IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1849-d743040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik B. Møller

    (Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark)

  • Peter Sørensen

    (Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark)

  • Jørgen E. Olesen

    (Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark)

  • Søren O. Petersen

    (Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark)

  • Tavs Nyord

    (Concito, Læderstræde 20, 1201 København, Denmark)

  • Sven G. Sommer

    (Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark)

Abstract

Livestock manure is a major source of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). The emissions can be mitigated by production of biogas through anaerobic digestion (AD) of manure, mostly together with other biowastes, which can substitute fossil energy and thereby reduce CO 2 emissions and postdigestion GHG emissions. This paper presents GHG balances for manure and biowaste management as affected by AD for five Danish biogas scenarios in which pig and cattle slurry were codigested with one or more of the following biomasses: deep litter, straw, energy crops, slaughterhouse waste, grass–clover green manure, and household waste. The calculated effects of AD on the GHG balance of each scenario included fossil fuel substitution, energy use for transport, leakage of CH 4 from biogas production plants, CH 4 emissions during storage of animal manure and biowaste, N 2 O emissions from stored and field applied biomass, N 2 O emissions related to nitrate (NO 3 − ) leaching and ammonia (NH 3 ) losses, N 2 O emissions from cultivation of energy crops, and soil C sequestration. All scenarios caused significant reductions in GHG emissions. Most of the reductions resulted from fossil fuel substitution and reduced emissions of CH 4 during storage of codigestates. The total reductions in GHG emissions ranged from 65 to 105 kg CO 2 -eq ton −1 biomass. This wide range showed the importance of biomass composition. Reductions were highest when straw and grass–clover were used as codigestates, whereas reductions per unit energy produced were highest when deep litter or deep litter plus energy crops were used. Potential effects of iLUC were ignored but may have a negative impact on the GHG balance when using energy crops, and this may potentially exceed the calculated positive climate impacts of biogas production. The ammonia emission potential of digestate applied in the field is higher than that from cattle slurry and pig slurry because of the higher pH of the digestate. This effect, and the higher content of TAN in digestate, resulted in increasing ammonia emissions at 0.14 to 0.3 kg NH 3 -N ton −1 biomass. Nitrate leaching was reduced in all scenarios and ranged from 0.04 to 0.45 kg NO 3 -N ton −1 biomass. In the scenario in which maize silage was introduced, the maize production increased leaching and almost negated the effect of AD. Methane leakage caused a 7% reduction in the positive climate impact for each percentage point of leakage in a manure-based biogas scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1849-:d:743040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1849/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1849/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baral, Khagendra R. & Jégo, Guillaume & Amon, Barbara & Bol, Roland & Chantigny, Martin H. & Olesen, Jørgen E. & Petersen, Søren O., 2018. "Greenhouse gas emissions during storage of manure and digestates: Key role of methane for prediction and mitigation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 26-35.
    2. Pengfei Li & Wenzhe Li & Mingchao Sun & Xiang Xu & Bo Zhang & Yong Sun, 2018. "Evaluation of Biochemical Methane Potential and Kinetics on the Anaerobic Digestion of Vegetable Crop Residues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Yusuf, Rafiu O. & Noor, Zainura Z. & Abba, Ahmad H. & Hassan, Mohd Ariffin Abu & Din, Mohd Fadhil Mohd, 2012. "Methane emission by sectors: A comprehensive review of emission sources and mitigation methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 5059-5070.
    5. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    6. Taghizadeh-Toosi, Arezoo & Olesen, Jørgen E., 2016. "Modelling soil organic carbon in Danish agricultural soils suggests low potential for future carbon sequestration," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 83-89.
    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. Jiandong Liu & Jun Du & De-Li Liu & Hans W. Linderholm & Guangsheng Zhou & Yanling Song & Yanbo Shen & Qiang Yu, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Potential Yields of Highland Barley in Relation to Climate Change in Three Rivers Region of the Tibetan Plateau from 1961 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Alper Bayram & Antonino Marvuglia & Maria Myridinas & Marta Porcel, 2022. "Increasing Biowaste and Manure in Biogas Feedstock Composition in Luxembourg: Insights from an Agent-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Qiong Jia & Mengfei Li & Xuecheng Dou, 2022. "Climate Change Affects Crop Production Potential in Semi-Arid Regions: A Case Study in Dingxi, Northwest China, in Recent 30 Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-12, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Baral, Khagendra R. & Jégo, Guillaume & Amon, Barbara & Bol, Roland & Chantigny, Martin H. & Olesen, Jørgen E. & Petersen, Søren O., 2018. "Greenhouse gas emissions during storage of manure and digestates: Key role of methane for prediction and mitigation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 26-35.
    3. Hijazi, O. & Abdelsalam, E. & Samer, M. & Attia, Y.A. & Amer, B.M.A. & Amer, M.A. & Badr, M. & Bernhardt, H., 2020. "Life cycle assessment of the use of nanomaterials in biogas production from anaerobic digestion of manure," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 417-424.
    4. Elena Rossi & Isabella Pecorini & Giovanni Ferrara & Renato Iannelli, 2022. "Dry Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Biogas Production Optimization by Reducing Ammonia Inhibition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Monika Małgorzata & Zmyślona, Jagoda, 2024. "Agricultural production in the least developed countries and its impact on emission of greenhouse gases – An energy approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    8. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Kang, Mary & Mauzerall, Denise L. & Ma, Daniel Z. & Celia, Michael A., 2019. "Reducing methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells: Strategies and costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 594-601.
    13. Jun Hou & Weifeng Zhang & Pei Wang & Zhengxia Dou & Liwei Gao & David Styles, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation of Rural Household Biogas Systems in China: A Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. 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.
    16. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    17. Rasheed, Rizwan & Tahir, Fizza & Yasar, Abdullah & Sharif, Faiza & Tabinda, Amtul Bari & Ahmad, Sajid Rashid & Wang, Yubo & Su, Yuehong, 2022. "Environmental life cycle analysis of a modern commercial-scale fibreglass composite-based biogas scrubbing system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 1261-1271.
    18. Jacob Rosholm Mortensen & Alastair James Ward & Martin Riis Weisbjerg & Sasha Daniel Hafner & Henrik Bjarne Møller, 2021. "Determination of Nitrogen and Sulphur Mineralization in Batch and Semi-Continuous Anaerobic Digestion Using an Artificial Fiber Bag Technique," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    19. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    20. Christian Spreafico & Davide Russo, 2020. "Exploiting the Scientific Literature for Performing Life Cycle Assessment about Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.

    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:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1849-:d:743040. 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.