Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas

Hamelin, Lorie; Narožnova, Irina; Wenzel, Henrik

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.033

Cited by 127 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Straw was assumed as wheat straw. These substrates include all domestic agro‐industrial residues with the exception of manure, excluded because extensively addressed in recent LCA literature (e.g., Hamelin et al ., , ; De Vries et al ., ,b, ). However, the implications of codigesting the selected agro‐industrial residues with manure are included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental implications of the use of agro‐industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land‐use changes

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biorefining agro-industrial biomass residues for bioenergy production represents an opportunity for both sustainable energy supply and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation. Yet, is bioenergy the most sustainable use for these residues? To assess the importance of the alternative use of these residues, a consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) of 32 energy-focused biorefinery scenarios was performed based on eight selected agro-industrial residues and four conversion pathways (two involving bioethanol and two biogas). To specifically address indirect land-use changes (iLUC) induced by the competing feed/food sector, a deterministic iLUC model, addressing global impacts, was developed. A dedicated biochemical model was developed to establish detailed mass, energy, and substance balances for each biomass conversion pathway, as input to the LCA. The results demonstrated that, even for residual biomass, environmental savings from fossil fuel displacement can be completely outbalanced by iLUC, depending on the feed value of the biomass residue. This was the case of industrial residues (e.g. whey and beet molasses) in most of the scenarios assessed. Overall, the GHGs from iLUC impacts were quantified to 4.1 t CO 2 -eq.ha À1 demanded yr À1 corresponding to 1.2-1.4 t CO 2 -eq. t À1 dry biomass diverted from feed to energy market. Only, bioenergy from straw and wild grass was shown to perform better than the alternative use, as no competition with the feed sector was involved. Biogas for heat and power production was the best performing pathway, in a short-term context. Focusing on transport fuels, bioethanol was generally preferable to biomethane considering conventional biogas upgrading technologies. Based on the results, agro-industrial residues cannot be considered burden-free simply because they are a residual biomass and careful accounting of alternative utilization is a prerequisite to assess the sustainability of a given use. In this endeavor, the iLUC factors and biochemical model proposed herein can be used as templates and directly applied to any bioenergy consequential study involving demand for arable land.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental implications of the use of agro‐industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land‐use changes

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For bioethanol production, under a fossil energy system, only household food waste and agricultural residues (straw and stover) highlighted GHG emission savings compared 18 with conventional gasoline in all pathways (Figure 3c; manure and sewage sludge were not included in these pathways). The GHG EFs ranged from -639 for household food waste to -1 g CO 2 -eq.…”

Section: Production Of Bioethanolmentioning

confidence: 99%

GHG emission factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment

Tonini

Hamelin

Alvarado-Morales

2016

Bioresource Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Document Version Peer reviewed version Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA):Tonini, D., Hamelin, L., Alvarado-Morales, M., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). GHG emission factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment. Bioresource Technology, 208, 123-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016 AbstractGreenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings from biofuels dramatically depend upon the source of energy displaced and the effects induced outside the energy sector, for instance land-use changes (LUC). Using consequential life-cycle assessment and including LUC effects, this study provides GHG emission factors (EFs) for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol produced from twenty-four biomasses (from dedicated crops to residues of different origin) under a fossil and a non-fossil energy system. Accounting for numerous variations in the pathways, a total of 554 GHG EFs were quantified. The results showed that, important GHG savings were obtained with residues and seaweed, both under fossil and non-fossil energy systems. For high-yield perennial crops (e.g. willow and Miscanthus), GHG savings were achieved only under fossil energy systems. Biofuels from annual crops and residues that are today used in the feed sector should be discouraged, as LUC GHG emissions exceeded any GHG savings from displacing conventional energy sources.

show abstract

“…The LUC (direct -dLUC and indirect -ILUC), when taken into account, strongly affects the GWP impact category [82]. Hamelin et al [52], who compared six different feedstock, highlighted that the maize scenario is the only one giving rise to a net global warming impact. This result was mostly due to the LUC.…”

Section: System Boundarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2014) [52], who compared six different feedstock, highlighted that the maize scenario is the only one giving rise to a net global warming impact. This result was mostly due to the LUC.…”

Section: System Boundarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) has been recognized as a viable solution to produce renewable energy and to reduce global warming especially when secondary feedstock and/or wastes are used. Several LCA studies analysed the environmental performances of biogas production systems. The results of this review highlight that the goal, scope, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology, feedstocks and geographical regions covered by the studies vary widely. Most studies are based in Europe, several in China and few in South and North America and in Africa. To better highlight how the choices on the feeding mix, the digestate storage, the surplus heat valorisation as well as the plant size can affect the environmental performances of agricultural AD plants four plants have been analyzed in this study. The results suggest that the energy crops production and the operation of anaerobic digesters, including digestate emission from open tanks, are the main contributors to the impacts from biogas electricity. This entails that it is environmentally better to have smaller plants using slurry and waste rather than bigger plants fed with energy crops. Recovering heat waste as well as covering of digestate tank would improve significantly the environmental sustainability of biogas electricity, and particularly the global warming category. We are pleased to enclose the revised version of our original manuscript of our paper entitled "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable" which can hopefully be published in Applied Energy.Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments; they helped us to improve the manuscript.We hope that the manuscript in the revised form is appropriate for publication in Applied Energy.On behalf of all the Authors, as corresponding Author, yours sincerely, Cover Letter Title: Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more sustainable Dear Editor, we would like to thank you for the reviewers' comments. We are grateful to all the reviewers for devoting their time to review our manuscript. As you can see, we have taken most of them into consideration to modify the paper. We hope that the paper in this current revised version can be accepted for publication. Below, we enclose an explanation of how we have addressed the questions raised. Reviewer #1The manuscript is working on the review of the environmental impacts of biogas production. It includes good results, an interesting methodology, and related to the scope of this Journal. I suggest to accept it after some minor revisions. Thank you for your positive comments and for useful suggestions.The authors should write about the difference between their study and the following research: * Hijazi, O., Munro, S., Zerhusen, B. and Effenberger, M., 2016. Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1291-300. Done, we specified in the int...

show abstract

Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas

Cited by 127 publications

References 38 publications

Environmental implications of the use of agro‐industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land‐use changes

Environmental implications of the use of agro‐industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land‐use changes

GHG emission factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment

Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About