Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability

Boulamanti, Aikaterini K.; Maglio, S. Donida; Giuntoli, Jacopo; Agostini, Alessandro

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020

Cited by 124 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the studies in which the electricity is selected as functional unit, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) results, reported in Figure 2 showed a huge variability. In particular, the highest value (0.55 kg CO 2 eq/kWh) was recorded by Siegl et al (2011aSiegl et al ( , 2011b [79,80] for small AD plants (50-150 kW) fed with cereal silage in Austria while the lowest GWP (-1.72 kg CO 2 eq/kWh) was reported by Boulamanti et al (2013) [35] Concerning the other impact categories and, in particular, eutrophication and acidification, the main differences were found between the AD plants fed with energy crops and the ones fed with feedstock other than energy crops. When energy crops were used, the electricity from biogas scores higher in the eutrophcation and acidification categories than the electricity from fossil fuels (Dressler et …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Siegl et al [79,80] for small AD plants (50-150 kW) fed with cereal silage in Austria while the lowest GWP (-1.72 kg CO 2 eq/kWh) was reported by Boulamanti et al [35] for plants fed by manure with covered digester storage tanks. Although, this variability was mainly due to the assumptions made (e.g., methane losses for leakages, emissions from digestate, allocation) and to the system boundary (e.g., avoided…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Respect to electricity from fossil fuel, the electric energy produced in the agricultural AD plants showed, also in the worst cases [35,75,79,80], lower GWP ; 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 13 -GHG emission savings (negative values for GWP) were achievable only if credits for mineral fertilizer substitution and/or heat and avoided traditional manure management were considered; -AD plants fed mainly with animal slurry and agricultural and/or agro-industry by-products and waste performed better than the ones fed with cereal silages; -covering the tanks for digestate storage and exploiting the surplus heat are the most feasible solutions to improve the GWP of agricultural AD plants [16,28,75]. Concerning the other impact categories and, in particular, eutrophication and acidification, the main differences were found between the AD plants fed with energy crops and the ones fed with feedstock other than energy crops.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Boulamanti et al [12] analysed the environmental sustainability of several biogas systems running on maize, manure and their co-digestion. They found that GHG emissions of biogas electricity are strongly influenced by the actual plant design, with GHG savings (referred to the emissions of the European electricity mix) ranging from more than 100% for manure-based systems (thanks to the credits for the avoided methane emissions from raw manure storage) to 3% for maize-only-based systems with open storage of the digestate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmentally Sustainable Biogas? The Key Role of Manure Co-Digestion with Energy Crops

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We analysed the environmental impacts of three biogas systems based on dairy manure, sorghum and maize. The geographical scope of the analysis is the Po valley, in Italy. The anaerobic digestion of manure guarantees high GHG (Green House Gases) savings thanks to the avoided emissions from the traditional storage and management of raw manure as organic fertiliser. GHG emissions for maize and sorghum-based systems, on the other hand, are similar to those of the Italian electricity mix. In crop-based systems, the plants with open-tank storage of digestate emit 50% more GHG than those with gas-tight tanks. In all the environmental impact categories analysed (acidification, particulate matter emissions, and eutrophication), energy crops based systems have much higher impacts than the Italian electricity mix. Maize-based systems cause higher impacts than sorghum, due to more intensive cultivation. Manure-based pathways have always lower impacts than the energy crops based pathways, however, all biogas systems cause much higher impacts than the current Italian electricity mix. We conclude that manure digestion OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2015, 8 5235 is the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions; although there are trade-offs with other local environmental impacts. Biogas production from crops; although not providing environmental benefits per se; may be regarded as an option to facilitate the deployment of manure digestion.

show abstract

“…From the beginning of the year 2017, the savings must be at least 50 %, and from 2018 at least 60 % for the biofuels and bioliquids produced (European Parliament 2009). If biogas is produced from co-digesting maize and manure, the GHG savings have been 92 %, when compared to fossil fuel (Boulamanti et al 2013). The sustainability of energy crop cultivation can be increased to minimize agronomic inputs like fertilization (Fazio & Monti 2011).…”

Section: Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of The Biogas Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening of novel plants for biogas production in northern conditions

Seppälä

Laine

Rintala

2013

Bioresource Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston matemaattis-luonnontieteellisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Ylistönrinteellä salissa YAA303 syyskuun 27. päivänä 2013 kello 12.Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, In this thesis, the methane production potential of traditional and novel energy crops was evaluated in boreal conditions. The highest methane yield per hectare was achieved with maize (4 000-9 200 m 3 CH4 ha -1 a -1 ) and the second highest with brown knapweed (2 700-6 100 m 3 CH4 ha -1 a -1 ). Recently, the most feasible energy crop, grass, produced 1 200-3 600 m 3 CH4 ha -1 a -1 . The specific methane yields of traditional and novel energy crops varied from 170-500 l kg -1 volatile solid (VS). The highest specific methane yields were obtained with maize, while the novel energy crops were at a lower range. The specific methane yields decreased in the later harvest time with maize and brown knapweed, and the specific methane yield of the grasses decreased from the 1 st to 2 nd harvests. Maize and brown knapweed produced the highest total solid (TS) yields per hectare 13-23 tTS ha -1 , which were high when compared with the TS yields of grasses (6-13 tTS ha -1 ). The feasibility of maize and brown knapweed in co-digestion with liquid cow manure, in continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR), was evaluated. According to the CSTR runs, maize and brown knapweed are suitable feeds and have stable processes, producing the highest methane yields (organic loading rate 2 kgVS m -3 d -1 ), with maize at 259 l kgVS -1 and brown knapweed at 254 l kgVS -1 . The energy balance (input/output) of the cultivation of the grasses, maize and brown knapweed was calculated in boreal conditions, and it was better when the digestate was used as a fertilizer (1.8-4.8 %) than using chemical fertilizers (3.7-16.2 %), whose production is the most energy demanding process in cultivation. In conclusion, the methane production of maize, grasses and novel energy crops can produce high methane yields and are suitable feeds for anaerobic digestion. The cultivation managements of maize and novel energy crops for biogas production require further research.

show abstract

Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability

Cited by 124 publications

References 35 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

Environmentally Sustainable Biogas? The Key Role of Manure Co-Digestion with Energy Crops

Screening of novel plants for biogas production in northern conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About