energies

Article
Life-Cycle Assessment of Bio-Jet Fuel Production from Waste
Cooking Oil via Hydroconversion
Zongwei Zhang 1, * , Keheng Wei 2 , Junqi Li 2 and Zihan Wang 2

1 College of Aeronautical Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
2 Transportation Science and Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China
* Correspondence: zhv116@163.com

Abstract: A life-cycle assessment of bio-jet fuel from waste cooking oil (WCO) produced by hy-
drotreatment was performed and compared with petroleum-derived jet fuel. This study aimed to
evaluate the sustainability and find out the bottleneck restricting the development of WCO-based jet
fuel production. The carbon intensity of the WCO-based bio-jet fuel was 63.7% lower compared to
the conventional jet fuel, and the proportion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by hydrogen
in the WCO was 18.7%. The feedstock stage proportion of GHG emissions of first-, second-, and
third-generation biofuels increased. A sensitivity analysis found that the transportation distance
of WCO was more sensitive to GHG emissions, and it is important to develop a detailed plan for
feedstock collection. A scenario analysis was also performed according to China’s energy structure
and hydrogen sources. Although the electric power structure derived from renewable energy will
increase GHG emissions in the immediate future, it will eventually reduce emissions due to technical
progress by 2050. The preparation of jet fuel from WCO can not only recycle waste but can also
contribute to emission reduction for the aviation industry, which is a potential sustainable and feasible
aviation fuel route.

Keywords: waste cooking oil; bio-jet fuel; life-cycle analysis; greenhouse gas emissions
Citation: Zhang, Z.; Wei, K.; Li, J.;
Wang, Z. Life-Cycle Assessment of
Bio-Jet Fuel Production from Waste
Cooking Oil via Hydroconversion. 1. Introduction
Energies 2022, 15, 6612. https:// In recent years, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of jet fuel, which account for approx-
doi.org/10.3390/en15186612 imately 2% of GHG emissions, have increased significantly with the rapid development of
Academic Editor: Marcin D˛ebowski
the aviation industry [1–3]. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced
that CO2 emissions will be reduced by half by 2050 [4]. Bio-jet fuel has the potential to
Received: 31 July 2022 reduce GHG emissions throughout the entire life cycle [5–7]. ASTM D7566 has approved
Accepted: 7 September 2022 seven alternative aviation fuel routes that have been commercialized. In 2017, the Aviation
Published: 9 September 2022
Environmental Protection Committee (CAEP) proposed verification requirements for alter-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral native aviation fuels including not only technical performance (ensuring flight safety) but
with regard to jurisdictional claims in also sustainability (ensuring emission reduction) [8].
published maps and institutional affil- Life-cycle assessment (LCA) has proven to be extremely useful for assessing liquid
iations. fuels based on their global warming potential and is widely used as a tool to assess the
sustainability of energy systems [9,10]. The emission value of traditional jet fuel is about
73.2 ± 2.1 g CO2 e/MJ, and the GHG emissions of coal and natural gas liquefaction fuel may
be twice than that of petroleum-based fuel [11]. The GHG emissions of soybean-oil-based
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
fuel, a first-generation biomass, are 13.0–141.0 g CO2 e/MJ [10]. The GHG emissions of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
microalgae-oil-based fuel (a third-generation fuel) are 17.2–851.9 gCO2 e/MJ [10]. The large
This article is an open access article
fluctuation range is closely related to the production mode and capacity of algae and the
distributed under the terms and
distribution scheme of by-products, and further efforts must be made before large-scale
conditions of the Creative Commons
production can be achieved. A second-generation biofuel can be commercialized and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
applied on a large scale. These biofuels are derived from biomass that cannot be consumed
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
by humans, including plants and municipal solid waste. Mohammad et al. found that

Energies 2022, 15, 6612. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186612 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 13

Energies 2022, 15, 6612 2 of 13

by humans, including plants and municipal solid waste. Mohammad et al. found that a
bio-jet fuel from jatropha could achieve a 75% reduction in GHG emissions compared to
petroleum-derived jet fuels [12]. Ringsred et al. found that the carbon intensity of pyroly-
a bio-jet fuel from jatropha could achieve a 75% reduction in GHG emissions compared
sis-based bio-jet fuels produced by hydrotreatment in Canada was 69–71% lower than the
to petroleum-derived jet fuels [12]. Ringsred et al. found that the carbon intensity of
carbon intensity of a conventional fossil-based jet fuel [13]. Beal et al. found that forestry
pyrolysis-based bio-jet fuels produced by hydrotreatment in Canada was 69–71% lower
residue and waste oil pathways decreased emissions (23 and 35 g CO2e/MJ, respectively)
than the carbon intensity of a conventional fossil-based jet fuel [13]. Beal et al. found
[14].
that forestry residue and waste oil pathways decreased emissions (23 and 35 g CO2 e/MJ,
It is expected that about 50,000 tons of sustainable aviation fuel will be used in five
respectively) [14].
yearsItinisChina.
expectedChina’s
that output of waste
about 50,000 cooking
tons oil (WCO)aviation
of sustainable has reached
fuel 10 million
will tonsina
be used
year.years
five However, WCO
in China. is not output
China’s used inof commercialization
waste cooking oilapplications
(WCO) has for aviation
reached fuel in
10 million
China, and few studies have been conducted to evaluate the sustainability
tons a year. However, WCO is not used in commercialization applications for aviation and feasibility
of the
fuel in WCO-based
China, and few aviation fuel.
studies Therefore,
have in this paper,
been conducted LCA analysis
to evaluate of bio-jet fuels
the sustainability and
feasibility of the WCO-based aviation fuel. Therefore, in this paper, LCA analysiswere
produced from WCO by hydrotreatment with different conversion processes per-
of bio-jet
formed
fuels from the
produced perspective
from WCO by of carbon emission
hydrotreatment withand energyconversion
different consumption. Sensitivity
processes were
analysis of the
performed fromtransport distanceof
the perspective ofcarbon
the feedstock
emissionand fuel,
and as well
energy as the treatment
consumption. capac-
Sensitivity
ity, was of
analysis performed. A scenario
the transport distanceanalysis was alsoand
of the feedstock performed according
fuel, as well to China’scapacity,
as the treatment energy
structure and hydrogen sources.
was performed. A scenario analysis was also performed according to China’s energy
structure and hydrogen sources.
2. Methods
2.
2.1.Methods
LCA system Boundary
2.1. LCA system Boundary
LCA system boundaries and material energy flow charts are shown in Figure 1. LCA
LCA the
included system boundaries
feedstock supplyand material
stage energyand
(collection flowtransportation
charts are shown in Figure
of the 1. LCA
meal residue,
included the feedstockjetsupply
WCO pre-treatment), stage (collection
fuel production and transportation
stage (refining of the meal residue,
and the transportation), and the
WCO
use ofpre-treatment),
a jet fuel stage jet fuel
[15]. production
The stage (refining
energy consumption and
and the transportation),
GHG emissions were and the use
mainly an-
of a jet fuel stage [15]. The energy consumption and GHG emissions
alyzed by ASPEN PLUS and GREET, modified by Chinese statistics (seen in Supplemen-were mainly analyzed
by
taryASPEN
Materials) PLUS and GREET,
[15,16]. modified
The functional byof
units Chinese statistics
this study (seen
were the in Supplementary
energy consumption
Materials) [15,16]. The functional units of this study were the
and GHG emission per 1 MJ of bio-jet fuel produced [10] (WTP, well-to-pump, energy consumption and
the stage
GHG emission per 1 MJ of bio-jet fuel produced [10] (WTP, well-to-pump,
of the fuel production; PTW, pump-to-wheel, the stage of fuel consumption). the stage of the
fuel production; PTW, pump-to-wheel, the stage of fuel consumption).

