Energy performance of compressed biomethane gas production from co-digestion of Salix and dairy manure: factoring differences between Salix varieties.
Biogas
Biomethane
Energy analysis
Energy balance
Lignocellulosic biomass
Salix
Short-rotation coppice willow
Systems perspective
Journal
Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts
ISSN: 2731-3654
Titre abrégé: Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300888906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Nov 2023
03 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
30
06
2023
accepted:
18
10
2023
medline:
4
11
2023
pubmed:
4
11
2023
entrez:
4
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Biogas from anaerobic digestion is a versatile energy carrier that can be upgraded to compressed biomethane gas (CBG) as a renewable and sustainable alternative to natural gas. Organic residues and energy crops are predicted to be major sources of bioenergy production in the future. Pre-treatment can reduce the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic energy crops such as Salix to anaerobic digestion, making it a potential biogas feedstock. This lignocellulosic material can be co-digested with animal manure, which has the complementary effect of increasing volumetric biogas yield. Salix varieties exhibit variations in yield, composition and biomethane potential values, which can have a significant effect on the overall biogas production system. This study assessed the impact of Salix varietal differences on the overall mass and energy balance of a co-digestion system using steam pre-treated Salix biomass and dairy manure (DaM) to produce CBG as the final product. Six commercial Salix varieties cultivated under unfertilised and fertilised conditions were compared. Energy and mass flows along this total process chain, comprising Salix cultivation, steam pre-treatment, biogas production and biogas upgrading to CBG, were evaluated. Two scenarios were considered: a base scenario without heat recovery and a scenario with heat recovery. The results showed that Salix variety had a significant effect on energy output-input ratio (R), with R values in the base scenario of 1.57-1.88 and in the heat recovery scenario of 2.36-2.94. In both scenarios, unfertilised var. Tordis was the best energy performer, while the fertilised var. Jorr was the worst. Based on this energy performance, Salix could be a feasible feedstock for co-digestion with DaM, although its R value was at the lower end of the range reported previously for energy crops.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37924121
doi: 10.1186/s13068-023-02412-1
pii: 10.1186/s13068-023-02412-1
pmc: PMC10625243
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
165Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
‘bp Statistical Review of World Energy 2022’, BP p.l.c., London, 71, 2022. [Online]. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy
Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Mayer L, Eds. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2015. [Online]. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Shukla PR et al. Eds., ‘Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab, NewClimate Institute, and Oxford Net Zero, ‘Tracking Net Zero Progress’, Net Zero Climate. https://netzeroclimate.org/innovation-for-net-zero/progress-tracking/ . Accessed 06 Jan 2023.
IEA, ‘Net Zero by 2050’, IEA, Paris, 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 . Accessed 06 Jan 2023.
IEA, ‘Outlook for biogas and biomethane: Prospects for organic growth’, IEA, Paris, 2020. [Online]. https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth
‘Biomethane’. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/bioenergy/biomethane_en . Accessed 06 Jan 2023.
S. Jain, ‘World Biogas Association (WBA) | Germany International Market report’, World Biogas Association (WBA), London, UK, Market Report, Sep. 2019. [Online]. https://www.worldbiogasassociation.org/germany-international-market-report/ . Accessed 06 Jan 2023.
European Biomass Association (AEBIOM), ‘A Biogas Road Map for Europe’, AEBIOM, Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Online]. https://www.big-east.eu/downloads/Brochure_BiogasRoadmap_WEB%5B1%5D.pdf
Prade T, Björnsson L, Lantz M, Ahlgren S. Can domestic production of iLUC-free feedstock from arable land supply Sweden’s future demand for biofuels? J Land Use Sci. 2017;12(6):407–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1398280 .
doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2017.1398280
Lönnqvist T, Silveira S, Sanches-Pereira A. Swedish resource potential from residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;21:298–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.024 .
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.024
Paolini V, Petracchini F, Segreto M, Tomassetti L, Naja N, Cecinato A. Environmental impact of biogas: a short review of current knowledge. J Environ Sci Health Part A. 2018;53(10):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.1459076 .
doi: 10.1080/10934529.2018.1459076
Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, Liu C, Lu X. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;76:1485–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184 .
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184
Isikgor FH, Becer CR. Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the production of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polym Chem. 2015;6(25):4497–559. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5PY00263J .
doi: 10.1039/C5PY00263J
Gilna P, Lynd LR, Mohnen D, Davis MF, Davison BH. Progress in understanding and overcoming biomass recalcitrance: a BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) perspective. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10(1):285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0971-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s13068-017-0971-1
pubmed: 29213324
pmcid: 5707806
Monlau F, Barakat A, Trably E, Dumas C, Steyer J-P, Carrère H. Lignocellulosic materials into biohydrogen and biomethane: impact of structural features and pretreatment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2013;43(3):260–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2011.604258 .
doi: 10.1080/10643389.2011.604258
Estevez MM, Linjordet R, Morken J. Effects of steam explosion and co-digestion in the methane production from Salix by mesophilic batch assays. Biores Technol. 2012;104:749–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.017
Weih M, Hansson PA, Ohlsson JA, Sandgren M, Schnürer A, Rönnberg-Wästljung AC. Sustainable production of willow for biofuel use, In: Burleigh dodds series in agricultural science, C. Saffron, Eds, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2020, pp. 305–340. https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2019.0027.17 .
