Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector
<p>Case study—Northern Croatia.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Geospatial analysis of the biogas sector in Northern Croatia.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Lifecycle impact assessment results for (<b>a</b>) GWP and (<b>b</b>) single score, for the functional unit of 1 m<sup>3</sup> of produced and utilised CH<sub>4</sub>.</p> "> Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Lifecycle impact assessment results for (<b>a</b>) GWP and (<b>b</b>) single score, for the functional unit of 1 m<sup>3</sup> of produced and utilised CH<sub>4</sub>.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- To assess the energy potential for biogas production using lignocellulosic residues, agri-food industry streams and the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste;
- To present the geospatial distribution of the energy potential of novel feedstocks using a GIS mapping approach and to determine which existing and newly added biogas plants are suitable to contribute to natural gas decarbonisation;
- To estimate the environmental impact via using an LCA of novel operational measures on the biogas production side and the utilisation side, while using actual biogas plants as test cases.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Alternative Feedstocks to Maize Silage
2.2. GIS Mapping and Data Processing
2.3. Life Cycle Assessment
3. Case Study
3.1. Biogas Plants in Northern Croatia
3.2. Input Data
- Area—determined using QGIS;
- Ncut(j)—in this study, this was considered to be 2 for a 1 km × 1 km grid;
- Yfeedstock—assessed in previous studies (Supplementary Material);
- LHVmethane—10 kWh/m3 [21].
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Biogas Potential Assessment and GIS Map
4.1.1. Biowaste from Municipalities
4.1.2. Lignocellulosic Biomass from Landscape Management
4.1.3. Biodegradable Streams from the Food-Processing Industry
4.1.4. Replacement of Maize Silage in Biogas Production
4.1.5. Connecting Existing and New Biogas Plants to the Natural Gas Grid
4.2. Environmental Impact Assessment
5. Study Limitations
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brémond, U.; Bertrandias, A.; Steyer, J.-P.; Bernet, N.; Carrere, H. A vision of European biogas sector development towards 2030: Trends and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battista, F.; Frison, N.; Bolzonella, D. Energy and Nutrients’ Recovery in Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Biomass: An Italian Perspective for Future Applications. Energies 2019, 12, 3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Members of IEA Bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy Task 37: Energy from Biogas—Country Report. 2020. Available online: https://task37.ieabioenergy.com/country-reports.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Negri, M.; Bacenetti, J.; Manfredini, A.; Lovarelli, D.; Fiala, M.; Maggiore, T.M.; Bocchi, S. Evaluation of methane production from maize silage by harvest of different plant portions. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 67, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hublin, A.; Schneider, D.R.; Džodan, J. Utilization of biogas produced by anaerobic digestion of agro-industrial waste: Energy, economic and environmental effects. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Council. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/2001 of the european parliament and of the council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 2018, 23–123. [Google Scholar]
- Petravić-Tominac, V.; Nastav, N.; Buljubašić, M.; Šantek, B. Current state of biogas production in Croatia. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2020, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Fahl, F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benato, A.; Macor, A. Italian Biogas Plants: Trend, Subsidies, Cost, Biogas Composition and Engine Emissions. Energies 2019, 12, 979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banja, M.; Jégard, M.; Motola, V.; Sikkema, R. Support for biogas in the EU electricity sector—A comparative analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 128, 105313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoić, R.; Jurić, F.; Ćosić, B.; Pukšec, T.; Čuček, L.; Duić, N. Beyond energy crops and subsidised electricity—A study on sustainable biogas production and utilisation in advanced energy markets. Energy 2020, 201, 117651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, R.; Saastamoinen, H.; Ikäheimo, J.; Abdurafikov, R.; Sihvonen, T.; Shemeikka, J. Decarbonised District Heat, Electricity and Synthetic Renewable Gas in Wind- and Solar-Based District Energy Systems. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2021, 9, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoić, R.; Dorotić, H.; Schneider, D.R.; Čuček, L.; Ćosić, B.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Synergy between feedstock gate fee and power-to-gas: An energy and economic analysis of renewable methane production in a biogas plant. Renew. Energy 2021, 173, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbellini, V.; Kougias, P.G.; Treu, L.; Bassani, I.; Malpei, F.; Angelidaki, I. Hybrid biogas upgrading in a two-stage thermophilic reactor. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 168, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backman, M.; Rogulska, M. Biomethane use in Sweden. Arch. Motoryz. 2016, 71, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meha, D.; Novosel, T.; Duić, N. Bottom-up and top-down heat demand mapping methods for small municipalities, case Gllogoc. Energy 2020, 199, 117429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doračić, B.; Novosel, T.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Evaluation of Excess Heat Utilization in District Heating Systems by Implementing Levelized Cost of Excess Heat. Energies 2018, 11, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olatunji, O.O.; Akinlabi, S.; Madushele, N.; Adedeji, P.; Ndolomingo, M.J. Geospatial investigation of physicochemical properties and thermodynamic parameters of biomass residue for energy generation. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einarsson, R.; Persson, U.M. Analyzing key constraints to biogas production from crop residues and manure in the EU—A spatially explicit model. