IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i21p4081-d280456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Swine Manure Management within a Thermal Gasification Scenario

Author

Listed:
  • Mahmoud Sharara

    (Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Daesoo Kim

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

  • Sammy Sadaka

    (Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA)

  • Greg Thoma

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

Abstract

Sustainable swine manure management is critical to reducing adverse environmental impacts on surrounding ecosystems, particularly in regions of intensive production. Conventional swine manure management practices contribute to agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and aquatic eutrophication. There is a lack of full-scale research of the thermochemical conversion of solid-separated swine manure. This study utilizes a consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) to investigate the environmental impacts of the thermal gasification of swine manure solids as a manure management strategy. CLCA is a modeling tool for a comprehensive estimation of the environmental impacts attributable to a production system. The present study evaluates merely the gasification scenario as it includes manure drying, syngas production, and biochar field application. The assessment revealed that liquid storage of manure had the highest contribution of 57.5% to GHG emissions for the entire proposed manure management scenario. Solid-liquid separation decreased GHG emissions from the manure liquid fraction. Swine manure solids separation, drying, and gasification resulted in a net energy expenditure of 12.3 MJ for each functional unit (treatment of 1 metric ton of manure slurry). Land application of manure slurry mixed with biochar residue could potentially be credited with 5.9 kg CO 2 -eq in avoided GHG emissions, and 135 MJ of avoided fossil fuel energy. Manure drying had the highest share of fossil fuel energy use. Increasing thermochemical conversion efficiency was shown to decrease overall energy use significantly. Improvements in drying technology efficiency, or the use of solar or waste-heat streams as energy sources, can significantly improve the potential environmental impacts of manure solids gasification.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahmoud Sharara & Daesoo Kim & Sammy Sadaka & Greg Thoma, 2019. "Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Swine Manure Management within a Thermal Gasification Scenario," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:21:p:4081-:d:280456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/21/4081/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/21/4081/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mahmoud A. Sharara & Sammy S. Sadaka, 2018. "Opportunities and Barriers to Bioenergy Conversion Techniques and Their Potential Implementation on Swine Manure," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Lijó, Lucía & González-García, Sara & Bacenetti, Jacopo & Fiala, Marco & Feijoo, Gumersindo & Lema, Juan M. & Moreira, María Teresa, 2014. "Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 625-635.
    3. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Ciacci & Fabrizio Passarini, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Environmental and Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-8, November.
    2. Qian Li & Jingjing Wang & Xiaoyang Wang & Yubin Wang, 2022. "The Impact of Training on Beef Cattle Farmers’ Installation of Biogas Digesters," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Izabela Samson-Bręk & Marlena Owczuk & Anna Matuszewska & Krzysztof Biernat, 2022. "Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of Electricity Generation from Biogas in Polish Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Fernández-Gutiérrez & Alejandra Argüelles & Gemma Castejón Martínez & José M. Soriano Disla & Andrés J. Lara-Guillén, 2022. "Unlocking New Value from Urban Biowaste: LCA of the VALUEWASTE Biobased Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Kit Wayne Chew & Shir Reen Chia & Hong-Wei Yen & Saifuddin Nomanbhay & Yeek-Chia Ho & Pau Loke Show, 2019. "Transformation of Biomass Waste into Sustainable Organic Fertilizers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Gwendolyn Rudolph & Stefan Hörtenhuber & Davide Bochicchio & Gillian Butler & Roland Brandhofer & Sabine Dippel & Jean Yves Dourmad & Sandra Edwards & Barbara Früh & Matthias Meier & Armelle Prunier &, 2018. "Effect of Three Husbandry Systems on Environmental Impact of Organic Pigs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Sala, Cesare & Fusi, Alessandra & Fiala, Marco, 2016. "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 669-686.
    5. Jun Hou & Weifeng Zhang & Pei Wang & Zhengxia Dou & Liwei Gao & David Styles, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation of Rural Household Biogas Systems in China: A Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Nur Izzah Hamna A. Aziz & Marlia M. Hanafiah & Shabbir H. Gheewala & Haikal Ismail, 2020. "Bioenergy for a Cleaner Future: A Case Study of Sustainable Biogas Supply Chain in the Malaysian Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Sgarbossa, Fabio & Russo, Ivan, 2017. "A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain: Insight from a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PB), pages 596-606.
    8. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni & Michele Moretti & Enrico Bocci, 2018. "Life Cycle Performance of Hydrogen Production via Agro-Industrial Residue Gasification—A Small Scale Power Plant Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Dimitar Karakashev & Yifeng Zhang, 2018. "BioEnergy and BioChemicals Production from Biomass and Residual Resources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-6, August.
    10. Mario Rafael Giraldi-Díaz & Eduardo Castillo-González & Lorena De Medina-Salas & Raúl Velásquez-De la Cruz & Héctor Daniel Huerta-Silva, 2021. "Environmental Impacts Associated with Intensive Production in Pig Farms in Mexico through Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Antonia Katharina Ruckli & Sabine Dippel & Nora Durec & Monika Gebska & Jonathan Guy & Juliane Helmerichs & Christine Leeb & Herman Vermeer & Stefan Hörtenhuber, 2021. "Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Pig Farms in Selected European Countries: Combining LCA and Key Performance Indicators for Biodiversity Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Biogas from Agri-Food and Agricultural Waste Can Appreciate Agro-Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of Emilia Romagna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Auburger, Sebastian & Jacobs, Anna & Märländer, Bernward & Bahrs, Enno, 2016. "Economic optimization of feedstock mix for energy production with biogas technology in Germany with a special focus on sugar beets – Effects on greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-11.
    14. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni & Maurizio Carlini & Massimo Cecchini & Francesco Santoro & Antonio Pantaleo, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Analysis of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion Power Plant Integrated with a Compost Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Alison Deviney & John Classen & Jackie Bruce & Mahmoud Sharara, 2020. "Sustainable Swine Manure Management: A Tale of Two Agreements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Zhang, Yizhen & Jiang, Yan & Wang, Shun & Wang, Zhongzhong & Liu, Yanchen & Hu, Zhenhu & Zhan, Xinmin, 2021. "Environmental sustainability assessment of pig manure mono- and co-digestion and dynamic land application of the digestate," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    17. Shakira R. Hobbs & Tyler M. Harris & William J. Barr & Amy E. Landis, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Bioplastics and Food Waste Disposal Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    18. Freitas, F.F. & Furtado, A.C. & Piñas, J.A.V. & Venturini, O.J. & Barros, R.M. & Lora, E.E.S., 2022. "Holistic Life Cycle Assessment of a biogas-based electricity generation plant in a pig farm considering co-digestion and an additive," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    19. Poddar, Sourav & Sarat Chandra Babu, J., 2021. "Modelling and optimization of a pyrolysis plant using swine and goat manure as feedstock," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 253-269.
    20. Vance, C. & Sweeney, J. & Murphy, F., 2022. "Space, time, and sustainability: The status and future of life cycle assessment frameworks for novel biorefinery systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:21:p:4081-:d:280456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.