Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of Electricity Generation from Biogas in Polish Conditions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Goal and Scope
- Climate change;
- Ozone layer depletion;
- Acidification/eutrophication;
- Land use;
- Minerals and fossil fuels depletion.
- Human health expressed in the unit of DALYs (disability adjusted life years i.e., the total amount of “healthy life” lost, from premature death to some degree of disability over a given period of time) used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank in health statistics;
- Ecosystem quality: for acidification/eutrophication and land use, the damage dimension is determined by the fraction of species at risk of extinction (potentially disappeared fraction—PDF), and for ecotoxicity, the damage is expressed as [PAF × m2 × year−1], which is the proportion of species present in the environment that are under toxic stress (potentially affected fraction of species—PAF);
- Reduction in natural resources expressed in [MJ/year].
- Case 1—biogas obtained during the process of co-fermentation of waste materials (stillage, beet pulp, pig slurry);
- Case 2—biogas produced during the process of waste materials (stillage, beet pulp, pig slurry) and maize silage co-fermentation process.
- In a biogas plant, depending on the substrate type, the produced biogas contains 58–65% v/v of methane; the mean methane concentration was assumed for the analyses at the level of 60% v/v;
- The production of biogas and electricity is a continuous process;
- Part of the electricity and heat generated in a biogas plant is allocated to the installation needs—the installation does not use energy from conventional sources;
- In the winter period (from September to April), 100% of thermal energy is used for the own needs and the needs of a horticultural farm operating nearby; in the summer period (May to August), about 30% of thermal energy is used for own needs, the rest is emitted to the environment; for the purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that 76% of generated heat energy is managed during the year;
- Digestate is not a waste—it is used as a soil-improving agent;
- The share of methane emissions from digestate is 2% v/v of the total greenhouse gas emissions from open lagoons; the literature data show that the share of methane emissions from open lagoons is 3–4% v/v [96], however, in the analyzed biogas plant, the fermentation process is carried out in two stages, which reduces the emission of this gas from the lagoons;
- Production of 1 MWh of electricity from biogas (biogas combustion in a cogeneration unit) results in unit emissions of: carbon monoxide—0.022 kg/MWh, carbon dioxide—791.986 kg/MW, sulfur dioxide—0.037 kg/MWh and nitrogen dioxide—0.181 kg/MWh.
- Assessment of the potential environmental impact of maize cultivation and silage production;
- Assessment of the potential environmental impact of the technology used to generate electricity from biogas;
- Comparative analysis of the technology of generating electricity from biogas obtained in Case 1 and co-fermentation in Case 2.
- The raw material stage—the cultivation of maize for energy purposes;
- Technological stage covering the processes taking place in the biogas plant.
2.2. System Boundaries
- Establishing a plantation that includes the following unit processes:
- Disking;
- Winter ploughing.
- Pre-sowing cultivation.
- Sowing.
- Cultivation of plantations, which includes the following unit processes:
- Production of multi–component mineral fertilizers containing nitrogen—N, phosphorus—P and potassium—K (marked as NPK) and their application;
- Foliar feeding;
- Combating diseases and pests;
- Water consumption related to the use of plant protection products.
- A single-phase set consisting of the following unit processes:
- Harvesting with a combine;
- Field transport, including diesel oil production.
- Transport of raw material from the field to the biogas plant with a truck tractor with a semi-trailer, including the production of diesel oil.
- Production of plant protection products (no input data);
- Production of agricultural machinery (excluded from the system boundaries according to Directive 2018/2001.
- Transport of waste materials/residues to the installation and their storage (including production of diesel oil).
- Substrates pretreatment (pickling, grinding, maceration, mixing).
- Introducing the substrates into the fermentation chamber.
- Methane fermentation.
- Biogas storage.
- Biogas purification.
- Generation of electricity and heat.
- Storage/management of digestate.
2.3. Functional Unit and Input Data for LCA
2.4. Sensitivity Analysis
- Comparison of the life cycle of 1 MWh of electricity-generated from biogas obtained in Case 1, with 76% and 100% heat recovery;
- Comparison of the life cycle of 1 MWh of electricity-generated from biogas obtained in Case 2, with 76% and 100% heat recovery;
- Comparison of the life cycle of the production of 1 MWh of electricity from biogas in Case 1 and Case 2 with 100% heat recovery.
