Search

There is a growing awareness of the climate impact of agricultural production, not least from cattle farms. Major sources of GHG emissions from milk production are enteric fermentation followed by fossil fuel use and manure/soil management systems. This study analyzes the potential to eliminate fossil fuel use from milk production farms in Sweden, by using residual farm resources of biomass to obtain self-sufficiency in fuel, heat and electricity. The change from a fossil-based energy system to a renewable system based on A) Biogas based on manure and straw and B) Biogas based on manure + RME were analyzed with consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) methodology. Focus was energy use and GHG emissions and the functional unit was 1 kg of energy-corrected milk (ECM). The results show that organic milk producers can become self-sufficient in energy and reduce total GHG emissions from milk production by 46% in the Biogas system, or 32% in the Biogas + RME system compared to the Fossil system.

This study assessed the environmental impacts of recycling the plant nutrients in anaerobically digested food waste as fertilizer in agriculture. This was compared with the impacts of using chemical fertilizer, where the food waste was incinerated, producing heat. The study site was a biogas plant in central Sweden and life cycle assessment methodology was used. The impacts studied were primary energy use, global warming potential (GWP), potential acidification, potential eutrophication, cadmium flow to farmland and use of phosphate rock. Use of digested food waste as fertilizer proved to have larger negative results than use of chemical fertilizer in all categories assessed except use of non-renewable phosphate rock. Sensitivity analyses showed that the scenarios were comparable in terms of primary energy use and better for GWP if some improvements in the anaerobic digestion system were made. However, acidification and eutrophication caused by digestate handling and the cadmium content of digestate should still be considered.

The production of mineral nitrogen represents a large fossil energy input in Swedish agriculture. However, mineral nitrogen can be produced in the Haber-Bosch synthesis, with input from renewable energy. This could lower the dependency on fossil energy and the emissions of greenhouse gases in agricultural production. The aim of this study was to investigate the land use, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from the production of ammonium nitrate based on biomass, using consequential life cycle assessment methodology. Three scenarios are studied. In one scenario the Haber-Bosch synthesis is integrated in an existing forest residue fired combined heat and power plant. In another two scenarios thermochemical gasification of biomass in combination with Haber- Bosch synthesis is studied, using either straw or short rotation coppice (Salix) as raw material. The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions and use of fossil energy can be significantly lowered. The size of emission reductions compared to using fossil fuels as raw material is dependent on choice of data, but also choice of functional unit and if e.g. indirect land use change is included. The study also showed that using green nitrogen in rapeseed production substantially can lower the carbon footprint. Further, we argue that production of nitrogen based on renewables should be a high-priority activity, as nitrogen is one of the pillars for a secure food and bioenergy supply for a growing world population.

Biomass produced on farm land is a renewable fuel that can prove suitable for small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) plants in rural areas. However, it can still be questioned if biomass-based energy generation is a good environmental choice with regards to the impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and if there are negative consequences of using of agricultural land for other purposes than food production. In this study, a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted over four scenarios for supply of the entire demand of power and heat of a rural village. Three of the scenarios are based on utilization of biomass in 100 kW (e) combined heat and power (CHP) systems and the fourth is based on fossil fuel in a large-scale plant. The biomass systems analyzed were based on 1) biogas production with ley as substrate and the biogas combusted in a microturbine, 2) gasification of willow chips and the product gas combusted in an IC-engine and 3) combustion of willow chips for a Stirling engine. The two first scenarios also require a straw boiler. The results show that the biomass-based scenarios reduce greenhouse gas emissions considerably compared to the scenario based on fossil fuel, but have higher acidifying emissions. Scenario 1 has by far the best performance with respect to global warming potential and the advantage of utilizing a byproduct and thus not occupying extra land. Scenario 2 and 3 require less primary energy and less fossil energy input than 1, but set-aside land for willow production must be available. The low electric efficiency of scenario 3 makes it an unsuitable option.

The agricultural industry today consumes large amounts of fossil fuels. This study used consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) to analyse two potential energy self-sufficient systems for organic arable farms, based on agricultural residues. The analysis focused on energy balance, resource use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A scenario based on straw was found to require straw harvest from 25% of the farm area; 45% of the total energy produced from the straw was required for energy carrier production and GHG emissions were reduced by 9% compared with a fossil fuel-based reference scenario. In a scenario based on anaerobic digestion of ley, the corresponding figures were 13%, 24% and 35%. The final result was sensitive to assumptions regarding, e.g., soil carbon content and handling of by-products.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) are well-established methods used for many years in many countries for system analysis of waste management. According to standard LCA procedure the assessment should include improvement analysis, in many cases this is performed by simple sensitivity analyses. An obstacle to perform more thorough sensitivity analyses is that it is hard to distinguish input data important to the results, i.e. key parameters. This paper further elaborates sensitivity analyses performed in an environmental system analysis for a hypothetical Swedish municipality. In this paper, the method to identify and test input data that can be categorised as potential key parameters is described. The method and the results from computer simulations of the identified parameters are presented, and some conclusions are drawn regarding the robustness of the results for environmental impact from municipal solid waste management. The major conclusion is that the results are robust. Changes in results, when changing the preconditions, are often small and the changes observed do not lead to new conclusions; i.e., a change of ranking order between treatment options.