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ketzer, D.; Rösch, C.; Haase, M. Assessment of sustainable Grassland biomass potentials for energy supply in Northwest Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 100, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Đukan, M.; Aralica, Z. Analysing a Bottom-up Methodology for Developing Communal Biogas Plants in Croatia. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2015, 3, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovrak, A.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. A Geographical Information System (GIS) based approach for assessing the spatial distribution and seasonal variation of biogas production potential from agricultural residues and municipal biowaste. Appl. Energy 2020, 267, 115010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardebili, S.M.S.; Asakereh, A.; Soleymani, M. An analysis of renewable electricity generation potential from municipal solid waste: A case study (Khuzestan Province, Iran). Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 1–9. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-020-01011-6#citeas (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- de Jesus, R.H.G.; Barros, M.V.; Salvador, R.; de Souza, J.T.; Piekarski, C.M.; de Francisco, A.C. Forming clusters based on strategic partnerships and circular economy for biogas production: A GIS analysis for optimal location. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 150, 106097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikas, E.; Sotiropoulos, A.; Xydis, G. Spatial planning of biogas processing facilities in Greece: The sunflower’s capabilities and the waste-to-bioproducts approach. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 131, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahoo, K.; Mani, S.; Das, L.; Bettinger, P. GIS-based assessment of sustainable crop residues for optimal siting of biogas plants. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 110, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höhn, J.; Lehtonen, E.; Rasi, S.; Rintala, J. A Geographical Information System (GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and sites for biogas plants in southern Finland. Appl. Energy 2014, 113, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, D.; Tyner, W.E.; Meilan, R.; Brown, T.R.; Doering, O.C. Stochastic techno-economic analysis of electricity produced from poplar plantations in Indiana. Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyng, K.-A.; Modahl, I.S.; Møller, H.; Saxegård, S. Comparison of Results from Life Cycle Assessment when Using Predicted and Real-life Data for an Anaerobic Digestion Plant. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2021, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, A.; Auburger, S.; Bahrs, E.; Brauer-Siebrecht, W.; Christen, O.; Götze, P.; Koch, H.-J.; Mußhoff, O.; Rücknagel, J.; Märländer, B. Replacing silage maize for biogas production by sugar beet—A system analysis with ecological and economical approaches. Agric. Syst. 2017, 157, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoić, R.; Čuček, L.; Ćosić, B.; Krajnc, D.; Smoljanić, G.; Kravanja, Z.; Ljubas, D.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Green biomass to biogas—A study on anaerobic digestion of residue grass. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacenetti, J.; Sala, C.; Fusi, A.; Fiala, M. Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 669–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pérez-Camacho, M.N.; Curry, R.; Cromie, T. Life cycle environmental impacts of biogas production and utilisation substituting for grid electricity, natural gas grid and transport fuels. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Florio, C.; Fiorentino, G.; Corcelli, F.; Ulgiati, S.; Dumontet, S.; Güsewell, J.; Eltrop, L. A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomethane Production from Waste Feedstock Through Different Upgrading Technologies. Energies 2019, 12, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banja, M.; Jégard, M. Renewable Technologies in the EU Electricity Sector: Trends and Projections—Analysis in the Framework of the EU 2030 Climate and Energy Strategy. 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/renewable-technologies-eu-electricity-sector-trends-and-projections-analysis-framework-eu (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Ardolino, F.; Arena, U. Biowaste-to-Biomethane: An LCA study on biogas and syngas roads. Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vo, T.T.; Rajendran, K.; Murphy, J.D. Can power to methane systems be sustainable and can they improve the carbon intensity of renewable methane when used to upgrade biogas produced from grass and slurry? Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 1046–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collet, P.; Flottes, E.; Favre, A.; Raynal, L.; Pierre, H.; Capela, S.; Peregrina, C. Techno-economic and Life Cycle Assessment of methane production via biogas upgrading and power to gas technology. Appl. Energy 2017, 192, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bedoić, R.; Špehar, A.; Puljko, J.; Čuček, L.; Ćosić, B.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Opportunities and challenges: Experimental and kinetic analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rendering industry streams for biogas production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 130, 109951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoić, R.; Ćosić, B.; Duić, N. Technical potential and geographic distribution of agricultural residues, co-products and by-products in the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 568–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Version 3.10 QGIS—A Free and Open Source Geographic Information System. Available online: https://qgis.org/en/site/ (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Khan, S.; Mohiuddin, K. Evaluating the parameters of ArcGIS and QGIS for GIS Applications. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. 2018, 7, 582–589. [Google Scholar]
- CORINE Land Cover. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service; CORINE Land Cover: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021; Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover (accessed on 3 May 2021).
