A comprehensive life cycle and financial analysis was conducted to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of an anaerobic co-digestion system for dairy manure and food wastes versus a control system that anaerobically digests dairy manure but landfills food wastes. The environmental impacts of co-digestion are lower than the control system for global warming (66.95%), water eutrophication (18.88%), and smog emission (68.93%), but higher for air acidification (39.38%). Co-digestion results in a net energy ratio that is 1.67 times higher than the control system. An economic analysis revealed that co-digestion is more profitable, as the calculated 25-year net value of over $8.4 million is far superior to the -$7.5 million for the control system. Considering both environmental impacts and economic indicators, manure and food waste co-digestion is a preferable solution for waste management and bioenergy production.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithP, MartinoD, CaiZ, et al.Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. In: MetzBD, BoschPR, DaveR, et al. (eds). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm (Last accessed March2015).
Mata-AlvarezJ, MaceS, LlabresP. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour Technol, 2000; 74(1):3–16.
4.
ChenY, ChengJJ, CreamerKS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour Technol, 2008; 99(10):4044–4064.
5.
KavacikB, TopalogluB. Biogas production from co-digestion of a mixture of cheese whey and dairy manure. Biomass Bioenerg, 2010; 34(9):1321–1329.
6.
Molinuevo-SalcesB, Cruz Garcia-GonzalezM, Gonzalez-FernandezC, et al.Anaerobic co-digestion of livestock wastes with vegetable processing wastes: A statistical analysis. Bioresour Technol, 2010; 101(24):9479–9485.
7.
De VriesJW, VinkenT, HamelinL, De BoerIJM. Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy—A life cycle perspective. Bioresour Technol, 2012; 125:239–248.
8.
KaparajuP, BuendiaI, EllegaardL, AngelidakiaI. Effects of mixing on methane production during thermophilic anaerobic digestion of manure: Lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Bioresour Technol, 2008; 99(11):4919–4928.
9.
LijoL, Gonzalez-GarciaS, BacenettiJ, et al.Life cycle assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic codigestion of pig slurry and energy crops. Renew Energ, 2014; 68:625–635.
10.
BorjessonP, BerglundM. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems—Part II: The environmental impact of replacing various reference systems. Biomass Bioener, 2007; 31(5):326–344.
11.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Landfill methane outreach program, energy projects and candidate landfills. 2014. http://epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html#map-area2014 (Last accessed March2015).
12.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. February2015. Available at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/usinventoryreport/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Main-Text.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
13.
DiStefanoTD, BelenkyLG. Life-cycle analysis of energy and greenhouse gas emissions from anaerobic biodegradation of municipal solid waste. J Environ Eng, 2009; 135(11):1097–1105.
14.
FrostP, GilkinsonS. Interim Technical Report: 27 Months Performance Summary for Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Cow Slurry at AFBI Hillsborough. Belfast, UK: Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 2011. Available at: www.afbini.gov.uk/afbi-ad-hillsborough-27-months-june-11.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
15.
EnglerC, CaperedaS, MukhtarS. Assembly and testing of an on-farm manure to energy conversion BMP for animal waste pollution control. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 366. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, 2010. Available at: http://twri.tamu.edu/reports/2010/tr366.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
16.
BiogasEnergyInc. Key elements of biogas energy anaerobic digesters. Available at: http://biogas-energy.com/site/BiogasEnergy.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
17.
SchievanoA, D'ImporzanoG, AdaniF. Substituting energy crops with organic wastes and agro-industrial residues for biogas production. J Environ Manage, 2009; 90(8):2537–2541.
18.
ChynowethDP.Renewable biomethane from land and ocean energy crops and organic wastes. Hortscience, 2005; 40(2):283–286.
19.
MursecB, VindisP, JanzekovicM, et al.Analysis of different substrates for processing into biogas. J Achieve Mater Manufact Eng, 2009; 37(2):652–659.
20.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Manure Production and Characteristics. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE, 2003:683–685. Available at: http://extension.psu.edu/animals/dairy/nutrient-management/certified-dairy/tools/manure-prod-char-d384-2.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
21.
ZhangL, LeeYW, JahngD. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: Focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresour Technol, 2011; 102(8):5048–5059.
22.
O'LearyPR, WalshPW. Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Available at: www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/dmg2/title.pdf (Last accessed March2015)
23.
