Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass energy options within an arable crop rotation

被引:72
|
作者
Styles, David [1 ]
Gibbons, James [1 ]
Williams, Arwel P. [1 ]
Dauber, Jens [2 ]
Stichnothe, Heinz [3 ]
Urban, Barbara [3 ]
Chadwick, David R. [1 ]
Jones, Davey L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Bangor Univ, Sch Environm Nat Resources & Geog, Bangor LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, Wales
[2] Thunen Inst Biodivers, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
[3] Thunen Inst Agr Technol, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
来源
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY | 2015年 / 7卷 / 06期
关键词
anaerobic digestion; biofuels; ecosystem services; GHG mitigation; land use change; LCA; Miscanthus; renewable energy; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; LAND-USE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LCA; BIOENERGY; MANURE; AGRICULTURE; PERFORMANCE; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1111/gcbb.12246
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Feed in tariffs (FiTs) and renewable heat incentives (RHIs) are driving a rapid expansion in anaerobic digestion (AD) coupled with combined heat and power (CHP) plants in the UK. Farm models were combined with consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) to assess the net environmental balance of representative biogas, biofuel and biomass scenarios on a large arable farm, capturing crop rotation and digestate nutrient cycling effects. All bioenergy options led to avoided fossil resource depletion. Global warming potential (GWP) balances ranged from -1732kgCO(2)eMg(-1) dry matter (DM) for pig slurry AD feedstock after accounting for avoided slurry storage to +2251kgCO(2)eMg(-1) DM for oilseed rape biodiesel feedstock after attributing indirect land use change (iLUC) to displaced food production. Maize monoculture for AD led to net GWP increases via iLUC, but optimized integration of maize into an arable rotation resulted in negligible food crop displacement and iLUC. However, even under best-case assumptions such as full use of heat output from AD-CHP, crop-biogas achieved low GWP reductions per hectare compared with Miscanthus heating pellets under default estimates of iLUC. Ecosystem services (ES) assessment highlighted soil and water quality risks for maize cultivation. All bioenergy crop options led to net increases in eutrophication after displaced food production was accounted for. The environmental balance of AD is sensitive to design and management factors such as digestate storage and application techniques, which are not well regulated in the UK. Currently, FiT payments are not dependent on compliance with sustainability criteria. We conclude that CLCA and ES effects should be integrated into sustainability criteria for FiTs and RHIs, to direct public money towards resource-efficient renewable energy options that achieve genuine climate protection without degrading soil, air or water quality.
引用
收藏
页码:1305 / 1320
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms
    Styles, David
    Gibbons, James
    Williams, Arwel Prysor
    Stichnothe, Heinz
    Chadwick, David Robert
    Healey, John Robert
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2015, 7 (05): : 1034 - 1049
  • [2] A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Production from Energy Crops in Crop Rotation Using Different Tillage System
    Vatsanidou, Anna
    Kavalaris, Christos
    Fountas, Spyros
    Katsoulas, Nikolaos
    Gemtos, Theofanis
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (17)
  • [3] Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas-Attributional vs. consequential approach
    Rehl, T.
    Lansche, J.
    Mueller, J.
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2012, 16 (06): : 3766 - 3775
  • [4] Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas plant
    Van Stappen, Florence
    Mathot, Michael
    Decruyenaere, Virginie
    Loriers, Astrid
    Delcour, Alice
    Planchon, Viviane
    Goffart, Jean-Pierre
    Stilmant, Didier
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016, 175 : 20 - 32
  • [5] Environmental balance of the UK biogas sector: An evaluation by consequential life cycle assessment
    Styles, David
    Dominguez, Eduardo Mesa
    Chadwick, Dave
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2016, 560 : 241 - 253
  • [6] A life cycle energy assessment for biogas energy in Serbia
    Cvetkovic, Slobodan
    Radoicic, Tatjana Kaluderovic
    Vukadinovic, Bojana
    Kijevcanin, Mirjana
    [J]. ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, 2016, 38 (20) : 3095 - 3102
  • [7] Life cycle assessment of biogas infrastructure options on a regional scale
    Patterson, Tim
    Esteves, Sandra
    Dinsdale, Richard
    Guwy, Alan
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 102 (15) : 7313 - 7323
  • [8] Life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of arable crop production
    Brentrup, F
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2003, 8 (03): : 156 - 156
  • [9] Life Cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of arable crop production
    Frank Brentrup
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2003, 8 : 156 - 156
  • [10] Biofuel or excavation? - Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options
    Suer, Pascal
    Andersson-Skold, Yvonne
    [J]. BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2011, 35 (02): : 969 - 981