3. Results and Discussion
- Ozone layer depletion, related to the emission of greenhouse gases generated during the combustion of diesel fuel-supplying agricultural machinery and vehicles used for transporting substrates, as well as the production and application of fertilizers and plant protection products;
- Eutrophication/acidification, related to the production and use of mineral fertilizers and plant protection products that end up in groundwater or are washed out of the soil by rainfall and end up in rivers, lakes, and seas;
- Fossil fuel depletion, related to the use of fuel to power agricultural machinery at various stages of raw material cultivation (maize) and its transport to biogas plants;
- Ionizing radiation—this is an indirect impact resulting from the use of averages for Europe taken from the Ecoinvent database available in the SimaPro software;
- Impact on the respiratory system, related to the reduced consumption of transport fuel during the operation of agricultural machinery as well as the production and application in the field of fertilizers and plant protection products;
- Carcinogenic, related to the reduced consumption of transport fuel during the operation of agricultural machinery as well as the production and application in the field of fertilizers and plant protection products.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Available online: https://www.imgw.pl/wydarzenia/imgw-pib-nowy-raport-ipcc-o-klimacie-na-ziemi (accessed on 14 March 2022).
- Available online: https://naukaoklimacie.pl/aktualnosci/2019-globalna-emisja-dwutlenku-wegla-wciaz-rosnie-394/ (accessed on 14 March 2022).
- CO2 market analysis. The National Centre for Emissions Management. KOBiZE Report, Institute of Environmental Protection—National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland, October 2021, 115.
- CO2 market analysis. The National Centre for Emissions Management. KOBiZE Report, Institute of Environmental Protection—National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland, July 2021, 112.
- Gielen, D.; Boshell, F.; Saygin, D.; Bazilian, M.D.; Wagner, N.; Gorini, R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 24, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Havukainen, J.; Nguyen, M.T.; Väisänen, S.; Horttanainen, M. Life cycle assessment of small-scale combined heat and power plant: Environmental impacts of different forest biofuels and replacing district heat produced from natural gas. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spatari, S.; Stadel, A.; Adler, P.R.; Kar, S.; Parton, W.J.; Hicks, K.B.; McAloon, A.J.; Gurian, P.L. The Role of Biorefinery Co-Products, Market Proximity and Feedstock Environmental Footprint in Meeting Biofuel Policy Goals for Winter Barley-to-Ethanol. Energies 2020, 13, 2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slusarz, G.; Gołębiewska, B.; Cierpiał-Wolan, M.; Twaróg, D.; Gołębiewski, J.; Wójcik, S. The Role of Agriculture and Rural Areas in the Development of Autonomous Energy Regions in Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawłowski, L.; Pawłowska, M.; Kwiatkowski, C.A.; Harasim, E. The Role of Agriculture in Climate Change Mitigation—A Polish Example. Energies 2021, 14, 3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portner, B.W.; Endres, C.H.; Brück, T.; Garbe, D. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of microalgal fuel from thin-layer cascades. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 44, 2399–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kiselev, A.; Magaril, E.; Magaril, R.; Panepinto, D.; Ravina, M.; Zanetti, M.C. Towards Circular Economy: Evaluation of Sewage Sludge Biogas Solutions. Resources 2019, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Achinas, S.; Achinas, V.; Euverinka, G.J.W. A Technological Overview of Biogas Production from Biowaste. Engineering 2017, 3, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owczuk, M.; Matuszewska, A.; Kruczyński, S.; Kamela, W. Evaluation of Using Biogas to Supply the Dual Fuel Diesel Engine of an Agricultural Tractor. Energies 2019, 12, 1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abanades, S.; Abbaspour, H.; Ahmadi, A.; Das, B.; Ehyaei, M.A.; Esmaeilion, F.; Assad, M.E.; Hajilounezhad, T.; Hmida, A.; Rosen, M.A.; et al. A conceptual review of sustainable electrical power generation from biogas. Energy Sci. Eng. 2021, 10, 630–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sosnina, E.; Masleeva, O.; Kryukov, E.; Erdili, N. Mini CHP Plants Life Cycle Ecological Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT-Europe), The Hague, The Netherlands, 26–28 October 2020; pp. 319–323. [Google Scholar]
