Environmental assessment of energy generation from agricultural and farm waste through anaerobic digestion

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 184, Issue , 2016, Pages 389-399

  Nayal, Figen Sisman ^a   Mammadov, Aydin ^a   Ciliz, Nilgun ^a  

^a BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Agricultural waste; Anaerobic digestion; Biogas; LCA; Organic fertilizer

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL WASTES; ANAEROBIC DIGESTION; BINARY ALLOYS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; COGENERATION PLANTS; ENERGY SECURITY; EUTROPHICATION; FARMS; FERTILIZERS; GASIFICATION; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE GASES; LIFE CYCLE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WASTE INCINERATION;

DIGESTATE; ENERGY; ENERGY CARRIERS; ENERGY GENERATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS; ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS; LCA; LIFE CYCLE STAGES; ORGANIC FERTILIZERS;

BIOGAS;

AMMONIA; BIOGAS; ORGANIC FERTILIZER; BIOFUEL; COAL; FERTILIZER;

AGRICULTURE; ANAEROBIC DIGESTION; BIOGAS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; COMBINED HEAT AND POWER; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FARM; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; ORGANIC FARMING; POWER GENERATION; RECYCLING; SOFTWARE;

AGRICULTURAL WASTE; ANAEROBIC DIGESTION; ARTICLE; COAL GASIFICATION; COAL POWER; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRICITY; ENERGY YIELD; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; EUTROPHICATION; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; NONHUMAN; POULTRY FARMING; THERMOGENESIS; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); AGRICULTURAL LAND; AGRICULTURE; ANAEROBIC GROWTH; ANIMAL; CARBON FOOTPRINT; ELECTRIC POWER PLANT; ENVIRONMENT; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TURKEY; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

KOCAELI [TURKEY]; TURKEY;

ANIMALIA;

