IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i9p3686-d1132559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment and Cost–Benefit Analysis as Combined Economic–Environmental Assessment Tools: Application to an Anaerobic Digestion Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Morena Bruno

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Michela Marchi

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Nicolò Ermini

    (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena, Piazza San Francesco 7-8, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Valentina Niccolucci

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Federico Maria Pulselli

    (Ecodynamics Group, Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, Piazzetta Enzo Tiezzi 1, 53100 Siena, Italy)

Abstract

In the present study, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA), we assess the economic–environmental performance of an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant, fed by cultured crops (i.e., maize and wheat), in Italy. The biogas generated by the AD plant is used for the production of electricity, imputed into the Italian energy grid. The LCA evaluated potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured via Carbon Footprint (CF), while the CBA analysed the financial and economic profiles via the Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) indicators. The strength of combining these methodologies is the joint examination of the financial and social–environmental performance of the plant. The results of the CBA are complemented with the GHG emissions avoided by producing electricity from biogas. The CF of 0.28 kg CO 2 eq·kWh −1 of electricity produced is mainly due to the nitrogen fertilizers involved in the production of the additional feedstock matrix (i.e., maize flour). In the CBA, the negative financial NPV and the financial IRR, which is lower than the discount rate applied, highlight the inability of the net revenue to repay the initial investment. Regarding the social desirability, the economic analysis, enriched by the LCA outcomes, shows a positive economic performance, demonstrating that the combination of information from different methodologies enables wider consideration for the anaerobic digestion plant. In line with the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan’s aim to strongly increase the exploitation of renewable resources, an AD plant fed by dedicated crops could valorise the marginal uncultivated land, obtaining energy without consuming land for food production. Moreover, this AD plant could contribute to the creation of repeatable small-scale energy production systems able to sustain the demand of local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Morena Bruno & Michela Marchi & Nicolò Ermini & Valentina Niccolucci & Federico Maria Pulselli, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment and Cost–Benefit Analysis as Combined Economic–Environmental Assessment Tools: Application to an Anaerobic Digestion Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3686-:d:1132559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3686/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3686/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiara Del Bo & Carlo Fiorio & Massimo Florio, 2011. "Shadow Wages for the EU Regions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 109-143, March.
    2. Ascher, Simon & Watson, Ian & Wang, Xiaonan & You, Siming, 2019. "Township-based bioenergy systems for distributed energy supply and efficient household waste re-utilisation: Techno-economic and environmental feasibility," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 455-467.
    3. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    4. Galvin, Ray & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Weiß, Julika, 2021. "A conceptual framework for understanding rebound effects with renewable electricity: A new challenge for decarbonizing the electricity sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 423-432.
    5. Silva Ortiz, Pablo & Flórez-Orrego, Daniel & de Oliveira Junior, Silvio & Maciel Filho, Rubens & Osseweijer, Patricia & Posada, John, 2020. "Unit exergy cost and specific CO2 emissions of the electricity generation in the Netherlands," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Wei, Wei & Mushtaq, Zulqarnain & Sharif, Maimoona & Zeng, Xiaowu & Wan-Li, Zhang & Qaisrani, Mumtaz A., 2020. "Evaluating the coal rebound effect in energy intensive industries of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    7. Mushtaq, Zulqarnain & Wei, Wei & Jamil, Ihsan & Sharif, Maimoona & Chandio, Abbas Ali & Ahmad, Fayyaz, 2022. "Evaluating the factors of coal consumption inefficiency in energy intensive industries of China: An epsilon-based measure model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    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. Aleksandra Kuzior & Yaryna Samusevych & Serhiy Lyeonov & Dariusz Krawczyk & Dymytrii Grytsyshen, 2023. "Applying Energy Taxes to Promote a Clean, Sustainable and Secure Energy System: Finding the Preferable Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.
    2. Shimei Weng & Jianbao Chen, 2023. "How Does Industrial Upgrading Affect Carbon Productivity in China’s Service Industry?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Bi-Huei Tsai & Yao-Min Huang, 2023. "Comparing the Substitution of Nuclear Energy or Renewable Energy for Fossil Fuels between the United States and Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    4. World Bank, 2012. "Air Transport and Energy Efficiency," World Bank Publications - Reports 16805, The World Bank Group.
    5. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    6. Massimo Florio & Silvia Vignetti, 2008. "Building a bridge across CBA traditions: the contribution of EU Regional Policy," Working Papers 200908, CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies.
    7. Giorgio Barba Navaretti & Anthony J. Venables, 2013. "Multinationals and industrial policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 29(2), pages 361-382, SUMMER.
    8. Shoeibi, Shahin & Rahbar, Nader & Esfahlani, Ahad Abedini & Kargarsharifabad, Hadi, 2021. "Energy matrices, exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of air-cooled and water-cooled solar still: Experimental investigation and numerical simulation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 227-244.
    9. Ahmann, Lara & Banning, Maximilian & Lutz, Christian, 2022. "Modeling rebound effects and counteracting policies for German industries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    10. Sigit Perdana and Rod Tyers, 2020. "Global Climate Change Mitigation: Strategic Incentives," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 183-206.
    11. Jiang, Wei & Li, Xitao & Liu, Ruoxi & Song, Yijia, 2022. "Local fiscal pressure, policy distortion and energy efficiency: Micro-evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PB).
    12. Ananthakrishnan, K. & Bijarniya, Jay Prakash & Sarkar, Jahar, 2021. "Energy, exergy, economic and ecological analyses of a diurnal radiative water cooler," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Djanibekov, Utkur & Gaur, Varun, 2018. "Nexus of energy use, agricultural production, employment and incomes among rural households in Uttar Pradesh, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 439-453.
    14. Gilbert, Alexander Q. & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2018. "Carbon pathways in the global gas market: An attributional lifecycle assessment of the climate impacts of liquefied natural gas exports from the United States to Asia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 635-643.
    15. Jafari, Mahboubeh & Stern, David I. & Bruns, Stephan B., 2022. "How large is the economy-wide rebound effect in middle income countries? Evidence from Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Honma, Satoshi & Ushifusa, Yoshiaki & Okamura, Soyoka & Vandercamme, Lilu, 2023. "Measuring carbon emissions performance of Japan's metal industry: Energy inputs, agglomeration, and the potential for green recovery reduction," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    17. Moosavian, Seyed Farhan & Borzuei, Daryoosh & Ahmadi, Abolfazl, 2021. "Energy, exergy, environmental and economic analysis of the parabolic solar collector with life cycle assessment for different climate conditions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1), pages 301-320.
    18. Baxter Williams & Daniel Bishop & Patricio Gallardo & J. Geoffrey Chase, 2023. "Demand Side Management in Industrial, Commercial, and Residential Sectors: A Review of Constraints and Considerations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-28, July.
    19. Faria, Ricardo & Marques, Pedro & Moura, Pedro & Freire, Fausto & Delgado, Joaquim & de Almeida, Aníbal T., 2013. "Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 271-287.
    20. Lars Sorge & Anne Neumann & Christian von Hirschhausen & Ben Wealer, 2019. "Nuclear Power, Democracy, Development, and Nuclear Warheads: Determinants for Introducing Nuclear Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1811, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    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:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3686-:d:1132559. 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.