Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy – A life cycle perspective

J.W. De Vries, T.M.W.J Vinken, Lorie Hamelin, I.J.M. De Boer

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

The aim of this work was to assess the environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion
of pig manure to produce bio-energy, from a life cycle perspective. This included assessing environmental
impacts and land use change emissions (LUC) required to replace used co-substrates for anaerobic digestion.
Environmental impact categories considered were climate change, terrestrial acidification, marine
and freshwater eutrophication, particulate matter formation, land use, and fossil fuel depletion. Six scenarios
were evaluated: mono-digestion of manure, co-digestion with: maize silage, maize silage and glycerin,
beet tails, wheat yeast concentrate (WYC), and roadside grass. Mono-digestion reduced most
impacts, but represented a limited source for bio-energy. Co-digestion with maize silage, beet tails,
and WYC (competing with animal feed), and glycerin increased bio-energy production (up to 568%),
but at expense of increasing climate change (through LUC), marine eutrophication, and land use. Codigestion
with wastes or residues like roadside grass gave the best environmental performance.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBioresource Technology
Vol/bind125
Sider (fra-til)239-248
ISSN0960-8524
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2012

Fingeraftryk

Manures
bioenergy
Land use
pig
silage
digestion
Life cycle
manure
life cycle
Roadsides
Eutrophication
maize
Glycerol
Climate change
Yeast
land use change
yeast
eutrophication
wheat
grass

Citer dette

@article{2d36133703da4c0d9f729a6c1cc37981,
title = "Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy – A life cycle perspective",
abstract = "The aim of this work was to assess the environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestionof pig manure to produce bio-energy, from a life cycle perspective. This included assessing environmentalimpacts and land use change emissions (LUC) required to replace used co-substrates for anaerobic digestion.Environmental impact categories considered were climate change, terrestrial acidification, marineand freshwater eutrophication, particulate matter formation, land use, and fossil fuel depletion. Six scenarioswere evaluated: mono-digestion of manure, co-digestion with: maize silage, maize silage and glycerin,beet tails, wheat yeast concentrate (WYC), and roadside grass. Mono-digestion reduced mostimpacts, but represented a limited source for bio-energy. Co-digestion with maize silage, beet tails,and WYC (competing with animal feed), and glycerin increased bio-energy production (up to 568{\%}),but at expense of increasing climate change (through LUC), marine eutrophication, and land use. Codigestionwith wastes or residues like roadside grass gave the best environmental performance.",
keywords = "Consequential LCA, pig slurry, renewable energy, indirect land use change, greenhouse gases",
author = "{De Vries}, J.W. and T.M.W.J Vinken and Lorie Hamelin and {De Boer}, I.J.M.",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.124",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "239--248",
journal = "Bioresource Technology",
issn = "0960-8524",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy – A life cycle perspective. / De Vries, J.W.; Vinken, T.M.W.J; Hamelin, Lorie ; De Boer, I.J.M.

I: Bioresource Technology, Bind 125, 2012, s. 239-248.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy – A life cycle perspective

AU - De Vries, J.W.

AU - Vinken, T.M.W.J

AU - Hamelin, Lorie

AU - De Boer, I.J.M.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The aim of this work was to assess the environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestionof pig manure to produce bio-energy, from a life cycle perspective. This included assessing environmentalimpacts and land use change emissions (LUC) required to replace used co-substrates for anaerobic digestion.Environmental impact categories considered were climate change, terrestrial acidification, marineand freshwater eutrophication, particulate matter formation, land use, and fossil fuel depletion. Six scenarioswere evaluated: mono-digestion of manure, co-digestion with: maize silage, maize silage and glycerin,beet tails, wheat yeast concentrate (WYC), and roadside grass. Mono-digestion reduced mostimpacts, but represented a limited source for bio-energy. Co-digestion with maize silage, beet tails,and WYC (competing with animal feed), and glycerin increased bio-energy production (up to 568%),but at expense of increasing climate change (through LUC), marine eutrophication, and land use. Codigestionwith wastes or residues like roadside grass gave the best environmental performance.

AB - The aim of this work was to assess the environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestionof pig manure to produce bio-energy, from a life cycle perspective. This included assessing environmentalimpacts and land use change emissions (LUC) required to replace used co-substrates for anaerobic digestion.Environmental impact categories considered were climate change, terrestrial acidification, marineand freshwater eutrophication, particulate matter formation, land use, and fossil fuel depletion. Six scenarioswere evaluated: mono-digestion of manure, co-digestion with: maize silage, maize silage and glycerin,beet tails, wheat yeast concentrate (WYC), and roadside grass. Mono-digestion reduced mostimpacts, but represented a limited source for bio-energy. Co-digestion with maize silage, beet tails,and WYC (competing with animal feed), and glycerin increased bio-energy production (up to 568%),but at expense of increasing climate change (through LUC), marine eutrophication, and land use. Codigestionwith wastes or residues like roadside grass gave the best environmental performance.

KW - Consequential LCA

KW - pig slurry

KW - renewable energy

KW - indirect land use change

KW - greenhouse gases

U2 - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.124

DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.124

M3 - Journal article

VL - 125

SP - 239

EP - 248

JO - Bioresource Technology

JF - Bioresource Technology

SN - 0960-8524

ER -