IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v93y2014icp124-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bioenergy production from roadside grass: A case study of the feasibility of using roadside grass for biogas production in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Meyer, A.K.P.
  • Ehimen, E.A.
  • Holm-Nielsen, J.B.

Abstract

This paper presents a study of the feasibility of utilising roadside vegetation for biogas production in Denmark. The potential biomass yield, methane yields, and the energy balances of using roadside grass for biogas production was investigated based on spatial analysis. The results show that the potential annual yield of biomass obtainable from roadside verges varies widely depending on the local conditions. The net energy gain (NEG) from harvest, collection, transport, storage and digestion of roadside vegetation was estimated to range from 60,126–121,476GJ, corresponding to 1.5–3.0% of the present national energy production based on biogas. The estimated values for the energy return on invested energy (EROEI) was found to range from 2.17 to 2.88. The measured contents of heavy metals in the roadside vegetation was seen not to exceed the legislative levels for what can be applied as fertilizer on agricultural land, neither does it reach levels considered as inhibitory for the anaerobic fermentation process. From a practical point of view, few challenges were identified related to the acquisition and processing of the roadside vegetation. Considering the positive net energy gains, further energy investments for management of these challenges can be made. Despite the somewhat low EROEI values, the use of this resource could however result in other positive externalities, such as improved biodiversity of the verges and recycling of nutrients.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyer, A.K.P. & Ehimen, E.A. & Holm-Nielsen, J.B., 2014. "Bioenergy production from roadside grass: A case study of the feasibility of using roadside grass for biogas production in Denmark," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 124-133.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:93:y:2014:i:c:p:124-133
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344914002213
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.003?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. Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Murphy, Jerry D., 2010. "What type of digester configurations should be employed to produce biomethane from grass silage?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 1558-1568, August.
    3. Daniel Pick & Martin Dieterich & Sebastian Heintschel, 2012. "Biogas Production Potential from Economically Usable Green Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-21, April.
    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. Meyer, A.K.P. & Raju, C.S. & Kucheryavskiy, S. & Holm-Nielsen, J.B., 2015. "The energy balance of utilising meadow grass in Danish biogas production," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 265-275.

    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. Dunlap, J. & Schramski, J.R., 2024. "Energy-systems accounting in industrial-natural systems; An energy analysis of a managed forest ecosystem including food web biomass dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    2. Jonathan Dumas & Antoine Dubois & Paolo Thiran & Pierre Jacques & Francesco Contino & Bertrand Cornélusse & Gauthier Limpens, 2022. "The Energy Return on Investment of Whole-Energy Systems: Application to Belgium," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 1-34, December.
    3. Florian Fizaine & Victor Court, 2016. "The energy-economic growth relationship: a new insight from the EROI perspective," Working Papers 1601, Chaire Economie du climat.
    4. Liu, Feng & van den Bergh, Jeroen & Wei, Yihang, 2024. "Testing mechanisms through which China's ETS promotes a low-carbon transition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Charles Guay-Boutet, 2023. "Estimating the Disaggregated Standard EROI of Canadian Oil Sands Extracted via Open-pit Mining, 1997–2016," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Paul Eades & Sigrid Kusch-Brandt & Sonia Heaven & Charles J. Banks, 2020. "Estimating the Generation of Garden Waste in England and the Differences between Rural and Urban Areas," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Rodriguez, Cristina & Alaswad, A. & Benyounis, K.Y. & Olabi, A.G., 2017. "Pretreatment techniques used in biogas production from grass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 1193-1204.
    8. Enrica Leccisi & Marco Raugei & Vasilis Fthenakis, 2016. "The Energy and Environmental Performance of Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems—A Timely Update," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Wang, Jun & Xue, Qingwen & Guo, Ting & Mei, Zili & Long, Enshen & Wen, Qian & Huang, Wei & Luo, Tao & Huang, Ruyi, 2018. "A review on CFD simulating method for biogas fermentation material fluid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 64-73.
    10. Nick King & Aled Jones, 2021. "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-32, July.
    11. Holmatov, B. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & Krol, M.S., 2019. "Land, water and carbon footprints of circular bioenergy production systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 224-235.
    12. Burak Atakan, 2019. "Compression–Expansion Processes for Chemical Energy Storage: Thermodynamic Optimization for Methane, Ethane and Hydrogen," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Murphy, David J. & Hall, Charles A.S., 2011. "Adjusting the economy to the new energy realities of the second half of the age of oil," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 67-71.
    14. Mediavilla, Margarita & de Castro, Carlos & Capellán, Iñigo & Javier Miguel, Luis & Arto, Iñaki & Frechoso, Fernando, 2013. "The transition towards renewable energies: Physical limits and temporal conditions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 297-311.
    15. Carey W. King, 2016. "Information Theory to Assess Relations Between Energy and Structure of the U.S. Economy Over Time," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 1-33, December.
    16. Zhaoyang Kong & Xiucheng Dong & Bo Xu & Rui Li & Qiang Yin & Cuifang Song, 2015. "EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.
    17. Liam Wagner & Ian Ross & John Foster & Ben Hankamer, 2016. "Trading Off Global Fuel Supply, CO2 Emissions and Sustainable Development," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Joseph S. Pechsiri & Fredrik Gröndahl, 2022. "Assessing energy return on investment for harvest of wild Nodularia spumigena during blooms in the Baltic Sea," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 1979-1991, December.
    19. Pasqualini, D. & Bassi, A.M., 2014. "Oil shale and climate policy in the shift to a low carbon and more resilient economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 168-176.
    20. Røpke, Inge, 2020. "Econ 101—In need of a sustainability transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    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:recore:v:93:y:2014:i:c:p:124-133. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.