimer and Zheng (2017) performed an economic analysis of the
yearly fuel consumption exceeding 2 million tons (https://calec.china- bio-aviation energy supply chain and showed feasibility when imple-
airlines.com/csr/en/environment/green.html, 2022). Chang et al. found menting energy policies. They proposed strategies involving a 17 % sub-
that there is high exergy destruction in the heat exchangers and the dis- sidy on alternative fuel, 20 % tax on petro-fuel or 9 % alternative fuel
tillation units. Thus, they suggested that a portion of the exergy in the subsidy and 9 % tax on conventional fuel. From the energetic and eco-
steam of the exhaust gas could be recovered using a turbine and sug- nomic analyses, aiming to reach greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation tar-
gested that a dividing-wall distillation column could also significantly gets, some studies added an environmental analysis to determine the
reduce the exergy destruction. Wasted heat and by-products could feasibility of RJF mass production. Wang et al. (2011) proposed a life
also be used for district heating. The costs of exergy destruction were es- cycle assessment combined with economic, environmental and ener-
timated to $4984/h. Talens et al. (2007) used an exergy flow analysis to getic performance of Jatropha curcas L. (JCL) biodiesel in China. Seed
perform a comparison of the production process of 1 ton of biodiesel de- yield, farm energy input and use of the by-products are the critical fac-
rived from UCO and from rapeseed crops. They reported that the ex- tors. The results showed that the production of biodiesel is not econom-
tended exergy for biodiesel from UCO is around 1.5 times as much as ically feasible with the current technical situation but still has a positive
from rapeseed crops. Moreover, improving the feedstock quality and performance in terms of CO2 emissions and energy. De Jong et al. (2017)

147
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
compared the well-to-wake GHG emission performance of few RJF con-
version pathways, without considering emissions resulting from the
land-use change. Lignocellulosic crops derived RJF yield low well-to-
wake GHG emissions indifferently of the co-product allocation method;
savings in GHG emissions for the different pathways range from 54 % to
104 %. Klein et al. (2018) carried out economic and environmental anal-
yses on RJF from Brazilian sugarcane bio-refineries for three ASTM inter-
national approved RJF production technologies (HEFA, F-T, and ATJ).
Results indicated that at least a 70 % carbon reduction was achieved
compared with petroleum jet fuels. Baral et al. (2019) performed a
TEA with life-cycle GHG mitigation costs for five routes to produce RJF
blendstocks from lignocellulosic biomass. They showed that the
lignin-derived coproducts should be sold at least $1.9/kg in order to
reach the target selling price of $0.66/l of Jet A. Moreover, because of
the higher energy density of the blendstocks, commercial airlines
might be willing to pay an extra 4–14 cents/l for RJF.
UCO is the most sustainable feedstock to produce RJF. Indeed, there
is no land-use change induced by the production of the feedstock and
there is no competition with the food market. The annual production
of UCO in Taiwan ranges from 6 to 8 million tons (Chen and Wang,
2019) which makes a serious case for mass production of alternative
jet fuel. The only concern is the price compared to conventional petro-
jet fuel (which is below $0.5/l). Compared to other alternative fuels,
conversion from UCO is the cheapest pathway but it still yields mini-
mum prices of around $1/l (Pavlenko et al., 2019). Hsu et al. (2021) con-
ducted an economic analysis on simulated plants of different capacities
and deduced that in Taiwan a plant processing 300 tons of UCO per day
with a three-step conversion process could yield a minimum fuel selling
price of $0.31/l after selling the by-products (glycerol and free fatty
acids). However, their results lie on the assumption that an effective
and inexpensive UCO recovery system is implemented. Collection of
UCO is indeed a challenging enterprise which relies on a circular econ-
omy. Partnership with the food industry and incentives promoting
recycling are needed. The government should offer rewards or use a car-
bon tax to incentivize the airlines to opt for RJF blends as it represents a
significant raise in the operating costs.
Being aware of environmental sustainability, some business plan-
ners are taking steps to adopt eco-friendly methods of production. How-
ever, most companies and energy departments wonder whether these
changes are worth doing and this is precisely why multifaceted analyses
are important. The combination of 3E analyses is a novel and
Fig. 1. Research framework of 3E analyses.
148
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
comprehensive assessment, a research gap still remains in RJF produc-
tion. This study considers large plant-scale production with a feedstock
recycled from local resources without considering international ship-
ment. The energetic and exergetic aspects were combined to form a
3E: energy-exergy, environmental and economical comprehensive
study. The notion of exergetic efficiency is more meaningful than ener-
getic efficiency as it provides useful information on the system's ineffi-
ciencies, energy degradation and thermodynamic losses. Indeed,
exergy is usually not conserved but consumed or destroyed. Exergy is
used in the results instead of energy as it describes the value of the
fuel for producing work. The research framework is showed in Fig. 1.
By simulating a plant producing biofuel from recycled cooking oil; the
objectives of this study are threefold: pinpointing the energy losses in
the process for further optimization, estimating the life cycle emission
savings of renewable fuel compared to conventional fuel and finding
an adequate carbon tax to reach similar minimum fuel selling prices.
Biofuels are crucial for carbon abatement in the transport sector, yet be-
cause of their higher cost; their adoption depends on incentives such as
carbon pricing. The literature counts too few studies depicting in a holis-
tic fashion the exergetic, environmental and economic aspects of biofuel
production from UCO; although related studies can be found for differ-
ent feedstocks. Precisely, the present work tends to fill this gap.
2. Methods
2.1. Process simulation
The simulation was conducted using the software ASPEN Plus® V10
(AspenTech, n.d.); the general schematic diagram of the process is dem-
onstrated in Fig. 3. As mentioned by Hsu et al. (2021), the conversion
from UCO to jet fuel can be done using a one-step (hydroconversion),
two-step (hydroprocessing + isomerization) or three-step (hydrolysis
+ hydroprocessing + isomerization) conversion process. The one-
step conversion process is more straightforward and the mass yield of
HRJ is maximized, therefore it is more advantageous than the two-
step process. The three-step process is more economically sound
owing to the high yield of byproducts (Hsu et al., 2021). In spite of
this, the two-step process is broadly used in the industry with leading
companies such as: Neste Oil and Honeywell-UOP (ecofining process)
making millions of liters of RJF each year. Hsu et al. argue that the
two-step process is preferred due to a more stable and diverse
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
distribution of the products. Since the two-step process is the most
common for commercial production, the biorefinery model presented
in this work is based on it although other processes could lead to better
economic performance. Because the present study was carried out
solely using a simulation, therefore the accuracy can become a concern.
Actually, when the suitable thermodynamic model is chosen in ASPEN
Plus, the results often come in close agreement with the measurements.
For instance, Basso et al. (2013) carried out an experimental study as
well as a simulation using the NRTL model to study the liquid-liquid
equilibrium of glycerol, ethanol and ethyl biodiesel related to biodiesel
production from macauba pulp oil. The results from the NRTL model
showed outstanding agreement with the experimental data with only
0.44 % deviation. Moreover, Puig-Gamero et al. (2021) used ASPEN
Plus to carry out a simulation of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluid-
ized bed reactor and compared the simulation results with their mea-
surements in the reactor; the hydrogen yield in the simulation was
only overpredicted by 4.4 %. In the present case study, the simulation re-
lies mostly on the non-random two-liquid model (NRTL). Indeed, it is
considered to be the best vapor-liquid equilibrium model; referring to
the work from Chu et al. (2017) and Tzanetis et al. (2017), which
pointed out that the NRTL model describes more accurately the vapor
liquid equilibrium (gas-liquid balance) of the non-ideal system. The
thermodynamic calculation is based on the activity coefficient property
method. The Redlich-Kwong equations are used to solve the gas phase;
the simulation parameters are listed in Table 2.
The feedstock chosen for this study consists in UCO which is col-
lected from edible oil wastes, being mostly vegetable oil blended with
small amounts of animal fat and greases. Because of the repeated frying
of food, even more free fatty acids are formed. Consequently, it is as-
sumed that the feedstock free fatty acid profile contains mostly C16
and C18. Among them there are around 8.8 % palmitic acid (C16:0),
around 4.2 % stearic acid (C18:0), about 45.2 % oleic acid (C18:1) and
about 39.7 % linoleic acid (C18:2) (Wang, 2019; Bautista et al., 2009).
The free fatty acids profile relates to the quality of the feedstock as it di-
rectly affects the products yield distribution (propane, jet fuel, diesel,
naphta and residues). Because jet fuel is made of alkanes of 8 to 16 car-
bon atoms per molecule, free fatty acids having slightly higher molecule
lengths are ideal feedstock. The free fatty acids undergo decarboxyl-
ation, decarbonylation and hydrodeoxygenation in the first reactor to
form straight-chain alkanes which are then sent to the second reactor
to undergo hydrocracking and isomerization. The oil mixture makes
Fig. 2. Two-step process reactions.
149
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
the refinery process difficult because it contains complex triglycerides.
Therefore, a pre-treatment unit is set prior to the reactor in order to pu-
rify the oil fluid. The pre-treatment step is mostly filtration and heating
where food matter and water are removed from the oil. Impurities can
be collected and sent to undergo anaerobic digestion for biogas genera-
tion; the resulting biogas could be used in the process for heating pur-
poses. After pre-treatment, UCO is pre-heated to 80 °C and pumped
into the reactor using a centrifugal pump with an efficiency estimated
at around 70 %. The pressure and temperature in the reactor are of
5.5 MPa and 643.15 K where UCO reacts with hydrogen through the
NiMo-γAl2O3 catalyst. Hydrogen is brought to a pressure of 6.21 MPa
by a centrifugal compressor (hydrogen supercharger) with an
isentropic efficiency assumed to be around 75 % and then fed to the
reactor. The simulation solves an approximate motion equation
instead of the isentropic compressor equations. To simulate the
reactors, the Rstoic and Ryield models were chosen because the
stoichiometry and yield were known while reaction kinetics were
unknown. Thus the material and heat balance are determined using
the chemical reaction equations. Chen and Wang (2019) reported the
H2-to-oil ratio to be of 750 or 950. Consequently, for the
hydroprocessing and hydrocracking of 300 tons of UCO per day, a hy-
drogen mass flow rate up to 420 kg/h is necessary. As schematized in
Fig. 2, the triglycerides are hydrogenated to saturate the double bonds
(hydrogenation of unsaturated glycerides). This means that more hy-
drogen is needed when the unsaturated fatty acid content is higher.
Then the glycerol backbone is separated from the triglycerides to obtain
1 mol of propane and 3 mol of free fatty acids for each mole of triglycer-
ides (hydrogenolysis). In the next step, oxygen is removed from the free
fatty acids in the form of CO (decarbonylation DCO), CO2
(decarboxylation DCO2) and H2O (hydrodeoxygenation HDO) to yield
straight-chain alkanes, water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
(Ameen et al., 2019) with a conversion efficiency of around 99.6 % (ac-
cording to Chang et al., 2021).
The liquid product is cooled down and brought to atmospheric pres-
sure before going through a gas-liquid separator. The gas is vented out
and the liquid phase is heated again and goes through a second centrif-
ugal pump (same characteristics as the first pump). It is then fed to the
next hydrocracking/isomerization reactor containing a NiAg-SAPO-11
catalyst, through which the component chains are broken and more iso-
mers are produced. The pressure and temperature in the reactor are of
5.52 MPa and 728.32 K. Next, the product is cooled through a condenser
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