Figure 1. Life-cycle system boundary of WCO for bio-jet fuel.

Figure 1. Life-cycle system boundary of WCO for bio-jet fuel.

Transportationincluded
Transportation included
thethe transportation
transportation of meal
of meal residue
residue and bio-jet
and bio-jet fuel. Afuel.
goods A wagon
goods
wagon
was usedwas used totherecycle
to recycle the meal
meal residue, andresidue, andconsumption
the energy the energy consumption
was 2.36 MJ/(twas ·km) 2.36
[17].
MJ/(t·km)
The [17].
average The averagedistance
transportation transportation distance
was 80 km, from was
which80 the
km,energy
from which the energy
consumption and
consumption
emission dataand emission
of the dataand
recycling of the recycling andprocess
transportation transportation
of WCO process
could ofbeWCO could
calculated.
be calculated. The transportation of bio-jet fuel was based on the transportation
The transportation of bio-jet fuel was based on the transportation structure of refined oil structure
of refined
in oil inits
China, and China, andtransportation
average its average transportation
distance was distance was with
calculated calculated withto
reference refer-
the
ence to the transportation
transportation model in GREET.
model in GREET.
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 3 of 13

2.2. WCO Pretreatment and Jet Fuel Production

WCO was used for the bio-jet fuel after pretreatment such as gravitational settling,
centrifugation, and so on (water and solid impurities removed) (data from the Bihai Environ-
mental Protection Company in Tianjin, China). The power of the centrifuge was 90 kW, and
the treatment capacity was 60 m3 /h. One ton of WCO could be obtained after pretreatment of
ten tons of meal residue. Power generation structure was from China in 2020.
WCO was mainly composed of glycerides and free fatty acids. Bio-jet fuel was ob-
tained by one-step hydrogenation, and the process of one-step hydrogenation is shown
in Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials) [18]. The treatment capacity of catering waste
oil was 600 ton/d. The optimized operation conditions were 380 ◦ C, 500 mL/mL, and
3 Mpa [18]. The used cooking oil (UCO-1 (one-step hydrogenation) and UCO-2 (one-step
hydrogenation)) process was based on the data from the literature [16], and the energy
structure was based on the data from the Chinese mainland. Details of the methods used in
this study can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Energy Consumption Analysis
Each feedstock had unique characteristics that would affect the hydrogenation process
and partition coefficient and would eventually have an impact on the energy consumption
and GHG emissions. The energy consumptions of the different feedstocks are shown in
Figure 2. From Figure 2, the energy consumption of fossil fuels was low in the feedstock
stage owing to the relatively mature mining technology. The energy consumption of coal
was one half or one third of that of natural gas or crude oil because of its more mature
and simple acquisition and processing technology [10]. Soybean oil, a first-generation
biofuel, has low energy consumption owing to its mature soybean planting technology and
wide planting area. The energy consumption of camelina and jatropha oil, both second-
generation biofuel raw materials, were much higher than that of soybean oil (1.6 and
2.4 times, respectively), which was related to its low yield (camelina) and the use of a
large amount of fertilizer (jatropha) [12]. The energy consumption of microalgae oil was
35% higher than that of soybean oil because of the higher energy consumption during the
planting and pressing stages. The energy consumption of WCO in the feedstock stage
included the soybean oil raw material stage, collection and transportation, and pretreat-
ment. The treatment (physical treatment, such as gravity sedimentation and centrifugal
separation) is also relatively simple [19], and the energy consumption of WCO (collection,
transportation, and pretreatment) was very low (accounting for 11.7, 4.9, and 8.6% of the
energy consumption of soybean oil, jatropha oil, and microalgae oil, respectively) [20].
The energy consumption at the fuel production stage of petroleum-based oil was
the lowest because the refining technology was mature, and more mature by-products
shared similar energy consumption, while the energy consumption of coal was the highest
because of the complex synthesis process [21]. The energy consumption of palm oil at
the production stage was low among the biofuels, which may be related to its C16 fatty
acids. However, camelina oil has a higher number of double bonds and a relatively high
hydrogen consumption. The microalgae oil yield was also high because of the low oil
yield and the need for more raw materials [22]. WCO had more free fatty acids, and the
number of double bonds were reduced compared to soybean oil after the environmental
impact of food residue and water, which reduced the hydrogen consumption of saturated
double bonds. Moreover, this part of the fatty acids did not require a transformation
of fatty acid glycerides into fatty acids, which reduces the hydrogen consumption [19].
The WCO passed through a thermal oxygen environment to produce cyclic products or
polymeric macromolecules. The energy consumption at the production stage of the WCO-
based oil was almost the same as that of the soybean oil. The energy consumption of
UCO-1 was 47.2% lower than that of UCO-2 because of the hydrofining, hydrocracking,
and isomerization that were performed in one reactor [23].
Energies 2022, 15, x6612
Energies FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4ofof 13
13

