IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p1820-d498717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Gadaleta

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, del Territorio, Edile e di Chimica, Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona, 4, I-70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Sabino De Gisi

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, del Territorio, Edile e di Chimica, Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona, 4, I-70125 Bari, Italy)

  • Michele Notarnicola

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, del Territorio, Edile e di Chimica, Politecnico di Bari, Via E. Orabona, 4, I-70125 Bari, Italy)

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) is considered an excellent solution for both waste management and energy generation, although the impacts of waste collection and transportation on the whole management system are not negligible. AD is often regarded as a centralized solution for an entire community, although recently, there has been some debate on the adoption of decentralized, smaller facilities. This study aims to evaluate the techno-economic feasibility of an AD plant at the local scale for the treatment of organic waste generated from urban districts. Depending on the type of feedstock, two scenarios were evaluated and compared with the reference scenario, based on composting treatment: (1) mono-AD of OFMSW and (2) co-AD of OFMSW and sewage sludge (SS). Furthermore, different district extensions of the metropolitan area were considered with the goal of determining the optimal size. Results showed the advantage of the two scenarios over the reference one. Scenario 1 proved to be the most suitable solution, because the introduction of SS in Scenario 2 increased costs and payback time, rather than generating a higher waste amount and lower biogas yield. The preferred district extension was the medium-sized one. Capital cost strongly affected the economic analysis, but revenue from the city for the management operation of the organic waste could significantly decrease costs. Further studies about the differences in the type of feedstock or the introduction of other criteria of analysis (such as environmental) are considered necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Michele Notarnicola, 2021. "Feasibility Analysis on the Adoption of Decentralized Anaerobic Co-Digestion for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste with Energy Recovery in Urban Districts of Metropolitan Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1820-:d:498717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1820/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1820/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thorin, Eva & Olsson, Jesper & Schwede, Sebastian & Nehrenheim, Emma, 2018. "Co-digestion of sewage sludge and microalgae – Biogas production investigations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 64-72.
    2. Di Foggia, Giacomo & Beccarello, Massimo, 2018. "Improving efficiency in the MSW collection and disposal service combining price cap and yardstick regulation: The Italian case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 79, pages 223-231.
    3. Akbulut, Abdullah, 2012. "Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from farm-scale biogas plant: Çiçekdağı case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 381-390.
    4. Zhang, Wanqin & Wei, Quanyuan & Wu, Shubiao & Qi, Dandan & Li, Wei & Zuo, Zhuang & Dong, Renjie, 2014. "Batch anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 175-183.
    5. Burnley, S.J. & Ellis, J.C. & Flowerdew, R. & Poll, A.J. & Prosser, H., 2007. "Assessing the composition of municipal solid waste in Wales," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 264-283.
    6. Maurizio Carlini & Enrico Maria Mosconi & Sonia Castellucci & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni, 2017. "An Economical Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion Plants Fed with Organic Agro-Industrial Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Umberto Di Matteo & Benedetto Nastasi & Angelo Albo & Davide Astiaso Garcia, 2017. "Energy Contribution of OFMSW (Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste) to Energy-Environmental Sustainability in Urban Areas at Small Scale," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Grosser, Anna, 2018. "Determination of methane potential of mixtures composed of sewage sludge, organic fraction of municipal waste and grease trap sludge using biochemical methane potential assays. A comparison of BMP tes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 488-499.
    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. Giovanni Gadaleta & Francesco Todaro & Annamaria Giuliano & Sabino De Gisi & Michele Notarnicola, 2024. "Co-Treatment of Food Waste and Municipal Sewage Sludge: Technical and Environmental Review of Biological and Thermal Technologies," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-34, July.
