Environmental performance of manure co-digestion with natural and cultivated grass – A consequential life cycle assessment

The aim of this study was to assess the environmental consequences of increased manure-based biogas production relying on grass as a co-substrate (from both unused and cultivated boreal grasslands). Through consequential life cycle assessment, three biogas scenarios were investigated: i) mono-digestion of dairy cow manure, ii) manure co-digestion with reed canary grass cultivated specifically for bioenergy production and iii) manure co-digestion with unused grass from semi-natural grasslands. A full balance of biogenic carbon was considered including soil carbon changes and indirect land use changes. Mono-digestion of manure showed a potential for an improved environmental performance for global warming and phosphorus-eutrophication, in comparison to conventional manure management, but yielded more than 2 times lower energy production compared to co-digestion. Co-digestion with grass from semi-natural grasslands showed an even 41% better potential to reduce global warming and resulted 2 times lower phosphorus-eutrophication compared to mono-digestion, provided that the grass would have otherwise been left un-harvested on land. Because of the indirect land use change associated with an additional demand for land, and the need for additional fertilizers, co-digestion with cultivated grass showed a 26% worse global warming, 2 times higher acidification, 4 times higher nitrogen-eutrophication and 36% worse phosphorus-eutrophication performance compared to natural grass. Results highlighted that grass co-digestion with manure does lead to an enhanced performance of the global warming and phosphorus-induced eutrophication impacts. This conclusion, however, did not apply for nitrogen-related impacts categories (acidification and nitrogen-induced eutrophication). Results were strongly affected by the choice of the indirect land use change factor for modelling and the energy source displaced. In a nutshell, this study highlighted the environmental relevance of considering energy grass and in particular semi-natural grasslands for the production of manure-based biogas, though it showed the necessity to improve the nitrogen balance of the supply chain of these scenarios, and to carefully consider the counterfactual use of the grass stream.

[1]  H Moora,et al.  ELECTRICITY SCENARIOS FOR THE BALTIC STATES AND MARGINAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY IN LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS - A CASE STUDY OF ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION , 2009 .

[2]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Environmental consequences of future biogas technologies based on separated slurry. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  A. Normak,et al.  Biochemical methane potential of different organic wastes and energy crops from Estonia , 2011 .

[4]  Guilherme Marcelo Zanghelini,et al.  Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems , 2015 .

[5]  Tanka P. Kandel,et al.  Chemical composition and methane yield of reed canary grass as influenced by harvesting time and harvest frequency. , 2013, Bioresource technology.

[6]  K. Heinsoo,et al.  The potential of Estonian semi-natural grasslands for bioenergy production , 2010 .

[7]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3 , 2013 .

[8]  B. Weidema,et al.  A Framework for Modelling Indirect Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment , 2015 .

[9]  Visvaldas Varžinskas,et al.  Underdog or bulldog: introducing biogas technologies in Estonia , 2012, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy.

[10]  B. Jeangros,et al.  Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe - A review , 2005 .

[11]  Sara González-García,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops , 2014 .

[12]  Tim Patterson,et al.  Life cycle assessment of biogas infrastructure options on a regional scale. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[13]  S. Ahlgren,et al.  Indirect land use changes of biofuel production – a review of modelling efforts and policy developments in the European Union , 2014, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[14]  David Styles,et al.  Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms , 2015 .

[15]  L. Kukk,et al.  Reed canary grass biomass yield and energy use efficiency in Northern European pedoclimatic conditions. , 2011 .

[16]  Ottar Michelsen,et al.  How Well Does LCA Model Land Use Impacts on Biodiversity?--A Comparison with Approaches from Ecology and Conservation. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  K. Heinsoo,et al.  Seasonal dynamics of bioenergy characteristics in grassland functional groups , 2015 .

[18]  Shane Ward,et al.  Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways , 2010 .

[19]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Carbon footprint of bioenergy pathways for the future Danish energy system , 2014 .

[20]  M. T. Knudsen,et al.  A comparison of Land Use Change models: challenges and future developments , 2016 .

[21]  Morten Birkved,et al.  Choosing co-substrates to supplement biogas production from animal slurry--a life cycle assessment of the environmental consequences. , 2014, Bioresource technology.

[22]  Martina Poeschl,et al.  Environmental impacts of biogas deployment - Part I: Life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to air. , 2012 .

[23]  Jean-Marc Jossart,et al.  Energy and CO2 balance of maize and grass as energy crops for anaerobic digestion. , 2008, Bioresource technology.

[24]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  Mikko Kolehmainen,et al.  A regional model for sustainable biogas electricity production: A case study from a Finnish province , 2013 .

[26]  J. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of cattle slurry acidification on ammonia and methane evolution during storage. , 2012, Journal of environmental quality.

[27]  B. M. Petersen,et al.  An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments , 2013 .

[28]  Merlin Alvarado-Morales,et al.  GHG emission factors for bioelectricity, biomethane, and bioethanol quantified for 24 biomass substrates with consequential life-cycle assessment. , 2016, Bioresource technology.

[29]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Towards increased recycling of household waste: Documenting cascading effects and material efficiency of commingled recyclables and biowaste collection. , 2015, Journal of environmental management.

[30]  I. Angelidaki,et al.  Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants , 2003, Applied biochemistry and biotechnology.

[31]  H. Wenzel,et al.  Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas , 2014 .

[32]  E. Veromann,et al.  Environmental consequences of anaerobic digestion of manure with different co-substrates to produce bioenergy: a review of life cycle assessments. , 2015 .

[33]  Nicholas E. Korres,et al.  Is grass biomethane a sustainable transport biofuel? , 2010 .

[34]  M. Nelles,et al.  Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of bioenergy: impact of regional factors on biogas production , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[35]  Jerry D. Murphy,et al.  What is the energy balance of grass biomethane in Ireland and other temperate northern European climates , 2009 .

[36]  D. Tonini,et al.  Environmental implications of the use of agro‐industrial residues for biorefineries: application of a deterministic model for indirect land‐use changes , 2016 .

[37]  B. Weidema Market information in life cycle assessment , 2003 .

[38]  Veronica Martinez-Sanchez,et al.  Material resources, energy, and nutrient recovery from waste: are waste refineries the solution for the future? , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[39]  Jerry D. Murphy,et al.  What is the resource of second generation gaseous transport biofuels based on pig slurries in Spain , 2014 .

[40]  Teija Paavola,et al.  Biogas production from boreal herbaceous grasses--specific methane yield and methane yield per hectare. , 2009, Bioresource technology.

[41]  S. Hoekman,et al.  A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and modeling in biofuel policy , 2013 .

[42]  Sara González-García,et al.  Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion , 2014 .

[43]  H. Wenzel,et al.  Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[44]  K. Heinsoo,et al.  Comparison of two different bioenergy production options from late harvested biomass of Estonian semi-natural grasslands , 2013 .

[45]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion , 2014 .

[46]  L. Hamelin,et al.  Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy--a life cycle perspective. , 2012, Bioresource technology.

[47]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Current limits of life cycle assessment framework in evaluating environmental sustainability – case of two evolving biofuel technologies , 2013 .

[48]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment - the EDIP-2003 methodology. Guidelines from the Danish EPA , 2004 .

[49]  Stefano Amaducci,et al.  Environmentally Sustainable Biogas? The Key Role of Manure Co-Digestion with Energy Crops , 2015 .

[50]  Irini Angelidaki,et al.  Manure and energy crops for biogas production : Status and barriers , 2008 .

[51]  A. Antón,et al.  Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contributions , 2016 .