IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3260-d346654.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Tamburini

    (Department of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

  • Mattias Gaglio

    (Department of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Castaldelli

    (Department of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

  • Elisa Anna Fano

    (Department of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

Abstract

Bioenergies are considered sustainable alternatives to fossil energy sources in the European Union (EU) renewable energy targets for 2030. However, their performances in terms of greenhouse gases (GHG) savings may be affected by indirect emissions related to the required land-use-change (LUC) that should be taken into account when modelling their sustainability. The European Renewable Energy Directive (RED) introduced a number of GHG emission criteria, in comparison with fossil fuels, that bioenergy deriving from agricultural biomasses must comply with. The Emilia-Romagna region (North-Eastern Italy), the second largest Italian biogas producer, has recently issued its Regional Energy Plan (REP), which set an ambitious increase of about 40% of the current installed electric power from biogas up to 2030. The aim of this study is to assess the sustainability of Emilia-Romagna REP accounting for the required indirect land-use-change (ILUC), due to the bioenergy crop expansion, potentially needed to reach the targets. Based on regional data available on biogas production, the amount of land used for maize silage to be destined to biogas production (as a model agricultural feedstock) has been calculated for the actual state-of-the art and towards 2030 scenarios provided by the REP. Starting from average GHG emissions associated with biogas production from 100% maize silage of 35 gCO 2 eq/MJ, a further contribution of 8–18.5 gCO 2 eq/MJ due to LUC has been found. Our findings indicate that it is difficult to assess the global GHG savings from the bioenergy targets fixed by regional energy plans when LUC effects are considered. Careful analysis is necessary in each case to avoid creating negative impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3260-:d:346654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3260/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3260/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dutta, Kasturi & Daverey, Achlesh & Lin, Jih-Gaw, 2014. "Evolution retrospective for alternative fuels: First to fourth generation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 114-122.
    2. Andrea G. Capodaglio & Arianna Callegari & Maria Virginia Lopez, 2016. "European Framework for the Diffusion of Biogas Uses: Emerging Technologies, Acceptance, Incentive Strategies, and Institutional-Regulatory Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Ciro Florio & Gabriella Fiorentino & Fabiana Corcelli & Sergio Ulgiati & Stefano Dumontet & Joshua Güsewell & Ludger Eltrop, 2019. "A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomethane Production from Waste Feedstock Through Different Upgrading Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Cavicchi, Bianca & Bryden, John M. & Vittuari, Matteo, 2014. "A comparison of bioenergy policies and institutional frameworks in the rural areas of Emilia Romagna and Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 355-363.
    5. Bharathiraja, B. & Sudharsana, T. & Jayamuthunagai, J. & Praveenkumar, R. & Chozhavendhan, S. & Iyyappan, J., 2018. "Biogas production – A review on composition, fuel properties, feed stock and principles of anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 570-582.
    6. Buratti, C. & Barbanera, M. & Fantozzi, F., 2013. "Assessment of GHG emissions of biomethane from energy cereal crops in Umbria, Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 128-136.
    7. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    8. Dafnomilis, Ioannis & Hoefnagels, Ric & Pratama, Yudistira W. & Schott, Dingena L. & Lodewijks, Gabriel & Junginger, Martin, 2017. "Review of solid and liquid biofuel demand and supply in Northwest Europe towards 2030 – A comparison of national and regional projections," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 31-45.
    9. Bartoli, Andrea & Hamelin, Lorie & Rozakis, Stelios & Borzęcka, Magdalena & Brandão, Miguel, 2019. "Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 133-148.
    10. Andreas Meyer-Aurich & Yulia Lochmann & Hilde Klauss & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "Comparative Advantage of Maize- and Grass-Silage Based Feedstock for Biogas Production with Respect to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Hijazi, O. & Munro, S. & Zerhusen, B. & Effenberger, M., 2016. "Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1291-1300.
    12. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    13. 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.
    14. Araujo Enciso, Sergio René & Fellmann, Thomas & Pérez Dominguez, Ignacio & Santini, Fabien, 2016. "Abolishing biofuel policies: Possible impacts on agricultural price levels, price variability and global food security," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 9-26.
    15. Bartolini, Fabio & Gava, Oriana & Brunori, Gianluca, 2017. "Biogas and EU's 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 510-519.
    16. Budzianowski, Wojciech M. & Postawa, Karol, 2017. "Renewable energy from biogas with reduced carbon dioxide footprint: Implications of applying different plant configurations and operating pressures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 852-868.
    17. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    18. Neshat, Soheil A. & Mohammadi, Maedeh & Najafpour, Ghasem D. & Lahijani, Pooya, 2017. "Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures and lignocellulosic residues as a potent approach for sustainable biogas production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 308-322.
    19. Patrizio, P. & Leduc, S. & Chinese, D. & Dotzauer, E. & Kraxner, F., 2015. "Biomethane as transport fuel – A comparison with other biogas utilization pathways in northern Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 25-34.
    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. Mattias, Gaglio & Elena, Tamburini & Giuseppe, Castaldelli & Anna, Fano Elisa, 2021. "Modeling the ecosystem service of agricultural residues provision for bioenergy production: A potential application in the Emilia-Romagna region (Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 451(C).
    2. Gaglio, Mattias & Muresan, Alexandra Nicoleta & Sebastiani, Alessandro & Cavicchi, Davide & Fano, Elisa Anna & Castaldelli, Giuseppe, 2023. "A “reserve” of regulating services: The importance of a remnant protected forest for human well-being in the Po delta (Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).

