per Fornitura di energia pulita (Sistema di produzione di energia)
Gas e biogas da impianto di depurazione
Produzione di biogas/biometano
Tecnologie di digestione anaerobica
Energia chimica
Combustibili gassosi
Bestiame
Contadino, Decisori politici, Industria
Fornitura di energia (ad es. elettricità)
Biogas/biometano
Procedura
Autori: Yan Jiang, Yizhen Zhang, Shun Wang, Zhongzhong Wang, Yanchen Liu, Xinmin Zhan
Rivista: Journal of Cleaner Production
Link al giornale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-cleaner-production/vol/280/part/P2
Data di pubblicazione: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125034
Link all'articolo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620350782
Accesso libero: Sì
Progetto correlato: Yes, Gas Network Ireland Sustainable Energy and Fuel Efficiency (SEFE) Project [Ref: 16/SP/3829]
Fonte di finanziamento dell'articolo:
Supported by Science Foundation Ireland and Gas Network Ireland Sustainable Energy and Fuel Efficiency (SEFE) Project [Ref: 16/SP/3829]
Luogo dell'autore: Irlanda
Altri luoghi degli autori: Cina
Email dell'autore corrispondente: yan.jiang@nuigalway.ie
This study compares the environmental impacts of present PM and FW management strategies with an alternative co-digestion scenario. The co-digestion scenario performs better in most environmental impacts, and the N availability of the digestate is superior as well. Hotspots greatly influencing the environmental impacts are identified and mitigation methods are proposed. A low FW proportion in the co-digestion scenario cannot offset the negative impacts caused by the introduction of FW. For a farm with a PM production of 16,000 t/yr, at least 2000 t/yr FW is needed to ensure a negative GWP. These results can provide practical references to pig farmers, the gas industry and policy makers.
File: --