Fig. 3. Process flow diagram for RJF production.

also acting as a separator where the gas phase exhausts through the gas
pipe at the top of the condenser and the liquid phase is sent to undergo
distillation. The gas phase is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, car-
bon monoxide and an amount of flammable gas (LPG or propane) ac-
counting for around 18 % of the final products. Some of the liquid
phase is water and is sent to the water treatment unit to be purified
and then fed to the condenser as a coolant. The water treatment consists
in filtering and cleaning the water with sodium hypochlorite and chlo-
rine powder in order to remove contaminants. The two distillation col-
umns in sequence separate the hydrocarbons into three different liquid
products classified based on the lengths of their carbon chains as fol-
lows: C5-C7 for the light oil, C8-C15 for the jet fuel, and C16-C18 for
the diesel. The first column separates the diesel range hydrocarbons
out of the product and the second column separates the jet fuel and ligh-
ter range hydrocarbons. The distillation curves are described by
Rademaker et al. (1975). The process is schematized in Fig. 3 with a
list of the components in Table 1; it has been thoroughly detailed in ear-
lier publications (Chen and Wang, 2019; Hsu et al., 2021; Lin et al.,
2020).
Table 1
Process components according to Chang et al. (2021).
Equipment Specifications
Feedstock heater Heater model, 643.15 K, 0.10 MPa.
Hydrogen Compr model, 6.21 MPa, isentropic using ASME method (75 %
compressor isentropic efficiency)
Pump-1 Pump model, 6.06 MPa, centrifugal pump (70 % efficiency)
Hydro-processing RStoic model, 643.15 K, 5.50 MPa, H2/oil ratio of 800
reactor
Product cooler-1 Heater model, temperature 333.15 K, 0.38 MPa,
counter-current.
Heater-2 Heater model, 723.15 K, 0.10 MPa.
Pump-2 Pump model, 5.58 MPa, centrifugal pump (70 % efficiency)
Hydro-cracking RYield model, 728.32 K, 5.52 MPa, H2/alkane ratio of 1000
reactor
Cooler-2 Heater model, 313.15 K, 5.52 MPa, counter-current.
Cooler-3 Heater model, 298.15 K with discharge pressure from
5.52 MPa to 0.10 MPa, counter-current.
Distillation-1 RadFrac model, reflux ratio 0.1, bottom rate 9523 (kg/h), total
stage 25 and feed stream in 12th stage.
Distillation-2 RadFrac model, reflux ratio 0.1, bottom rate 79,685 (kg/h),
total stage 20 and feed stream in 15th stage.
2.2. Energy/exergy and economics (thermoeconomic analysis)
Thermoeconomic (exergoeconomic) analysis is a combination of a
thermodynamic analysis with an economic analysis in order to strike a
compromise between thermodynamic performance and cost minimiza-
tion. The concept of economic cost is applied to exergy in order to ac-
count for system efficiency and energy dissipation. The aim of such
analysis is to minimize production costs by considering both capital
costs and exergy costs.
Thermodynamic parameters such as mass flow, heat flow, power
generation, thermal efficiency, heat transfer rate and fuel consumption
are considered. The exergy analysis is used to determine the amount
of available energy to do work and the amount of useless energy result-
ing from irreversibilities occurring in the system. Exergy is only con-
served for reversible processes and always destroyed when there is a
temperature change. Carneiro and Gomes (2019) divided into internal
and external components the factors influencing the exergy losses.
The friction energy and heat transfer were defined as internal factors
and the external factor represent the heat transfer from the system to
the surroundings. According to the second law of Thermodynamics,
the amount of exergy in a substance depends on the entropy relative
to the surroundings. The total exergy input is the sum of the total exergy
of the species entering EXi and the exergy associated to heat transfer:
Z  
To
EX in ¼ EX i þ 1 dQ ð1Þ
T
The dead state temperature is assumed for simplicity to be at To = 25
°C. One has to bear in mind that the accuracy of the exergy destruction
values calculated hereafter depends on the applicability of this
assumption. The total exergy output is the sum of the irreversible
work Wirrev and the total exergy EXj of the species exiting the subsystem.
EX out ¼ EX j þ W irrev ð2Þ
:
The total rate of exergy entering the system E X in is balanced by the
: :
total rate of exergy output E X out , the rate of exergy destruction E X des ,
:
the rate of exergy done by the work transfer W and the exergy rate of
:
heat loss E X heat . Hence, the exergy balance equations are expressed as
follows:

