GHG Emissions and Efficiency of Energy Generation through Anaerobic Fermentation of Wetland Biomass

Robert Czubaszek, Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek and Piotr Banaszuk
Additional contact information
Robert Czubaszek: Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A Str., 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek: Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A Str., 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
Piotr Banaszuk: Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A Str., 15-351 Bialystok, Poland

Energies, 2020, vol. 13, issue 24, 1-25

Abstract: We conducted the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of energy production from biogas for maize and three types of wetland biomass: reed Phragmites australis , sedges Carex elata, and Carex gracilis , and “grassy vegetation” of wet meadows (WM). Biogas energy produced from maize reached over 90 GJ ha −1 , which was more than four times higher than that gained from wetland biomass. However, an estimation of energy efficiency (EE) calculated as a ratio of energy input to the energy produced in a biogas plant showed that the wet fermentation (WF) of maize was similar to the values obtained for dry fermentation (DF) of sedge biomass (~0.30 GJ GJ −1 ). The greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions released during preparation of the feedstock and operation of the biogas plant were 150 g CO 2 eq. kWh el. −1 for DF of sedges and 262 g CO 2 eq. kWh el. −1 for WF of Phragmites . Compared to the prevailing coal-based power generation in Central Europe, anaerobic digestion (AD) of wetland biomass could contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions by 74% to 85%. However, calculations covering the GHG emissions during the entire process “from field to field” seem to disqualify AD of conservation biomass as valid low-GHG energy supply technology. Estimated emissions ranged between 795 g CO 2 eq. kWh el. −1 for DF of Phragmites and 2738 g CO 2 eq. kWh el. −1 for the WM and, in most cases, exceeded those related to fossil fuel technologies.

Keywords: energy efficiency; GHG emissions; biogas production; conservation biomass; wetlands (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/24/6497/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/24/6497/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:24:p:6497-:d:459100

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().