Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems

Lutz Bühle; Frank Hensgen; Iain Donnison; Katrin Heinsoo; Michael Wachendorf

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072

Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems

Lutz Bühle, Frank Hensgen, Iain Donnison, Katrin Heinsoo, Michael Wachendorf

Department of Life Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The study compares energy production from semi-natural grasslands by the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) through mechanical separation of the biomass with the dry fermentation (DF) and hay combustion system (HC). In addition, traditional use for beef cattle production and non-refining systems of landscape conservation, i.e. mulching and composting, are considered. Highest conversion efficiency (45 to 54 % of the gross yield), net savings of fossil fuels (44 to 54 GJ ha-1) and net savings of greenhouse gases (2.9 to 3.7 t CO2-eq ha-1) are obtained by HC and IFBB. Potentials of DF are linited due to low digestibility of the mature biomass.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	230-239
Number of pages	10
Journal	Bioresource Technology
Volume	111
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072
Publication status	Published - May 2012

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072

Permanent link

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{0644cc8f536b4f7aa069f88eeec2f15d,

title = "Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems",

abstract = "The study compares energy production from semi-natural grasslands by the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) through mechanical separation of the biomass with the dry fermentation (DF) and hay combustion system (HC). In addition, traditional use for beef cattle production and non-refining systems of landscape conservation, i.e. mulching and composting, are considered. Highest conversion efficiency (45 to 54 % of the gross yield), net savings of fossil fuels (44 to 54 GJ ha-1) and net savings of greenhouse gases (2.9 to 3.7 t CO2-eq ha-1) are obtained by HC and IFBB. Potentials of DF are linited due to low digestibility of the mature biomass.",

author = "Lutz B{\"u}hle and Frank Hensgen and Iain Donnison and Katrin Heinsoo and Michael Wachendorf",

note = "Sponsorship: BBSRC RONO: BBS/E/W/00003134E; BBS/E/W/10963A01D",

year = "2012",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072",

language = "English",

volume = "111",

pages = "230--239",

journal = "Bioresource Technology",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems. / Bühle, Lutz; Hensgen, Frank; Donnison, Iain et al.
In: Bioresource Technology, Vol. 111, 05.2012, p. 230-239.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems

AU - Bühle, Lutz

AU - Hensgen, Frank

AU - Donnison, Iain

AU - Heinsoo, Katrin

AU - Wachendorf, Michael

N1 - Sponsorship: BBSRC RONO: BBS/E/W/00003134E; BBS/E/W/10963A01D

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - The study compares energy production from semi-natural grasslands by the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) through mechanical separation of the biomass with the dry fermentation (DF) and hay combustion system (HC). In addition, traditional use for beef cattle production and non-refining systems of landscape conservation, i.e. mulching and composting, are considered. Highest conversion efficiency (45 to 54 % of the gross yield), net savings of fossil fuels (44 to 54 GJ ha-1) and net savings of greenhouse gases (2.9 to 3.7 t CO2-eq ha-1) are obtained by HC and IFBB. Potentials of DF are linited due to low digestibility of the mature biomass.

AB - The study compares energy production from semi-natural grasslands by the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) through mechanical separation of the biomass with the dry fermentation (DF) and hay combustion system (HC). In addition, traditional use for beef cattle production and non-refining systems of landscape conservation, i.e. mulching and composting, are considered. Highest conversion efficiency (45 to 54 % of the gross yield), net savings of fossil fuels (44 to 54 GJ ha-1) and net savings of greenhouse gases (2.9 to 3.7 t CO2-eq ha-1) are obtained by HC and IFBB. Potentials of DF are linited due to low digestibility of the mature biomass.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/2160/8095

U2 - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072

DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.072

M3 - Article

C2 - 22405758

VL - 111

SP - 230

EP - 239

JO - Bioresource Technology

JF - Bioresource Technology

ER -

Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Permanent link

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Post-harvest modifications and implications for recovery of bioenergy or biorenewables

Cite this

Life cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) in comparison to different energy recovery, animal-based and non-refining management systems

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Permanent link

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

Post-harvest modifications and implications for recovery of bioenergy or biorenewables

Cite this