3.0
Fuel Application
Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply
2.5 Total Consumption

Energy consumption/(MJ/MJ) 2.0

1.5

1.0

Microalgae oil
Crude Oil

Natural Gas

Camelina oil
Soybean oil

Jatropha oil
0.5
Coal

UCO-1

UCO-2
Palm oil

WCO
0.0
Figure 2. Bio-jet fuel life cycle energy consumption with different feedstock.
Figure 2. Bio-jet fuel life cycle energy consumption with different feedstock.
After the reduction of by-products, the total energy consumption of crude oil was
The energy
the lowest among consumption
the fossil raw at the fuel production
materials. The energy stage of petroleum-based
consumption of WCOoil waswas the
lower
lowest because
(75.0 and 89.1%the refining
of the energy technology
consumptionwas of mature,
jatrophaandoilmore
and mature
microalgaeby-products shared
oil, respectively)
among energy
similar the biomass fuels but still
consumption, whilehigher than that
the energy of the fossilof
consumption fuels.
coal was the highest be-
causeThe energy
of the consumption
complex synthesis of various
process raw
[21]. materials
The varied significantly
energy consumption of palm at oil
different
at the
stages. In general,
production stage wasthelow
energy
amongconsumption
the biofuels, of which
each material’s (especially
may be related to its coal) fuelacids.
C16 fatty stage
is higher than
However, that of
camelina oilthe
hasraw material
a higher stage.
number ofThe energy
double bondsconsumptions of the
and a relatively feedstock
high hydro-
and consumption.
gen soybean oil production were 30.8%
The microalgae andwas
oil yield 7.9%, respectively.
also high because Theofpercentages
the low oilofyield
jatropha
and
oil were 52.9 and 10.3%, respectively. The WCO values were 32.4 and
the need for more raw materials [22]. WCO had more free fatty acids, and the number of 18.6%, respectively.
WCO had
double lowwere
bonds energy consumption
reduced compared in the feedstockoil
to soybean stage
after(4.1% in collection and
the environmental 0.3% of
impact in
pretreatment,
food residue andexcept for which
water, the soybean
reduced oilthe
period) and showed
hydrogen consumptiongood prospects
of saturated fordouble
use as
bio-jet fuel.
bonds. The energy
Moreover, consumptions
this part of feedstock
of the fatty acids and theaproduction
did not require of microalgae
transformation of fatty acidoil
were 31.6 and 29.3%, respectively; thus, the third-generation biofuel
glycerides into fatty acids, which reduces the hydrogen consumption [19]. The WCO technology needs to be
improved [12,24].
passed through a thermal oxygen environment to produce cyclic products or polymeric
macromolecules. The energy consumption at the production stage of the WCO-based oil
3.2. Global Warming Potential Analysis
was almost the same as that of the soybean oil. The energy consumption of UCO-1 was
47.2%The lowerGHG emissions
than of the bio-jet
that of UCO-2 because fuelof life
the cycle of the different
hydrofining, feedstocks
hydrocracking, andare shown
isomeri-
in Figure
zation that3.were
Fromperformed
Figure 3, the
in GHG emissions
one reactor [23].of fossil fuels in the raw material stage were
greater
After the reduction of by-products, the total of
than zero, whereas the GHG emissions biomass
energy were negative
consumption because
of crude of the
oil was the
carbon fixation of CO 2 by photosynthesis. The GHG emissions of
lowest among the fossil raw materials. The energy consumption of WCO was lower (75.0 soybean oil were the
lowest because of its mature planting technology and area, lower
and 89.1% of the energy consumption of jatropha oil and microalgae oil, respectively) energy consumption,
and emissions.
among the biomassThefuels
GHGbut emissions of camelina,
still higher than that jatropha, and
of the fossil microalgae oil were high
fuels.
because of their low yield, the use of a large amount of fertilizer,
The energy consumption of various raw materials varied significantly and the low oilatproduction
different
rate [25]. The GHG emissions of WCO at the feedstock stage were low because of the
stages. In general, the energy consumption of each material’s (especially coal) fuel stage
simple collection and pretreatment (15.0, 1.0, and 32.0% of the GHG emissions of soybean
is higher than that of the raw material stage. The energy consumptions of the feedstock
oil, respectively).
and soybean oil production were 30.8% and 7.9%, respectively. The percentages of
The GHG emissions of petroleum at the production stage were low because of the
jatropha oil were 52.9 and 10.3%, respectively. The WCO values were 32.4 and 18.6%, re-
mature refining process, whereas the GHG emissions of coal were high. The biofuel
spectively. WCO had low energy consumption in the feedstock stage (4.1% in collection
emissions at the production stage were relatively close, but generally higher than those of
and 0.3% in pretreatment, except for the soybean oil period) and showed good prospects
petroleum-based fuels. The hydrogen consumption and GHG emissions of WCO were low,
for use as bio-jet fuel. The energy consumptions of feedstock and the production of mi-
owing to its high free fatty acid content and saturation. GHG emissions at the production
croalgae oil were 31.6 and 29.3%, respectively; thus, the third-generation biofuel technol-
stage of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 accounted for 60.8, 37.3, and 65.0% of the GHG emissions
ogy needs to be improved [12,24].
of soybean, respectively.
 the carbon fixation of CO2 by photosynthesis. The GHG emissions of soybean oil were the
lowest because of its mature planting technology and area, lower energy consumption,
and emissions. The GHG emissions of camelina, jatropha, and microalgae oil were high
because of their low yield, the use of a large amount of fertilizer, and the low oil produc-
tion rate [25]. The GHG emissions of WCO at the feedstock stage were low because of the
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 5 of 13
simple collection and pretreatment (15.0, 1.0, and 32.0% of the GHG emissions of soybean
oil, respectively).

