Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon Footprint Analysis of Bioenergy Production from Cattle Manure in the Brazilian Central-West

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports a carbon footprint analysis of bioelectricity generation from cattle manure obtained from feedlot systems in the Brazilian Central-West region. The analyses were performed by applying two different energy source scenarios: Sc1—using external energy in an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant; and Sc2—recirculating part of the energy generated in a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, with two approaches (allocation and system expansion) for sharing impacts between the products and co-products obtained in the cycle. In addition, the generation of electricity from manure was compared with generation from natural gas (reference system). The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines and the SimaPro software. Sc2 was the best scenario, since the energy recirculation from the system reduces emissions from the AD plant by up to 83.61%. Both scenarios with system expansion present emissions ≈4.5 times greater than when allocation was applied, because allocation splits emissions between products obtained, removing the production chain’s responsibility for the co-products generated. The manure management was responsible for more than 65% of emissions in both scenarios, making emissions in both scenarios higher than the reference system. There is a need to improve distribution logistics of AD-CHP plant products in the Central-West region, since bioenergy generation can mitigate GHG emissions from livestock activity by turning manure residue cost into a gain, and generating products with energy and market value, to make the process more efficient and environmentally friendly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data is reported in the manuscript and in the supplementary material.

References

  1. Kummamuru B (2017) Project Officer, World Bioenergy Association (WBA), Global Bioenergy Statistics 2017

  2. BP (2019) BP statistical review of world energy. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-natural-gas.pdf. Accessed 11 Jun 2020

  3. Starr K, Villalba G, Gabarrell X (2015) Upgraded biogas from municipal solid waste for natural gas substitution and CO2 reduction–a case study of Austria, Italy, and Spain. Waste Manag 38:105–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bond T, Templeton MR (2011) History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world. Energy Sustain Dev 15(4):347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. BMU (2007) The integrated energy and climate programme of the German Government Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear

  6. MDSE (2017) Ministero Dello Sviluppo Economico. Decreto Ministeriale 6 Luglio 2012 — Incentivi per energia da fonti rinnovabili elettriche non fotovoltaiche

  7. BMU (2002) Ordinance on landfills and long-term storage facilities and amending the ordinance on environmentally compatible storage of waste from human settlements and biological waste-treatment facilities from 24 July 2002 (BGBl. I P. 2807), Last Changed by Article 2 of Regulation from 13 December 2006 (BGBl. I P. 2860). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin, Germany, 2002

  8. Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P (2012) Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. J Clean Prod 24:184–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. EC (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste

  10. Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B, Effenberger M (2016) Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:1291–1300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chávez-Fuentes JJ, Capobianco A, Barbušová J, Hutňan M (2017) Manure from our agricultural animals: a quantitative and qualitative analysis focused on biogas production. Waste and Biomass Valorization 8(5):1749–1757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Vries M, De Boer IJ (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Torres CME, Kohmann MM, Fraisse CW (2015) Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions for carbon neutral farming in the Southeastern USA. Agric Syst 137:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. USDA (2017) United States Department of Agriculture. Foreign Agricultural Service. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2018

  15. IBGE (2017) Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). Aggregated data bank [in Portuguese]. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/ppm/tabelas. Accessed 20 Oct 2018

  16. Batista et al (2020) Cenários para a intensificação da bovinocultura de corte brasileira. Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais [in Portuguese] https://csr.ufmg.br/brasilpec/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/cenarios_pecuaria_corte. Accessed 20 Jun 2020

  17. Uusitalo V, Havukainen J, Kapustina V, Soukka R, Horttanainen M (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions of biomethane for transport: uncertainties and allocation methods. Energy Fuel 28(3):1901–1910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Olugasa TTN, Odesola IF, Oyewola MO (2014) Energy production from biogas: a conceptual review for use in Nigeria. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:770–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huttunen S, Manninen K, Leskinen P (2014) Combining biogas LCA reviews with stakeholder interviews to analyse life cycle impacts at a practical level. J Clean Prod 80:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuchsz M, Kohlheb N (2015) Comparison of the environmental effects of manure- and crop-based agricultural biogas plants using life cycle analysis. J Clean Prod 6:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Russo V, Von Blottnitz H (2016) Potentialities of biogas installation in South African meat value chain for environmental impact reduction. J Clean Prod 153:465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mezzullo WG, McManus MC, Hammond GP (2013) Life cycle assessment of a small-scale anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste. Appl Energy 102:657–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lansche J, Müller J (2012) Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: environmental impact of different agricultural substrates. Eng Life Sci 12(3):313–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bacenetti J, Negri M, Fiala M, González-García S (2013) Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process. Sci Total Environ 463:541–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lijo L, Gonzalez-García S, Bacenetti J, Fiala M, Feijoo G, Moreira MT (2014) Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion. J Clean Prod 72:23–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cherubini E, Zanghelini GM, Alvarenga RAF, Franco D, Soares SR (2015) Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems. J Clean Prod 87:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boulamanti AK, Maglio SD, Giuntoli J, Agostini A (2013) Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 53:149–161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fusi A, Bacenetti J, Fiala M, Azapagic A (2016) Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 4:26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dahlin J, Herbes C, Nelles M (2015) Biogas digestate marketing: qualitative insights into the supply side. Resources. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:152–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hartmann JK (2006) Life-cycle-assessment of industrial scale biogas plants. PhD. Thesis, Agricultural Sciences Faculty, Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen

  31. Esteves VPP, Esteves EMM, Bungenstab DJ, Feijó GLD, Araújo ODQF, Morgado CRV (2017) Assessment of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from the tallow biodiesel production chain including land use change (LUC). J Clean Prod 151:578–591

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chouinard-Dussault P, Bradt L, Ponce-Ortega JM, El-Halwagi MM (2011) Incorporation of process integration into life cycle analysis for the production of biofuels. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13(5):673–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. IBGE (2016) Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). Historical Series and Statistics [in Portuguese]. http://seriesestatisticas.ibge.gov.br. Accessed 20 Jun 2018

  34. CEMTEC (2020). Centro de monitoramento do tempo e do clima de Mato Grosso do Sul. [In Portuguese]. https://www.cemtec.ms.gov.br/boletins-meteorologicos/. Accessed 15 July 2020

  35. ISO (2006) International Standardization Organization. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044

  36. IPCC (2006) Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2019

  37. Gomes RC, Nunez AJC, Marino CT, Medeiros SR (2015) Feeding strategies for beef cattle: pasture supplementation, semi-confinement and confinement. Embrapa Gado de Corte-Capítulo em livro científico (ALICE). [in Portuguese]

  38. Edmonds L, Kellogg RL, Kintzer B, Knight L, Lander C, Lemunyon J, ... Schaefer J (2003) Costs associated with development and implementation of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans. Part I–Nutrient management, land treatment, manure and wastewater handling and storage, and recordkeeping. Natural Resources Conservation Service. US Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012174.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2019

  39. MWPS (2004) Manure management systems series - manure characteristics. MWPS-18 section 1. SECOND EDITION. http://msue.anr.msu.edu/uploads/files/ManureCharacteristicsMWPS-18_1.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2018

  40. ABIEC (2018) Brazilian Livestock Profile - Annual Report. http://www.brazilianbeef.org.br/download/sumarioingles2018.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2018

  41. IPCC 2014: Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Core writing team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 151 pp

  42. Esteves EMM, Herrera AMN, Esteves VPP, Morgado CDRV (2019) Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: a review. J Clean Prod 219:411–423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hijazi O, Abdelsalam E, Samer M, Attia YA, Amer BMA, Amer MA, Bernhardt H (2020) Life cycle assessment of the use of nanomaterials in biogas production from anaerobic digestion of manure. Renew Energy 148:417–424

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. EPE (2014) Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Nota Técnica DEA 15/14. Inventário Energético de Resíduos Rurais. [in Portuguese]. https://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-251/topico-308/DEA%2015%20-%2014%20-%20%20Invent%C3%A1rio%20Energ%C3%A9tico%20de%20Res%C3%ADduos%20Rurais%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2020

  45. EPE (2017) Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Impactos da participação do biogás e do biometano na matriz brasileira. IV Fórum do Biogás. [In Portuguese]. http://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-244/topico-257/EPE_IV%20FORUM%20BIOGAS_JOSE%20MAURO_2017_1710.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2019

  46. Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P (2010) Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:1782–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brasil (2016) Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental. Probiogás. Barreiras e propostas de soluções para o mercado de biogás no Brasil / Probiogás; organizadores, Ministério das Cidades, Deutsche Gesellschaf für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ); autores, Oliver Jende ... [et al.]. – Brasília, DF Ministério das Cidades, 2016

  48. Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR, Amaral AC (2019) Fundamentos da digestão anaeróbia, purificação do biogás, uso e tratamento do digestato / - Concórdia: Sbera: Embrapa Suínos e Aves, 209 p. [in Portuguese]

  49. ANNEL (2018) National Electric Energy Agency. http://www2.aneel.gov.br/aplicacoes/capacidadebrasil/OperacaoCapacidadeBrasil.cfm. Accessed 08.02.18

Download references

Funding

Elisa M. M. Esteves acknowledges a research grant from the Brazilian National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (PRH17.1/ANP-Finep).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Engineering Program (PEA), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Ana M. N. Herrera, Elisa M. M. Esteves, Cláudia R. V. Morgado & Victor P. P. Esteves

Authors
  1. Ana M. N. Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisa M. M. Esteves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cláudia R. V. Morgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Victor P. P. Esteves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the article, writing, and revising parts written by the others. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa M. M. Esteves.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The paper is in compliance with ethical standards.

Consent for Publication

The authors authorize the paper publication in Bioenergy Research journal.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Carbon footprint analysis of bioenergy from cattle manure was performed.

• Recycling of heat and electricity as inputs of the AD plant makes the system environmentally friendlier.

• Generating bioenergy from manure is an important way to mitigate GHG emissions from livestock.

• The use of manure for energy generation should be encouraged due to its high energy potential.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herrera, A.M.N., Esteves, E.M.M., Morgado, C.R.V. et al. Carbon Footprint Analysis of Bioenergy Production from Cattle Manure in the Brazilian Central-West. Bioenerg. Res. 14, 1265–1276 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10216-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10216-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation