Particularly in the UK, there is potential for use of large-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) plants to treat food waste, possibly along with other organic wastes, to produce biogas. This paper presents the results of a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impacts of AD with energy and organic fertiliser production against two alternative approaches: incineration with energy production by CHP and landfill with electricity production. In particular the paper investigates the dependency of the results on some specific assumptions and key process parameters. The input Life Cycle Inventory data are specific to the Greater London area, UK. Anaerobic digestion emerges as the best treatment option in terms of total CO2 and total SO2 saved, when energy and organic fertiliser substitute non-renewable electricity, heat and inorganic fertiliser. For photochemical ozone and nutrient enrichment potentials, AD is the second option while incineration is shown to be the most environmentally friendly solution. The robustness of the model is investigated with a sensitivity analysis. The most critical assumption concerns the quantity and quality of the energy substituted by the biogas production. Two key issues affect the development and deployment of future anaerobic digestion plants: maximising the electricity produced by the CHP unit fuelled by biogas and to defining the future energy scenario in which the plant will be embedded. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study / Evangelisti, Sara; Paola, Lettieri; Borello, Domenico; Roland, Clift. - In: WASTE MANAGEMENT. - ISSN 0956-053X. - STAMPA. - 34:1(2014), pp. 226-237. [10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.013]

Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study

EVANGELISTI, SARA;BORELLO, Domenico;
2014

Abstract

Particularly in the UK, there is potential for use of large-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) plants to treat food waste, possibly along with other organic wastes, to produce biogas. This paper presents the results of a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impacts of AD with energy and organic fertiliser production against two alternative approaches: incineration with energy production by CHP and landfill with electricity production. In particular the paper investigates the dependency of the results on some specific assumptions and key process parameters. The input Life Cycle Inventory data are specific to the Greater London area, UK. Anaerobic digestion emerges as the best treatment option in terms of total CO2 and total SO2 saved, when energy and organic fertiliser substitute non-renewable electricity, heat and inorganic fertiliser. For photochemical ozone and nutrient enrichment potentials, AD is the second option while incineration is shown to be the most environmentally friendly solution. The robustness of the model is investigated with a sensitivity analysis. The most critical assumption concerns the quantity and quality of the energy substituted by the biogas production. Two key issues affect the development and deployment of future anaerobic digestion plants: maximising the electricity produced by the CHP unit fuelled by biogas and to defining the future energy scenario in which the plant will be embedded. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2014
anaerobic digestion; digestate use; life cycle assessment; organic waste; sensitivity analysis; system expansion
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study / Evangelisti, Sara; Paola, Lettieri; Borello, Domenico; Roland, Clift. - In: WASTE MANAGEMENT. - ISSN 0956-053X. - STAMPA. - 34:1(2014), pp. 226-237. [10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.013]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/560753
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 249
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 234
social impact