IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p9945-d452461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas Production from Unused Grassland Biomass Pretreated by Steam Explosion Using a System Expansion Method

Author

Listed:
  • Iris Kral

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria)

  • Gerhard Piringer

    (Fachhochschule Burgenland GmbH, Steinamangerstr. 21, 7423 Pinkafeld, Austria)

  • Molly K. Saylor

    (City of Fort Collins, 222 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA)

  • Javier Lizasoain

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria)

  • Andreas Gronauer

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria)

  • Alexander Bauer

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Reforestation is a threat to permanent grasslands in many alpine regions. Using these areas to produce biogas energy may help to preserve these important landscapes and save fossil fuels by adding a renewable local heat and electricity source. This case study compares (a) a status quo (SQ) reference scenario with heating oil, wood-chips, and grid electricity as municipal energy sources, and (b) a hypothetical local biogas (LB) scenario (to also be used as a municipal energy source) based on a 500-kW el biogas plant with steam explosion pretreatment. Here, hay from previously unused grassland is the main biogas substrate, whereas, in the reference SQ scenario, these grasslands remain unused. Life cycle assessment (LCA) results for LB and SQ scenarios are significantly different at p < 0.05 in all six impact categories. In three categories, the LB scenario has lower impacts than the SQ scenario, including climate change (0.367 CO 2 -eq kWhel-1 versus 0.501 CO 2 -eq kWhel-1). Dominant contributions to climate change in the SQ scenario are from the extant municipal energy sources that the LB biogas plant would replace; in the LB scenario, important contributions include unburned methane from the biogas plant, as well as CO 2 emissions from hay production machines. In summary, important environmental impacts can be reduced and alpine grasslands can be preserved by biogas production from that grass. The advantages of integrating a local biogas plant in municipal energy and waste systems depend strongly on the extant municipal energy system characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Iris Kral & Gerhard Piringer & Molly K. Saylor & Javier Lizasoain & Andreas Gronauer & Alexander Bauer, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas Production from Unused Grassland Biomass Pretreated by Steam Explosion Using a System Expansion Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9945-:d:452461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Lei & Littlewood, Jade & Murphy, Richard J., 2013. "Environmental sustainability of bioethanol production from wheat straw in the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 715-725.
    2. Ingrao, Carlo & Bacenetti, Jacopo & Adamczyk, Janusz & Ferrante, Valentina & Messineo, Antonio & Huisingh, Donald, 2019. "Investigating energy and environmental issues of agro-biogas derived energy systems: A comprehensive review of Life Cycle Assessments," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 296-307.
    3. Vo, Truc T.Q. & Rajendran, Karthik & Murphy, Jerry D., 2018. "Can power to methane systems be sustainable and can they improve the carbon intensity of renewable methane when used to upgrade biogas produced from grass and slurry?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1046-1056.
    4. 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.
    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. Łukasz Warguła & Mateusz Kukla & Piotr Lijewski & Michał Dobrzyński & Filip Markiewicz, 2020. "Impact of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Systems in Small Engine Wood Chippers on Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-21, December.

    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. Alessandra Fusi & Jacopo Bacenetti & Andrea R. Proto & Doriana E. A. Tedesco & Domenico Pessina & Davide Facchinetti, 2020. "Pellet Production from Miscanthus: Energy and Environmental Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Robert Bedoić & Goran Smoljanić & Tomislav Pukšec & Lidija Čuček & Davor Ljubas & Neven Duić, 2021. "Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Maciej Dzikuć & Joanna Wyrobek & Łukasz Popławski, 2021. "Economic Determinants of Low-Carbon Development in the Visegrad Group Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Bangxi Zhang & Tianhong Fu & Chung-Yu Guan & Shihao Cui & Beibei Fan & Yi Tan & Wenhai Luo & Quanquan Wei & Guoxue Li & Yutao Peng, 2022. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Chicken Manure Compost Using Tobacco Residue, Mushroom Bran, and Biochar as Additives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Wendelin Wichtmann & Grzegorz Zając & Piotr Banaszuk, 2023. "Common Reed and Maize Silage Co-Digestion as a Pathway towards Sustainable Biogas Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Zang, Guiyan & Zhang, Jianan & Jia, Junxi & Lora, Electo Silva & Ratner, Albert, 2020. "Life cycle assessment of power-generation systems based on biomass integrated gasification combined cycles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 336-346.
    7. Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar & Sarsaiya, Surendra & Wainaina, Steven & Rajendran, Karthik & Kumar, Sumit & Quan, Wang & Duan, Yumin & Awasthi, Sanjeev Kumar & Chen, Hongyu & Pandey, Ashok & Zhang, Zengqiang , 2019. "A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable circular bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 115-131.
    8. Soha, Tamás & Papp, Luca & Csontos, Csaba & Munkácsy, Béla, 2021. "The importance of high crop residue demand on biogas plant site selection, scaling and feedstock allocation – A regional scale concept in a Hungarian study area," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Tahereh Soleymani Angili & Katarzyna Grzesik & Anne Rödl & Martin Kaltschmitt, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Bioethanol Production: A Review of Feedstock, Technology and Methodology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Lauer, Markus & Hansen, Jason K. & Lamers, Patrick & Thrän, Daniela, 2018. "Making money from waste: The economic viability of producing biogas and biomethane in the Idaho dairy industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 621-636.
    12. Soam, Shveta & Kapoor, Manali & Kumar, Ravindra & Borjesson, Pal & Gupta, Ravi P. & Tuli, Deepak K., 2016. "Global warming potential and energy analysis of second generation ethanol production from rice straw in India," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 353-364.
    13. Alberto Benato & Alarico Macor, 2021. "Costs to Reduce the Human Health Toxicity of Biogas Engine Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Costantini, Michele & Provolo, Giorgio & Bacenetti, Jacopo, 2024. "The effects of incorporating renewable energy into the environmental footprint of beef production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Bedoić, Robert & Dorotić, Hrvoje & Schneider, Daniel Rolph & Čuček, Lidija & Ćosić, Boris & Pukšec, Tomislav & Duić, Neven, 2021. "Synergy between feedstock gate fee and power-to-gas: An energy and economic analysis of renewable methane production in a biogas plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 12-23.
    17. Bose, Archishman & O'Shea, Richard & Lin, Richen & Long, Aoife & Rajendran, Karthik & Wall, David & De, Sudipta & Murphy, Jerry D., 2022. "The marginal abatement cost of co-producing biomethane, food and biofertiliser in a circular economy system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Mansell, Ross V.M., 2018. "A comparative thermodynamic evaluation of bioethanol processing from wheat straw," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 136-146.
    19. Jacopo Bacenetti, 2020. "Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of Renewable Energy from Biomass," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-5, July.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9945-:d:452461. 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.