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, L.
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-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. Co-digestion with 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-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. Co-digestion with wastes or residues like roadside grass gave the best environmental performance
KW - emissions
KW - bioenergy
KW - systems
U2 - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.124
DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.124
M3 - Article
SN - 0960-8524
VL - 125
SP - 239
EP - 248
JO - Bioresource Technology
JF - Bioresource Technology
ER -