240 70
Fuel Application 65
Microalgae oil 3ST

Feedstock supply percent of gCO2e,%

2ST
Fuel Production 60
UCO-1
200 Feedstock Supply 55
Jatropha oil
Total Emissions 50
WCO
45

160 40
1ST

35 Palm oil

30
Soybean oil
gCO2e/MJ
25
120

Natural Gas
80

Jatropha oil
Crude Oil

Soybean oil

Palm oil

Camelina oil

UCO-1

UCO-2
Microalgae oil

WCO
40 Coal

-40

-80

Figure 3. Bio-jet fuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of different feedstock.
feedstock.

AfterGHG
The the reduction,
emissionsthe of total GHG emissions
petroleum of fossil fuels
at the production stage were
werehigher than those
low because of
of the
biofuels. The order was coal, natural gas, then crude oil. The GHG emissions
mature refining process, whereas the GHG emissions of coal were high. The biofuel emis- of soybean,
camelina,
sions at thejatropha,
productionand stage
microalgae oil account
were relatively for 42.6,
close, 44.4, 54.6,higher
but generally and 41.3% of the of
than those GHGpe-
emissions of petroleum-based
troleum-based fuels. The hydrogen fuel,consumption
respectively. and
TheGHGGHGemissions
emissionsofofWCOWCO, were UCO-1,
low,
and UCO-2
owing accounted
to its high for acid
free fatty 36.3,content
29.0, andand37.1%, respectively,
saturation. of the GHG
GHG emissions at theemissions
production of
petroleum-based fuel. It can be seen that the one-step method was
stage of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 accounted for 60.8, 37.3, and 65.0% of the GHG emis- more beneficial for
emission
sions reduction
of soybean, than the two-step method [16].
respectively.
After the reduction, theaccounted
Soybean oil emissions total GHGfor 29.0 andof
emissions 71.0%
fossiloffuels
emissions in the than
were higher raw material
those of
biofuels. The order was coal, natural gas, then crude oil. The GHG emissions of camelina,
and production stages, respectively. The proportions of GHG emissions of palm, soybean,
jatropha, WCO,
camelina, jatropha, andandmicroalgae
microalgae oiloil
at account
the raw for
material stage54.6,
42.6, 44.4, were 37.3,
and 37.0,
41.3% of52.0, 48.0,
the GHG
and 68.3%,of
emissions respectively.
petroleum-basedThe main GHG
fuel, emissions The
respectively. of the
GHGfirst-generation
emissions ofbiofuel
WCO,occurred
UCO-1,
in the feedstock stage, while the production stage was the main contributor of the third
and UCO-2 accounted for 36.3, 29.0, and 37.1%, respectively, of the GHG emissions of
stage (Figure 3). In conclusion, compared with other biomasses, WCO had lower energy
petroleum-based fuel. It can be seen that the one-step method was more beneficial for
consumption and GHG emissions, a wide range of sources, and is a promising bio-jet fuel
emission reduction than the two-step method [16].
raw material.
Soybean oil emissions accounted for 29.0 and 71.0% of emissions in the raw material
and production stages, respectively.
3.3. The Effect of Different The proportions
Allocation Method of GHG emissions of palm, came-
on the GHG Emissions
lina, jatropha, WCO, and microalgae oil at the raw material stage were 37.3, 37.0, 52.0,
The effects of the different allocation methods on the energy consumption and GHG
48.0, and 68.3%, respectively. The main GHG emissions of the first-generation biofuel oc-
emissions of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 are shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4a, the energy
curred in the feedstock stage, while the production stage was the main contributor of the
consumption of the feedstock stage, fuel production, and total were all in the order of
third stage (Figure 3). In conclusion, compared with other biomasses, WCO had lower
mass allocation, energy allocation, and market allocation after reduction. For example,
the mass allocation method of WCO was slightly higher than that of the energy allocation
method because of the similar heat values of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel [26]. However,
the market allocation method of bio-jet fuel was the lowest at every stage because of the
prices of gasoline, and diesel was much higher than jet fuel because naphtha was also
slightly higher [27]. The energy reduction rates in the feedstock supply stage of the mass
allocation, energy allocation, and market allocation methods were 62.8, 63.3, and 73.7%,
respectively, while the energy reduction rates in the fuel production stages were 62.5, 63.0,
and 73.3%, respectively.
 prices of gasoline, and diesel was much higher than jet fuel because naphtha was al
slightly higher [27]. The energy reduction rates in the feedstock supply stage of the ma
allocation, energy allocation, and market allocation methods were 62.8, 63.3, and 73.7%
respectively, while the energy reduction rates in the fuel production stages were 62.5, 63.
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 and 73.3%, respectively. 6 of 13

2.5
Fuel Application Fuel Production
(a) Feedstock Supply Total Consumption

2.0

Energy consumption /(MJ/MJ)

1.5

1.0

0.5
Mass

Energy

Energy
Market

Mass

Market

Mass

Energy

Market
0.0
WCO UCO-1 UCO-2

-0.5

120
(b) Fuel Application Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply Total Emission
90

60
gCO2e /(g/MJ)

30

0
Mass

Market

Mass

Market

Mass

Market
Energy

Energy

Energy

-30

-60
WCO UCO-1 UCO-2

-90

Figure4.
Figure (a) Life-cycle
4. (a) Life-cycleenergy
energyconsumption by different
consumption allocation
by different methods.
allocation (b) Life-cycle
methods. GHG
(b) Life-cycle GH
emissions by
emissions by different
different allocation
allocationmethods.
methods.