- International Standards Organization. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Althaus, H.-J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.; Wernetet, G. Overview and Methodology Ecoinvent Report No. 1: Data v2.0. 2007, pp. 1–77. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/files/200712_frischknecht_jungbluth_overview_methodology_ecoinvent2.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Charles, R.; Humbert, S.; Payet, J.; Rebitzer, G.; Rosenbaum, R. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2003, 8, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wikipedia. North Croatia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Croatia (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Croatian Bureau of Statistics. Population Estimate of Republic of Croatia. 2019. Available online: https://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/publication/2020/07-01-03_01_2020.htm (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- HROTE. Annual Report. 2019. Available online: https://files.hrote.hr/files/PDF/Sklopljeni%20Ugovori/ARHIVA/Povlasteni_proizvodjaci_HR_2019.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2021).
- Fundak, S. Primjer iskorištavanja nusproizvoda peradarske farme u bioplinskom postrojenju “Eko Kotor”. Ph.D. Thesis, Polytechnic of Međimurje in Čakovec, Čakovec, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Žiljak, V. Elaborat Gospodarenja Otpadom—Clip Bio Plus. 2018. Available online: http://arhiva2.varazdinska-zupanija.hr/repository/public/2019/6-informacije/ozujak/8b-ego-clip-bio-plus.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Bioen Bioplinska Elektrana Orehovec d.o.o. Available online: https://bioen.hr/bioplinska-elektrana-orehovec/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Zemljak, D. Analiza Mogućnosti Bioplinskog Postrojenja BIOplinara Organica Kalnik 1 d.o.o. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jarak, M. Elaborat Gospodarenja Otpadom—Matvej. 2019. Available online: https://kckzz.hr/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/EGO-MATVEJ-konačno_za-objavu2019.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Hrvatski Centar za Čistiju Proizvodnju. Stručna Podloga za Ishođenje Okolišne Dozvole—Energija Gradec. 2016. Available online: https://mingor.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Okolišna%20dozvola/OD-postojeće/strucna_podloga_zahtjeva_za_ishodenje_okolisne_dozvole_(gradec).pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Zeba, T. Prikupljanje Otpada u Svrhu Iskorištenja Sirovine sa Ciljem Oporabe. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Petrovic, I.; Hip, I.; Fredlund, M.D. Application of continuous normal–lognormal bivariate density functions in a sensitivity analysis of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manag. 2016, 55, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Promo eko Studija o Utjecaju na Okoliš. 2021. Available online: https://mingor.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/UPRAVA-ZA-PROCJENU-UTJECAJA-NA-OKOLIS-ODRZIVO-GOSPODARENJE-OTPADOM/Puo/04_03_2021_Sazetak_Gradjevina_uzgoj_svinja_Bojana.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Državni Zavod za Statistiku. Gustoća Naseljenosti po Gradovima/Općinama. Available online: https://www.dzs.hr/hrv/censuses/census2001/Popis/Graphs/gusposto_zupbody.html (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- The Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia. Izvješće o Komunalnom Otpadu za 2018. Godinu. Available online: https://mingor.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Pristup%20informacijama/OTP_Izvješće%20o%20komunalnom%20otpadu_2018.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Voca, N.; Ribic, B. Biofuel production and utilization through smart and sustainable biowaste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lustenberger, P.; Schumacher, F.; Spada, M.; Burgherr, P.; Stojadinovic, B. Assessing the Performance of the European Natural Gas Network for Selected Supply Disruption Scenarios Using Open-Source Information. Energies 2019, 12, 4685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Environmental Justice Atlas. Protests against Floating LNG Terminal, Krk Island, Croatia. Available online: https://www.ejatlas.org/conflict/protests-against-floating-lng-terminal-krk-island-croatia (accessed on 28 May 2021).
- Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar. Izrada Scenarija za Postizanje Većih Smanjenja Emisija do 2030. Godine i Klimatske Neutralnosti u Republici Hrvatskoj do 2050. Godine za Energetski Sektor. Available online: https://mingor.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/UPRAVA%20ZA%20ENERGETIKU/Strategije,%20planovi%20i%20programi/NULTI%20SCENARIJ%20za%20energetski%20sektor%20-%20nacrt%20za%20javnu%20raspravu.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Achinas, S.; Achinas, V.; Euverink, G.J.W. A Technological Overview of Biogas Production from Biowaste. Engineering 2017, 3, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L. Biogas Production from Presorted Biowaste and Municipal Solid Waste from Sweden; Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences: Wolfenbüttel, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zagrebački Holding—Čistoća. Separate Waste Collection-Biowaste. Available online: https://www.cistoca.hr/services/separate-waste-collection-1724/biowaste/1725 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Thon, J. Biowaste Management in Vienna. Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/ma48/service/publikationen/pdf/biokreislaufwirtschaft-en.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2021).
- Energypedia: Sizing of the Biogas Plant. Available online: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Sizing_of_the_Biogas_Plant (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Manzone, M.; Airoldi, G.; Calvo, A. Transportation of maize silage to biogas plants. J. Agric. Eng. 2020, 51, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topić, D.; Barukčić, M.; Mandžukić, D.; Mezei, C. Optimization Model for Biogas Power Plant Feedstock Mixture Considering Feedstock and Transportation Costs Using a Differential Evolution Algorithm. Energies 2020, 13, 1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grosser, A.; Neczaj, E. Enhancement of biogas production from sewage sludge by addition of grease trap sludge. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 125, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roati, C.; Fiore, S.; Ruffino, B.; Marchese, F.; Novarino, D.; Zanetti, M.C. Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential Biogas Production of Food-Processing Industrial Wastes. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2012, 8, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kantorek, M.; Jesionek, K.; Polesek-Karczewska, S.; Ziółkowski, P.; Stajnke, M.; Badur, J. Thermal utilization of meat-and-bone meal using the rotary kiln pyrolyzer and the fluidized bed boiler—The performance of pilot-scale installation. Renew. Energy 2021, 164, 1447–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency. Final Consultation Document in Accordance with Article 26 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 Establishing a Network Code on Harmonised Transmission Tariff Structures for Gas. Available online: https://www.hera.hr/english/docs/2018/public-consultation-2018-16.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2021).
- European Biogas Association. EBA Statistical Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/eba-statistical-report-2020-shows-significant-growth-and-potential-of-biomethane-to-decarbonise-the-gas-sector/ (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar. Annual Energy Report: Energy in Croatia. Available online: http://www.eihp.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Energija2018.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Zhang, X.; Witte, J.; Schildhauer, T.; Bauer, C. Life cycle assessment of power-to-gas with biogas as the carbon source. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 1427–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poeschl, M.; Ward, S.; Owende, P. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment—Part II: Life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 24, 184–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavicchi, B. Sustainability that backfires: The case of biogas in Emilia Romagna. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2016, 21, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J.; Rydval, J.; Kvasnička, R. Uncovering the dynamic complexity of the development of small–scale biogas technology through causal loops. Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biogas Plant No. | Installed Capacity (MWel) | Utilised Feedstocks and Quantity (t/a) | Type of Process and Temperatures | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.0 | Chicken manure (5000), maize silage (8000), grain dust (3400) | Single-stage at 40 °C | [50] |
