The article provides a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of electricity production from biogas, solid biomass, and bioliquids in Italy, highlighting the environmental advantages of solid biomass over other sources. However, several methodological concerns arise. The reliance on a “zero burden” assumption for residual biomass may underestimate upstream environmental impacts, such as waste transport and handling, skewing the results in favor of residual biomass. Similarly, the emphasis on the high environmental burden of dedicated crops in biogas and bioliquids is valid but insufficiently considers regional variability in water use, soil conditions, and socio-economic trade-offs like rural economic benefits. Additionally, while solid biomass is deemed the most environmentally friendly option, its significant particulate matter emissions, which are higher than biogas or bioliquids, are downplayed. A more balanced analysis should address these health-related impacts.
The study’s scope and data representativeness also raise concerns. The exclusion of key metrics, such as biodiversity loss or land degradation, limits the comprehensiveness of the findings. Furthermore, the use of ARCADIA project data, while regionally specific, may not reflect recent technological advancements or agricultural practices. Some results, such as the negligible eutrophication impact of bioliquids, contradict existing literature on nutrient runoff from palm and rapeseed oil cultivation, suggesting a need for external validation. Addressing these gaps—revisiting allocation assumptions, incorporating broader metrics, and including regional variability—would enhance the study’s robustness and policy relevance. Future research could also explore the trade-offs between environmental and socio-economic dimensions of bioenergy production to provide more actionable insights for Italy’s sustainable energy transition.