150
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

: : : : : Table 3
E X in  E X out þ E X heat þ W  E X des ¼ 0 ð3Þ Chemical exergy rates (MW) from feedstock to product.

Product Exergy rate Cost flow rate Exergy cost Cost

The internal irreversibilities are represented by the exergy destruc- (MW) ($/h) rate ($/GJ) ($/l)
tion (EXdes), correlated to the increase in entropy. The equipment Input
effectiveness can be expressed in terms of the second law of efficiency UCO (12.5 tons/h) 142.04 7808.33 15.27 0.50
(non-conservation of entropy); which relates the actual output to its Hydrogen (0.42 0.69 851.76 341.91 0.17
hypothetical performance under reversible conditions. Exergy tons/h)

efficiencies are more meaningful because they relate to the maximum Output
amount of work which can be produced. There is an alternative HRJ 81.15 5697.33 19.50 0.59
expression for the exergetic efficiency, involving exergy destruction HRD 12.33 993.11 22.37 0.87
Light oil 7.33 1708.119 64.74 2.32
according to Bandyopadhyay et al. (2019):
LPG 30.16 1680.35 15.47 0.41
Emissions 9.5

E_ out þ W _ net EX des

η¼  100% ¼ 1 − ð4Þ
_Ein E_ in

In correspondence with the exergy balance (Eq. (3)); a cost balance
equation can be written for the system as:
ΣC_ in − ΣC_ out − C_ w þ C_ q þ Z_ ¼ 0
there is work involved and also for the cooling units. If the potential
exergy and kinetic exergy are neglected, the total exergy is the sum of
the physical exergy (EXphys) and the chemical exergy (EXchem):
ð5Þ
EX tot ¼ EX phys þ EX chem ð8Þ

where C_ in and C_ out are the cost flow per unit exergy for the input and
output components ($/GJ). C_ w and C_ q represent the costs related to work
:
and heat consumption in the system and Z is referred to the sum of cap-
ital costs, operating and maintenance costs. In the case of a two-step
plant processing 300 tons of feedstock per day over 30 years; the oper-
ating and equipment costs can be estimated (in million USD) as 77.23
and 4.27 respectively (Hsu et al., 2021).
According to Tsatsaronis (1993), the average costs of fuel necessary
to produce the process energy is CF and the cost of the product is CP
(exergy cost rate). These are expressed as:
C_ F C_ P
CF ≡ ; CP ≡
E_ F E_ P
where the fuel and product cost rates are C_ F and C_ P ($/h). The exergy
rate (GJ/h) related to the input and output components are represented
by E_ F and E_ P . The exergy destruction during the process significantly af-
fects the thermoeconomic performance because the cost must be sup-
plied by the fuel. Hence, for each component of the process, the cost of
exergy destruction can be estimated as:
The physical exergy is the amount of work that could be obtained by
taking the substance from the specific state to the dead state by consec-
utive reversible processes. It can be expressed as:
EX phys ¼ ðH  H o Þ  T o ðS  So Þ ð9Þ
where H and Ho represent the enthalpy of the specific state and the dead
state. To = 25 °C and Po=1 atm are the dead state temperature and
pressure; S and So represent the entropy of the specific and dead
states. The values can be obtained from thermodynamic tables for a
given substance. The chemical exergy (EXchem) represents the
maximum amount of work that can be extracted from the thermal
energy liberated during the oxidation of the fuel and it is calculated
ð6Þ
based on the change in standard free-energy of formation for the spe-
cific chemical reaction. For hydrocarbon fuels, as stated by Szargut
et al. (1988), the specific chemical exergy can be approximated by the
correlation factor β in Table S1 and the lower heating value of the fuel
(LHV in MJ/kg) in Table S3. Thus, the chemical exergy of the substance
in the feedstock oil is approximated as:
EX chem ¼ β ∗ LHV ð10Þ

C_ D ¼ c F E_ D ð7Þ 2.3. Energy/exergy vs environment

The ecological efficiency ε is a performance indicator accounting for

where E_ D and cF represent the exergy destruction rate and the fuel cost
per unit exergy. This relies on the assumption of a fixed product exergy
rate and also that the unit cost of fuel remains independent of the
exergy destruction. The local cost of natural gas ($8.89/GJ) (CPC
Corporation and Taiwan, 2020) defines the equipment unit exergy
cost. Therefore, the fuel cost per unit exergy of the fuel (15 $/GJ) is
added to the unit exergy cost of the equipment for the units where
the emission of air pollutants in the system. This method was proposed
by Cardu and Baica (1999) for calculating the energy eco-efficiency of
thermal power plants. The initial purpose was to quantify the air pollu-
tion of coal thermal power plant flue gases. The energy-ecological indi-
cator encompasses ecological impact and efficiency in generating
electricity and heat. According to Wang et al. (2011), the ε value must
be between 0 and 100 %: where zero means maximum environmental
pollution, and 100 % means no environmental pollution. The ecological
efficiency is calculated as:

Table 2 0:5
Aspen settings according to Chang et al. (2021). ε ¼ ½0:204  η  ln ð135  PI Þ=ðη þ PIÞ ð11Þ

Property method, Base method, reference method NRTL-RK

Steam class CONVEN

where η is the 1st law thermal efficiency of the system and PI (kg/MJ) is
Component Conventional and solid the pollution indicator. The exponent 0.5 and coefficient 0.204 were
Component databank APV72 used by Cârdu and Baica (1999) based on fuel efficiency and calorific
Process type Common value; ε is proportional to the system's efficiency and inversely propor-
Binary Interaction parameter RKTKIJ-1, MLQKIJ-1…
tional to the pollution indicator.