The GHG emission distribution reduction is related to the yield, heat value, and price.
The GHG emission distribution reduction is related to the yield, heat value, an
Regarding WCO, the mass allocation method was slightly higher than the energy allocation
price.
methodRegarding
because ofWCO, the mass
the similar heat allocation methodthewas
values. However, slightly
discount ratehigher
of the than
marketthe energ
allocation methodatbecause
allocation method each stageofwas
thethe
similar heat
highest, and values.
the GHGHowever, the the
emissions after discount rate of th
discount
were the lowest, which was the same as the energy consumption. The GHG emission
reduction rates in the feedstock supply stage of the mass allocation, energy allocation, and
market allocation methods were 62.8, 63.3, and 73.7%, respectively, and the fuel production
stages were 62.4, 62.9, and 73.2%, respectively. The fuel production stage was the same as
the feedstock supply stage for energy consumption and GHG emissions.

3.4. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis of the raw material transportation distance, jet fuel transportation
distance, and WCO pretreatment capacity at a base value of ±30% was also performed to
analyze the effects of various factors on the LCA energy consumption and GHG emissions
of the bio-jet fuel (Table 1, Figure 5).
 tion distance, and WCO pretreatment capacity at a base value of ±30% was also performed
to analyze the effects of various factors on the LCA energy consumption and GHG emis-
sions of the bio-jet fuel (Table 1, Figure 5).

Energies 2022, 15, 6612 Table 1. Sensitivity analysis of different parameter. 7 of 13

Parameter Baseline Low High

Raw material transportation distance (km)
Table 1. Sensitivity analysis of different parameter.
80 56 104
Jet fuel transport distance (km) 200 140 260
Parameter Baseline
WCO pretreatment capacity (m3/h) 60 Low High
42 78
Raw material transportation distance (km) 80 56 104
Jet fuel transport distance (km) 200 140 260
WCO pretreatment capacity (m3 /h) 60 42 78

(a) UCO-2
Jet fuel
transportation UCO-1
distance
WCO

UCO-2

Pretreatment
UCO-1
capacity

WCO

UCO-2
Raw material
transportation UCO-1
distance
nergies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
WCO

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Rate of change（ ‰）

(b) UCO-2
Jet fuel
transportation UCO-1
distance
WCO

UCO-2

Pretreatment
UCO-1
capacity

WCO

UCO-2
Raw material
transportation UCO-1
distance
WCO

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Rate of change（ ‰）
5. (a) The sensitivity analysis of energy consumption of bio-jet fuel. (b) The sensitivity analysis
Figure Figure
5. (a) The sensitivity analysis of energy consumption of bio-jet fuel. (b) The sensitivity anal-
of life-cycle
ysis of life-cycle GHG GHGemissions
emissions ofof bio-jet
bio-jetfuel.
fuel.
From Figure 5, the raw material transportation distance had a major impact on the
From
energyFigure 5, the raw
consumption andmaterial transportation
GHG emissions. When thedistance had transportation
raw material a major impact on the
distance
energyincreased
consumption
from 56andto GHG
80 km,emissions. Whenconsumption
the total energy the raw material
of WCO,transportation
UCO-1, and distance
UCO-2
increased from by
increased 56 12.5,
to 8013.6,
km,and
the11.2%,
total energy consumption
respectively, while GHGof emissions
WCO, UCO-1, andbyUCO-2
increased 14.9,
15.6, and 13.7%, respectively. Therefore, detailed planning of the transportation
increased by 12.5, 13.6, and 11.2%, respectively, while GHG emissions increased by 14.9, route of the
feedstock could significantly reduce LCA energy consumption and GHG emissions
15.6, and 13.7%, respectively. Therefore, detailed planning of the transportation route of [28].
The WCO pretreatment capacity and jet fuel transportation distance had less impact on
the feedstock could significantly reduce LCA energy consumption and GHG emissions
energy consumption and GHG emissions. When the WCO pretreatment capacity increased
[28].
from 42 m3 /h to 60 m3 /h, the total energy consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2
The WCO pretreatment capacity and jet fuel transportation distance had less impact
on energy consumption and GHG emissions. When the WCO pretreatment capacity in-
creased from 42 m3/h to 60 m3/h, the total energy consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-
2 increased by 1.1, 1.2, and 1.0%, respectively, while the GHG emissions increased by 1.0,
 Energies 2022, 15, 6612 8 of 13

increased by 1.1, 1.2, and 1.0%, respectively, while the GHG emissions increased by 1.0,
1.0, and 0.9%, respectively. When the jet fuel transportation distance increased from 140 to
200 km, the total energy consumptions of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 increased by 1.0, 1.1,
and 1.0%, respectively. The GHG emissions increased by 0.9, 1.0 and 0.9%, respectively.

3.5. Scenario Analysis

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
3.5.1. The Sources of Electricity
Scenario analyses of four different power compositions (2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050)
were performed according to “Energy outlook of the world and China in 2050” of the China
Petroleum Economic and Technological Research Institute (Table 2 and Figure 6) [29].

