Life Cycle Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Treatment Plants

Author(s):  
Rosalía Rodríguez ◽  
Juan José Espada ◽  
Raúl Molina ◽  
Daniel Puyol
2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luchien Luning ◽  
Paul Roeleveld ◽  
Victor W.M. Claessen

In recent years new technologies have been developed to improve the biological degradation of sewage sludge by anaerobic digestion. The paper describes the results of a demonstration of ultrasonic disintegration on the Dutch Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Land van Cuijk. The effect on the degradation of organic matter is presented, together with the effect on the dewatering characteristics. Recommendations are presented for establishing research conditions in which the effect of sludge disintegration can be determined in a more direct way that is less sensitive to changing conditions in the operation of the WWTP. These recommendations have been implemented in the ongoing research in the Netherlands supported by the National Institute for wastewater research (STOWA).


2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (11) ◽  
pp. 1683-1692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Tilche ◽  
Michele Galatola

Anaerobic digestion is a well known process that (while still capable of showing new features) has experienced several waves of technological development. It was “born” as a wastewater treatment system, in the 1970s showed promise as an alternative energy source (in particular from animal waste), in the 1980s and later it became a standard for treating organic-matter-rich industrial wastewater, and more recently returned to the market for its energy recovery potential, making use of different biomasses, including energy crops. With the growing concern around global warming, this paper looks at the potential of anaerobic digestion in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The potential contribution of anaerobic digestion to GHG reduction has been computed for the 27 EU countries on the basis of their 2005 Kyoto declarations and using life cycle data. The theoretical potential contribution of anaerobic digestion to Kyoto and EU post-Kyoto targets has been calculated. Two different possible biogas applications have been considered: electricity production from manure waste, and upgraded methane production for light goods vehicles (from landfill biogas and municipal and industrial wastewater treatment sludges). The useful heat that can be produced as by-product from biogas conversion into electricity has not been taken into consideration, as its real exploitation depends on local conditions. Moreover the amount of biogas already produced via dedicated anaerobic digestion processes has also not been included in the calculations. Therefore the overall gains achievable would be even higher than those reported here. This exercise shows that biogas may considerably contribute to GHG emission reductions in particular if used as a biofuel. Results also show that its use as a biofuel may allow for true negative GHG emissions, showing a net advantage with respect to other biofuels. Considering also energy crops that will become available in the next few years as a result of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, this study shows that biogas has the potential of covering almost 50% of the 2020 biofuel target of 10% of all automotive transport fuels, without implying a change in land use. Moreover, considering the achievable GHG reductions, a very large carbon emission trading “value” could support the investment needs. However, those results were obtained through a “qualitative” assessment. In order to produce robust data for decision makers, a quantitative sustainability assessment should be carried out, integrating different methodologies within a life cycle framework. The identification of the most appropriate policy for promoting the best set of options is then discussed.


Author(s):  
Farhad Sakhaee

Abstract: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate environmental impacts based on products of a process. This research is a case study of wastewater treatment facilities of ERTC (Environmental Resources Training Center), SIUE University, based on available data for two semi-annual sludge quantities (year 2015) from sludge management report. The aim of this study is to compare set of possibilities for a wastewater treatment facility at ERTC. The simulation has been done through SimaPro model. Electricity and methane were considered and the cumulative weight of their impacts has been investigated. Total solids for two semi-annual sludge has been fed to the model in kilogram and different production (electricity and methane) configuration were investigated. The most plausible configuration based on the cumulative environmental impact proposed as best practical solution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 249 ◽  
pp. 119327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadegh Alizadeh ◽  
Hamid Zafari-koloukhi ◽  
Fatemeh Rostami ◽  
Masoud Rouhbakhsh ◽  
Akram Avami

Membranes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 421
Author(s):  
Dimitra C. Banti ◽  
Michail Tsangas ◽  
Petros Samaras ◽  
Antonis Zorpas

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems are connected to several advantages compared to the conventional activated sludge (CAS) units. This work aims to the examination of the life cycle environmental impact of an MBR against a CAS unit when treating municipal wastewater with similar influent loading (BOD = 400 mg/L) and giving similar high-quality effluent (BOD < 5 mg/L). The MBR unit contained a denitrification, an aeration and a membrane tank, whereas the CAS unit included an equalization, a denitrification, a nitrification, a sedimentation, a mixing, a flocculation tank and a drum filter. Several impact categories factors were calculated by implementing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, including acidification potential, eutrophication potential, global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential and photochemical ozone creation potential of the plants throughout their life cycle. Real data from two wastewater treatment plants were used. The research focused on two parameters which constitute the main differences between the two treatment plants: The excess sludge removal life cycle contribution—where GWPMBR = 0.50 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 and GWPCAS = 2.67 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 without sludge removal—and the wastewater treatment plant life cycle contribution—where GWPMBR = 0.002 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 and GWPCAS = 0.14 kg CO2-eq*FU−1 without land area contribution. Finally, in all the examined cases the environmental superiority of the MBR process was found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document