Stolarski MJ, Krzyżaniak M, Załuski D, Tworkowski J, Szczukowski S. Effects of site, genotype and subsequent harvest rotation on willow productivity. Agriculture. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10090412 .
doi: 10.3390/agriculture10090412
Stolarski MJ, Krzyżaniak M, Warmiński K, Załuski D, Olba-Zięty E. Willow biomass as energy feedstock: the effect of habitat, genotype and harvest rotation on thermophysical properties and elemental composition. Energies. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164130 .
doi: 10.3390/en13164130
Ohlsson JA, et al. Genetic variation of biomass recalcitrance in a natural Salix viminalis (L.) population. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2019;12(1):135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1479-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s13068-019-1479-7
pubmed: 31171936
pmcid: 6545741
Gao J, Jebrane M, Terziev N, Daniel G. Enzymatic hydrolysis of the gelatinous layer in tension wood of Salix varieties as a measure of accessible cellulose for biofuels. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14(1):141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-021-01983-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s13068-021-01983-1
pubmed: 34158106
pmcid: 8218511
Gao J, Jebrane M, Terziev N, Daniel G. Evaluation of wood quality traits in salix viminalis useful for biofuels: characterization and method development. Forests. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12081048 .
doi: 10.3390/f12081048
Ohlsson JA, Harman-Ware AE, Sandgren M, Schnürer A. Biomass recalcitrance in willow under two biological conversion paradigms: enzymatic hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion. Bioenerg Res. 2020;13(1):260–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10079-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s12155-019-10079-6
Baum C, Amm T, Kahle P, Weih M. Fertilization effects on soil ecology strongly depend on the genotype in a willow (Salix spp.) plantation. For Ecol Manage. 2020;466: 118126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118126 .
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118126
Weih M, Nordh N-E. Determinants of biomass production in hybrid willows and prediction of field performance from pot studies. Tree Physiol. 2005;25(9):1197–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.9.1197 .
doi: 10.1093/treephys/25.9.1197
pubmed: 15996963
A. Sluiter et al., ‘Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass’, NREL, Colorado, Technical Report NREL/TP-510-42618, 2008. [Online]. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy13/42618.pdf
Kalita S, Potter HK, Weih M, Baum C, Nordberg Å, Hansson P-A. Soil Carbon Modelling in Salix Biomass Plantations: Variety Determines Carbon Sequestration and Climate Impacts. Forests. 2021;12(11):1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12111529 .
doi: 10.3390/f12111529
S. Chen et al. Studies into using manure in a biorefinery concept, In: Twenty-Sixth Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, Davison BH, Evans BR, Finkelstein M, McMillan JD, Eds., in ABAB Symposium. Totowa: Humana Press, 2005, 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-991-2_85 .
Wen Z. Hydrolysis of animal manure lignocellulosics for reducing sugar production. Biores Technol. 2004;91(1):31–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00166-4 .
doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00166-4
Ebner JH, Labatut RA, Lodge JS, Williamson AA, Trabold TA. Anaerobic co-digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: Characterizing biochemical parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Manage. 2016;52:286–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.046 .
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.046
Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scot NR. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Biores Technol. 2011;102(3):2255–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035
Kafle GK, Chen L. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manage. 2016;48:492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021
Moody LB, Burns RT, Bishop G, Sell ST, Spajic R. Using Biochemical Methane Potential Assays to Aid in Co-substrate Selection for Co-digestion. Appl Eng Agric. 2011;27(3):433–9. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.37068 .
doi: 10.13031/2013.37068
Li Y, Zhang R, Chen C, Liu G, He Y, Liu X. Biogas production from co-digestion of corn stover and chicken manure under anaerobic wet, hemi-solid, and solid state conditions. Biores Technol. 2013;149:406–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.091 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.091
Mårtensson L. Emissions from Volvo’s trucks. Volvo Truck Corporation, 2018. [Online]. https://www.volvotrucks.com/content/dam/volvo-trucks/markets/global/our-values/environmental-care/our-trucks/Emis_eng_10110_14001.pdf
Berglund M, Börjesson P. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass Bioenerg. 2006;30(3):254–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.011
Karlsson H, Ahlgren S, Sandgren M, Passoth V, Wallberg O, Hansson P-A. A systems analysis of biodiesel production from wheat straw using oleaginous yeast: process design, mass and energy balances. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9(1):229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0640-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0640-9
pubmed: 27800015
pmcid: 5078929
Ziegler-Devin I, Chrusciel L, Brosse N. Steam explosion pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: a mini-review of theorical and experimental approaches. Front Chem. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.705358 .