151
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

Table 4
Physical exergy in each process unit.
: :
Equipment Mass flow rate (tons/h) E (MW) E (MW) Work (MW) Qheat (MW) ηexergy (%) Exdestruction (MW) Cost of exergy destruction ($/h)
in out

Feedstock heater 12.5 2.37 1.08 −2.39 45.57 1.29 41.28

Hydrogen compressor 0.42 2.89 1.79 1.76 62.08 1.09 97.01
Feedstock pump 12.5 1.14 1.26 0.05 99.26 0.01 0.89
Hydro-processing reactor 12.84 2.64 1.79 −1.45 67.89 0.85 27.2
Cooler-1 12.84 6.71 1.91 4.93 28.49 4.79 426.31
heater-2 11.30 4.93 1.72 −3.65 35.08 3.18 283.02
Pump-2 11.30 1.83 1.81 0.10 99.25 0.01 0.89
Hydro-cracking reactor 11.38 2.59 2.20 84.78 0.39 12.48
Cooler-2 11.38 6.55 2.29 4.36 35.03 4.26 379.14
Distillation-1 10.58 10.56 7.96 3.91 75.31 2.61 83.52
Distillation-2 9.74 9.58 6.17 2.02 64.47 3.54 113.28

SimaPro 9 with Ecoinvent 3.5 databank is utilized for calculating the

PI ¼ EmCO2 =LHV
where EmCO 2 represents the carbon dioxide emissions per kg of fuel
burnt (kg CO2/kg).
The environmental analysis plays a critical role in this study; the
GHG mitigation is calculated from feedstock to product use. The system
boundary of the analysis is shown in Fig. 4. The GHG emission from sta-
tionary combustion is estimated as follows:
EmGHG ¼ Fuel comsuption  Emission factorGHG
where EmGHG is the emission of a certain GHG for a type of fuel (kg
GHG); the fuel consumption is the amount of fuel combusted (TJ). The
Emission factorGHG (kg gas/TJ) is representative of the emissions from
each GHG gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) for a type of fuel and can be
obtained from the IPCC guidelines (Eggleston et al., 2006). The total
emissions can be expressed as follows:
ΣEmGHG ¼ ΣðCO2 þ 25CH 4 þ 298N 2 OÞEmissions
Accordingly, the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide
is defined here as 1, 25 for CH4 and 298 for N2O (IPCC, n.d.). The GWP is
the relative ability of a gas to absorb heat compared to carbon dioxide
thus giving an index to quantify the climate effects of different gases.
After having estimated the total carbon dioxide emissions of the system
using the emission factor; the CO2 penalty enters into play to combine
the environmental and economic aspects. From the work of
Shekarchian et al. (2013), the emission penalty can be evaluated as:
EP CO2 ¼ ΣEC  EF CO2  PC CO2 e
where EPCO 2 is the annual total emission penalty (US$/year); EC is the
overall energy consumption (GJ/year) of the equipment for the system
and EFCO 2 is the emission factor (kg/GJ) according to the IPCC database
(Eggleston et al., 2006). PCCO 2e is the penalty for carbon dioxide
emissions (US$/kg), which was set as 0.09 (US$/kg) by Sanaye and
Shirazi (2013). Materials and energy input represent the major part of
the emissions occurring during the process as shown in Fig. 4.
Emissions related to the electricity consumption for heating, cooling
and pressurization are calculated in the Aspen Plus process simulation
knowing the CO2 factor of the electricity consumption. In addition, the
Table 5
Ecological efficiency of the process units.
Equipment η% ecological efficiency
Feedstock heater 45.57 63.06 %
Hydro-processing reactor 67.89 70.41 %
Heater-2 35.08 58.05 %
Hydro-cracking reactor 84.78 74.24 %
Distillation-1 75.31 72.23 %
Distillation-2 64.47 69.49 %
ð12Þ emission data for hydrogen and catalyst consumption.
2.4. Energy/exergy vs environment vs economics
Sustainability is about using economic growth for building a fairer
society while preserving the ecosystems and the natural resources. Sus-
tainable development takes into consideration societal, environmental
and economic aspects. To narrow down to the alternative fuel industry,
ð13Þ sustainability occurs when the renewable fuel offers significant emis-
sion reductions compared to fossil fuels at a competitive price so the
technology can be globally adopted. Therefore, the exergy, environment
and economic related aspects must merge for producing an efficient,
ecofriendly, cheap fuel. For instance, the European Union defined the
Renewable Energy Directive (RED) specifying that biofuels should
bring GHG emissions savings compared to fossil fuels to at least 35 %
in order to be considered sustainable. Unfortunately, alternative renew-
able fuels are more expensive than petroleum-based fuels and this is
ð14Þ precisely where the carbon tax can even the playing field. It is assumed
that setting a carbon pricing is the most efficient political incentive for
emission reduction. However, according to the IPCC, the carbon tax
alone is insufficient to keep global warming below 2 °C and should be
part of a broader portfolio of policies. Economically speaking, a carbon
tax is the most straightforward route. Sadly, the current level of carbon
pricing is still insufficient in terms of coverage and price to trigger the
changes needed around the world to achieve carbon neutrality. Actu-
ally, only 22 % of the global GHG emissions are subject to carbon pricing
and half of those are under a tax lower than 10$USD/ton of CO2e
ð15Þ (O'Mahony, 2020). To meet the Paris agreement global emissions
targets, the minimum carbon tax should globally lie between 50$USD
to 100$USD/ton CO2e by 2030 (O'Mahony, 2020).
In order to create a synergy between emission reductions, carbon
penalties and minimum fuel selling price, the minimum price corre-
 
sponding to a given carbon tax PC CO2 e USDkg
can be calculated as:
   
USD kg
MFSPðPCCO e Þ ¼ PC CO2 e  EmGHG þ MFSP ð0Þ ð16Þ
2 l l
where MFSP(0) is the minimum fuel  selling
 price of the given fuel in the
absence of a carbon tax and EmGHG kgl represent the CO2 equivalent
emissions per liter of the given fuel.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Energy/exergy vs economics (thermoeconomic analysis)
The purpose of the exergy analysis is to determine the portion of en-
ergy available to be converted into work; this includes chemical exergy
and physical exergy. As shown in Table 3, the chemical exergy rate for
UCO at the input is of about 142 MW. At the end of the process, the

152
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157

Table 6
Carbon emissions along the HRJ supply chain.