    2. Yiyao Ni & Zhen Zhang, 2024. "Comparison and Selection of Wet Waste Disposal Modes for Villages in Agriculture-Related Towns Taking Shanghai, China, as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Francesco Todaro & Michele Notarnicola, 2022. "Environmental Comparison of Different Mechanical–Biological Treatment Plants by Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Jean Joël Roland Kinhoun & Ao Li & Minghuan Lv & Yunpeng Shi & Bin Fan & Tingting Qian, 2022. "Human Excreta and Food Waste of a Typical Rural Area in China: Characteristics and Co-Fermentation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Giovanni Gadaleta & Sabino De Gisi & Francesco Todaro & Michele Notarnicola, 2022. "Carbon Footprint and Total Cost Evaluation of Different Bio-Plastics Waste Treatment Strategies," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Deng, Liangwei & Yang, Hongnan & Liu, Gangjin & Zheng, Dan & Chen, Ziai & Liu, Yi & Pu, Xiaodong & Song, Li & Wang, Zhiyong & Lei, Yunhui, 2014. "Kinetics of temperature effects and its significance to the heating strategy for anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 349-355.
    2. 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.
    3. Djatkov, Djordje & Effenberger, Mathias & Martinov, Milan, 2014. "Method for assessing and improving the efficiency of agricultural biogas plants based on fuzzy logic and expert systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 163-175.
    4. Maghanaki, M. Mohammadi & Ghobadian, B. & Najafi, G. & Galogah, R. Janzadeh, 2013. "Potential of biogas production in Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 702-714.
    5. Teymoori Hamzehkolaei, Fatemeh & Amjady, Nima, 2018. "A techno-economic assessment for replacement of conventional fossil fuel based technologies in animal farms with biogas fueled CHP units," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 602-614.
    6. Constantin Aurelian Ionescu & Mihaela Denisa Coman & Elena Liliana Moiceanu Marin & Liliana Paschia & Nicoleta Luminita Gudanescu Nicolau & Gabriel Cucui & Dan Marius Coman & Sorina Geanina Stanescu, 2019. "The Analysis of the Economic Effects on the Greening and Recovery of the Sludge Waste Resulting from the Biogas Production Activity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Zhang, Jingxin & Loh, Kai-Chee & Li, Wangliang & Lim, Jun Wei & Dai, Yanjun & Tong, Yen Wah, 2017. "Three-stage anaerobic digester for food waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 287-295.
    8. 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.
    9. Scholz, Marco & Melin, Thomas & Wessling, Matthias, 2013. "Transforming biogas into biomethane using membrane technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 199-212.
    10. Grzegorz Ślusarz & Barbara Gołębiewska & Marek Cierpiał-Wolan & Jarosław Gołębiewski & Dariusz Twaróg & Sebastian Wójcik, 2021. "Regional Diversification of Potential, Production and Efficiency of Use of Biogas and Biomass in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Zhang, Chen & Sun, Zongxuan, 2017. "Trajectory-based combustion control for renewable fuels in free piston engines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 72-83.
    13. Sarto, Sarto & Hildayati, Raudati & Syaichurrozi, Iqbal, 2019. "Effect of chemical pretreatment using sulfuric acid on biogas production from water hyacinth and kinetics," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 335-350.
    14. 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).
    15. Di Foggia, Giacomo & Beccarello, Massimo, 2021. "Drivers of municipal solid waste management cost based on cost models inherent to sorted and unsorted waste," SocArXiv s6q3m, Center for Open Science.
    16. Qi, Chuanren & Cao, Dingge & Gao, Xingzu & Jia, Sumeng & Yin, Rongrong & Nghiem, Long D. & Li, Guoxue & Luo, Wenhai, 2023. "Optimising organic composition of feedstock to improve microbial dynamics and symbiosis to advance solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    17. Justyna Górka & Małgorzata Cimochowicz-Rybicka & Dominika Poproch, 2022. "Sludge Management at the Kraków-Płaszów WWTP—Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-11, June.
    18. Yan Bai & Xingyi Ma & Jing Zhang & Lei Zhang & Jing Bai, 2024. "Energy Efficiency Assessment and Prediction Based on Indicator System, PSO + AHP − FCE Model and Regression Algorithm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-23, April.
    19. Zeb, Iftikhar & Ma, Jingwei & Frear, Craig & Zhao, Quanbao & Ndegwa, Pius & Yao, Yiqing & Kafle, Gopi Krishna, 2017. "Recycling separated liquid-effluent to dilute feedstock in anaerobic digestion of dairy manure," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1144-1151.
    20. Anna Lymperatou & Niels B. Rasmussen & Hariklia N. Gavala & Ioannis V. Skiadas, 2021. "Improving the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure through an Optimized Ammonia Treatment: Process Performance, Digestate and Techno-Economic Aspects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.

    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:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1820-:d:498717. 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.