- Lyng, K.A.; Brekke, A. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas as a Fuel for Transport Compared with Alternative Fuels. Energies 2019, 12, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, A.D.; Upadhyay, A.; Shrivastava, S.; Vivekanand, V. Life-cycle assessment of sewage sludge-based large-scale biogas plant. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 309, 123373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Swidler, D.; Searle, S.; Baldino, C. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biomethane and Hydrogen Pathways in the European Union; Report of International Council on Clean Transportation; International Council on Clean Transportation Washington: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F.; Segreto, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Naja, N.; Cecinato, A. Environmental impact of biogas: A short review of current knowledge. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2018, 53, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samson-Bręk, I.; Matuszewska, A. Possibilities of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture on the example of a biogas plant. Arch. Automot. Eng. Arch. Motoryz. 2019, 86, 127. [Google Scholar]
- Hijazi, O.; Tappen, S.; Effenberger, M. Environmental impacts concerning flexible power generation in a biogas production. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2019, 2, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciacci, L.; Passarini, F. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Environmental and Energy Systems. Energies 2020, 13, 5892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, C.K.; Leung, T.M.; Ng, W.Y. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 143, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, A.C.; Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; González-Fernández, C. Energy balance and life cycle assessment of a microalgae-based wastewater treatment plant: A focus on alternative biogas uses. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 270, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gustafsson, M.; Svensson, N. Cleaner heavy transports—Environmental and economic analysis of liquefied natural gas and biomethane. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, D.A.L.; Filleti, R.A.P.; Musule, R.; Matheus, T.T.; Freire, F. A systematic review and life cycle assessment of biomass pellets and briquettes production in Latin America. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2022, 157, 112042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakuciová, K.; Štefanica, J.; Carvalho, A.; Kocí, V. Environmental Assessment of a Coal Power Plant with Carbon Dioxide Capture System Based on the Activated Carbon Adsorption Process: A Case Study of the Czech Republic. Energies 2020, 13, 2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopsahelis, A.; Kourmentza, C.; Zafiri, C.; Kornaros, M. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of end-of-life dairy products (EoL-DPs) valorization via anaerobic co-digestion with agro-industrial wastes for biogas production. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 3687–3697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamnatou, C.; Nicolaï, R.; Chemisana, D.; Cristofari, C.; Cancellieri, D. Biogas production by means of an anaerobic-digestion plant in France: LCA of greenhouse-gas emissions and other environmental indicators. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 670, 1226–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, W.; Pai, C.T.; Viswanathan, K.; Chang, J.S. Comparative life cycle assessment and economic analysis of methanol/hydrogen production processes for fuel cell vehicles. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 300, 126959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eggemann, L.; Escobar, N.; Peters, R.; Burauel, P.; Stolten, D. Life cycle assessment of a small-scale methanol production system: A Power-to-Fuel strategy for biogas plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulu, A.; Bartáček, J.; Šerešová, M.; Kočí, V. Combining Process Modelling and LCA to Assess the Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Innovations. Water 2021, 13, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, H.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, C.; Ge, T.S.; Tong, Y.W. A comparative life cycle assessment on four waste-to-energy scenarios for food waste generated in eateries. Appl. Energy 2018, 225, 1143–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.; Pizzol, M.; Azarijafari, H. 14—Life cycle assessment (LCA) of using recycled plastic waste in road pavements: Theoretical modeling. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering; Plastic Waste for Sustainable Asphalt Roads; Woodhead Publishing: Thorston, UK, 2022; pp. 273–302. [Google Scholar]
- Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, A.E.; Ligthart, T.N.; Godoi Bizarro, D.; De Wild, P.; Vreugdenhil, B.; van Harmelen, T. Plastic recycling in a circular economy; determining environmental performance through an LCA matrix model approach. Waste Manag. 2021, 121, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkisi-Arici, S.; Hagen, J.; Cerdas, F.; Herrmann, C. Comparative LCA of Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Sorting Schemes Considering Regional Variability. Procedia CIRP 2021, 98, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, T.H.; Damgaard, A.; Levis, J.; Zhao, Y.; Björklund, A.; Arena, U.; Barlaz, M.A.; Starostina, V.; Boldrin, A.; Astrup, T.F.; et al. Application of LCA modelling in integrated waste management. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van den Oever, A.E.M.; Cardellini, G.; Sets, B.E.; Messagie, M. Life cycle environmental impacts of compressed biogas production through anaerobic digestion of manure and municipal organic waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teoh, S.K.; Li, L.Y. Feasibility of alternative sewage sludge treatment methods from a lifecycle assessment (LCA) perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corominas, L.; Byrne, D.M.; Guest, J.S.; Hospido, A.; Roux, P.; Shaw, A.; Short, M.D. The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: A best practice guide and critical review. Water Res. 2020, 184, 116058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amaral, K.; Aisse, M.; Possetti, G. Sustainability assessment of sludge and biogas management in wastewater treatment plants using the LCA technique. Rev. Ambiente Água 2019, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Lyu, Y.; Tian, J.; Zhao, J.; Ye, N.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, L. Review of waste biorefinery development towards a circular economy: From the perspective of a life cycle assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demichelis, F.; Laghezza, M.; Chiappero, M.; Fiore, S. Technical, economic and environmental assessement of bioethanol biorefinery from waste biomass. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlgren, S.; Bjorklund, A.; Ekman, A.; Karlsson, H.; Berlin, J.; Borjesson, P.; Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G.; Janssen, M.; Strid, I. Review of methodological choices in LCA of biorefinery systems—Key issues and recommendations. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2015, 9, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cai, H.; Han, J.; Wang, M.; Davis, R.; Biddy, M.; Tan, E. Life-cycle analysis of integrated biorefineries with co-production of biofuels and bio-based chemicals: Co-product handling methods and implications. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2018, 12, 815–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandegari, M.; Farzad, S.; Görgens, J.F. A new insight into sugarcane biorefineries with fossil fuel co-combustion: Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 165, 76–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pergola, M.; Rita, A.; Tortora, A.; Castellaneta, M.; Borghetti, M.; De Franchi, A.S.; Lapolla, A.; Moretti, N.; Pecora, G.; Pierangeli, D.; et al. Identification of suitable areas for biomass power plant construction through environmental impact assessment of forest harvesting residues transportation. Energies 2020, 13, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharara, M.; Kim, D.; Sadaka, S.; Thoma, G. Consequential life cycle assessment of swine manure management within a thermal gasification scenario. Energies 2019, 12, 4081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esteves, E.M.M.; Herrera, A.M.N.; Esteves, V.P.P.; Morgado, C.R.V. Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mezzullo, G.W.; Marcelle, C.M.; Geoff, P.H. Life cycle assessment of a small-scale anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beausang, C.; McDonnell, K.; Murphy, F. Assessing the environmental sustainability of grass silage and cattle slurry for biogas production. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollas, C.E.; Bolsan, A.C.; Chini, A.; Venturin, B.; Bonassa, G.; Cândido, D.; Antes, F.G.; Steinmetz, R.L.R.; Prado, N.V.; Kunz, A. Effects of swine manure storage time on solid-liquid separation and biogas production: A life-cycle assessment approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshnevisan, B.; Tsapekos, P.; Alvarado-Morales, M.; Rafiee, S.; Tabatabaei, M.; Angelidaki, I. Life cycle assessment of different strategies for energy and nutrient recovery from source sorted organic fraction of household waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 360–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, X.; Jia, W.; Chen, T.; Ling, Y. Life cycle assessment of food waste anaerobic digestion with hydrothermal and ionizing radiation pretreatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kral, I.; Piringer, G.; Saylor, M.K.; Lizasoain, J.; Gronauer, A.; Bauer, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas Production from Unused Grassland Biomass Pretreated by Steam Explosion Using a System Expansion Method. Sustainability 2021, 12, 9945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugwu, S.N.; Harding, K.; Enweremadu, C.C. Comparative life cycle assessment of enhanced anaerobic digestion of agro-industrial waste for biogas production. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 345, 131178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenti, F.; Porto, S.M.C. Life cycle assessment of agro-industrial by-product reuse: A comparison between anaerobic digestion and conventional disposal treatments. Green Chem. 2020, 22, 7119–7139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demichelis, F.; Tommasi, T.; Deorsola, F.A.; Marchisio, D.; Mancini, G. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of advanced anaerobic digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste. Chemosphere 2022, 289, 133058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiao, H.; Zhang, D.; Tang, Z.; Li, K.; Guo, H.; Niu, X.; Yi, L. Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of dry and wet anaerobic digestion for treating food waste and biogas digestate. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartocci, P.; Zampilli, M.; Liberti, F.; Pistolesi, V.; Massoli, S.; Bidini, G.; Fantozzi, F. LCA analysis of food waste co-digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 136187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappelli, A.; Gigli, E.; Romagnoli, F.; Simoni, S.; Blumberga, D.; Palerno, M.; Guerriero, E. Co-digestion of Macroalgae for Biogas Production: An LCA-based Environmental Evaluation. Energy Procedia 2015, 72, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tong, H.; Tong, Y.W.; Peng, Y.H. A comparative life cycle assessment on mono- and co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 4166–4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zagklis, D.; Tsigkou, K.; Tsafrakidou, P.; Zafiri, C.; Kornaros, M. Life cycle assessment of the anaerobic co-digestion of used disposable nappies and expired food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304, 127118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moioli, S.; Hijazi, O.; Pellegrini, L.A.; Bernhardt, H. Simulation of different biogas upgrading processes and LCA for the selection of the best technology. In Proceedings of the 2020 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting, Virtual, 13–15 July 2020; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2020; p. 2000500. [Google Scholar]
- Surra, E.; Esteves, I.A.A.C.; Lapa, N. Life cycle analysis of a biorefinery for activated carbon and biomethane production. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 149, 106080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, R.; Tahir, F.; Yasar, A.; Sharif, F.; Tabinda, A.B.; Ahmad, S.R.; Wang, Y.; Su, Y. Environmental life cycle analysis of a modern commercial-scale fibreglass composite-based biogas scrubbing system. Renew. Energy 2022, 185, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzi, G.; Gorgoroni, M.; Silva, C.; Santarelli, M. Life Cycle Assessment of biogas upgrading routes. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 2012–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florio, C.; Fiorentino, G.; Corcelli, F.; Ulgiati, S.; Dumontet, S.; Gusewell, J.; Eltrop, L. A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomethane Production from Waste Feedstock through Different Upgrading Technologies. Energies 2019, 12, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shanmugam, K.; Tysklind, M.; Upadhyayula, V.K.K. Use of Liquefied Biomethane (LBM) as a Vehicle Fuel for Road Freight Transportation: A Case Study Evaluating Environmental Performance of Using LBM for Operation of Tractor Trailers. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardolino, F.; Parrillo, F.; Arena, U. Biowaste-to-biomethane or biowaste-to-energy? An LCA study on anaerobic digestion of organic waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, S.F.; Buller, L.S.; Berni, M.; Forster-Carneiro, T. Environmental impact assessment of end-uses of biomethane. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinde, A.M.; Dikshit, A.K.; Odlare, M.; Thorin, E.; Schwede, S. Life cycle assessment of bio-methane and biogas-based electricity production from organic waste for utilization as a vehicle fuel. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 1715–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, D.; San Miguel, G.; Corona, B.; Gaitero, A.; Domínguez, A. Environmental and economic analysis of power generation in a thermophilic biogas plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1418–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timonen, K.; Sinkko, T.; Luostarinen, S.; Tampio, E.; Joensuu, K. LCA of anaerobic digestion: Emission allocation for energy and digestate. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1567–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angouria-Tsorochidou, E.; Seghetta, M.; Tremier, A.; Thomsen, M. Life cycle assessment of digestate post-treatment and utilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 815, 152764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Wang, X.; Lim, E.Y.; Lee, J.T.E.; Ee, A.V.L.; Zhang, J.; Tong, Y.W. Life cycle assessment of food waste to energy and resources: Centralized and decentralized anaerobic digestion with different downstream biogas utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Yang, Q.; Gul, E.; Shi, M.; Li, J.; Yang, M.; Yang, H.; Chen, B.; Zhao, H.; Yan, Y.; et al. Decarbonizing university campuses through the production of biogas from food waste: An LCA analysis. Renew. Energy 2021, 176, 565–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Witte, J.; Schildhauer, T.; Bauer, C. Life cycle assessment of power-to-gas with biogas as the carbon source. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 1427–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Kim, K.T.; Park, Y.K. A Comparative Study on the Reduction Effect in Greenhouse Gas Emissions between the Combined Heat and Power Plant and Boiler. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiting, A.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 2014, 70, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fusi, A.; Bacenetti, J.; Fiala, M.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Biogas Produced by Anaerobic Digestion. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2016, 4, 4–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lijó, L.; Gonzalez-Garcia, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Negri, M.; Fiala, M.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Environmental assessment of farm-scaled anaerobic co-digestion for bioenergy production. Waste Manag. 2015, 41, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hijazi, O.; Munro, S.; Zerhusen, B.; Effenberger, M. Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1291–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natividad Pérez-Camacho, M.; Curry, R.; Cromie, T. Life cycle environmental impacts of biogas production and utilisation substituting for grid electricity, natural gas grid and transport fuels. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ingrao, C.; Bacenetti, J.; Adamczyk, J.; Ferrante, V.; Messineo, A.; Huisingh, D. Investigating energy and environmental issues of agro-biogas derived energy systems: A comprehensive review of Life Cycle Assessments. Renew. Energy 2019, 136, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PN–EN ISO 14040:2009; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2009.
- PN–EN ISO 14044:2009; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2009.
- Oyekale, J.; Petrollese, M.; Cocco, D.; Cau, G. Annualized exergoenvironmental comparison of solar-only and hybrid solar-biomass heat interactions with an organic Rankine cycle power plant. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2022, 15, 100229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piasecka, I.; Bałdowska-Witos, P.; Piotrowska, K.; Tomporowski, A. Eco-Energetical Life Cycle Assessment of Materials and Components of Photovoltaic Power Plant. Energies 2020, 13, 1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banias, G.; Batsioula, M.; Achillas, C.; Patsios, S.I.; Kontogiannopoulos, K.N.; Bochtis, D.; Moussiopoulos, N. A Life Cycle Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices: The Case Study of the Region of Central Macedonia, Greece. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jachura, A.; Sekret, R. Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Phase Change Material in an Evacuated Solar Tube Collector. Energies 2021, 14, 4146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandowska, A. Environmental Product Life Cycle Assessment on the Example of Selected Types of Industrial Pumps; Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej: Poznań, Poland, 2006. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Dzikuć, M.; Zarębska, J. Comparative analysis of energy production in Legnica CHP Plant and Lubin CHP Plant using the LCA method. Energy Policy J. 2014, 17, 41–52. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Dzikuć, M.; Urban, S. Environmental impact assessment of thermal power generation at selected CHP plants. Energetyka 2014, 5, 295–298. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Cukrowski, A.; Mroczkowski, P.; Oniszk-Popławska, A.; Wiśniewski, G. Agricultural Biogas—Production and Use; Mazowiecka Agencja Energetyczna Sp. z o.o.: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Faber, A.; Jarosz, Z.; Borek, R.; Borzęcka-Walker, M.; Syp, A.; Pudełko, R. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2, N2O, CH4) for Wheat, Triticale, Maize and Rye Crops Dedicated for Bioethanol Production and Rapeseed for Biodiesel Production; Expertise Commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; IUNG: Puławy, Poland, 2011. (In Polish)