Items Value Carbon emissions factor Carbon emissions (tons CO2 e/TJ)

Transportation
Diesel trucking (km) 150 0.65 (kg CO2/tkm) 4.469
Pre-treatment
Pre-heating (kW) 582.48 0.69 (kg CO2/MJ) 1.473
Hydro-conversion
Hydro-processing (kW) 7422.20 0.69 (kg CO2/MJ) 18.771
Hydro-cracking/isomerization (kW) 9230.40 0.69 (kg CO2/MJ) 23.344
Distillation
Distillation column: reboiler and cooler (kW) 11,341.60. 0.69 (kg CO2/MJ) 28.683
Input materials
Hydrogen (kg/h) 420 6.97 (kg CO2/kg) 10.733
Catalyst (kg/year) 25,000 Appendix S2 0.081
Total 87.554
End use
HRJ (kg/h) 7753.60 0.0715 (kg CO2/MJ) 72.109
HRD (kg/h) 948.00 0.0741 (kg CO2/MJ) 11.457
LPG (kg/h) 2090.34 0.0561 (kg CO2/MJ) 20.591
Light oil (kg/h) 545.91 0.0733 (kg CO2/MJ) 6.623
Petro-jet kerosene 71.5 (IPCC 2006)
Total 110.809

sum of all output exergy rate is about 140.5 MW. This shows that the
exergy of the input substance is almost preserved; although the exergy
within the emissions can hardly be recovered. Consequently, the con-
version efficiency from UCO to fuel products is of around 92 %. The dis-
tribution of the chemical exergy rate of the products is shown in Fig. 5.
Obviously, HRJ accounts for the major part followed by a significant frac-
tion of LPG. Table 4 displays the physical exergy flow: the lowest exergy
efficiency occurs in heaters and condensers as they have the highest
exergy destructions; followed by the distillation units consisting in a
boiling tower and a condensation tower. The exergy efficiency of the
heat exchanger (heater and cooler) is less than 40 % and the exergy de-
struction is about 3–4 MW precisely because heat conversion results in
exergy destruction. The exergy efficiency of both pumps reaches 99 %
considering the pump's energy consumption loss. Table 3 shows the re-
sults of the thermoeconomic analysis: the minimum fuel selling price of
RJF is thus 0.59$/l. This result lies on several assumptions in terms of
capital and operating costs and in terms of the unit cost of exergy. It is
important to mention that there is a tradeoff between equipment
costs and exergy efficiency as optimized units would be more expensive
and at the same time lead to less exergy destruction. Those results are
promising as the price estimation is close to the minimum fuel selling
price of petroleum-based fuel. However, it is important to mention
that the minimum fuel selling price concluded in the present study is
lower than in most of the literature. For instance, Pavlenko et al.
(2019) concluded in minimum fuel selling prices close to 1 USD/l. This
is firstly because the capital costs they reported were between 248
million to 1 billion USD for a plant processing 1000 tons of feedstock
per day while in the present work it was only estimated at 77 million
USD for 300 tons per day. In Europe however, the price of waste cooking
oil in 2020 was traded as high as 870 USD/ton. As a matter of facts, be-
fore biofuel production became significant, restaurant owners and in-
dustrials had to pay for the collection and disposal of oil wastes. With
the growth of the biofuel market, UCO has become a much valuable
commodity.
To summarize, significant exergy destruction occurs in the heat ex-
changers and because the exergy destruction is to be compensated by
more fuel consumption: therefore, heat integration or heat recovery
and improved design are important for lowering the costs. The mini-
mum fuel selling price of the RJF is here estimated as 0.59$/l.
3.2. Energy/exergy vs environment
After having established the mass-energy balance through the
exergy analysis, the carbon emissions in the process can be estimated
knowing the mass flow rate and heating value. Table 6 summarizes all
the carbon emissions involved in the entire HRJ supply chain. The sys-
tem boundary shown in Fig. 4 encompasses five distinct units for envi-
ronmental inventory: transportation, pre-treatment, hydro-conversion,
distillation and end-use. Taking into consideration the distance between
the processing plant and local vendors which would range from 50 to
200 km; the emissions of transportation were estimated for a trucking
distance of 150 km. Pre-treatment consists in filtering out impurities

Fig. 4. Process flow diagram, system boundary.

