COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BIOGAS AND COMPOST PLANTS FOR SOURCE-SEPARATED BIOWASTE TREATMENT
- Haniyeh Jalalipour - Department of Waste and Resource Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Germany
- Soroush Nakhaei - Department of Waste and Resource Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Germany
- Gert Morschek - Department of Waste and Resource Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Germany
- Jan Sprafke - Department of Waste and Resource Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Germany
- Michael Nelles - Department of Waste and Resource Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Germany - The German Centre for Biomass Research , Germany
- Available online in Detritus - In Press
- Pages
Access restricted to subscribed members only
Released under All rights reserved
Copyright: © 2024 CISA Publisher
Abstract
This study presents a comparative analysis of biogas and compost plants for treating 9,400 tonnes of annually source-separated biowaste. The research evaluates the current semi-closed composting system and explores the feasibility of incorporating an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility with a post-composting process. Through a life cycle assessment (LCA), the environmental impacts of these treatment methods are assessed across several categories, including global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, and resource use. The results reveal that the existing composting system contributes 19.15 kg CO2-equivalent emissions per tonne of waste, whereas the proposed AD system shows a net reduction of -25.87 kg CO2-equivalent per tonne, indicating a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the AD system also exhibits higher acidification potential (0.34 kg SO2-equivalent) and eutrophication potential (0.06 kg PO4-equivalent) compared to composting. In addition, biogas plants require a substantial initial investment for construction and equipment, and market fluctuations, particularly in energy prices and demand, can affect profitability. Compost plants, on the other hand, are characterized by their lower initial investment and simpler technology, making them easier to operate and maintain.Keywords
Editorial History
- Received: 15 Nov 2024
- Revised: 19 Mar 2025
- Accepted: 22 Apr 2025
- Available online: 12 May 2025
References
Amuah, E. E. Y., Fei-Baffoe, B., Sackey, L. N. A., Douti, N. B., & Kazapoe, R. W. (2022). A review of the principles of composting: understanding the processes, methods, merits, and demerits. Organic Agriculture, 12(4), 547–562.
DOI 10.1007/s13165-022-00408-z
Ardolino, F., Parrillo, F., & Arena, U. (2018). Biowaste-to-biomethane or biowaste-to-energy? An LCA study on anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 462–476.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.320
Bong, C. P. C., Lim, L. Y., Ho, W. S., Lim, J. S., Klemeš, J. J., Towprayoon, S., Ho, C. S., & Lee, C. T. (2017). A review on the global warming potential of cleaner composting and mitigation strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 146, 149–157.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.066
Castellani, P., Ferronato, N., Ragazzi, M., & Torretta, V. (2023). Organic waste valorization in remote islands: Analysis of economic and environmental benefits of onsite treatment options. Waste Management & Research: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 41(4), 881–893.
DOI 10.1177/0734242X221126426
Edelmann, W., & Schleiss, K. (1999). Ecological, energetic and economic comparison of fermentation, composting and incineration of solid biogenic waste materials. the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (BFE) and the Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (BUWAL)
Essonanawe Edjabou, M., & Scheutz, C. (2023). Quantification of - And determining factors affecting - Methane emissions from composting plants. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 170, 287–296.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.09.010
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. (August 2023). Waste Management in Germany 2023 – Facts, Data, Figures.” Federal Ministry for the Environment. https://www.bmuv.de/en/public-information-service/publications
Federal Office of Justice: Renewable Energy Sources Act - EEG 2023. Available online at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/eeg_2014/__43.html, checked on 3/17/2025
German Environment Agency. (2019). Determination of Criteria for High-Quality Recycling of Bio-Waste and Determination of Requirements for Plant Inventory (in German). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/ermittlung-von-kriterien-fuer-eine-hochwertige
German Environment Agency. (2024). Biowaste. Available online at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/ressourcen-abfall/verwertung-entsorgung-ausgewaehlter-abfallarten/bioabfaelle#bioabfalle-gute-qualitat-ist-voraussetzung-fur-eine-hochwertige-verwertung, retrieved at3/17/2025
Gilbert, J., Ricci-Jürgensen, M., & Ramola, A. (2022). BENEFITS OF COMPOST Benefits of compost and anaerobic digestate when applied to soil. International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)
González, R., Peña, D. C., & Gómez, X. (2022). Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Wastes: Reviewing Current Status and Approaches for Enhancing Biogas Production. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8884.
DOI 10.3390/app12178884
Guillaume, A., Appels, L., & Kočí, V. (2023). Life cycle assessment of municipal biowaste management - a Czech case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 339, 117894.
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117894
Henriksen, T., Levis, J. W., Barlaz, M. A., & Damgaard, A. (2019). Approaches to fill data gaps and evaluate process completeness in LCA—perspectives from solid waste management systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(9), 1587–1601.
DOI 10.1007/s11367-019-01592-z
Lewerenz, S., Sailer, G., Pelz, S., & Lambrecht, H. (2023). Life cycle assessment of biowaste treatment – Considering uncertainties in emission factors. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 15, 100651.
DOI 10.1016/j.clet.2023.100651
Lombardi, L., Francini, G. (2020): Techno-economic and environmental assessment of the main biogas upgrading technologies. In Renewable Energy 156, pp. 440–458.
DOI 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.083
Mayer, F., Bhandari, R., Gäth, S. A., Himanshu, H., & Stobernack, N. (2020). Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of organic waste treatment by means of incineration and biogasification. Is source segregation of biowaste justified in Germany? The Science of the Total Environment, 721, 137731.
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137731
Nakhaei, S. (2024). Comparative Environmental Assessment of Biowaste Treatment Approaches (in German) [Master thesis]. Department of Waste and Resource Management, University of Rostock
Neri, E., Passarini, F., Cespi, D., Zoffoli, F., & Vassura, I. (2018). Sustainability of a bio-waste treatment plant: Impact evolution resulting from technological improvements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1006–1019.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.082
Oviedo-Ocaña, E. R.; Abendroth, C.; Domínguez, I. C.; Sánchez, A.; Dornack, C. (2023). Life cycle assessment of biowaste and green waste composting systems: A review of applications and implementation challenges. In Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 171, pp. 350–364.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.09.004
Sprafke, J., Engler, N., Thabit, Q., Nelles, M., Schuech, A. (2020). Increasing the baseload capacity of biowaste fermentation plants through optimized substrate Management. In Detritus (9), pp. 68–75.
DOI 10.31025/2611-4135/2020.13905
Söllinger, E. (2018). Comparative life cycle assessment of selected composting processes for municipal agricultural residues [Master thesis]. Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
Walk, S.; Gambini, R. (2024): LIFE BIOBEST D3.3 - Guideline on quality compost and digestate