2.5
(a) Fuel Application Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply Total Consumption

2.0
Energy consumption/(MJ/MJ)

1.5

1.0

0.5
2020

2030

2040

2050

2020

2030

2040

2050

2020

2030

2040

2050
0.0

WCO UCO-1 UCO-2

-0.5

120
(b) Fuel Application Fuel Production
100 Feedstock Supply Total Emission

80

60

40
gCO2e/MJ

20

0
2020

2030

2040

2050

2020

2030

2040

2050

2020

2030

2040

2050

-20

-40

-60
WCO UCO-1 UCO-2
-80

Figure6.
Figure (a) Life-cycle
6.(a) Life-cycle energy
energyconsumption in different
consumption years.
in different (b) GHG
years. emissions
(b) GHG in different
emissions years. years.
in different

Electricity was used in different stages. The proportions of electricity in the total en-
ergy consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 were 5.7, 1.8, and 1.0%, respectively, and
the GHG emission proportions were 5.7, 1.6, and 1.0%, respectively. For WCO in 2030,
2040, and 2050, the total energy consumption was reduced by 6.6, 1.7, and 4.4% from 2030
to 2050, and GHG emissions were reduced by 4.6, 31.9, and 45.1%, respectively.
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 9 of 13

Table 2. The proportion of China’s energy mix for power generation in different years/%.

2020 2030 2040 2050

Crude oil 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Coal 70.1 44.7 35.0 27.0
Natural gas 2.5 7.6 24.0 24.3
Nuclear energy 2.9 7.5 14.0 14.5
Biomass 0.9 2.0 5.0 10.0
Waterpower 19.3 16.1 20.0 18.3
Others 4.1 22.0 1.9 5.9

Electricity was used in different stages. The proportions of electricity in the total
energy consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 were 5.7, 1.8, and 1.0%, respectively, and
the GHG emission proportions were 5.7, 1.6, and 1.0%, respectively. For WCO in 2030, 2040,
and 2050, the total energy consumption was reduced by 6.6, 1.7, and 4.4% from 2030 to
2050, and GHG emissions were reduced by 4.6, 31.9, and 45.1%, respectively.
The general trend in the power structure was that the proportion of fossil energy power
generation, represented by coal, gradually decreased and the renewable energy power
generation gradually increased. Although the energy consumption and GHG emissions
increased temporarily from 2030 to 2040, owing to the high energy consumption, the energy
consumption and GHG emissions over the entire life cycle showed a decreasing trend
because of technical progress. The power composition had a significant impact on the GHG
emissions of bio-jet fuel, which also featured greater advantages in replacing traditional
fossil fuels for the optimization of China’s power structure.

3.5.2. The Sources of Hydrogen

The energy consumption of hydrogen accounts for a large proportion of its entire life
cycle. The proportions of hydrogen in the total energy consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and
UCO-2 were 30.3, 12.8, and 30.5%, respectively. The contribution of hydrogen to GHG
emissions was 18.7, 7.1, and 18.7%, respectively. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 7, the
order of energy consumption by hydrogen was coal > biomass > solar energy > natural
gas > nuclear energy; the order of GHG emissions was coal > natural gas > nuclear
energy > solar energy > biomass. For WCO, the energy consumption of natural gas, solar,
and nuclear energy was lower than the energy consumption of biomass by 4.5, 3.9, and
6.3%, respectively, and the GHG emissions were higher than the energy consumption of
biomass by 8.2, 0.6, and 0.8%, respectively.

Table 3. Hydrogen life-cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Energy
Hydrogen Source GHG Emission/(g/MJ)
Consumption/(MJ/MJ)
Natural gas 1.6 95.7
Coal 2.3 197.6
Nuclear energy 1.3 21.0
Solar energy 1.7 19.0
Biomass energy 2.3 13.1

Energy consumption and GHG emissions from the use of coal as a hydrogen source
were high. The GHG emissions of solar energy and biomass were lower, whereas energy
consumption was higher than that of other energy sources. With the progress in technology,
solar energy and biomass have shown great potential to produce hydrogen.
 Nuclear energy 1.3 21.0
Solar energy 1.7 19.0
Biomass energy 2.3 13.1
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 10 of 13

2.5
Fuel Application Fuel Production
(a) Feedstock Supply Total Consumption

2.0

Energy consumption/(MJ/MJ) 1.5

1.0

Biomass energy
Natural gas

Natural gas

Natural gas
Nuclear energy

Solar energy

Biomass energy

Nuclear energy

Solar energy

Biomass energy

Nuclear energy

Solar energy
0.5
Coal

Coal

Coal
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 1
0.0

WCO UCO-1 UCO-2

-0.5
120
(b) Fuel Application Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply Total Emission
100

80

60

40
gCO2e/MJ

20

0
Nuclear energy

Solar energy

Biomass energy

Nuclear energy

Solar energy

Biomass energy

Nuclear energy

Solar energy

Biomass energy
Natural gas

Coal

Natural gas

Coal

Natural gas

Coal

-20

-40

-60
WCO UCO-1 UCO-2
-80

Figure 7. (a) Life-cycle energy consumption of different hydrogen sources. (b) GHG emissions from
Figure 7. (a) Life-cycle energy consumption of different hydrogen sources. (b) GHG emissions from
different hydrogen sources during their life-cycle.
different hydrogen sources during their life-cycle.
3.5.3. The Sources of Diesel
3.5.3. The Sources
Diesel was onlyof Diesel
used in the collection stage of the raw material, and the energy
consumption of diesel
Diesel was only used in the
inLCA was low. The
the collection ratios
stage of the
of the diesel
raw contribution
material, energy
and the energy con
consumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 were 7.4, 6.2, and 5.3%, respectively. GHG
sumption of diesel in the LCA was low. The ratios of the diesel contribution energy con
emissions were 3.1, 2.3, and 2.2%, respectively. The GHG emissions of using animal
sumption of WCO,
and vegetable UCO-1,
fats as and UCO-2
diesel source were 7.4,stage
in the collection 6.2, and 5.3%, respectively.
are slightly lower than thatGHG
of emis
sions were 3.1, 2.3, and 2.2%, respectively. The GHG emissions of using animal
petroleum source (Figure 8). So, it is beneficial to the environment to use biodiesel in the and vege
table fats as diesel
transportation source in the collection stage are slightly lower than that of petroleum
stage.
source (Figure 8). So, it is beneficial to the environment to use biodiesel in the transporta
tion stage.

