Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas—Attributional vs. consequential approach

Rehl, T.; Lansche, Jens; Müller, Joachim

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.072

Cited by 116 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…aLCA describes the relevant physical input and output flows entering and exiting from a product system, whereas cLCA defines how these flows might be modified in response to a decision or a change (Finnveden et 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 8 marginal) technologies are used, the cLCA approach is applied to obtain information about the environmental impact changes related by a change in demand or in the output of the functional unit (Rehl et al, 2012) [75].…”

Section: Type Of Lca Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many LCA studies about energy generation from AD plants, there was no differentiation between aLCA and cLCA and frequently allocation and system expansion were mixed (Rehl et al., 2012) [75]. According to Reinhard and Zah (2009) [105], in cLCA the environmental results depend on the environmental scores of the marginal technology replaced rather than on local production factors.…”

Section: Type Of Lca Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Type Of Lca Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Type Of Lca Studymentioning

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

show abstract

“…They are re-used in the same form at field (non-treated). As Rehl et al (2012) stated, there are many ways to allocate organic fertilizer but the most logical one is the economic value. However, usually, manure and digestate are not sold by the farmers; therefore, it is difficult to determine prices because it does not exist.…”

Section: Scope Of the Cfp Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, usually, manure and digestate are not sold by the farmers; therefore, it is difficult to determine prices because it does not exist. We followed the approach by Rehl et al (2012) and used the open-loop allocation procedure (ISO 14067 2013, Sect. 6.4.6.3 BAllocation procedure for reuse and re cycling^) and the economic indicator with the market value and assumed that the by-products are given away free of charge.…”

Section: Scope Of the Cfp Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the accounting of field emissions in the carbon footprint of agricultural products: a comparison of default IPCC methods with readily available medium-effort modeling approaches

Peter

Fiore

Hagemann

et al. 2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The estimations of greenhouse gas (GHG) field emissions from fertilization and soil carbon changes are challenges associated with calculating the carbon footprint (CFP) of agricultural products. At the regional level, the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006a) Tier 1 approach, based on default emission factors, insufficiently accounts for emission variability resulting from pedo-climatic conditions or management practices. However, Tier 2 and 3 approaches are usually considered too complex to be practicable. In this paper, we discuss different readily available medium-effort methods to improve the accuracy of GHG emission estimates. Methods We present four case studies-two wheat crops in Germany and two peach orchards in Italy-to test the performance of Tier 1, 2, and 3 methodologies and compare the estimated results with available field measurements. The methodologies selected at Tier 2 and Tier 3 level are characterized by simple implementation and data collection, for which only a medium level of effort for stakeholders is required. The Tier 2 method consists of calculating direct and indirect N 2 O, emissions from fertilization with a multivariate empirical model which accounts for pedo-climatic and crop management conditions. The Tier 3 method entails simulation of soil carbon stock change using the Rothamsted carbon model. Results and discussion Relevant differences were found among the tested methodologies: in all case studies, the Tier 1 approach exceeded the Tier 2 estimations for fertilizer-induced emissions (up to +50 %) and the measurements. Using this higher Tier approach reduced the estimated CFP calculation of annual crops by 4 and 21 % and that of the perennial crop by 7 %. Removals related to positive soil carbon change calculated using the Tier 1 approach also exceeded the Tier 3 calculations for the studied annual crops (up to +90 %) but considerably underrated the Tier 3 estimations and measurements for perennial crops (−75 %). In this case, the impact of the selected Tier method on the final CFP results was even more relevant: an increase of 194 and 88 % for the studied annual crops and a decrease of 67 % for the perennial crop case study. Conclusions The use of higher Tiers for the estimation of land-based emissions is strongly recommended to improve the accuracy of the CFP results. The suggested mediumeffort methods tested in this study represent a good compromise between complexity reduction and accuracy improvement and can be considered reliable for the assessment of GHG mitigation potentials.

show abstract

“…Such effects are captured in consequential LCA (CLCA) that is increasingly being applied to evaluate bioenergy interventions (e.g. Rehl et al 2012;Tonini et al 2012;Vázquez-Rowe et al 2014;Styles et al 2015a;Styles et al 2016). CLCA expands system boundaries to account for marginal effects induced by market signals arising from system modifications.…”

Section: Bioenergy and Food Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Styles

Börjesson

D’Hertefeldt

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst life cycle assessment (LCA) boundaries are expanded to account for negative indirect consequences of bioenergy such as indirect land use change (ILUC), ecosystem services such as water purification sometimes delivered by perennial bioenergy crops are typically neglected in LCA studies. Consequential LCA was applied to evaluate the significance of nutrient interception and retention on the environmental balance of unfertilised energy willow planted on 50-m riparian buffer strips and drainage filtration zones in the Skåne region of Sweden. Excluding possible ILUC effects and considering oil heat substitution, strategically planted filter willow can achieve net global warming potential (GWP) and eutrophication potential (EP) savings of up to 11.9 Mg CO 2 e and 47 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 , respectively, compared with a GWP saving of 14.8 Mg CO 2 e ha -1 year -1 and an EP increase of 7 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 for fertilised willow. Planting willow on appropriate buffer and filter zones throughout Skåne could avoid 626 Mg year -1 PO 4 e nutrient loading to waters.

show abstract

Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas—Attributional vs. consequential approach

Cited by 116 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Improving the accounting of field emissions in the carbon footprint of agricultural products: a comparison of default IPCC methods with readily available medium-effort modeling approaches

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About