IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v160y2015icp456-466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental and energy system analysis of bio-methane production pathways: A comparison between feedstocks and process optimizations

Author

Listed:
  • Pierie, F.
  • van Someren, C.E.J.
  • Benders, R.M.J.
  • Bekkering, J.
  • van Gemert, W.J.Th.
  • Moll, H.C.

Abstract

The energy efficiency and sustainability of an anaerobic green gas production pathway was evaluated, taking into account five biomass feedstocks, optimization of the green gas production pathway, replacement of current waste management pathways by mitigation, and transport of the feedstocks. Sustainability is expressed by three main factors: efficiency in (Process) Energy Returned On Invested (P)EROI, carbon footprint in Global Warming Potential GWP(100), and environmental impact in EcoPoints. The green gas production pathway operates on a mass fraction of 50% feedstock with 50% manure. The sustainability of the analyzed feedstocks differs substantially, favoring biomass waste flows over, the specially cultivated energy crop, maize. The use of optimization, in the shape of internal energy production, green gas powered trucks, and mitigation can significantly improve the sustainability for all feedstocks, but favors waste materials. Results indicate a possible improvement from an average (P)EROI for all feedstocks of 2.3 up to an average of 7.0GJ/GJ. The carbon footprint can potentially be reduced from an average of 40 down to 18 kgCO2eq/GJ. The environmental impact can potentially be reduced from an average of 5.6 down to 1.8Pt/GJ. Internal energy production proved to be the most effective optimization. However, the use of optimization aforementioned will result in les green gas injected into the gas grid as it is partially consumed internally. Overall, the feedstock straw was the most energy efficient, where the feedstock harvest remains proved to be the most environmentally sustainable. Furthermore, transport distances of all feedstocks should not exceed 150km or emissions and environmental impacts will surpass those of natural gas, used as a reference. Using green gas as a fuel can increase the acceptable transportation range to over 300km. Within the context aforementioned and from an energy efficiency and sustainable point of view, the anaerobic digestion process should be utilized for processing locally available waste feedstocks with the added advantage of producing energy, which should first be used internally for powering the green gas production process.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierie, F. & van Someren, C.E.J. & Benders, R.M.J. & Bekkering, J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2015. "Environmental and energy system analysis of bio-methane production pathways: A comparison between feedstocks and process optimizations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 456-466.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:160:y:2015:i:c:p:456-466
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915011733
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.066?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles A. S. Hall & Stephen Balogh & David J.R. Murphy, 2009. "What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, January.
    2. Poeschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(7), pages 1782-1797, September.
    3. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    4. Mezzullo, William G. & McManus, Marcelle C. & Hammond, Geoff P., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of a small-scale anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 657-664.
    5. Pöschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 3305-3321, November.
    6. Rehl, T. & Lansche, J. & Müller, J., 2012. "Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas—Attributional vs. consequential approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3766-3775.
    7. Hamelin, Lorie & Naroznova, Irina & Wenzel, Henrik, 2014. "Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 774-782.
    8. Buratti, C. & Barbanera, M. & Fantozzi, F., 2013. "Assessment of GHG emissions of biomethane from energy cereal crops in Umbria, Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 128-136.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dieu Linh Hoang & Chris Davis & Henri C. Moll & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2020. "Can Multiple Uses of Biomass Limit the Feedstock Availability for Future Biogas Production? An Overview of Biogas Feedstocks and Their Alternative Uses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Singlitico, Alessandro & Goggins, Jamie & Monaghan, Rory F.D., 2019. "The role of life cycle assessment in the sustainable transition to a decarbonised gas network through green gas production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 16-28.
    3. Tsapekos, P. & Kougias, P.G. & Treu, L. & Campanaro, S. & Angelidaki, I., 2017. "Process performance and comparative metagenomic analysis during co-digestion of manure and lignocellulosic biomass for biogas production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 126-135.
    4. Mohammadrezaei, Rashed & Zareei, Samira & Behroozi- Khazaei, Nasser, 2018. "Optimum mixing rate in biogas reactors: Energy balance calculations and computational fluid dynamics simulation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-60.
    5. Oreggioni, G.D. & Luberti, M. & Tassou, S.A., 2019. "Agricultural greenhouse CO2 utilization in anaerobic-digestion-based biomethane production plants: A techno-economic and environmental assessment and comparison with CO2 geological storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1753-1766.
    6. Patel, Sanjay K.S. & Selvaraj, Chandrabose & Mardina, Primata & Jeong, Jae-Hoon & Kalia, Vipin C. & Kang, Yun Chan & Lee, Jung-Kul, 2016. "Enhancement of methanol production from synthetic gas mixture by Methylosinus sporium through covalent immobilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 383-391.
    7. AlSayed, Ahmed & Fergala, Ahmed & Khattab, Saif & ElSharkawy, Adham & Eldyasti, Ahmed, 2018. "Optimization of methane bio-hydroxylation using waste activated sludge mixed culture of type I methanotrophs as biocatalyst," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 755-763.
    8. Hassan, Muhammad & Zhao, Chao & Ding, Weimin, 2020. "Enhanced methane generation and biodegradation efficiencies of goose manure by thermal-sonication pretreatment and organic loading management in CSTR," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. Lam, Chor-Man & Leng, Ling & Chen, Pi-Cheng & Lee, Po-Heng & Hsu, Shu-Chien, 2017. "Eco-efficiency analysis of non-potable water systems in domestic buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 293-307.