120
Fuel Application Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply Total
100

80

60
 sumption of WCO, UCO-1, and UCO-2 were 7.4, 6.2, and 5.3%, respectively. GHG e
sions were 3.1, 2.3, and 2.2%, respectively. The GHG emissions of using animal and v
table fats as diesel source in the collection stage are slightly lower than that of petrol
Energies 2022, 15, 6612
source (Figure 8). So, it is beneficial to the environment to use biodiesel in the transpo
11 of 13
tion stage.

120
Fuel Application Fuel Production
Feedstock Supply Total
100

80

60

40
gCO2e/MJ

20

Plant residue

Plant residue

Plant residue
Animal fats

Animal fats

Animal fats
-20
Crude oil

Crude oil

Crude oil
soybean

soybean

soybean
-40

-60

WCO UCO-1 UCO-2

-80

Figure8.8.GHG
Figure GHGemissions fromfrom
emissions different diesel sources
different during their
diesel sources life-cycle.
during their life-cycle
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
A life-cycle analysis of the bio-jet fuel produced from WCO by hydrotreatment was
performed and compared
A life-cycle analysiswith that bio-jet
of the of a conventional fossil-based
fuel produced jet fuel.byThe
from WCO energy
hydrotreatment
consumption of the WCO-based bio-jet fuel was 70.7% higher than that of
performed and compared with that of a conventional fossil-based jet fuel. The energy petroleum-
derived jet fuel, whereas the GHG emissions of the WCO-based bio-jet fuel was 63.7%
sumption of the WCO-based bio-jet fuel was 70.7% higher than that of petroleum-der
lower than those of the petroleum-derived jet fuel. The proportion of GHG emissions
jet fuel,bywhereas
caused hydrogen the
in GHG emissions
WCO was 18.7%. of
Thethe WCO-based
proportion of GHG bio-jet fuel was
emissions 63.7%
during the lower
first-, second-, and third-generation biofuel feedstock stages increased. The GHG emissions
of WCO were 85.2, 66.5, and 87.9% for soybean, jatropha, and microalgae oils, respectively.
The proportion of GHG emissions during the first-, second-, and third-generation biofuel
feedstock stages increased. The transportation distance of the WCO raw materials was
more sensitive to GHG emissions. Therefore, it is important to develop a detailed plan for
the collection route of raw materials to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions.
Although the electric power structure and hydrogen resources derived from renewable
energy will increase GHG emissions in the immediate future, it will reduce emissions due
to technical progress by 2050. The preparation of bio-jet fuel from WCO can not only recycle
waste but can also contribute to emissions reductions for the aviation industry, which is a
potential sustainable aviation fuel route.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en15186612/s1, Figure S1: Preparation of jet fuel by one-
step hydrogenation of waste cooking oil; Table S1: The results of hydrotreatment waste cooking over
NiMo/8AHFS-Y title; Table S2: Chemical properties of waste cooking oil and soybean oil; Table S3:
HDO reaction equations; Table S4: The hydrogen consumes of triglycerides; Table S5: Hydrogen
consumption/(ton/d); Table S6: Composition of the gas phase; Table S7: Quality Composition of
the products; Table S8: The price of refined oils, RMB/Ton; Table S9: The fuel consumption of
fossil energy extraction process, %; Table S10: The proportion for various modes of fuel transporta-
tion in China; Table S11: Fuel consumption by different modes of transport; Table S12: Energy
consumption and GHG emissions from different hydrogen sources; Table S13: Life cycle energy
consumption and GHG emissions from different diesel sources. References [15,18,20,30–32] are cited
in the Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.Z. and K.W.; methodology, K.W. and J.L.; software, K.W.
and Z.W.; formal analysis, Z.W. and K.W.; writing—original draft preparation, K.W.; writing—review
and editing, Z.Z.; supervision and funding acquisition, Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 12 of 13

Funding: This research was funded by [the Scientific research project of Tianjin Education Commis-
sion] grant number [2020KJ022].
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in Supplementary Materials.
Acknowledgments: The financial support by the Scientific research project of Tianjin Education
Commission (2020KJ022) is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflicts to declare.

