Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract In his 2018 Stockholm prize winner lecture, Goldstein highlighted the need for problem-oriented policing (POP) to be not only effective but also fair. Contributing to the development of POP, this study examines how a wider perspective on problem-solving generally, and scoping in particular, can be adopted to address some of the growing challenges in 21st century policing. We demonstrate that the concept of ‘problem’ was too narrowly defined and that, as a result, many problem-solving models found in criminology are ill-structured to minimize the negative side-effects of interventions and deliver broader benefits. Problem-solving concepts and models are compared across disciplines and recommendations are made to improve POP, drawing on examples in architecture, conservation science, industrial ecology and ethics.

In this paper, we demonstrate in a clear procedure the application of the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) to model a large-scale covered in-ground anaerobic reactor (Cigar), processing sugarcane vinasse from a biorefinery in Brazil. The biochemical make-up (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) of the substrate was analysed based on the food industry standards. Two distinct subsets of data, based on the sugarcane harvest season for bioethanol and sugar production in 2012 and 2014, were used to direct and cross validate the model, respectively. We fitted measured data by estimating two key parameters against biogas flow rate: the degradation extent (fd) and the first order hydrolysis rate coefficient (khyd). By cross validation we show that the fitted model can be generalised to represent the behaviour of the reactor under study. Therefore, motivated by practical and industrial application of ADM1, for both different reactors types and substrates, we show aspects on the implementation of ADM1 to a specific large-scale reactor for anaerobic digestion of sugarcane vinasse.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to highlight the challenges that face the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) for the development of emerging technologies. LCA has great potential for driving the development of products and processes with improved environmental credentials when used at the early research stage, not only to compare novel processing with existing commercial alternatives but to help identify environmental hotspots. Its use in this way does however provide methodological and practical difficulties, often exacerbated by the speed of analysis required to enable development decisions to be made. Awareness and understanding of the difficulties in such cases is vital for all involved with the development cycle. METHODS: This paper employs three case studies across the diverse sectors of nanotechnology, lignocellulosic ethanol (biofuel), and novel food processes demonstrating both the synergy of issues across different sectors and highlighting the challenges when applying LCA for early research. Whilst several researchers have previously highlighted some of the issues with use of LCA techniques at an early stage, most have focused on a specific product, process development, or sector. The use of the three case studies here is specifically designed to highlight conclusively that such issues are prevalent to use of LCA in early research irrespective of the technology being assessed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The four focus areas for the paper are system boundaries, scaling issues, data availability, and uncertainty. Whilst some of the issues identified will be familiar to all LCA practitioners as problems shared with standard LCAs, their importance and difficulty is compounded by factors distinct to novel processes as emerging technology is often associated with unknown future applications, unknown industrial scales, and wider data gaps that contribute to the level of LCA uncertainty. These issues, in addition with others that are distinct to novel applications, such as the challenges of comparing laboratory scale data with well-established commercial processing, are exacerbated by the requirement for rapid analysis to enable development decisions to be made. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the challenges and issues highlighted via illustration through the three case studies, it is clear that whilst transparency of information is paramount for standard LCAs, the sensitivities, complexities, and uncertainties surrounding LCAs for early research are critical. Full reporting and understanding of these must be established prior to utilising such data as part of the development cycle.

Purpose Previous Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies of biomass briquetting have shown wide variations in the LCA outcomes as a result of variations in LCA methodological parameters and briquetting technological parameters. An LCA model of biomass briquetting was therefore developed to enable transparent comparison of life cycle environmental impacts of briquetting with individual or blends of biomass feeds with a variety of technological options. Methods The model was developed according to the standard LCA procedure of ISO14044. A comparative approach was utilised, and a set of integrated excel worksheets that describe process flows of material, energy and emissions across different units of the briquetting process was used in developing the model components. Results The main model components include materials and process inventory databases derived from standard sources, main process calculations, user inputs and results sections. The model is open-access in a user accessible format (Microsoft Excel). A representative case study with mixed rice husks and corn cobs was used in validating the model. Results showed that the briquetting unit made the largest contribution, 42%, to the total life cycle operational energy of the briquetting system. For all the blends of rice husks and corn cobs explored in this study, the total life cycle energy of briquetting was in the range 0.2 to 0.3 MJ/MJ. For the same blend ratios, a total life cycle energy of briquetting in the range 0.2 to 1.7 MJ/MJ was also obtained with change in other LCA input parameters, in a sensitivity test. An increase in rice husk content of the blend increased the environmental impact of briquetting in terms of global warming potential (kg CO 2 -eq), acidification potential (kg SO 2 -eq), human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB-eq), ozone layer depletion (kg CFC-11-eq), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB-eq) per MJ briquette energy content, as it was associated with a lower briquette density, which increased the energy required for handling. Graphic Abstract

PURPOSE: Bioenergy is increasingly used to help meet greenhouse gas (GHG) and renewable energy targets. However, bioenergy’s sustainability has been questioned, resulting in increasing use of life cycle assessment (LCA). Bioenergy systems are global and complex, and market forces can result in significant changes, relevant to LCA and policy. The goal of this paper is to illustrate the complexities associated with LCA, with particular focus on bioenergy and associated policy development, so that its use can more effectively inform policymakers. METHODS: The review is based on the results from a series of workshops focused on bioenergy life cycle assessment. Expert submissions were compiled and categorized within the first two workshops. Over 100 issues emerged. Accounting for redundancies and close similarities in the list, this reduced to around 60 challenges, many of which are deeply interrelated. Some of these issues were then explored further at a policy-facing workshop in London, UK. The authors applied a rigorous approach to categorize the challenges identified to be at the intersection of biofuels/bioenergy LCA and policy. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The credibility of LCA is core to its use in policy. Even LCAs that comply with ISO standards and policy and regulatory instruments leave a great deal of scope for interpretation and flexibility. Within the bioenergy sector, this has led to frustration and at times a lack of obvious direction. This paper identifies the main challenge clusters: overarching issues, application and practice and value and ethical judgments. Many of these are reflective of the transition from application of LCA to assess individual products or systems to the wider approach that is becoming more common. Uncertainty in impact assessment strongly influences planning and compliance due to challenges in assigning accountability, and communicating the inherent complexity and uncertainty within bioenergy is becoming of greater importance. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of LCA in bioenergy governance is particularly significant because other sectors are likely to transition to similar governance models. LCA is being stretched to accommodate complex and broad policy-relevant questions, seeking to incorporate externalities that have major implications for long-term sustainability. As policy increasingly relies on LCA, the strains placed on the methodology are becoming both clearer and impedimentary. The implications for energy policy, and in particular bioenergy, are large.

The promotion of biofuels and green commodity chemicals, under the concept of the biorefinery, is an outcome of global concerns about energy security, economic development in rural communities, the depletion of fossil fuel reserves, and anthropogenic climate change. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has developed as a methodology to assess the environmental performance of new products and technologies, addressing environmental impact categories such as climate change, natural resource depletion and land use. It allows checks to be made on the impacts of biofuels and green commodity chemicals, and to make comparative assessments against the fuels and chemicals which they are intended to replace. However, LCA can be complicated and strict guidelines have been established which should be adhered to for carrying out LCA, in order to allow claims and comparisons to be made. This chapter provides a review of the use of LCA methodology for biofuels and green commodity chemicals, the challenges which can be associated with its undertaking, and the nuances of methodological choices on the outcomes of LCA.