No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate life cycle environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity from biogas produced by the anaerobic digestion (AD) of agricultural products and waste. Five real plants in Italy were considered, using maize silage, slurry, and tomato waste as feedstocks and cogenerating electricity and heat; the latter is not utilized. The results suggest that maize silage and the operation of anaerobic digesters, including open storage of digestate, are the main contributors to the impacts of biogas electricity. The system that uses animal slurry is the best option, except for the marine and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The results also suggest that it is environmentally better to have smaller plants using slurry and waste rather than bigger installations, which require maize silage to operate efficiently. Electricity from biogas is environmentally more sustainable than grid electricity for seven out of 11 impacts considered. However, in comparison with natural gas, biogas electricity is worse for seven out of 11 impacts. It also has mostly higher impacts than other renewables, with a few exceptions, notably solar photovoltaics. Thus, for the AD systems and mesophilic operating conditions considered in this study, biogas electricity can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to a fossil-intensive electricity mix; however, some other impacts increase. If mitigation of climate change is the main aim, other renewables have a greater potential to reduce GHG emissions. If, in addition to this, other impacts are considered, then hydro, wind, and geothermal power are better alternatives to biogas electricity. However, utilization of heat would improve significantly its environmental sustainability, particularly global warming potential, summer smog, and the depletion of abiotic resources and the ozone layer. Further improvements can be achieved by banning open digestate storage to prevent methane emissions and regulating digestate spreading onto land to minimize emissions of ammonia and related environmental impacts.

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...

a b s t r a c tThis study aims to evaluate the environmental consequences and energy requirements of a biogas production system and its further conversion into bioenergy by means of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. To do so, an Italian biogas plant operating with pig slurry and two energy crops (maize and triticale silages) as feedstock was assessed in detail in order to identify the environmental hotspots. The environmental profile was estimated through six impact categories: abiotic depletion potential (ADP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) and photochemical oxidation potential (POFP). An energy analysis related to the cumulative non-renewable fossil and nuclear energy demand (CED) was also performed, considering this indicator as an additional impact category.According to the results, the biomass production subsystem was identified as the main environmental key issue in terms of ADP, AP, EP, ODP and CED, with contributions ranging from 26% to 61% of the total impact. Regarding ADP, ODP and CED, these results are mainly related with diesel requirements in agricultural machinery, derived combustion emissions and mineral fertilizers production. Concerning AP and EP the production field emissions derived from fertilizers application was observed as the main contributor. Concerning GWP, this step presents an environmental credit due to the uptake of CO 2 during crop growth, which contributes to offset the GHG emissions. The bioenergy production plant significantly contributes to the environmental impact in categories such as GWP (43%) and POFP (59%), mostly related with emissions produced in the gas engine and biogas losses. Emissions derived from digestate storage contribute to AP (52%) and EP (41%). The use of the digestate as an organic fertilizer has a beneficial role because this action avoids the production and use of mineral fertilizers.A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to assess the influence of variations in important parameters of biogas systems. The environmental profile of the biogas system turned out to be highly dependent on the selection of system boundaries and the allocation method.To sum up, this study aims to assess the environmental performance of a biogas technology available not only in Italy but also in other European countries. The environmental analysis of the process under study highlights the environmental benefits of the co-digestion processes, which not only produces biofuel but also reduces the disposal of solid wastes and produces digestate, with special value in the fertilization of agricultural soil.

No abstract