- Nemecek, T.; Kagi, T. Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Cycles; Ecoinvent Centre: Zurich, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Impact Category | Input and Output Emission (LCI) |
---|---|
Global warming | Carbon dioxide—CO2, nitrogen dioxide—NO2, methane—CH4, chlorofluorocarbon—CFC, hydrochlorofluorocarbon—HCFC |
Ozone layer depletion | CFC, HCFC, halons |
Acidification | Sulphur oxides—SOx, nitrogen oxides—NOx, ammonia—NH4 |
Eutrophication | NOx, NH4, phosphates—PO43−, nitrates—NO3- |
Ecotoxicity | Heavy metals, particulate matter—PM |
Ionizing radiation | Nuclides |
Minerals and fossil fuels depletion | The amount of fossil fuels and minerals used |
Land use | The area of land developed for crops as well as its conversion |
Carcinogens | Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—PAHs, heavy metals |
Effects on the respiratory system | SOx, NOx, carbon monoxide—CO, PM |
Kind of Input | Amount | Destination | Source of Data |
---|---|---|---|
Input from nature | |||
Water | 1000 dm3/MWhe | Used in fermentation technology | Data from the biogas plant |
Input data from technosphere (materials, fuels, electricity, heat, other) | |||
Maize silage Stillage Beet pulp | 1.04 Mg/MWhel 1.95 Mg/MWhel 0.38 Mg/MWhel | Substrate for fermentation | Data from the biogas plant |
Diesel fuel | 0.3 dm3 0.0107 GJ/MWhel | Fuel consumption related to the operation of machines and devices servicing the installation | Data from the biogas plant |
Diesel fuel | 2.57 dm3 0.09165 GJ/MWhel | Feedstock transport to the biogas plant | Own calculations |
Transport distance | 19 km—beet pulp, 95 km—stillage and 5 km—maize silage | n/a | Own calculations |
Electricity | 62.5 kWh/MWhel | Electricity for own needed | Data from the biogas plant |
Heat | 87 kWh/MWhel | Heat for own needed | Data from the biogas plant |
SULFAX | 0.98 kg | Biogas cleaning | Data from the biogas plant |
Output data—main product | |||
Biogas (60% of methane) | 400 Nm3/MWhel | Electricity and heat production | Data from the biogas plant |
Electricity production from | 2.5 kWh | - | Data from the biogas plant |
Output data—by-products, wastes, residues | |||
Digestate | 2.8 Mg/MWhel | Used as a fertilizers | Data from the biogas plant |
Avoided production of ammonium nitrate (converted into total nitrogen) | 48.55 kg/MWhel | Avoided emission | Own calculations |
Heat (treated as a waste to the air) | 74% 0.80 MWhc | Part of the heat is used to heat the hall and fermenters, while the rest is sent to a nearby garden farm | Data from the biogas plant and own calculations |
Emission | |||
GHG emissions during the diesel fuel combustion by the machines operating the installation | CO2: 783.39 kg/MWhel CH4: 0.06 kg/MWhel N2O: 0.03 kg/MWhel | Emission to the air | Own calculations |
GHG emissions to the air caused by feedstock transport | CO2: 6705.45 kg/MWhel CH4: 0.550 kg/MWhel N2O: 0.275 kg/MWhel | Emission to the air | Own calculations |
GHG emissions to the air caused by cogeneration engine and in the flare | CO: 0.022232 kg/MWhel SO2: 0.036844 kg/MWhel NO2: 0.18132 kg/MWhel CO2: 791.986 kg/MWhel | Emission to the air | Own calculations |
GHG emissions connected by digestate storage | 4.8 m3 3.44 kg CH4/MWhel | Emission to the air | Own calculations |
GHG emissions connected by digestate storage | 3.2 m3 6.24 kg CO2/MWhel | Emission to the air | Own calculations |
Heat (as a waste) | 24% 0.28 MWhc | Emission to the air | Data from the biogas plant |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Samson-Bręk, I.; Owczuk, M.; Matuszewska, A.; Biernat, K. Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of Electricity Generation from Biogas in Polish Conditions. Energies 2022, 15, 5601. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155601
Samson-Bręk I, Owczuk M, Matuszewska A, Biernat K. Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of Electricity Generation from Biogas in Polish Conditions. Energies. 2022; 15(15):5601. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155601
Chicago/Turabian StyleSamson-Bręk, Izabela, Marlena Owczuk, Anna Matuszewska, and Krzysztof Biernat. 2022. "Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of Electricity Generation from Biogas in Polish Conditions" Energies 15, no. 15: 5601. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155601