Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ecological analysis of a typical farm-scale biogas plant in China

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Earth Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this work was to present the common anaerobic digestion technologies in a typical farm-scale biogas plant in China. The comprehensive benefits of most biogas plants in China have not been fully assessed in past decades due to the limited information of the anaerobic digestion processes in biogas plants. This paper analyzed four key aspects (i.e., operational performance, nonrenewable energy (NE) savings, CO2 emission reduction (CER) and economic benefits (EBs)) of a typical farm-scale biogas plant, where beef cattle manure was used as feedstock. Owing to the monitoring system, stable operation was achieved with a hydraulic retention time of 18–22 days and a production of 876,000 m3 of biogas and 37,960 t of digestate fertilizer annually. This could substantially substitute for the nonrenewable energy and chemical fertilizer. The total amount of NE savings and CER derived from biogas and digestate fertilizer was 2.10×107 MJ (equivalent to 749.7 tce) and 9.71×105 kg, respectively. The EBs of the biogas plant was 6.84×105 CNY·yr−1 with an outputs-to-inputs ratio of 2.37. As a result, the monitoring system was proved to contribute significantly to the sound management and quantitative assessment of the biogas plant. Biogas plants could produce biogas which could be used to substitute fossil fuels and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, and digestate fertilizer is also an important bio-product.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhattacharya S C, Abdul Salam P, Sharma M, (2000). Emissions from biomass energy use in some selected Asian countries. Energy, 25(2): 169–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boe K, Batstone D J, Steyer J P, Angelidaki I (2010). State indicators for monitoring the anaerobic digestion process. Water Res, 44(20): 5973–5980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni E, Jensen A P, Pedersen E S, Angelidaki I (2010). Anaerobic digestion of maize focusing on variety, harvest time and pretreatment. Appl Energy, 87(7): 2212–2217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao Y C, Pawłowski A (2013). Life cycle assessment of two emerging sewage sludge-to-energy systems: evaluating energy and greenhouse gas emissions implications. Bioresour Technol, 127: 81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen B, Chen G Q, Yang Z F, Jiang M M (2007). Ecological footprint accounting for energy and resource in China. Energy Policy, 35(3): 1599–1609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen G Q, Jiang M M, Chen B, Yang Z F, Lin C (2006). Emergy analysis of Chinese agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 115(1–4): 161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen G Q, Zhang B (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: inventory and input-output analysis. Energy Policy, 38(10): 6180–6193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen H, Chen G Q (2011b). Energy cost of rapeseed-based biodiesel as alternative energy in China. Renew Energy, 36(5): 1374–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S Q, Chen B, Song D (2012). Life-cycle energy production and emissions mitigation by comprehensive biogas-digestate utilization. Bioresour Technol, 114: 357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Yang G H, Sweeney S, Feng Y Z (2010). Household biogas use in rural China: a study of opportunities and constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(1): 545–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z M, Chen G Q (2011a). An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy. Energy Policy, 39(10): 5920–5928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai J, Chen B (2010). Materials flows analysis of fossil fuels in China during 2000–2007. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2: 1818–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai J, Chen B (2011). Extended exergy-based ecological accounting of China during 2000–2007. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 5: 87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan N, Lin C, Liu X D, Wang Y, Zhang X J, Hou Y (2011). Study on the effect of biogas project on the development of low-carbon circular economy—A case study of Beilangzhong eco-village. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 5: 160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Mashad H M, Zhang R H (2010). Biogas production from codigestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol, 101(11): 4021–4028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1999). Agricultural Statistics. http://apps.fao.org/cgi-bin/nphdb.pl?subset-agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization, UN. (11/22/1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fdez-Güelfo L A, Álvarez-Gallego C, Sales D, Romero L I (2012). New indirect parameters for interpreting a destabilization episode in an anaerobic reactor. Chem Eng J, 180: 32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam R, Baral S, Herat S (2009). Biogas as a sustainable energy source in Nepal: present status and future challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 13(1): 248–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebrezgabher S A, Meuwissen M P M, Prins B A M, Lansink A G JMO (2010). Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion—A case of green power biogas plant in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(2): 109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genovesi A, Harmand J, Steyer J P (1999). A fuzzy logic based diagnosis system for the on-line supervision of an anaerobic digestor pilot-plant. Biochem Eng J, 3(3): 171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh N (2004). Reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers and its financial implications for farmers in India. Ecol Econ, 49(2): 149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunamantha M, Sarto (2012). Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: case study of Kartamantul region, Yogyakarta. Renew Energy, 41: 277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann G, Schingnitz D, Schnapke A, Bilitewski B (2010). Reduction of CO2-emissions by using biomass in combustion and digestion plants. Waste Manag, 30(5): 893–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihunegbo F N, Madsen M, Esbensen K H, Holm-Nielsen J B, Halstensen M (2012). Acoustic chemometric prediction of total solids in bioslurry: a full-scale feasibility study for on-line biogas process monitoring. Chemom Intell Lab Syst, 110(1): 135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch T G, Mattiasson B (2004). An automated spectrophotometric system for monitoring buffer capacity in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Res, 38(17): 3645–3650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang M M, Chen B, Zhou J B, Tao F R, Li Z, Yang Z F, Chen G Q (2007). Emergy account for biomass resource exploitation by agriculture in China. Energy Policy, 35(9): 4704–4719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang X Y, Sommer S G, Christensen K V (2011). A review of the biogas industry in China. Energy Policy, 39(10): 6073–6081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju L P, Chen B (2011). Embodied energy and emergy evaluation of a typical biodiesel production chain in China. Ecol Modell, 222(14): 2385–2392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahrl F, Li Y J, Su Y F, Tennigkeit T, Wilkes A, Xu J C (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizer use in China. Environ Sci Policy, 13(8): 688–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karellas S, Boukis I, Kontopoulos G (2010). Development of an investment decision tool for biogas production from agricultural waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(4): 1273–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koroneos C J, Nanaki E A, Xydis G A (2011). Exergy analysis of the energy use in Greece. Energy Policy, 39(5): 2475–2481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski K, Stagl S, Madlener R, Omann I (2009). Sustainable energy futures: methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res, 197(3): 1063–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuang X Z, Shi X S, Wu X, Yuan X Z, Qiu Y L (2009). Progress of monitoring and control of anaerobic digestion. China Biogas, 27(1): 16–19 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefroy E, Rydberg T (2003). Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in southwestern Australia. Ecol Modell, 161(3): 195–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J S, Chen G Q (2013). Energy and greenhouse gas emissions review for Macao. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 22: 23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J S, Chen G Q, Lai T M, Ahmad B, Chen Z M, Shao L, Ji X (2013). Embodied greenhouse gas emission by Macao. Energy Policy, 59: 819–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J S, Duan N, Guo S, Shao L, Lin C, Wang J H, Hou J, Hou Y, Meng J, Han M Y (2012). Renewable resource for agricultural ecosystem in China: ecological benefit for biogas by-product for planting. Ecol Inform, 12: 101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limmeechokchai B, Chawana S (2007). Sustainable energy development strategies in the rural Thailand: the case of the improved cooking stove and the small biogas digester. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 11(5): 818–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Kuang Y Q, Huang N S (2008). Rural biogas development and greenhouse gas emission mitigation. China Population. Resources and Environment, 18(3): 48–53 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu H F, Campbell D E, Li Z A, Ren H (2006). Emergy synthesis of an agro-forest restoration system in lower subtropical China. Ecol Eng, 27(3): 175–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Aurich A, Schattauer A, Hellebrand H J, Klauss H, Plöchl M, Berg W (2012). Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources. Renew Energy, 37(1): 277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen H X, Yamamoto R (2007). Modification of ecological footprint evaluation method to include non-renewable resource consumption using thermodynamic approach. Resour Conserv Recycling, 51(4): 870–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozbilen A, Dincer I, Rosen M A (2012). Exergetic life cycle assessment of a hydrogen production process. Int J Hydrogen Energy, 37(7): 5665–5675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson T, Esteves S, Dinsdale R, Guwy A (2011). Life cycle assessment of biogas infrastructure options on a regional scale. Bioresour Technol, 102(15): 7313–7323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pehnt M (2006). Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy, 31(1): 55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng J Q, Lu L, Yang H X (2013). Review on life cycle assessment of energy payback and greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 19: 255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P (2010). Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(7): 1782–1797

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P (2012b). Environmental impacts of biogas deployment—Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to airs. J Clean Prod, 24: 168–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez C A, Worrell E (2006). Feeding fossil fuels to the soil: an analysis of energy embedded and technological learning in the fertilizer industry. Resour Conserv Recycling, 46(1): 75–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehl T, Müller J (2011). Life cycle assessment of biogas digestate processing technologies. Resour Conserv Recycling, 56(1): 92–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehl T, Müller J (2013). CO2 abatement costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation by different biogas conversion pathways. J Environ Manage, 114: 13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao L, Wu Z, Chen G Q (2013). Exergy based ecological footprint accounting for China. Ecol Modell, 252: 83–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson A P, Edwards C F (2013). The utility of environmental exergy analysis for decision making in energy. Energy, 55: 742–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talens Peiró L, Villalba Méndez G, Sciubba E, Gabarrell i Durany X (2010). Extended exergy accounting applied to biodiesel production. Energy, 35(7): 2861–2869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tock J Y, Lai C L, Lee K T, Tan K T, Bhatia S (2010). Banana biomass as potential renewable energy resource: a Malaysian case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(2): 798–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaneeckhaute C, Meers E, Michels E, Buysse J, Tack F M G (2013). Ecological and economic benefits of the application of bio-based mineral fertilizers in modern agriculture. Biomass Bioenergy, 49: 239–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei D H, Li W Z (2010). PLC and configuration software and its application in the process of the methane system. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, (3): 196–198 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei D Y, Yu T, Liu F, Niu L, Dong Z L, Xu Z C (2011). Economic effect of the clean development mechanism on the countryside biogas project. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, (1): 176–179 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi Y G, Qin P (2009). Emergy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system. Ecol Eng, 35(11): 1677–1683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia Y, Massé D I, McAllister T A, Beaulieu C, Ungerfeld E (2012). Anaerobic digestion of chicken feather with swine manure or slaughterhouse sludge for biogas production. Waste Manag, 32(3): 404–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xuan J, Leung MKH, Leung D Y C, Ni M (2009). A review of biomass-derived fuel processors for fuel cell systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 13(6–7): 1301–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yabe N (2013). Environmental and economic evaluations of centralized biogas plants running on cow manure in Hokkaido, Japan. Biomass Bioenergy, 49: 143–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Q, Chen G Q (2013). Greenhouse gas emission of corn-ethanol production in China. Ecol Modell, 252: 176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Q, Chen G Q (2012). Nonrenewable energy cost of corn-ethanol in China. Energy Policy, 41: 340–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng X Y, Ma Y T, Ma L R (2007). Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 11(5): 976–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang B, Chen G Q (2010). Physical sustainability assessment for the China society: exergy-based systems account for resources use and environmental emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(6): 1527–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Smith K R, Ma Y, Ye S, Jiang F, Qi W, Liu P, Khalil M A K, Rasmussen R A, Thorneloe S A (2000). Greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from household stoves in China: a database for emission factors. Atmospheric Environment, 34(26): 4537–4549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L X, Wang C B, Yang Z F, Chen B (2010). Carbon emissions from energy combustion in rural China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2: 980–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W X, Sun G (2008). Potential of CDM project on agriculture and stockbreeding. Jiangxi Energy, 1: 21–23 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Y H, Li Z F, Feng S F, Lucas M, Wu G L, Li Y, Li C H, Jiang GM (2010). Biomass energy utilization in rural areas may contribute to alleviating energy crisis and global warming: a case study in a typical agro-village of Shandong, China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 14(9): 3132–3139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M, Qiu L, Zou Z Y, Luo T (2010). The design of expert consulting system for the comprehensive utilization of biogas and residue of the rural biogas project. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 4: 179–181 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China

    Na Duan, Cong Lin, Pingzhi Wang & Xue Li

  2. Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

    Jing Meng

  3. Guangdong Huianhengda Management Consulting Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, 510080, China

    Hui Chen

Authors
  1. Na Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pingzhi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jing Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xue Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Cong Lin or Jing Meng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duan, N., Lin, C., Wang, P. et al. Ecological analysis of a typical farm-scale biogas plant in China. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 375–384 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-014-0411-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-014-0411-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation