IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v253y2013icp70-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to manage co-product inputs in emergy accounting exemplified by willow production for bioenergy

Author

Listed:
  • Kamp, Andreas
  • Østergård, Hanne

Abstract

Assessments of environmental performance are challenged by multifunctionality of production systems where impacts cannot be assigned to any one specific output. In the assessment method emergy accounting, all available energy used up for a process is summed up after being converted to solar equivalent Joules. In emergy accounting each output carries the resource use burden of all co-produced outputs. When comparing emergy indicators on a product-to-product basis (reference approach), products from single-output processes tend to be favoured. This constitutes a method bias. Building on emergy algebra rules, we describe approaches to calculate solar transformities when co-production is involved and give guidelines on how to compare products and systems. The approaches are exemplified in a comparison between willow biomass, fertilised with manure, and natural gas used as feedstock for combined heat and power (CHP) production. A Danish willow-based CHP model system was assessed whereas data for the fossil-based system was from literature. When compared on a product-to-product basis using the reference approach, bio-based CHP production is inferior to fossil-based CHP with respect to resource use (transformities of 2.31 E+05seJ/J and 0.88 E+05seJ/J, respectively). If the manure is considered as a waste and modelled as heat loss, the single-product transformity for biobased production is only 0.37 E+05seJ/J. When compared on a system-to-system basis, bio-based production is competitive with fossil-based production (transformities of 2.21 E+05seJ/J and 2.29 E+05seJ/J, respectively). The paper evaluates compatibility of suggested approaches with emergy theory and practices and presents a discussion of the distinction between waste and resource.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamp, Andreas & Østergård, Hanne, 2013. "How to manage co-product inputs in emergy accounting exemplified by willow production for bioenergy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 70-78.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:253:y:2013:i:c:p:70-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.12.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380013000100
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.12.027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Michael & Huo, Hong & Arora, Salil, 2011. "Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5726-5736, October.
    2. Bastianoni, Simone & Morandi, Fabiana & Flaminio, Tommaso & Pulselli, Riccardo M. & Tiezzi, Elisa B.P., 2011. "Emergy and emergy algebra explained by means of ingenuous set theory," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(16), pages 2903-2907.
    3. Buonocore, Elvira & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2012. "Assessing the environmental performance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: A life cycle assessment perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 69-78.
    4. Brown, M. T. & Herendeen, R. A., 1996. "Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 219-235, December.
    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. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Buonocore, Elvira & Paletto, Alessandro & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2017. "Wood-based bioenergy value chain in mountain urban districts: An integrated environmental accounting framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 197-210.
    2. Kamp, Andreas & Ambye-Jensen, Morten & Østergård, Hanne, 2019. "Modelling matter and energy flows of local, refined grass-clover protein feed as alternative to imported soy meal," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 410(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Saladini, Fabrizio & Patrizi, Nicoletta & Pulselli, Federico M. & Marchettini, Nadia & Bastianoni, Simone, 2016. "Guidelines for emergy evaluation of first, second and third generation biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 221-227.
    4. Andreas Kamp & Hanne Østergård & Simon Bolwig, 2016. "Environmental Assessment of Integrated Food and Cooking Fuel Production for a Village in Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Wright, Christina & Østergård, Hanne, 2015. "Scales of renewability exemplified by a case study of three Danish pig production systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 28-36.
    6. Ren, Siyue & Feng, Xiao & Yang, Minbo, 2022. "Cumulative solar exergy allocation in heat and electricity cogeneration systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).

    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. Agostinho, Feni & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Bonilla, Silvia H. & Sacomano, José B. & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2013. "Urban solid waste plant treatment in Brazil: Is there a net emergy yield on the recovered materials?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 143-155.
    2. Zarbá, Lucía & Brown, Mark T., 2015. "Cycling emergy: computing emergy in trophic networks," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 37-45.
    3. Wang, Xiaolong & Li, Zhejin & Long, Pan & Yan, Lingling & Gao, Wangsheng & Chen, Yuanquan & Sui, Peng, 2017. "Sustainability evaluation of recycling in agricultural systems by emergy accounting," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 117(PB), pages 114-124.
    4. Rótolo, G.C. & Montico, S. & Francis, C.A. & Ulgiati, S., 2015. "How land allocation and technology innovation affect the sustainability of agriculture in Argentina Pampas: An expanded life cycle analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 79-93.
    5. Le Corre, O. & Truffet, L., 2015. "Emergy paths computation from interconnected energy system diagram," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 181-200.
    6. Patterson, Murray, 2014. "Evaluation of matrix algebra methods for calculating transformities from ecological and economic network data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 72-82.
    7. Amaral, Luís P. & Martins, Nélson & Gouveia, Joaquim B., 2016. "A review of emergy theory, its application and latest developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 882-888.
    8. Morandi, Fabiana & Campbell, Daniel E. & Pulselli, Federico M. & Bastianoni, Simone, 2015. "Emergy evaluation of hierarchically nested systems: application to EU27, Italy and Tuscany and consequences for the meaning of emergy indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 12-27.
    9. Le Corre, O. & Truffet, L. & Lahlou, C., 2015. "Odum–Tennenbaum–Brown calculus vs emergy and co-emergy analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 302(C), pages 9-12.
    10. Le Corre, O. & Truffet, L., 2012. "Exact computation of emergy based on a mathematical reinterpretation of the rules of emergy algebra," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 101-113.
    11. Lugaric, Luka & Krajcar, Slavko, 2016. "Transforming cities towards sustainable low-carbon energy systems using emergy synthesis for support in decision making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 471-482.
    12. Marvuglia, Antonino & Benetto, Enrico & Rios, Gordon & Rugani, Benedetto, 2013. "SCALE: Software for CALculating Emergy based on life cycle inventories," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 248(C), pages 80-91.
    13. Patterson, Murray & McDonald, Garry & Hardy, Derrylea, 2017. "Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 19-36.
    14. Seghetta, Michele & Østergård, Hanne & Bastianoni, Simone, 2014. "Energy analysis of using macroalgae from eutrophic waters as a bioethanol feedstock," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 288(C), pages 25-37.
    15. Saladini, Fabrizio & Patrizi, Nicoletta & Pulselli, Federico M. & Marchettini, Nadia & Bastianoni, Simone, 2016. "Guidelines for emergy evaluation of first, second and third generation biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 221-227.
    16. Mayumi, Kozo & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2012. "Going beyond energy accounting for sustainability: Energy, fund elements and the economic process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 18-26.
    17. L. Hay & A. H. B. Duffy & R. I. Whitfield, 2017. "The S‐Cycle Performance Matrix: Supporting Comprehensive Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Technical Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 45-70, January.
    18. Stephen G. Wiedemann & Quan V. Nguyen & Simon J. Clarke, 2022. "Using LCA and Circularity Indicators to Measure the Sustainability of Textiles—Examples of Renewable and Non-Renewable Fibres," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Giannantoni, Corrado, 2009. "Ordinal benefits vs economic benefits as a reference guide for policy decision making. The case of hydrogen technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2230-2239.
    20. Lixiao Zhang & Qiuhong Hu & Fan Zhang, 2014. "Input-Output Modeling for Urban Energy Consumption in Beijing: Dynamics and Comparison," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.

    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:eee:ecomod:v:253:y:2013:i:c:p:70-78. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.