doi: 10.3389/fchem.2021.705358
pubmed: 34858940
pmcid: 8632215
Jacquet N, Maniet G, Vanderghem C, Delvigne F, Richel A. Application of steam explosion as pretreatment on lignocellulosic material: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2015;54(10):2593–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie503151g .
doi: 10.1021/ie503151g
Jönsson LJ, Martín C. Pretreatment of lignocellulose: formation of inhibitory by-products and strategies for minimizing their effects. Biores Technol. 2016;199:103–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.009
Horn SJ, Estevez MM, Nielsen HK, Linjordet R, Eijsink VGH. Biogas production and saccharification of Salix pretreated at different steam explosion conditions. Biores Technol. 2011;102(17):7932–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.042 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.042
Sassner P, Mårtensson C-G, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Steam pretreatment of H2SO4-impregnated Salix for the production of bioethanol. Biores Technol. 2008;99(1):137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.039 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.039
Venglovsky J, Sasakova N, Placha I. Pathogens and antibiotic residues in animal manures and hygienic and ecological risks related to subsequent land application. Biores Technol. 2009;100(22):5386–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.068 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.068
Buswell AM, Mueller HF. Mechanism of Methane Fermentation. Ind Eng Chem. 1952;44(3):550–2. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50507a033 .
doi: 10.1021/ie50507a033
Sell ST, Burns RT, Moody LB, Raman DR. Comparison of methane production from bench- and sub pilot-scale anaerobic digesters. Appl Eng Agric. 2011;27(5):821–5. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.39570 .
doi: 10.13031/2013.39570
Gayle C Bishop et al. Evaluation of laboratory biochemical methane potentials as a predictor of anaerobic dairy manure digester biogas and methane production, in 2009 Reno, Nevada, June 21–June 24, 2009, Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 2009. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27205 .
Holliger C, Fruteau de Laclos H, Hack G. Methane production of full-scale anaerobic digestion plants calculated from substrate’s biomethane potentials compares well with the one measured on-site. Front Energy Re. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00012 .
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2017.00012
Ruffino B, Fiore S, Roati C, Campo G, Novarino D, Zanetti M. Scale effect of anaerobic digestion tests in fed-batch and semi-continuous mode for the technical and economic feasibility of a full scale digester. Biores Technol. 2015;182:302–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.021
Lemmer A, Naegele H-J, Sondermann J. How efficient are agitators in biogas digesters? Determination of the efficiency of submersible motor mixers and incline agitators by measuring nutrient distribution in full-scale agricultural biogas digesters. Energies. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6126255 .
doi: 10.3390/en6126255
Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Niskanen A, Kapustina V, Horttanainen M. Evaluation of methods for estimating energy performance of biogas production. Renew Energy. 2014;66:232–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.011
Gahlot P, Aboudi K, Tyagi VK. Effect of digestate recirculation on anaerobic digestion performance, In: Anaerobic digestate management, V. K. Tyagi, K. Aboudi, and C. Eskicioglu, Eds., IWA Publishing, 2022, pp. 247–264. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781789062755_0247 .
Estevez MM, Sapci Z, Linjordet R, Schnürer A, Morken J. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and steam-exploded Salix with recirculation of liquid digestate. J Environ Manage. 2014;136:9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.028 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.028
pubmed: 24534902
Uellendahl H, et al. Energy balance and cost-benefit analysis of biogas production from perennial energy crops pretreated by wet oxidation. Water Sci Technol. 2008;58(9):1841–7. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.504 .
doi: 10.2166/wst.2008.504
pubmed: 19029727
Prade T, Svensson S-E, Mattsson JE. Energy balances for biogas and solid biofuel production from industrial hemp. Biomass Bioenerg. 2012;40:36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.045 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.045
Zhu JY, Pan X, Zalesny RS. Pretreatment of woody biomass for biofuel production: energy efficiency, technologies, and recalcitrance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;87(3):847–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2654-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2654-8
pubmed: 20473606
Galbe M, Zacchi G. Pretreatment: the key to efficient utilization of lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenerg. 2012;46:70–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.026
Ardolino F, Cardamone GF, Parrillo F, Arena U. Biogas-to-biomethane upgrading: a comparative review and assessment in a life cycle perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;139: 110588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110588 .
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110588
Breunig HM, Amirebrahimi J, Smith S, Scown CD. Role of digestate and biochar in carbon-negative bioenergy. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(22):12989–98. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03763 .
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b03763
pubmed: 31626735