IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11462-d658268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenarios of Bioenergy Recovery from Organic Fraction of Residual Municipal Waste in the Marche Region (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Massimiliano Boccarossa

    (Waste Register Section, ARPAM—Environmental Protection Agency of the Marche Region, 61122 Pesaro, Italy
    Department of Industrial Chemistry “Toso Montanari”, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Martina Di Addario

    (Section ChEM—Chemistry, Environment, and Materials, DiSPeA—Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, 61029 Urbino, Italy)

  • Adele Folino

    (Section ChEM—Chemistry, Environment, and Materials, DiSPeA—Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, 61029 Urbino, Italy)

  • Fabio Tatàno

    (Section ChEM—Chemistry, Environment, and Materials, DiSPeA—Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, 61029 Urbino, Italy)

Abstract

In the Marche Region (Central Italy), the residual municipal waste (RMW) is commonly processed in mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems. In these systems, following a first mechanical selection, the undersize organic fraction from RMW (us-OFRMW) undergoes a partial aerobic biological treatment before being landfilled as a biostabilised fraction (bios-OFRMW) without dedicated energy or material recovery. Alternative us-OFRMW management scenarios have been elaborated for this region, at both present (reference year 2019) and future (reference year 2035) time bases. In the first scenario, the potential bioenergy recovery through anaerobic digestion (AD) from the us-OFRMW was evaluated. The second scenario aimed at evaluating the residual methane generation expected from the bios-OFRMW once landfilled, thus contributing also to the potential environmental impact connected with landfill gas (LFG) diffuse emissions from the regional landfills. The diversion to AD, at the present time, would allow a potential bioenergy recovery from the us-OFRMW equal to 4.35 MW el , while the alternative scenario involves greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions equal to 195 kg CO 2 eq. per ton of deposited bios-OFRMW. In the future, the decreased amount of the us-OFRMW addressed to AD would still contribute with a potential bioenergy recovery of 3.47 MW el .

Suggested Citation

  • Massimiliano Boccarossa & Martina Di Addario & Adele Folino & Fabio Tatàno, 2021. "Scenarios of Bioenergy Recovery from Organic Fraction of Residual Municipal Waste in the Marche Region (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11462-:d:658268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11462/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11462/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pöschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 3305-3321, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Huopana, Tuomas & Song, Han & Kolehmainen, Mikko & Niska, Harri, 2013. "A regional model for sustainable biogas electricity production: A case study from a Finnish province," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 676-686.
    2. Thompson, T.M. & Young, B.R. & Baroutian, S., 2020. "Pelagic Sargassum for energy and fertiliser production in the Caribbean: A case study on Barbados," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Bekkering, J. & Hengeveld, E.J. & van Gemert, W.J.T. & Broekhuis, A.A., 2015. "Will implementation of green gas into the gas supply be feasible in the future?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 409-417.
    4. Ciliberti, Carlo & Jordaan, Sarah M. & Smith, Stephen V. & Spatari, Sabrina, 2016. "A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 52-63.
    5. Santagata, R. & Ripa, M. & Ulgiati, S., 2017. "An environmental assessment of electricity production from slaughterhouse residues. Linking urban, industrial and waste management systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 175-188.
    6. 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.
    7. Höhn, J. & Lehtonen, E. & Rasi, S. & Rintala, J., 2014. "A Geographical Information System (GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and sites for biogas plants in southern Finland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Herz, Gregor & Reichelt, Erik & Jahn, Matthias, 2017. "Design and evaluation of a Fischer-Tropsch process for the production of waxes from biogas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 370-381.
    9. Seckin, Candeniz & Bayulken, Ahmet R., 2013. "Extended Exergy Accounting (EEA) analysis of municipal wastewater treatment – Determination of environmental remediation cost for municipal wastewater," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 55-64.
    10. Uddin, Md Mosleh & Simson, Amanda & Wright, Mark Mba, 2020. "Techno-economic and greenhouse gas emission analysis of dimethyl ether production via the bi-reforming pathway for transportation fuel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    11. Katinas, Vladislovas & Marčiukaitis, Mantas & Perednis, Eugenijus & Dzenajavičienė, Eugenija Farida, 2019. "Analysis of biodegradable waste use for energy generation in Lithuania," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 559-567.
    12. 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.
    13. Mehta, Neha & Anderson, Aine & Johnston, Christopher R. & Rooney, David W., 2022. "Evaluating the opportunity for utilising anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis of livestock manure and grass silage to decarbonise gas infrastructure: A Northern Ireland case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 343-357.
    14. Wang, Haoqi & Zhang, Siduo & Bi, Xiaotao & Clift, Roland, 2020. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction potential and cost of bioenergy in British Columbia, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Weidong Huang, 2015. "An Integrated Biomass Production and Conversion Process for Sustainable Bioenergy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Montingelli, Maria E. & Benyounis, Khaled Y. & Quilty, Brid & Stokes, Joseph & Olabi, Abdul G., 2016. "Optimisation of biogas production from the macroalgae Laminaria sp. at different periods of harvesting in Ireland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 671-682.
    18. Yasmin, Nazia & Grundmann, Philipp, 2019. "Adoption and diffusion of renewable energy – The case of biogas as alternative fuel for cooking in Pakistan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 255-264.
    19. Cvetković, Slobodan & Kaluđerović Radoičić, Tatjana & Vukadinović, Bojana & Kijevčanin, Mirjana, 2014. "Potentials and status of biogas as energy source in the Republic of Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 407-416.
    20. Park, Ho Young & Han, Karam & Kim, Hyun Hee & Park, Sangbin & Jang, Jihoon & Yu, Geun Sil & Ko, Ji Ho, 2020. "Comparisons of combustion characteristics between bioliquid and heavy fuel oil combustion in a 0.7 MWth pilot furnace and a 75 MWe utility boiler," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(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:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11462-:d:658268. 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.