References
1. Yang, J.; Xin, Z.; He, Q.; Corscadden, K.; Niu, H. An overview on performance characteristics of bio-jet fuels. Fuel 2019, 237,
916–936. [CrossRef]
2. Guo, F.; Zhao, J.; Lusi, A.; Yang, X.Y. Life cycle assessment of microalgae-based aviation fuel: Influence of lipid content with
specific productivity and nitrogen nutrient effects. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 221, 350–357. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Chen, X.; Shuai, C.Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Analysis on the carbon emission peaks of China’s industrial, building, transport, and
agricultural sectors. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 135768. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. IATA 2010 Report on Alternative Fuels [EB/OL]. 2010. Available online: http://www.ita.org/ps/publications/Pages/alternative-fuels.asp
(accessed on 30 December 2010).
5. Li, W.Q.; Wright, M.M. Negative Emission Energy Production Technologies: A Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Analyses Review.
Energy Technol. 2019, 11, 1900871. [CrossRef]
6. Shafaghat, H.; Linderberg, M.; Janosik, T.; Hedberg, M.; Wiinikka, H.; Sandström, L.; Johansson, A.-C. Enhanced Biofuel
Production via Catalytic Hydropyrolysis and Hydro-Coprocessing. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 450–462. [CrossRef]
7. Halim, E.; Lee, C.P.; Wang, W.C.; Lin, J.K.; Lin, Y.C. Production of hydro-processed renewable jet fuel over SAPO-11-based
catalyst. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 1059–1076. [CrossRef]
8. GMTF Co-Rapporteurs. CAEP-SG/20172-WP/6: ICAO CORSIA Package. In Proceedings of the Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group Meeting, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11 September 2017.
9. Cherubini, F.; Bird, N.D.; Cowie, A.; Jungmeier, G.; Schlamadinger, B.; Woess-Gallasch, S. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based
LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges, and recommendations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 434–447.
[CrossRef]
10. Kolosz, B.W.; Luo, Y.; Xu, B.; Maroto-Valer, M.M.; Andresena, J.M. Life cycle environmental analysis of ‘drop in’ alternative
aviation fuels: A review. Sustain. Energy Fuel 2020, 4, 3229–3263. [CrossRef]
11. Kreutza, T.G.; Larson, E.D.; Elsido, C.; Martelli, E.; Greig, C.; Williams, R.H. Techno-economic prospects for producing Fischer-
Tropsch jet fuel and electricity from lignite and woody biomass with CO2 capture for EOR. Appl. Energy 2020, 276, 115841.
[CrossRef]
12. Mohammad, A.; Gordon, M.; Hamish, R.M.; Tareq, A.A. Jatropha curcas for jet biofuel production: Current status and prospects.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110396.
13. Ringsred, A.; Dyk, S.V.; Saddler, J. Life-cycle analysis of drop-in biojet fuel produced from British Columbia Forest residues and
wood pellets via fast-pyrolysis. Appl. Energy 2021, 287, 116587. [CrossRef]
14. Beal, C.M.; Cuellar, A.D.; Wagner, T.J. Sustainability assessment of alternative jet fuel for the U.S. Department of Defense. Biomass
Bioenergy 2021, 144, 105881. [CrossRef]
15. Barbera, E.; Naurzaliyev, R.; Asiedu, A. Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of jet fuels production from waste
cooking oil via in situ catalytic transfer hydrogenation. Renew. Energy 2020, 160, 428–449. [CrossRef]
16. Hsu, H.W.; Chang, Y.H.; Wang, W.C. Techno-economic analysis of used cooking oil to jet fuel production under uncertainty
through three-, two-, and one-step conversion processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125778. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, Y.W.; Xie, X.M.; Huang, Z.; Qiao, X.Q.; Zhang, W.G. Life cycle analysis of biodiesel production from waste frying oil. Trans.
Chin. Soc. Agric. 2010, 41, 99–103.
18. Zhang, Z.W.; Zhang, X.W.; Chen, H.; Wang, Q.F. Hydroconversion of Waste Cooking Oil into Green Biofuel over Hierarchical
USY-Supported NiMo Catalyst: A Comparative Study of Desilication and Dealumination. Catalysts 2017, 7, 281. [CrossRef]
19. Budsberg, E.; Crawford, J.T.; Morgan, H.; Chin, W.S.; Bura, R.; Gustafson, R. Hydrocarbon bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of
poplar biomass: Life cycle assessment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2016, 9, 170. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, Z.W.; Zhang, X.W.; Wang, Q.F. Influence of Impurities and Oxidation on Hydroconversion of Waste Cooking Oil into
Bio-jet Fuel. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, 273–281. [CrossRef]
21. Cai, P.P.; Zhang, C.H.; Jing, Z.; Peng, Y.W.; Jing, J.; Sun, H.J. Effects of Fischer-Tropsch diesel blending in petrochemical diesel on
combustion and emissions of a common-rail diesel engine. Fuel 2021, 305, 121587. [CrossRef]
22. Liu, Z.Y.; Yang, X.Y. Refining drop-in jet fuel coupling GHGs reduction in LCA with airworthiness in aero-engine and aircraft.
Catal. Today 2020, 353, 260–268. [CrossRef]
23. Lin, C.H.; Chen, Y.K.; Wang, W.C. The production of bio-jet fuel from palm oil derived alkanes. Fuel 2020, 260, 116345. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 6612 13 of 13

24. Prussi, M.; Lee, U.; Wang, M.; Malina, R.; Valin, H.; Taheripour, F.; Velarde, C.; Staples, M.D.; Lonza, L.; Hileman, J.I. The first
internationally adopted approach to calculate life-cycle GHG emissions for aviation fuels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021,
150, 111398. [CrossRef]
25. Han, J.; Elgowainy, A.; Cai, H.; Wang, M.Q. Life-cycle analysis of bio-based aviation fuels. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 150, 447–456.
[CrossRef]
26. Wang, M.; Huo, H.; Arora, S. Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within
the U.S. context. Energy Policy 2010, 39, 5726–5736. [CrossRef]
27. Zhao, L.L.; Ou, X.M.; Chang, S.Y. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emission and energy use of bioethanol produced from corn stover in
China: Current perspectives and future prospectives. Energy 2016, 115, 303–313. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, X.L.; Zhang, X.; Ou, X.M.; Yan, X.Y. Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Bio-Liquid Jet
Fuel from Open Pond-Based Micro-Algae under China Conditions. Energies 2018, 6, 4897–4923.
29. China Petroleum Economic and Technological Research Institute. Energy Outlook of the World and China in 2050. Available online:
http://etri.cnpc.com.cn/.2020.12 (accessed on 30 December 2020).
30. China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2020, China Statistics Press, National Bureau of Statistics. 2020. Available online:
http://www.tjcn.org/tjnj/NNN/39747.html (accessed on 25 June 2021).
31. China Transportation Yearbook 2020, People’s Communications Press, Ministry of Transport. 2020. Available online:
http://nianjian.xiaze.com/down/2022/zgjtnj-htm-2020.html (accessed on 1 February 2022).
32. He, J.C.; Wu, H.W.; Xu, Y.Q. Energy Consumption of Locomotives in China Railways during 1975–2007. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf.
Technol. 2010, 10, 22–27. [CrossRef]