AGRICULTURE; ANAEROBIOSIS; ANIMALS; BIOFUELS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; COAL; ENVIRONMENT; FARMS; FERTILIZERS; POWER PLANTS; TURKEY; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84994045504     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.058     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bascetincelik, A., Karaca, C., Ozturk, H.H., Kacıra, M., Kaya, D., Ekinci, K., Barns, I., Baban, A., Nieminen, M., Komioti, N., First Progress Report of Exploitation of Agricultural Residues in Turkey., 2005 LIFE 03 TCY/TR/000061.
2. Batzias, F.A., Sidiras, D.K., Spyrou, E.K., Evaluating livestock manures for biogas production: a GIS based method. Renew. Energy 30 (2005), 1161–1176.
3. Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H., Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (2000), 349–357.
4. Budzianowski W.M. and Postawa K. Renewable energy from biogas with reduced carbon dioxide footprint: implications of applying different plant configurations and operating pressures, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.076.
5. Callaghan, F.J., Wase, D.A.J., Thayanity, K., Forster, C.F., Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 22 (2002), 71–77.
6. Catalina, G., Vega, C., Environmental Impacts of Alternative Co-substrates for Biogas Production - a Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. 2012, Swedish Institute of Agricultural Sciences.
7. Chen, G., Xia, Z., Yang, M., Yan, B., Zhou, W., Tian, X., Decentralized heating in a rural village using biomass gasification and anaerobic digestion: economic and environmental analysis. Energy Procedia 61 (2014), 2367–2370.
8. Cheng, S., Li, Z., Mang, H.P., Huba, E.M., Gao, R., Wang, X., Development and application of prefabricated biogas digesters in developing countries. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 34 (2014), 387–400.
9. Demirbas, A., Importance of biomass energy sources for Turkey. Energy Policy 36 (2008), 834–842.
10. Devlet Meteoroloji İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (DMI), Average Rainfall Data for Kocaeli. 2010 http://www.meteor.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/yillik-toplam-yagisverileri.aspx?m=kocaeli.
11. EBA (European Biogas Association), Biogas report 2014., 2014 http://european-biogas.eu.
12. EC (European Commission), Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources, 2009.
13. Ertem, F.C., Martinez-Blanco, J., Finkbeiner, M., Neubauer, P., Junne, S., Life cycle assessment of flexibly fed biogas processes for an improved demand-oriented biogas supply. Bioresour. Technol. 219 (2016), 536–544.
14. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective. 2015, 334–356.
15. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Tackling Chlimate Change through Livestock: a Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. 2013, 13–43.
16. GE Power, Jenbacher Gas Engines, Technical Description for the Cogeneration Unit. 2010 JMS 208 GS-B.L.
17. Gibson, L., Kugai, J., Winslow, C., Xie, C., Generating Electricity from Biomass in Centre County. 2007, The Biomass Group, Pennsylvania.
18. Hamelin, L., Naroznova, I., Wenzel, H., Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas. Appl. Energy 114 (2014), 774–782.
19. Hansupalak, N., Piromkraipak, P., Tamthirat, P., Manitsorasak, A., Sriroth, K., Tran, T., Biogas reduces the carbon footprint of cassava starch: a comparative assessment with fuel oil. J. Clean. Prod. 134 (2016), 539–546.
20. Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi, T., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 100:22 (2009), 5478–5484.
21. IEA (International Energy Agency), Renewables Information 2016: key Renewables Trends. 2016.
22. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10: emissions from Livestock and Manure Management, vol. 4, 2006.
23. 2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application, vol. 4, 2006.
24. ISAT, GTZ, Biogas Digest Volume I Biogas Basics. 1999, Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology (ISAT), GATE in Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). GmbH (German Agency for Technical Cooperation).
25. Jingura, R.M., Matengaifa, R., Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 13 (2009), 1116–1120.
26. x emissions of a biogas-fueled turbocharged internal combustion engine. Energy 86 (2015), 186–195.
27. MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Turkey), Biomass Energy Potential Atlas of Turkey. 2015 http://bepa.yegm.gov.tr.
28. Nielsen, H.B., Angelidaki, I., Strategies for optimizing recovery of the biogas process following ammonia inhibition. Bioresour. Technol. 99:17 (2008), 7995–8001.
29. Ozturk, M., Hayvan Gübresinden Biyogaz Üretimi. 2005, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı, Ankara.
30. Pagés-Díaz, J., Pereda-Reyes, I., Taherzadeh, M.J., Sárvári-Horváth, I., Lundin, M., Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse wastes with agro-residues: synergistic and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays. Chem. Eng. J. 245 (2014), 89–98.
31. Pehme, S., Veromann, E., Environmental consequences of anaerobic digestion of manure with different co-substrates to produce bioenergy: a review of life cycle assessments. Agron. Res. 13:2 (2015), 372–381.
32. Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to air. J. Clean. Prod. 24 (2012), 168–183.
33. Pullen, T., Anaerobic Digestion - Making Biogas - Making Energy: the Earthscan Expert Guide. 2015, Routledge, New York.
34. Renou, S., Thomas, J.S., Aoustin, E., Pons, M.N., Influence of impact assessment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (2008), 1098–1105.
35. Sandars, D.L., Audsley, E., Canete, C., Cumby, T.R., Scotford, I.M., Williams, A.G., Environmental benefits of livestock manure management practices and technology by life cycle assessment. Biosyst. Eng. 84:3 (2003), 267–281.
36. Schmid, R.D., Hammelehle, R., Schmidt-Dannert, C., Biotechnology: an Illustrated Primer. first ed., 2016, John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim.
37. Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Hashimoto, A.G., Khanal, S.K., Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 31 (2014), 846–859.
38. TUIK (Turkish Statistical Institute), Turkey's Statistical Yearbook. 2012 ISBN 978-975-19-5653-8.
39. TUIK (Turkish Statistical Institute), Electricity Generation - Transmission Statistics of Turkey: Electricity Generation and Shares by Energy Resources. 2013 www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1578.
40. Turnbull, J.H., Kamthunzi, W., Greenhouse Gas Benefits of an Anaerobic Digester in the USA. 2005, IEA Bioenergy T38:03.
41. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems Improved Performance at Competitive Costs. 2002, Office of Air and Radiation, The AgStar Program EPA-430-F-02–004. Winter.
42. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), Biogas Opportunities Roadmap: Voluntary Actions to Reduce Methane Emissions and Increase Energy Independence. 2014.
43. Vassilev, S.V., Baxter, D., Andersen, L.K., Vassileva, C.G., An overview of the chemical composition of biomass. Fuel 89 (2010), 913–933.
44. Wang, J., Decentralized biogas technology of anaerobic digestion and farm ecosystem: opportunities and challenges. Front. Energy Res., 2, 2014, 10.
45. Ward, A.J., Hobbs, P.J., Holliman, P.J., Jones, D.L., Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008), 7928–7940.
46. WBA (World Bioenergy Association), WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2016. 2016.
47. Werner, U., Stöhr, U., Hees, N., Biogas Plants in Animal Husbandry. 1989, A Publication of the Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungstechnologien, GATE, A Division of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.
48. Zhang, T., Liu, L., Song, Z., Ren, G., Feng, Y., Han, X., Yang, G., Biogas production by Co-Digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS One, 8(6), 2013, e66845.
49. Zhao, Y., Deng, W., Environmental impacts of different food waste resource technologies and the effects of energy mix. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 92 (2014), 214–221.