This study analysed a future hypothetical organic farm self-sufficient in renewable tractor fuel. Biomass from the farm was assumed to be transported to a central fuel production plant and the fuel returned to the farm, where it was utilised in fuel cell powered tractors. The land use, energy balance and environmental impact of five different scenarios were studied. In the first two scenarios, straw was used as raw material for production of hydrogen or methanol via thermochemical gasification. In the third and fourth scenarios, short rotation forest (Salix) was used as raw material for the same fuels. In the fifth scenario, ley was used as raw material for hydrogen fuel via biogas production. The straw scenarios had the lowest impact in all studied environmental impact categories since the Salix scenarios had higher soil emissions and the ley scenario had comparatively large emissions from the fuel production. The energy balance was also favourable for straw, 16.3 and 19.5 for hydrogen and methanol respectively, compared to Salix 14.2 and 15.6. For ley to hydrogen the energy balance was only 6.1 due to low efficiency in the fuel production. In the Salix scenarios, 1.6% and 2.0% of the land was set aside for raw material production in the hydrogen and methanol scenarios respectively. In the straw scenarios no land needed to be reserved, but straw was collected on 4.3% and 5.3% of the area for hydrogen and methanol respectively. To produce hydrogen from ley, 4% of the land was harvested. The study showed that the difference in environmental performance lay in choice of raw material rather than choice of fuel. Hydrogen is a gas with low volumetric energy density, which requires an adapted infrastructure and tractors equipped with gas tanks. This leads to the conclusion that methanol probably will be the preferred choice if a fuel cell powered farm would be put into practice in the future.

Ammonium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate are the most commonly used straight nitrogen fertilisers in Europe, accounting for 43% of the total nitrogen used for fertilisers. They are both produced in a similar way; carbonate can be added as a last step to produce calcium ammonium nitrate. The environmental impact, fossil energy input and land use from using gasified biomass (cereal straw and short rotation willow (Salix) coppice) as feedstock in ammonium nitrate production were studied in a cradle-to-gate evaluation using life cycle assessment methodology. The global warming potential in the biomass systems was only 22-30% of the impact from conventional production using natural gas. The eutrophication potential was higher for the biomass systems due to nutrient leaching during cultivation, while the acidification was about the same in all systems. The primary fossil energy use was calculated to be 1.45 and 1.37MJ/kg nitrogen for Salix and straw, respectively, compared to 35.14MJ for natural gas. The biomass production was assumed to be self-supporting with nutrients by returning part of the ammonium nitrate produced together with the ash from the gasification. For the production of nitrogen from Salix, it was calculated that 3914kg of nitrogen can be produced every year from 1ha, after that 1.6% of the produced nitrogen has been returned to the Salix production. From wheat straw, 1615kg of nitrogen can be produced annually from 1ha, after that 0.6% of the nitrogen has been returned.

in Undetermined An analysis of the environmental effects and resource consumption by four systems for management of wastewater and organic household waste in a new city area have been performed, as follows: (1) conventional system complemented with advanced sludge treatment for phosphorus recovery, (2) blackwater system with urine diversion and food waste disposers, (3) blackwater system with food waste disposers and reverse osmosis, and (4) local wastewater treatment plant with nutrient recovery by using reverse osmosis. Substance-flow analysis and energy/exergy calculations were performed by using the software tool URWARE/ORWARE. Emissions were calculated and classified based on the impact categories global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication, according to ISO14042 (2000). The analysis also included nutrient recovery (i.e., the potential to use nutrients as a fertilizer). Depending on which aspects are prioritized, different systems can be considered to be the most advantageous. (Less)