RotzCA, CorsonMS, ChianeseDS, et al.The Integrated Farm System Model.Reference Manual Version 3.6. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2012. Available at: www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80700000/ifsmreference.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
24.
TurnbullJH, KamthunziW. Greenhouse gas emission reduction associated with livestock waste management systems: A case study for the Langerwerf dairy waste management system. IEA Bioenergy Task, 38, 2004.
25.
BanksC.Optimising Anaerobic Digestion. Evaluating the potential for anaerobic digestion to provide energy and soil amendment. 2009. Available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/rrps_AD250309_optimising_anaerobic_digestion.pdf/$file/rrps_AD250309_optimising_anaerobic_digestion.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
26.
LiebrandCB, LingKC. Cooperative approaches for implementation of dairy manure digesters. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 2009. Available at: www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/Pages/General_Docs/Research_Study/Liebrand_Carolyn_Cooperative_approaches_for_Implementation_of_Dairy_Manure.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
27.
HospidoA, MoreiraMT, MartinM, et al.Environmental evaluation of different treatment processes for sludge from urban wastewater treatments: Anaerobic digestion versus thermal processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2005; 10(5):336–345.
28.
New Zealand Ministry of Transport. Saving Fuel: Safe and Fuel Efficient Driving Tips for Trucks and Buses. Wellington: NZMoT, 2014. Available at: http://safednz.govt.nz/hints-and-tips/ (Last accessed March2015).
29.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Average In-use Emissions from Heavy-duty Trucks. Washington, DC: EPA, 2008. Available at: www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08027.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
30.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. EgglestonHS, BuendiaL, MiwaK, et al. (eds). Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2006. Available at: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (Last accessed March2015).
31.
US Environmental Protection Agency-AgSTAR. Operating Anaerobic Digester Projects. Washington, DC: EPA, 2014. Available at: www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/ (Last accessed March2015).
32.
Michigan Department of Agriculture. Anaerobic Digester Case Study: Scenic View Dairy-Fennville, Michigan. Grand Rapids, MI: MDA, 2006. Available at: www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/AD_CaseStudy_221950_7.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
33.
GilletteR, SwanbackS, OveracreR. Improving efficiency of dewatering alternatives to conventional dewatering technologies. Available at: http://pncwa.org/assets/documents/Alternative%20Dewatering%20Technologies%20Gillette%20200908%20pncwa.pdf. (Last accessed March2015).
34.
US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA and NHTSA Adopt First-ever Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: EPA, 2011. Available at: www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
WrightP, InglisS. Plug Flow Digesters. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, AgSTAR, 2004. Available at: www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/conf04/wright.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
37.
RittmannBE, McCartyPL. Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 2001.
38.
GoldsteinR, SmithW. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production—The Next Half Century. Palo Alto, CA: The Electric Power Research Institute, 2002.
39.
KabourisJC, TezelU, PavlostathisSG, et al.Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge and fat, oil, and grease. Water Environ Res, 2009; 81(5):476–485.
40.
Scientific Applications International Corporation. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1000L86.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000002%5CP1000L86.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (Last accessed March2015).
41.
ZhangS, BiXT, CliftR. A life cycle assessment of integrated dairy farm-greenhouse systems in British Columbia. Bioresour Technol, 2013; 150:496–505.
42.
ZhangYL, WhiteMA, ColosiLM. Environmental and economic assessment of integrated systems for dairy manure treatment coupled with algae bioenergy production. Bioresour Technol, 2013; 130:486–494.
43.
GHK, BIO Intelligence Service. Environmental Impacts Analysed and Characterisation Factors. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2006. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/annex5.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
44.
LanscheJ, MuellerJ. Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates. Eng Life Sci, 2012; 12(3):313–320.
45.
Rodriguez-VerdeI, RegueiroL, CarballaM, et al.Assessing anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with agroindustrial wastes: The link between environmental impacts and operational parameters. Sci Total Environ, 2014; 497:475–483.
46.
ZaherU, PandeyP, ChenSL. A simple elemental continuity based model application to study the anaerobic microbial activity for the treatment of dairy manure. Appl Math Model, 2009; 33(9):3553–3564.
47.