    10. Adrian Eugen Cioabla & Francisc Popescu & Timotei Bogdan Bacos, 2022. "Experimental Analysis for Determining Potential of Wastewater Sludge Mixed with Degraded Biomass as Substrates for Biogas Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-9, November.
    11. Frank Pierie & Austin Dsouza & Christian E. J. Van Someren & René M. J. Benders & Wim J. Th. Van Gemert & Henri C. Moll, 2017. "Improving the Sustainability of Farming Practices through the Use of a Symbiotic Approach for Anaerobic Digestion and Digestate Processing," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Kathrin Bienert & Britt Schumacher & Martín Rojas Arboleda & Eric Billig & Samiksha Shakya & Gustav Rogstrand & Marcin Zieliński & Marcin Dębowski, 2019. "Multi-Indicator Assessment of Innovative Small-Scale Biomethane Technologies in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-32, April.
    13. Herz, Gregor & Reichelt, Erik & Jahn, Matthias, 2017. "Design and evaluation of a Fischer-Tropsch process for the production of waxes from biogas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 370-381.
    14. Pierie, F. & Benders, R.M.J. & Bekkering, J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2016. "Lessons from spatial and environmental assessment of energy potentials for Anaerobic Digestion production systems applied to the Netherlands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 233-244.
    15. Carlos E. Gómez-Camacho & Bernardo Ruggeri, 2019. "Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H 2 Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Sahoo, Kamalakanta & Mani, Sudhagar, 2019. "Economic and environmental impacts of an integrated-state anaerobic digestion system to produce compressed natural gas from organic wastes and energy crops," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Ahmed AlSayed & Moomen Soliman & Ahmed Eldyasti, 2020. "Anaerobic-Based Water Resources Recovery Facilities: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-15, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierie, F. & Bekkering, J. & Benders, R.M.J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2016. "A new approach for measuring the environmental sustainability of renewable energy production systems: Focused on the modelling of green gas production pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 131-138.
    2. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Sala, Cesare & Fusi, Alessandra & Fiala, Marco, 2016. "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 669-686.
    3. Pierie, F. & Benders, R.M.J. & Bekkering, J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2016. "Lessons from spatial and environmental assessment of energy potentials for Anaerobic Digestion production systems applied to the Netherlands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 233-244.
    4. Mohammadrezaei, Rashed & Zareei, Samira & Behroozi- Khazaei, Nasser, 2018. "Optimum mixing rate in biogas reactors: Energy balance calculations and computational fluid dynamics simulation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-60.
    5. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    6. Yazan, Devrim Murat & Fraccascia, Luca & Mes, Martijn & Zijm, Henk, 2018. "Cooperation in manure-based biogas production networks: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 820-833.
    7. Sica, Daniela & Esposito, Benedetta & Supino, Stefania & Malandrino, Ornella & Sessa, Maria Rosaria, 2023. "Biogas-based systems: An opportunity towards a post-fossil and circular economy perspective in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Piotr Banaszuk, 2020. "GHG Emissions and Efficiency of Energy Generation through Anaerobic Fermentation of Wetland Biomass," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Djatkov, Djordje & Effenberger, Mathias & Martinov, Milan, 2014. "Method for assessing and improving the efficiency of agricultural biogas plants based on fuzzy logic and expert systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 163-175.
    10. Frank Pierie & Austin Dsouza & Christian E. J. Van Someren & René M. J. Benders & Wim J. Th. Van Gemert & Henri C. Moll, 2017. "Improving the Sustainability of Farming Practices through the Use of a Symbiotic Approach for Anaerobic Digestion and Digestate Processing," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Hijazi, O. & Munro, S. & Zerhusen, B. & Effenberger, M., 2016. "Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1291-1300.
    12. Gao, Mingxue & Wang, Danmeng & Wang, Hui & Wang, Xiaojiao & Feng, Yongzhong, 2019. "Biogas potential, utilization and countermeasures in agricultural provinces: A case study of biogas development in Henan Province, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 191-200.
    13. Yang Yang & Ji-Qin Ni & Wanbin Zhu & Guanghui Xie, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Large-scale Compressed Bio-natural Gas Production in China: A Case Study on Manure Co-digestion with Corn Stover," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Raslavičius, Laurencas, 2012. "Renewable energy sector in Belarus: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 5399-5413.
    15. Lim, Cheolsoo & Kim, Daigon & Song, Changkeun & Kim, Jeongsoo & Han, Jinseok & Cha, Jun-Seok, 2015. "Performance and emission characteristics of a vehicle fueled with enriched biogas and natural gases," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-29.
    16. Tabatabaei, Meisam & Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Valijanian, Elena & Kazemi Shariat Panahi, Hamed & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Ghanavati, Hossein & Sulaiman, Alawi & Mirmohamadsadeghi, Safoora & Karimi, Keikhosr, 2020. "A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 2: Mainstream and downstream strategies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1392-1407.
    17. Moreda, Iván López, 2016. "The potential of biogas production in Uruguay," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1580-1591.
    18. Federico Battista & Nicola Frison & David Bolzonella, 2019. "Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery in Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Biomass: An Italian Perspective for Future Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-13, August.
    19. Oniszk-Popławska, Anna & Matyka, Mariusz & Ryńska, Elżbieta Dagny, 2014. "Evaluation of a long-term potential for the development of agricultural biogas plants: A case study for the Lubelskie Province, Poland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 329-349.
    20. Strzalka, Rafal & Schneider, Dietrich & Eicker, Ursula, 2017. "Current status of bioenergy technologies in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 801-820.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:160:y:2015:i:c:p:456-466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.