Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas: Evaluating Scenarios for Electricity Generation and Upgrading to Biomethane

IF 3 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Maria dos Reis Santos Borges, Sandra Maria da Luz
{"title":"Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas: Evaluating Scenarios for Electricity Generation and Upgrading to Biomethane","authors":"Maria dos Reis Santos Borges,&nbsp;Sandra Maria da Luz","doi":"10.1007/s12155-025-10855-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The energy use of biogas in Brazil still faces significant technological and logistical challenges, despite the high availability of raw materials. This study evaluates the environmental viability of biogas from cattle manure in a small-scale plant using a well-to-wheels life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The motivation is to overcome barriers to biogas-to-biomethane conversion in Brazil. Comparing environmental impacts across scenarios helps identify key technological differences, strategies for broader adoption, and ways to integrate small-scale plants as viable producers. The benchmark scenario involves biogas for electricity and heat generation. In contrast, three biomethane upgrade scenarios were proposed, utilizing pressure swing adsorption (PSA), membrane separation (MS), and high-pressure water scrubbing (HPWS), with biomethane used as vehicle fuel. A fourth scenario assessed the direct application of manure as organic fertilizer. Results show that the benchmark performed better than biomethane in acidification (14%) and eutrophication (21%) but was less effective in climate change compared to manure application. Among upgrading technologies, HPWS had the lowest climate change impact (3.16 × 10<sup>−3</sup> kg CO₂ eq./MJ), MS performed best in acidification (4.33 × 10<sup>−5</sup> kg SO₂ eq./MJ), and PSA had the lowest eutrophication impact (3.61 × 10<sup>−6</sup> kg PO₄ eq./MJ), 53% lower than MS and HPWS. Manure application had the lowest primary energy demand and negative GWP due to avoided synthetic fertilizers, but eutrophication was ten times higher than the benchmark (1.27 × 10<sup>−3</sup> kg PO₄ eq./MJ), requiring optimized nutrient management. These findings provide insights into upgrading technologies and manure management to support sustainable strategies in Brazil’s energy transition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":487,"journal":{"name":"BioEnergy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioEnergy Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12155-025-10855-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The energy use of biogas in Brazil still faces significant technological and logistical challenges, despite the high availability of raw materials. This study evaluates the environmental viability of biogas from cattle manure in a small-scale plant using a well-to-wheels life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The motivation is to overcome barriers to biogas-to-biomethane conversion in Brazil. Comparing environmental impacts across scenarios helps identify key technological differences, strategies for broader adoption, and ways to integrate small-scale plants as viable producers. The benchmark scenario involves biogas for electricity and heat generation. In contrast, three biomethane upgrade scenarios were proposed, utilizing pressure swing adsorption (PSA), membrane separation (MS), and high-pressure water scrubbing (HPWS), with biomethane used as vehicle fuel. A fourth scenario assessed the direct application of manure as organic fertilizer. Results show that the benchmark performed better than biomethane in acidification (14%) and eutrophication (21%) but was less effective in climate change compared to manure application. Among upgrading technologies, HPWS had the lowest climate change impact (3.16 × 10−3 kg CO₂ eq./MJ), MS performed best in acidification (4.33 × 10−5 kg SO₂ eq./MJ), and PSA had the lowest eutrophication impact (3.61 × 10−6 kg PO₄ eq./MJ), 53% lower than MS and HPWS. Manure application had the lowest primary energy demand and negative GWP due to avoided synthetic fertilizers, but eutrophication was ten times higher than the benchmark (1.27 × 10−3 kg PO₄ eq./MJ), requiring optimized nutrient management. These findings provide insights into upgrading technologies and manure management to support sustainable strategies in Brazil’s energy transition.

沼气生命周期评估:发电和升级为生物甲烷的评估方案
巴西的沼气能源利用仍然面临着重大的技术和后勤挑战,尽管原材料的可用性很高。本研究利用从油井到车轮的生命周期评估(LCA)方法,对一个小型工厂的牛粪沼气的环境可行性进行了评估。其动机是克服巴西沼气转化为生物甲烷的障碍。比较不同情况下的环境影响有助于确定关键的技术差异、广泛采用的战略,以及将小型工厂整合为可行的生产商的方法。基准方案涉及用于发电和供热的沼气。与此相反,提出了三种生物甲烷升级方案,分别是变压吸附(PSA)、膜分离(MS)和高压水洗涤(HPWS),并将生物甲烷用作汽车燃料。第四种情景评估了直接使用粪肥作为有机肥料。结果表明,该基准在酸化(14%)和富营养化(21%)方面的表现优于生物甲烷,但在气候变化方面的效果不如粪肥施用。在改造技术中,HPWS对气候变化的影响最小(3.16 × 10−3 kg CO₂当量/MJ), MS酸化效果最好(4.33 × 10−5 kg SO₂当量/MJ), PSA对富营养化的影响最小(3.61 × 10−6 kg PO₄当量/MJ),比MS和HPWS低53%。由于避免使用合成肥料,施用有机肥的初级能量需求最低,全球潜能值为负,但富营养化程度是基准(1.27 × 10−3 kg PO₄当量/MJ)的10倍,需要优化养分管理。这些发现为技术升级和肥料管理提供了见解,以支持巴西能源转型的可持续战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BioEnergy Research
BioEnergy Research ENERGY & FUELS-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
174
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: BioEnergy Research fills a void in the rapidly growing area of feedstock biology research related to biomass, biofuels, and bioenergy. The journal publishes a wide range of articles, including peer-reviewed scientific research, reviews, perspectives and commentary, industry news, and government policy updates. Its coverage brings together a uniquely broad combination of disciplines with a common focus on feedstock biology and science, related to biomass, biofeedstock, and bioenergy production.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信