    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. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Piotr Banaszuk, 2020. "GHG Emissions and Efficiency of Energy Generation through Anaerobic Fermentation of Wetland Biomass," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Alessandro Casasso & Marta Puleo & Deborah Panepinto & Mariachiara Zanetti, 2021. "Economic Viability and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Budget of the Biomethane Retrofit of Manure-Operated Biogas Plants: A Case Study from Piedmont, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Bartoli, Andrea & Hamelin, Lorie & Rozakis, Stelios & Borzęcka, Magdalena & Brandão, Miguel, 2019. "Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 133-148.
    6. Herbes, Carsten & Halbherr, Verena & Braun, Lorenz, 2018. "Factors influencing prices for heat from biogas plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 308-318.
    7. Robert Bedoić & Goran Smoljanić & Tomislav Pukšec & Lidija Čuček & Davor Ljubas & Neven Duić, 2021. "Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Gustafsson, M. & Anderberg, S., 2021. "Dimensions and characteristics of biogas policies – Modelling the European policy landscape," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Alexandra Pehlken & Kalle Wulf & Kevin Grecksch & Thomas Klenke & Nina Tsydenova, 2020. "More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Skorek-Osikowska, Anna & Martín-Gamboa, Mario & Iribarren, Diego & García-Gusano, Diego & Dufour, Javier, 2020. "Thermodynamic, economic and environmental assessment of energy systems including the use of gas from manure fermentation in the context of the Spanish potential," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    11. Zhu, Tong & Curtis, John & Clancy, Matthew, 2019. "Promoting agricultural biogas and biomethane production: Lessons from cross-country studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Patrizio, P. & Leduc, S. & Chinese, D. & Kraxner, F., 2017. "Internalizing the external costs of biogas supply chains in the Italian energy sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 85-96.
    13. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    14. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    15. Gul, Eid & Baldinelli, Giorgio & Bartocci, Pietro & Shamim, Tariq & Domenighini, Piergiovanni & Cotana, Franco & Wang, Jinwen & Fantozzi, Francesco & Bianchi, Francesco, 2023. "Transition toward net zero emissions - Integration and optimization of renewable energy sources: Solar, hydro, and biomass with the local grid station in central Italy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 672-686.
    16. Rasheed, Rizwan & Tahir, Fizza & Yasar, Abdullah & Sharif, Faiza & Tabinda, Amtul Bari & Ahmad, Sajid Rashid & Wang, Yubo & Su, Yuehong, 2022. "Environmental life cycle analysis of a modern commercial-scale fibreglass composite-based biogas scrubbing system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 1261-1271.
    17. Khoshgoftar Manesh, M.H. & Rezazadeh, A. & Kabiri, S., 2020. "A feasibility study on the potential, economic, and environmental advantages of biogas production from poultry manure in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 87-106.
    18. Sun, Hui & Wang, Enzhen & Li, Xiang & Cui, Xian & Guo, Jianbin & Dong, Renjie, 2021. "Potential biomethane production from crop residues in China: Contributions to carbon neutrality," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Junpyo Park & John Anderson & Eric Thompson, 2019. "Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, July.
    20. Bedoić, Robert & Jurić, Filip & Ćosić, Boris & Pukšec, Tomislav & Čuček, Lidija & Duić, Neven, 2020. "Beyond energy crops and subsidised electricity – A study on sustainable biogas production and utilisation in advanced energy markets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3260-:d:346654. 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.