The aim of the present work was to evaluate systems for making organic farms self-sufficient in bio-based fuels. The energy efficiency and environmental load for systems based on rape methyl ester (RME), ethanol and biogas produced by processing raw material from the farm in industrial-scale plants were evaluated using a life cycle perspective. Eventual constraints when implementing the systems in practice were also identified and the farmer’s costs for the systems estimated. The RME scenario showed some good characteristics; the energy efficiency and potential effects on global warming were favourable, the technology well known and no engine modifications were necessary. However, the high price of the organically produced rapeseed made the fuel expensive. The ethanol scenario provided fuel at a comparatively low cost, but the energy efficiency was low and existing engines would have to be modified. The biogas scenario was not as economically advantageous, due to high costs for storage and transport of the biogas and the extensive tractor modifications needed. The calculations further showed that systems based on so-called exchange of fuels, i.e. when the farm produces raw material for one type of biofuel, but instead uses another type of biofuel more suitable for its own tractors, were an economically favourable way of supplying the organic farms with ‘self-produced’ bio-based fuels. The exchange scenario based on delivery of organic wheat to a large-scale plant and use of RME at the farm was somewhat more expensive than scenarios based on production of biogas raw material at the farm. However, the wheat/RME system has the advantage of being possible to put into practice immediately, since industrial-scale wheat ethanol plants are in operation and RME fuel is available on the market.

The aim of this work was to evaluate systems making organic farms self-sufficient in farm-produced bio-based fuels. The energy balance and environmental load for systems based on rape methyl ester (RME), ethanol and biogas were evaluated using a life cycle perspective. Complete LCAs were not performed. Important constraints when implementing the systems in practice were also identified. The RME scenario showed favourable energy balance and produced valuable by-products but was less positive in some other aspects. The use of land was high and thereby also the emissions associated with cultivation. Emissions, with the exception of CO 2 , during utilisation of the fuel were high compared to those of the other fuels in the study. The technology for production and use of RME is well known and easy to implement at farm scale. The production of ethanol was energy consuming and the by-products were relatively low value. However, the area needed for cultivation of raw material was low compared to the RME scenario. The production and utilisation of ignition improver and denaturants were associated with considerable emissions. Suitable ethanol production technology is available but is more optimal for large scale systems. The biogas scenario had a low relative need for arable land, which also resulted in smaller soil emissions to air and water. Another advantage was the potential to recycle plant nutrients. On the other hand, the potential emissions of methane from storage of digestate, upgrading of biogas and methane losses during utilisation of fuel produced a negative impact, mainly on global warming. Small scale technology for biogas cleaning and storage is not fully developed and extensive tractor modifications are necessary. The global warming effects of all three systems studied were reduced by 58–72% in comparison to a similar farming system based on diesel fuel. However, the fuel costs were higher for all scenarios studied compared to current diesel prices. In particular, the large costs for seasonal storage of gas meant that the biogas scenario described is currently not financially viable.

A simulation model, ORWARE (ORganic WAste REsearch) is described. The model is mainly used as a tool for researchers in environmental systems analysis of waste management. It is a computer-based mo ...

The effects of making a 1000 ha organic farm self-sufficient in renewable fuel were studied. Biomass grown on-farm can be transported to large fuel production facilities and the fuel transported back to the farm. Two fuels, Fischer–Tropsch diesel (FTD) and dimethyl ether (DME), produced from either straw or short-rotation willow coppice ( Salix ), were studied. The environmental impact, land use and energy balance were calculated using life-cycle methodology. It was calculated that the straw-based systems had only 32–39% of the impact on global warming (kg [CO 2 -eq]) compared to the Salix -based systems. For acidification and eutrophication, the differences between the systems were less significant. The energy balances were 8.9 and 9.6 for FTD and 10.1 and 10.0 for DME, from straw and Salix , respectively. To become self-sufficient in FTD, 108 ha has to be set aside for Salix production or 261 ha of straw collected from the existing crop rotation. For DME the corresponding figures are 38 and 70 ha. The many by-products in the FTD scenarios explain the large difference between fuels. Comparing FTD and DME, the differences in environmental impact were small. Considering this, FTD is a more likely alternative since DME requires a pressurised infrastructure system and engine modifications.

Different waste treatment options for municipal solid waste have been studied in a systems analysis. Different combinations of incineration, materials recycling of separated plastic and cardboard containers, and biological treatment (anaerobic digestion and composting) of biodegradable waste, were studied and compared to landfilling. The evaluation covered use of energy resources, environmental impact and financial and environmental costs. In the study, a calculation model ( ) based on methodology from life cycle assessment (LCA) was used. Case studies were performed in three Swedish municipalities: Uppsala, Stockholm, and Älvdalen. The study shows that reduced landfilling in favour of increased recycling of energy and materials lead to lower environmental impact, lower consumption of energy resources, and lower economic costs. Landfilling of energy-rich waste should be avoided as far as possible, partly because of the negative environmental impacts from landfilling, but mainly because of the low recovery of resources when landfilling. Differences between materials recycling, nutrient recycling and incineration are small but in general recycling of plastic is somewhat better than incineration and biological treatment somewhat worse. When planning waste management, it is important to know that the choice of waste treatment method affects processes outside the waste management system, such as generation of district heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, plastic, cardboard, and fertiliser. QC 20100505