IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i9p3686-d1132559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment and Cost–Benefit Analysis as Combined Economic–Environmental Assessment Tools: Application to an Anaerobic Digestion Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Morena Bruno

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Michela Marchi

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Nicolò Ermini

    (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena, Piazza San Francesco 7-8, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Valentina Niccolucci

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Federico Maria Pulselli

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

Abstract

In the present study, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA), we assess the economic–environmental performance of an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant, fed by cultured crops (i.e., maize and wheat), in Italy. The biogas generated by the AD plant is used for the production of electricity, imputed into the Italian energy grid. The LCA evaluated potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured via Carbon Footprint (CF), while the CBA analysed the financial and economic profiles via the Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) indicators. The strength of combining these methodologies is the joint examination of the financial and social–environmental performance of the plant. The results of the CBA are complemented with the GHG emissions avoided by producing electricity from biogas. The CF of 0.28 kg CO 2 eq·kWh −1 of electricity produced is mainly due to the nitrogen fertilizers involved in the production of the additional feedstock matrix (i.e., maize flour). In the CBA, the negative financial NPV and the financial IRR, which is lower than the discount rate applied, highlight the inability of the net revenue to repay the initial investment. Regarding the social desirability, the economic analysis, enriched by the LCA outcomes, shows a positive economic performance, demonstrating that the combination of information from different methodologies enables wider consideration for the anaerobic digestion plant. In line with the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan’s aim to strongly increase the exploitation of renewable resources, an AD plant fed by dedicated crops could valorise the marginal uncultivated land, obtaining energy without consuming land for food production. Moreover, this AD plant could contribute to the creation of repeatable small-scale energy production systems able to sustain the demand of local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Morena Bruno & Michela Marchi & Nicolò Ermini & Valentina Niccolucci & Federico Maria Pulselli, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment and Cost–Benefit Analysis as Combined Economic–Environmental Assessment Tools: Application to an Anaerobic Digestion Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3686-:d:1132559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3686/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3686/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ascher, Simon & Watson, Ian & Wang, Xiaonan & You, Siming, 2019. "Township-based bioenergy systems for distributed energy supply and efficient household waste re-utilisation: Techno-economic and environmental feasibility," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 455-467.
    2. Galvin, Ray & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Weiß, Julika, 2021. "A conceptual framework for understanding rebound effects with renewable electricity: A new challenge for decarbonizing the electricity sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 423-432.
    3. Wei, Wei & Mushtaq, Zulqarnain & Sharif, Maimoona & Zeng, Xiaowu & Wan-Li, Zhang & Qaisrani, Mumtaz A., 2020. "Evaluating the coal rebound effect in energy intensive industries of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    4. Chiara Del Bo & Carlo Fiorio & Massimo Florio, 2011. "Shadow Wages for the EU Regions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 109-143, March.
    5. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    6. Silva Ortiz, Pablo & Flórez-Orrego, Daniel & de Oliveira Junior, Silvio & Maciel Filho, Rubens & Osseweijer, Patricia & Posada, John, 2020. "Unit exergy cost and specific CO2 emissions of the electricity generation in the Netherlands," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    7. Mushtaq, Zulqarnain & Wei, Wei & Jamil, Ihsan & Sharif, Maimoona & Chandio, Abbas Ali & Ahmad, Fayyaz, 2022. "Evaluating the factors of coal consumption inefficiency in energy intensive industries of China: An epsilon-based measure model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aleksandra Kuzior & Yaryna Samusevych & Serhiy Lyeonov & Dariusz Krawczyk & Dymytrii Grytsyshen, 2023. "Applying Energy Taxes to Promote a Clean, Sustainable and Secure Energy System: Finding the Preferable Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.
    2. Shimei Weng & Jianbao Chen, 2023. "How Does Industrial Upgrading Affect Carbon Productivity in China’s Service Industry?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Tsai, Bi-Huei & Chang, Chih-Jen & Chang, Chun-Hsien, 2016. "Elucidating the consumption and CO2 emissions of fossil fuels and low-carbon energy in the United States using Lotka–Volterra models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 416-424.
    4. Jānis Krūmiņš & Māris Kļaviņš, 2023. "Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Energy in Achieving a Carbon-Free Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-31, April.
    5. Becchio, Cristina & Bottero, Marta Carla & Corgnati, Stefano Paolo & Dell’Anna, Federico, 2018. "Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 803-817.
    6. Maxwell Chukwudi Udeagha & Marthinus Christoffel Breitenbach, 2023. "The Role of Fiscal Decentralization in Limiting CO2 Emissions in South Africa," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 1-30, September.
    7. Ivan Faiella & Luciano Lavecchia, 2012. "Costs and benefits of relaunching nuclear energy in Italy," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 114, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    8. Bi-Huei Tsai & Yao-Min Huang, 2023. "Comparing the Substitution of Nuclear Energy or Renewable Energy for Fossil Fuels between the United States and Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Valentine, Scott, 2010. "Braking wind in Australia: A critical evaluation of the renewable energy target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3668-3675, July.
    10. World Bank, 2012. "Air Transport and Energy Efficiency," World Bank Publications - Reports 16805, The World Bank Group.
    11. Halliki Kreinin, 2021. "The divergent narratives and strategies of unions in times of social-ecological crises: fracking and the UK energy sector," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 27(4), pages 453-468, November.
    12. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    13. Massimo Florio & Silvia Vignetti, 2008. "Building a bridge across CBA traditions: the contribution of EU Regional Policy," Working Papers 200908, CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies.
    14. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    15. Giorgio Barba Navaretti & Anthony J. Venables, 2013. "Multinationals and industrial policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 29(2), pages 361-382, SUMMER.
    16. Treyer, Karin & Bauer, Christian & Simons, Andrew, 2014. "Human health impacts in the life cycle of future European electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 31-44.
    17. Shoeibi, Shahin & Rahbar, Nader & Esfahlani, Ahad Abedini & Kargarsharifabad, Hadi, 2021. "Energy matrices, exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of air-cooled and water-cooled solar still: Experimental investigation and numerical simulation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 227-244.
    18. Saadon, Syamimi & Gaillard, Leon & Menezo, Christophe & Giroux-Julien, Stéphanie, 2020. "Exergy, exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of a building integrated semi-transparent photovoltaic/thermal (BISTPV/T) by natural ventilation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 981-989.
    19. Ahmann, Lara & Banning, Maximilian & Lutz, Christian, 2022. "Modeling rebound effects and counteracting policies for German industries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    20. Alshammari, Yousef M. & Sarathy, S. Mani, 2017. "Achieving 80% greenhouse gas reduction target in Saudi Arabia under low and medium oil prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 502-511.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3686-:d:1132559. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.