153
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
Fig. 5. Distribution of chemical exergy rates from feedstock to product.
and pre-heating the UCO which consumes relatively low energy and
therefore the related total carbon emissions are low. The hydro-
conversion and distillation units consumed 16.65 and 11.34 MW of
power to yield the final products, which represents emissions of 42.11
and 28.68 tons of carbon dioxide for every TJ of HRJ. The hydrogen is
the principal material consumed in both reaction processes; according
to the Ecoinvent 3.5 databank, every kg of hydrogen supplied in the re-
action is correlated with 6.97 kg of carbon dioxide emitted during its
production. Timmerberg et al. (2020) reported life cycle GHG emissions
of 6.1 kg CO2/kg of hydrogen produced. Thus, the emission factor chosen
in the present work is more conservative. In the meantime, this
represents a total in carbon emissions of 10.73 tons necessary for each
TJ obtained when combusting the HRJ. On the other hand, if hydrogen
is extracted via electrolysis from solar or wind power, the carbon foot-
print could be then significantly reduced. Indeed, green hydrogen pro-
duction is key for decarbonization of the transport sector. In addition,
the carbon footprint of the local electricity mix also influences the pro-
cess emissions and so countries with greener electricity could achieve
even more GHG savings from HRJ use. The catalyst used in this process
is mainly composed of molecular sieves, specific metals and acids. The
related carbon emissions are calculated taking into account the fraction
of each compound and the results are detailed in Table S2. The results in
Table 3 show that the distillation unit and the hydro-conversion units
are responsible for most of the process emissions due to the significant
exergy destruction occurring. In terms of ecological efficiency, Table 5
shows that the units were there is predominantly heat exchange per-
form the poorest. This means that heat recovery in the distillation
units and reactor, heat integration, better design of the heat exchangers
could all increase the ecological efficiency and reduce the process costs
by reducing the exergy destruction.
In summary, the total process emissions are estimated to reach 87.55
tons CO2 e/TJ which is very high compared to the well-to-pump emis-
sions of petroleum jet fuel (around 14 tons CO2 e/TJ (Rademaker et al.,
1975)). The hydro-conversion and other units with prominent heat ex-
change are mainly responsible for the high emissions. Supply chain
emissions could be significantly lowered if green hydrogen is used and
also if the exergy destruction is reduced through implementation of
heat integration or heat recovery.
3.3. Environment vs economics
Fig. 6 shows the carbon emissions of all processes, of the by-products
and HRJ when burnt. The by-products represent 38.70 tons CO2 e/TJ of
carbon dioxide emissions and the HRJ which is the main product ac-
counts for 72.11 tons CO2 e/TJ. The LPG (propane) can be used in the
process as combustible for the heating source and for this reason: its
emissions (20.59 tons CO2 e/TJ) can be subtracted to the overall
process emissions. The only real concern is the life cycle carbon
emissions (well-to-wake emissions) and the costs owing to the
process. When considering cooking oil (vegetable oil) production, the
154
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
Fig. 6. Carbon dioxide emissions of each process unit in the HRJ supply chain.
main emission sources are the diesel fuel for agriculture machinery,
nitrogen fertilizers, oil mill and refinery. As mentioned by Khanali
et al. (2021) optimization of fossil fuel and chemical fertilizer use is
critical in order to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture.
For instance, Saber et al. (2020) included in their impact study for rice
cultivation the heavy metals leaking into the soil owing to fertilizer
and pesticide use. According to Alcock et al. (n.d.), for each kg of
packaged sunflower oil, the total amount of GHG emissions ranges
from 1.08 to 4.19 kg CO2e (25 to 105 CO2e/MJ); this when omitting
land-use change. The lower emission range results from cold pressing,
reduced need for irrigation, limited use of fertilizer and fuel. They men-
tioned that 62 % of the emissions occur during the cultivation.
Engelmann et al. (n.d.) analyzed the life cycle of rapeseed oil production
and concluded a range from 28.0 to 46.3 g CO2 e/MJ where emissions are
highly dependent on site and production conditions. As a result, the
carbon footprint of the cooking oil before being processed can be
gCO2 e
assumed to be about EmðoilÞprocess ¼ 37 MJ . The carbon emissions of
UCO when incinerated as general waste would produce 128.69 tons of
carbon dioxide for every TJ of heat generated: EmðUCOÞincineration ¼ 129
gCO2 e
MJ . It is generally admitted that the amount of carbon emitted during
combustion of the oil is equal to the amount sequestered by the crop to
make the oil; which makes it a renewable resource. Therefore, there is a
carbon credit equal to the difference between the emissions resulting
from incineration and oil manufacturing. For this reason, when the oil
is recycled and reused instead of simply being burnt as waste, the actual
life cycle emissions of the resulting HRJ can be seen as the sum of the
process emissions and the fuel use minus the hypothetical incineration
emissions:
EmðHRJÞ ¼ EmðHRJÞuse þ EmðHRJÞprocess þ EmðoilÞprocess  EmðUCOÞincineration ð17Þ
The GHG emissions from the process and fuel use are determined
from Table 6. The emission reduction when comparing to conventional
fuel is calculated according to:
EmðpetroÞ  EmðHRJ Þ
EmðsavingsÞ ¼ ð18Þ
EmðpetroÞ
Petroleum jet fuel life cycle emissions Em(petro) are about 87 g CO2 e/
MJ (De Jong et al., 2017). If one neglects the oil manufacturing emissions
Em(oil) process → 0 and considers UCO as a readily available resource then
the life cycle emissions are EmðHRJ Þ ¼ 0:58 kgCO
l
2e
and the GHG savings
compared to fossil fuel are Em(savings) = 81%. If one considers the
manufacturing of vegetable oil in the carbon footprint of UCO then the
life cycle emissions are EmðHRJÞ ¼ 1:76 kgCO
l
2e
and the GHG savings com-
pared to fossil jet fuel are Em(savings) = 41%. The latter approach is
mostly used for biodiesel sustainability assessments where the crops
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
are used for fuel and not for food. In conclusion, according to the RED, veg-
etable oil might barely be a sustainable feedstock while UCO is an out-
standingly sustainable one. De Jong et al. (2017) reported that using RJF
from UCO instead of petroleum jet fuel on a life cycle basis (well-to-
wake) could save around 68 % of CO2 emissions. The present results can
be averaged to Em(savings) = 61% in a more conservative fashion.
To summarize, hydroprocessing of cooking oil wastes is very emission
intensive when compared to conventional crude oil refining; although
using green hydrogen and a greener electricity mix could significantly
lower the emissions. Also, LPG which is a by-product, can be used to
fuel the heaters and thus saving a bit less than a quarter of the process
emissions. Moreover, food particles filtered out in the pre-treatment
step could be collected and digested to produce biogas which in turn
could also be used to fuel the heaters. Most importantly, because vegeta-
ble oil wastes are recycled instead of being burnt in a waste treatment
plant: there is a carbon credit equal to the emissions that would release
the combustion of the used vegetable oil. The carbon footprint of the
cooking oil itself can also be taken into account to provide a more conser-
vative approach. Finally, HRJ can lead to at least 41 % GHG savings.
3.4. Energy/exergy vs environment vs economics
Waste cooking oil is transformed into RJF undergoing a two-step
conversion process (hydroprocessing and hydrocracking) as detailed
by Hsu et al. (2021). Supposing that there is an efficient waste cooking
oil recycling system supplying for a plant processing 300 tons of feed-
stock per day; the equipment costs (facility life of 30 years) and operat-
ing costs would be approximately 77 million USD and 4.3 million USD
per year respectively. Consequently, the minimum fuel selling price
would be of approximately $0.59/l of HRJ while conventional petroleum
jet fuel prices are around 0.5$/l. Substituting conventional jet fuel with
the UCO RJF saves 41 % to 81 % of CO2 emissions. HRJ based on recycled