2 | 0.3 | Cattle and swine manure (14,400), maize silage (3600) | Single-stage at 40 °C | [51] |
3 | 1.2 | Cattle and swine manure (10,000), maize silage (13,000) | Single-stage at 40 °C | [52] |
4 | 2.4 | Maize silage (28,400), animal manure (21,300), animal dung (21,300), chicken manure (1775), biodegradable waste (3550) | Single-stage at 38 °C | [53] |
5 | 1.0 | Maize silage (6000), animal manure (30,000) | Single-stage at 38 °C | [54] |
6 | 2.0 | Maize silage (29,750), animal manure (50,750), biowaste (35,000), animal by-products (14,000) | Two-stage: pretreatment at 133 °C and AD at 37 °C | [55] |
7 | 1.0 | Biowaste from canteens and restaurants, expired food (25,000) | Two-stage: pretreatment at 35 °C and AD at 40.5 °C | [56] |
8 | 3.7 | Landfill plant | N/A | [57] |
9 | 1.0 | Animal manure (16,285), maize silage (24,700) | Single-stage at 38 °C | Scaled using [58] |
10 | 1.0 | Animal manure (16,285), maize silage (24,700) | Single-stage at 38 °C | Scaled using [58] |
11 | 2.0 | Animal manure (32,570), maize silage (49,400) | Single-stage at 38 °C | [58] |
12 | 1.0 | Animal manure (16,285), maize silage (24,700) | Single-stage at 38 °C | Scaled using [58] |
13 | 1.0 | Animal manure (16,285), maize silage (24,700) | Single-stage at 38 °C | Scaled using [58] |
Biogas Plant No. | Biogas Produced (MWh) | Energy Contribution of Maize Silage to Total Biogas Production (%) |
---|---|---|
1 | 16,917 | 44.3 |
2 | 5350 | 63.0 |
3 | 13,543 | 89.8 |
4 | 43,087 | 61.7 |
5 | 9741 | 57.7 |
6 | 64,469 | 43.2 |
7 | 15,125 | 0.0 |
8 | N/A | N/A |
9 | 25,358 | 91.2 |
10 | 25,358 | 91.2 |
11 | 50,717 | 91.2 |
12 | 25,358 | 91.2 |
13 | 25,358 | 91.2 |
Electricity Source | Contribution to Electricity Mix (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
2018 (Reference Year) | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |
Net import | 28.3 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 7.2 |
Industrial cogeneration plants | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.5 |
District heating plants | 13.6 | 14.8 | 8.9 | 2.9 |
Thermal power plants | 7.9 | 14.4 | 7.4 | 3.7 |
Geothermal power plants | 0.0 | 3.5 | 4.1 | 4.5 |
Solar power plants | 0.5 | 3.9 | 20.4 | 24.8 |
Wind power plants | 6.8 | 23.6 | 26.3 | 29.6 |
Hydropower plants | 40.8 | 35.8 | 29.3 | 26.7 |
Biogas Plant No. | Radius of Equivalent Energy Potential (km) |
---|---|
1 | >20 |
2 | 5–10 |
3 | 15–20 |
4 | >20 |
5 | 5–10 |
6 | 5–10 |
7 | 0 |
8 | N/A |
9 | >20 |
10 | 15–20 |
11 | >20 |
12 | 10–15 |
13 | 5–10 |
Biogas Plant No. | Distance to Natural Gas Grid (km) |
---|---|
1 | 7.98 |
2 | 3.51 |
3 | 14.85 |
4 | 9.44 |
5 | 1.65 |
6 | 4.37 |
7 | 1.93 |
8 | 3.62 |
9 | 3.86 |
10 | 1.91 |
11 | 4.23 |
12 | 1.06 |
13 | 14.16 |
New Biogas Plants | Biomethane Potential (MWh) |
---|---|
A | 25,097 |
B | 8211 |
C | 85,228 |
D | 13,013 |
E | 6755 |
F | 33,652 |
G | 19,676 |
Actual Biogas Plant | Scenario | Case | Feedstock | Utilisation |
---|---|---|---|---|
No. 12 | I | Referent I | Animal manure, maize silage | CHP |
Modified I | Animal manure, residue grass | Biomethane | ||
No. 7 | II | Referent II | Biowaste/food waste | CHP |
Modified II | Biowaste/food waste | Biomethane + e-methane | ||
New plant C | III | Referent III | N/A | Natural gas |
Modified III | Residue grass, biowaste, industry waste | Biomethane |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bedoić, R.; Smoljanić, G.; Pukšec, T.; Čuček, L.; Ljubas, D.; Duić, N. Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector. Energies 2021, 14, 5374. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175374
Bedoić R, Smoljanić G, Pukšec T, Čuček L, Ljubas D, Duić N. Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector. Energies. 2021; 14(17):5374. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175374
Chicago/Turabian StyleBedoić, Robert, Goran Smoljanić, Tomislav Pukšec, Lidija Čuček, Davor Ljubas, and Neven Duić. 2021. "Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector" Energies 14, no. 17: 5374. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175374