Evaluation of Environmental Sustainability of Biorefinery and Incineration with Energy Recovery Based on Life Cycle Assessment

Based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and ISO standards, we compared the global environmental sustainability (ES) of two technologies that process the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) in Mexico. The first technology was a biorefinery (BRF) known as HMEZSNN-BRF (abbreviation for Hydrogen-Methane-Extraction-Enzyme-Saccharification/Nanoproduction Biorefinery); it produces the gas biofuels hydrogen (H) and methane (M), organic acids (E), enzymes (Z), saccharified liquors (S), and bionanobioparticles (BNBPs) in a nanoproduction stage (NN). The second technology was incineration with energy recovery (IER). An LCA was performed with a functional unit (FU) of 1000 kg of OFMSW. The BRF generates 166.4 kWh/FU (600 MJ) of net electricity, along with bioproducts such as volatile organic acids (38 kg), industrial enzyme solution (1087 kg), and BNBPs (40 kg). The IER only produces 393 net kWh/FU electricity and 5653 MJ/FU heat. The characterization potential environmental impacts (PEIs) were assessed using SimaPro software, and normalized PEIs (NPEIs) were calculated accordingly. We defined a new variable alpha and the indices σ-τ plane for quantifying the ES. The higher the alpha, the lower the ES. Alpha was the sum of the eighteen NPEIs aligned with the ISO standards. The contributions to PEI and NPEI were also analyzed. Four NPEIs were the highest in both technologies, i.e., freshwater and marine ecotoxicities and human non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicities. For the three first categories, the NPEI values corresponding to IER were much higher than those of the BRF (58.6 and 8.7 person*year/FU freshwater toxicity; 93.5 and 13.6 marine ecotoxicity; 12.1 and 1.8 human non-carcinogenic toxicity; 13.7 and 13.9 human carcinogenic toxicity, for IER and the BRF, respectively). The total α values were 179.1 and 40.7 (person*yr)/FU for IER and the BRF, respectively. Thus, the ES of IER was four times lower than that of the BRF. Values of σ = 0.592 and τ = −0.368 were found; the point defined by these coordinates in the σ-τ plane was located in Quadrant IV. This result confirmed that the BRF in this work is more environmentally sustainable (with restrictions) than the IER in Mexico for the treatment of the OFMSW.