cooking oil is not only the most sustainable fuel available; it is also one
of the cheapest alternative jet fuels. Conventional jet fuel can be blended
with alternative jet fuel at any ratio from 80:20 to 50:50 without requir-
ing engine modifications. According to the data reported by China
Airlines (https://calec.china-airlines.com/csr/en/environment/green.
html, 2022), which is the leading airline company in Taiwan, its yearly
consumption of jet fuel goes beyond 2 million tons. While consequently,
one plant processing 300 tons of UCO per day can only provide a contin-
uous blending rate of around 3 %. Nevertheless, dozens of similar plants
could be built across Taiwan since ideally 6 to 8 million tons of UCO
could be locally available yearly (Chen and Wang, 2019). In this case, a
continuous blending rate with petroleum jet fuel of 50 % is possible.
The extra cost from blending HRJ should be financed by the government
as a subvention in the form of a carbon tax/reward. As shown in Fig. 7,
Fig. 7. Minimum fuel selling price evolution with the applied carbon tax.
155
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
by applying a carbon tax on both the RJF and the petroleum jet fuel
based on their respective emissions, the minimum fuel selling prices be-
come equal at carbon prices of $75/tCO2 and $37/tCO2 when
considering the life cycle emissions with and without cooking oil
manufacturing. Besides, a tax amount of 75$/ton of carbon dioxide
emissions is in line with the literature (O'Mahony, 2020). In
conclusion, an adequate carbon tax can give the incentive to invest in
RJF production.
In summary, UCO is the most sustainable feedstock to produce RJF
because it provides significant emission reductions at a competitive
cost. Indeed, according to the present results, when a carbon tax
above $37/tCO2 is implemented on all fuels, the price per liter of
renewable fuel matches that of petroleum-based fuel.
4. Conclusion
To lower the carbon footprint of the aviation sector, conventional jet
fuel can be blended with biofuel produced from different feedstock. Not
all the biofuels offer significant life cycle emissions reductions and it is
very challenging to offer fuel prices close to conventional petroleum
jet fuel. Moreover, crops-based feedstocks bring societal and ethical
considerations. Sustainability can only be achieved when respect of
the environment coincides with economic feasibility and societal
acceptance. The present work describes a combined thermoeconomic
analysis and an environmental analysis on a plant producing
hydroprocessed jet fuel from UCO. The plant processes 300 tons of
UCO per day which could continuously supply the main local airline
company at a blend rate of more than 3 %. The investment cost neces-
sary for building such a plant was estimated at 77 million USD. Dozens
of similar plants could be operated across Taiwan to increase the blend-
ing rate significantly. Waste cooking oil is the most sustainable feed-
stock available as it does not compete with the food market and has
low life cycle carbon emissions. When considering the UCO as an avail-
able resource, the emission reductions compared to fossil fuel is of
around 80 %. However, straight conversion of vegetable oil into fuel
(crops to fuel) is difficult to justify as the emission reduction compared
to fossil fuel is then only around 40 %. The exergy analysis shows that
the conversion process is emission intensive because of the significant
amount of exergy destruction occurring in the heat exchanging units.
The monetary costs and emission costs of the exergy destruction are sig-
nificant and fully justify optimization studies or cogeneration scenarios.
Indeed, the heaters, coolers and distillation units have a tremendous
cost of exergy destruction and the distillation columns account for the
biggest share of the process emissions. There is room for improvement
in terms of heat recovery or integration. Because the conversion process
relies on hydrogen, it is important to keep the carbon footprint of the
hydrogen production to a minimum. Hydrogen produced from electrol-
ysis using surplus wind and solar power would be ideal. The results
show that when an effective and inexpensive oil recovery system is in
place, the minimum renewable fuel selling price of around 0.6 USD/l is
close to that of petroleum jet fuel which is around 0.5 USD/l. Moreover,
when applying an adequate carbon tax, the prices become equal thus
creating the incentive for RJF use. While the technology is ready, global
carbon taxes amount above 50 USD/ton can trigger the changes and in-
vestments needed to meet the global warming mitigation objectives.
The last obstacle remaining is the implementation of an inexpensive
and effective low carbon cooking oil wastes collection system that can
continuously supply enough feedstock. Indeed, only a well-established
circular economy where wastes hold value as a feedstock can ensure
continuous and smooth operation of UCO derived RJF manufacturing
plants. Transition to a circular economy is a key milestone to achieve cli-
mate neutrality and carbon pricing policies can motivate that transition.
The present work concluded that a blending rate of 50 % of the fuel con-
sumed by the leading local airline company can be achieved with locally
produced UCO derived RJF. The resulting incurring fuel costs increase of
about 9 % (50:50 petro-jet and RJF mixture) at the expense of the airline
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
company and the massive investments in processing plants at the ex-
pense of the stakeholders (beyond 1 billion USD) can only be justified
by government policies. The carbon footprint of the aviation sector
could be even reduced further if the CO2 released in the RJF manufactur-
ing process is captured and stored although this would require addi-
tional investment and operating costs.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technol-
ogy of Taiwan, through the grant 108-2221-E-006-220-MY3.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.026.
References
Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), Facts and Figures. Available https://www.atag.org/
facts-figures.html.
Ameen, M., Azizan, M.T., Ramli, A., Yusup, S., Alnarabiji, M.S., 2019. Catalytic
hydrodeoxygenation of rubber seed oil over sonochemically synthesized ni-Mo/γ-
Al2O3 catalyst for green diesel production. Ultrason. Sonochem. 51, 90–102.
Apostolakou, A., Kookos, I., Marazioti, C., Angelopoulos, K., 2009. Techno-economic analy-
sis of a biodiesel production process from vegetable oils. Fuel Process. Technol. 90
(7–8), 1023–1031.
AspenTech n.d. "ASPEN PLUS," ed. Boston, MA, USA.
Bandyopadhyay, R., Alkilde, O.F., Upadhyayula, S., 2019. Applying pinch and exergy anal-
ysis for energy efficient design of diesel hydrotreating unit. J. Clean. Prod. 232,
337–349.
Baral, N.R., Kavvada, O., Mendez-Perez, D., Mukhopadhyay, A., Lee, T.S., Simmons, B.A.,
Scown, C.D., 2019. Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle greenhouse gas mitiga-
tion cost of five routes to bio-jet fuel blendstocks. Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (3),
807–824.
Basso, Rodrigo Corrêa, da Silva, César Augusto Sodré, de Oliveira Sousa, Camila, de
Almeida Meirelles, Antonio José, Batista, Eduardo Augusto Caldas, 2013. LLE experi-
mental data, thermodynamic modeling and sensitivity analysis in the ethyl biodiesel
from macauba pulp oil settling step. Bioresource Technology 131, 468–475 ISSN
0960-8524.
Bautista, L.F., Vicente, G., Rodriguez, R., Pacheco, M., 2009. Optimisation of FAME produc-
tion from waste cooking oil for biodiesel use. Biomass Bioenergy 33 (5), 862–872.
Cardu, M., Baica, M., 1999. Regarding a global methodology to estimate the energy–
ecologic efficiency of thermopower plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 40 (1), 71–87.
Cârdu, M., Baica, M., 1999. Regarding a new variant methodology to estimate globally the
ecologic impact of thermopower plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 40 (14), 1569–1575.
Carneiro, M.L.N., Gomes, M.S.P., 2019. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic anal-
ysis of hybrid waste-to-energy plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 179, 397–417.
Carter, N., Stratton, R., Bredehoeft, M., Hileman, J., 2011. Energy and environmental viabil-
ity of select alternative jet fuel pathways. 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference & Exhibit, p. 5968.
Chang, Yu-Hsuan, Hsu, Hsin-Wei, Wang, Wei-Cheng, 2021. Exergy analysis of renewable
jet fuel production through hydro-conversion of glyceride-based oil. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 182, 115934.
Chen, Rui-Xin, Wang, Wei-Cheng, 2019. The production of renewable aviation fuel from
waste cooking oil. Part 1: bio-alkane conversion through hydro-processing of oil.
Renew. Energy 135, 819–835.
Chu, P.L., Vanderghem, C., MacLean, H.L., Saville, B.A., 2017. Process modeling of
hydrodeoxygenation to produce renewable jet fuel and other hydrocarbon fuels.
Fuel 196, 298–305.
CPC Corporation and Taiwan, 2020. Price of Natural Gas. Available. https://www.cpc.com.
tw/cp.aspx?n=57.
De Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Faaij, A., Slade, R., Mawhood, R., Junginger, M., 2015. The feasi-
bility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels–a comprehensive
techno-economic comparison. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 9 (6), 778–800.
De Jong, S., Antonissen, K., Hoefnagels, R., Lonza, L., Wang, M., Faaij, A., Junginger, M.,
2017. Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel pro-
duction. Biotechnology for biofuels 10 (1), 64.
Domenichini, R., Gallio, M., Lazzaretto, A., 2010. Combined production of hydrogen and
power from heavy oil gasification: pinch analysis, thermodynamic and economic
evaluations. Energy 35 (5), 2184–2193.
Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., 2006. IPCC Guidelines for Na-
tional Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2 Energy.
156
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Wang, M., Carter, N., Stratton, R., Hileman, J., Malwitz, A.,
Balasubramanian, S., 2012. Life-cycle Analysis of Alternative Aviation Fuels in
GREET. Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States) https://doi.org/10.
2172/1255237.
Gutiérrez-Antonio, C., Gómez-Castro, F., de Lira-Flores, J., Hernández, S., 2017. A review on
the production processes of renewable jet fuel. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79, 709–729.
Hsu, Hsin-Wei, Chang, Yu-Hsuan, Wang, Wei-Cheng, 2021. Techno-economic analysis of
used cooking oil to jet fuel production under uncertainty through three-, two-, and
one-step conversion processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 289, 125778.
https://calec.china-airlines.com/csr/en/environment/green.html accessed june 2022.
Ifaei, P., Safder, U., Yoo, C., 2019. Multi-scale smart management of integrated energy sys-
tems, part 1: energy, economic, environmental, exergy, risk (4ER) and water-exergy
nexus analyses. Energy Convers. Manag. 197, 111851.
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2, Energy,
Chapter 3: Mobile Combustion.
IPCC, “Global warming potential (GWP),” in “Greenhouse gases, aerosols and their radia-
tive forcing,” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Available: https://www.ghgprotocol.
org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%
202016%29_1.pdf.
K. Engelmann D. Dressler L. Strimitzer K. Thuneke E. Remmele “Life cycle assessment of
rapeseed oil as self-sufficient agricultural biofuel - results of case studies from Ba-
varia” n.d., 22nd European Biomass Conference and Exhibition
Khanali, Majid, Akram, Asadollah, Behzadi, Javad, Mostashari-Rad, Fatemeh, Saber, Zahra,
Chau, Kwok-wing, Nabavi-Pelesaraei, Ashkan, 2021. Multi-objective optimization of
energy use and environmental emissions for walnut production using imperialist
competitive algorithm. Appl. Energy 284, 116342.
Klein, B.C., Chagas, M.F., Junqueira, T.L., Rezende, M.C.A.F., de Fátima Cardoso, T., Cavalett,
O., Bonomi, A., 2018. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of renewable
jet fuel production in integrated brazilian sugarcane biorefineries. Appl. Energy 209,
290–305.
Lin, Cheng-Han, Chen, Yu-Kai, Wang, Wei-Cheng, 2020. The production of bio-jet fuel
from palm oil derived alkanes. Fuel 260, 116345.
Martinez-Hernandez, E., Sadhukhan, J., Campbell, G.M., 2013. Integration of bioethanol as
an in-process material in biorefineries using mass pinch analysis. Appl. Energy 104,
517–526.
Modarresi, A., Kravanja, P., Friedl, A., 2012. Pinch and exergy analysis of lignocellulosic
ethanol, biomethane, heat and power production from straw. Appl. Therm. Eng. 43,
20–28.
O'Mahony, Tadhg, 2020. State of the art in carbon taxes: a review of the global conclu-
sions[J]. Green Finan. 2 (4), 409–423.
Pavlenko, Nikita, Searle, Stephanie, Christensen, Adam, 2019. The Cost of Supporting Al-
ternative Jet Fuels in the European Union. THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION.
Puig-Gamero, M., Pio, D.T., Tarelho, L.A.C., Sánchez, P., Sanchez-Silva, L., 2021. Simulation
of biomass gasification in bubbling fluidized bed reactor using aspen plus®. Energy
Conversion and Management 235, 113981 ISSN 0196–8904.
Rademaker, O., Rijnsdorp, J.E., Maarleveld, A., 1975. Dynamics and Control of Continuous
Distillation Units. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam ISBN 0-444-
41234-4.
Rathore, V., Newalkar, B.L., Badoni, R., 2016. Processing of vegetable oil for biofuel produc-
tion through conventional and non-conventional routes. Energy Sustain. Dev. 31,
24–49.
Reimer, J.J., Zheng, X., 2017. Economic analysis of an aviation bioenergy supply chain.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 77, 945–954.
Saber, Zahra, Esmaeili, Mohammadali, Pirdashti, Hemmatollah, Motevali, Ali, Nabavi-
Pelesaraei, Ashkan, 2020. Exergoenvironmental-life cycle cost analysis for conven-
tional, low external input and organic systems of rice paddy production. J. Clean.
Prod. 263, 121529.
Saidur, R., Sattar, M., Masjuki, H.H., Ahmed, S., Hashim, U., 2007. An estimation of the en-
ergy and exergy efficiencies for the energy resources consumption in the transporta-
tion sector in Malaysia. Energy Policy 35 (8), 4018–4026.
Sanaye, S., Shirazi, A., 2013. Four E analysis and multi-objective optimization of an ice
thermal energy storage for air-conditioning applications. Int. J. Refrig. 36 (3),
828–841.
Seber, G., Malina, R., Pearlson, M.N., Olcay, H., Hileman, J.I., Barrett, S.R., 2014. Environ-
mental and economic assessment of producing hydroprocessed jet and diesel fuel
from waste oils and tallow. Biomass Bioenergy 67, 108–118.
Shekarchian, M., Zarifi, F., Moghavvemi, M., Motasemi, F., Mahlia, T., 2013. Energy, exergy,
environmental and economic analysis of industrial fired heaters based on heat recov-
ery and preheating techniques. Energy Convers. Manag. 71, 51–61.
Stratton, R.W., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Non-CO₂
Combustion Effects From Alternative Jet Fuels. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/59694.
Szargut, J., Morris, D.R., Steward, F.R., 1988. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and met-
allurgical processes. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York 10: 0891165746.
Talens, L., Villalba, G., Gabarrell, X., 2007. Exergy analysis applied to biodiesel production.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51 (2), 397–407.
Thomas D. Alcock, David E. Salt, Stephen J. Ramsden n.d. “A harmonised systems-wide re-
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from sunflower oil production”, bioRxiv
2020.06.19.161893; doi:10.1101/2020.06.19.161893
Timmerberg, Sebastian, Kaltschmitt, Martin, Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2020. Hydrogen and
hydrogen-derived fuels through methane decomposition of natural gas – GHG emis-
sions and costs. Energy Convers. Manag. X 7, 100043.
Tsatsaronis, G., 1993. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems.
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 19 (3), 227–257.
H.-W. Hsu, E. Binyet, Y.-H. Chang et al.
Tzanetis, K.F., Posada, J.A., Ramirez, A., 2017. Analysis of biomass hydrothermal liquefac-
tion and biocrude-oil upgrading for renewable jet fuel production: the impact of re-
action conditions on production costs and GHG emissions performance. Renew.
Energy 113, 1388–1398.
Wang, W.-C., 2019. Techno-economic analysis for evaluating the potential feedstocks for
producing hydro-processed renewable jet fuel in Taiwan. Energy 179, 771–783.
157
Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022) 146–157
Wang, Z., Calderon, M.M., Lu, Y., 2011. Lifecycle assessment of the economic, environmen-
tal and energy performance of Jatropha curcas L. Biodiesel in China. Biomass
Bioenergy 35 (7), 2893–2902.
Zhang, C., Hui, X., Lin, Y., Sung, C.-J., 2016. Recent development in studies of alternative jet
fuel combustion: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 54,
120–138.