OdegaardH, PaulsrudB, KarlssonI. Wastewater sludge as a resource: Sludge disposal strategies and corresponding treatment technologies aimed at sustainable handling of wastewater sludge. Water Sci Technol, 2002; 46(10):295–303.
48.
BolinL, LeeHM, LindahlM (eds). LCA of Biogas Through Anaerobic Digestion from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) Compared to Incineration of the Waste. 6th International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Sapporo, Japan: Linköping University Post Print, 2009.
49.
WenischS, MonierE. Life Cycle Assessment of Different Uses of Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion of Separately Collected Biodegradable Waste in France. Angers, France: The French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management, 2007. Available at: www.biogasmax.eu/media/synthesis__028510600_0932_13032009.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
50.
DegobertP.Automobiles and Pollution. Warrandale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc, 1995.
51.
CherubiniF, JungmeierG. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2010; 15(1):53–66.
52.
ISWM-TINOS. LCA studies for composting and anaerobic digestion units. 2011. Available at: http://uest.ntua.gr/iswm-tinos/uploads/d1_4_ISWM_TINOS_english_report.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
53.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. NOx/VOC Fact Sheets. Ottawa, Canada: CCME, 1998. Available at: www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/air/emissions/pn_1257_e.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
54.
GuerecaLP, GassoS, BaldasanoJM, Jimenez-GuerreroP. Life cycle assessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain. Resour Conserv Recyc, 2006; 49(1):32–48.
55.
KirkebyJT, BirgisdottirH, BhanderGS, et al.Modelling of environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program EASEWASTE. Waste Manage, 2007; 27(7):961–970.
56.
HungC, SolliC. Biogas from municipal organic waste—Environmental holy grail?. Technoport 2012—Sharing Possibilities and 2nd Renewable Energy Research Conference. 2012; 20:11-9.
57.
SaerA, LansingS, DavittNH, GravesRE. Life cycle assessment of a food waste composting system: Environmental impact hotspots. J Cleaner Prod, 2013; 52:234–244.
58.
BareJ, GloriaT, NorrisG. Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol, 2006; 40(16):5108–5115.
59.
FersiS, ChtourouN, JuryC, PonceletF. Economic analysis of renewable heat and electricity production by sewage sludge digestion—A case study. Int J Energ Res, 2015; 39(2):234–243.
60.
FersiS, ChtourouN, BazinD. Energy analysis and potentials of biodiesel production from Jatropha Curcas in Tunisia. Int J Global Energ Issues, 2012; 35(6):441–55.
61.
CarneiroP, FerreiraP. The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass. Renew Energ, 2012; 44:17–22.
62.
SmythBM, SmythH, MurphyJD. Can grass biomethane be an economically viable biofuel for the farmer and the consumer?. Biof Biop Bioref, 2010; 4(5):519–537.
63.
BlumH, LegeyLFL. The challenging economics of energy security: Ensuring energy benefits in support to sustainable development. Energ Econ, 2012; 34(6):1982–1989.
64.
Van GuilderB.Financial Projections for Closure of the Jackson County Resource Recovery Facility (JCRRF). Ann Arbor, MI: The Ecology Center, 2010. Available at: http://recyclingjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/JCRRF-closure-memo-9Nov2010.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
65.
Board of Water and Light, Lansing MI. Electric Utility Rates, 2013.
66.
CoyneL.Economics of Cogeneration. Quebec, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999. Available at: ftp://ftp.tech-env.com/pub/ENERGY/Cogen/cogen_economics_coyne.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
67.
ReetzHF, SchnitkeyGD. Economics of nutrient systems and sources. Better Crops with Plant Food., 2002; 86(2):10–13.
68.
ODOE. Anaerobic Digester at Craven Farms. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Energy, 2003. Available at: www.renewwisconsin.org/biogas/AD/Craven%20Farms%20Digester.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
69.
Internal Revenue Service. How to depreciate property. Washington, DC: US Department of Treasury, 2014. Available at: www.irs.gov/publications/p946/ (Last accessed March2015).
70.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity and Costs. Washington, DC: US Departmant of Labor, 2014. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
71.
Custom Machine and Work Rate Estimates [Internet database]. Michigan State University Extension. 2012. Available at https://msu.edu/∼steind/1_2012%20Cust_MachineWrk%2010_31_11.pdf (Last accessed March2015).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
