IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v10y2021i8p78-d603571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment of Simulated Wastewater Biorefinery

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Silva

    (Instituto Dom Luiz, Departamento de Engenharia Geográfica, Geofísica e Energia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1250-096 Lisboa, Portugal)

Abstract

A wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) can be considered a system where dirty water enters and fresh water (by means of treatment processes) and other co-products such as sludge and biogas exit. Inside the system, typically, the following steps occur: preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, disinfection, and solids handling. The system transforms biomass into several energy and non-energy products, which fall into the definition of a biorefinery. This research compares three simulated WWTP in terms of their environmental greenhouse gas (GHG) emission release to the atmosphere: a generic one (without co-product valorization), one that converts co-products into fertilizer, heat, and electricity, and a third one that converts co-products into heat, electricity, fertilizer, and bioplastic. Heat and electricity are used to provide its energy needs. The chosen impact category is GHG, and the aim is to project the best scenario to the European context in terms of GHG avoidance (savings). The scope is the upstream electricity and natural gas production, the in-use emissions, and the avoided emissions by substituting equivalent fossil-based products. The functional unit is 1 L of sewage (“dirty water”). The GHG savings are evaluated by comparing a generic WWTP scenario, without co-product valorization, with alternative scenarios of co-product valorization. Conventional LCA assuming all the emissions occurs at instant zero is compared to a more realistic environment where for each year, the average of the variable emission pulses occurs. Variable emissions pulses are taken from variable inflows data publicly available from European COST actions (COST Action 682 “Integrated Wastewater Management” as well as within the first IAWQ (later IWA) Task Group on respirometry-based control of the activated sludge process), within the later COST Action 624 on “Optimal Management of Wastewater Systems”). The GHG uncertainty is estimated based on the inputs benchmark data from the WWTP literature and by having different available global warming potential dynamic models. The conventional LCA versus dynamic LCA approach is discussed especially because a WWTP is by nature a dynamic system, having variable inputs along time and therefore variable output GHG emission pulses. It is concluded that heat needs are fully covered by biogas production in the anaerobic digester and combustion, covering its own energy needs and with a potential for heat district supply. Only 30–40% of electricity needs are covered by combined heat and power. Bioplastics and/or fertilizer yields potentially represent less than 3% of current European needs, which suggests the need to reduce their consumption levels. In comparison to generic WWTP, GHG savings are 20%, considering the uncertainty in the benchmark input assumptions. The former is much higher than the uncertainty in the dynamic global warming potential model selection, which means that the model selection is not important in this case study.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Silva, 2021. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment of Simulated Wastewater Biorefinery," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:8:p:78-:d:603571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/8/78/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/8/78/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rui Pacheco & Carla Silva, 2019. "Global Warming Potential of Biomass-to-Ethanol: Review and Sensitivity Analysis through a Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    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. Mariana Raposo & Carla Silva, 2022. "City-Level E-Bike Sharing System Impact on Final Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.

    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. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Debora Sotto & Arlindo Philippi & Tan Yigitcanlar & Md Kamruzzaman, 2019. "Aligning Urban Policy with Climate Action in the Global South: Are Brazilian Cities Considering Climate Emergency in Local Planning Practice?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-31, September.
    3. Mariana Raposo & Carla Silva, 2022. "City-Level E-Bike Sharing System Impact on Final Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Yee Ho Chai & Suzana Yusup & Wan Nadiah Amalina Kadir & Chung Yiin Wong & Siti Suhailah Rosli & Muhammad Syafiq Hazwan Ruslan & Bridgid Lai Fui Chin & Chung Loong Yiin, 2020. "Valorization of Tropical Biomass Waste by Supercritical Fluid Extraction Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Remston Martis & Amani Al-Othman & Muhammad Tawalbeh & Malek Alkasrawi, 2020. "Energy and Economic Analysis of Date Palm Biomass Feedstock for Biofuel Production in UAE: Pyrolysis, Gasification and Fermentation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-34, November.
    6. Isler-Kaya, Asli & Karaosmanoglu, Filiz, 2022. "Life cycle assessment of safflower and sugar beet molasses-based biofuels," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(P1), pages 1127-1138.

    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:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:8:p:78-:d:603571. 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.