TY - JOUR
T1 - Coupling sorghum biomass and wheat straw to minimise the environmental impact of bioenergy production
AU - Serra, Paolo
AU - Giuntoli, J.
AU - Agostini, Alessandro
AU - Colauzzi, Michele
AU - Amaducci, Stefano
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - The reform of the European sugar market in 2006 paved the way for the development of new agricultural
value chains in the Po Valley (Italy). A value chain based on the use of biomass sorghum (Sorghum bicolor
(L.) Moench) to produce electricity in a medium-scale power plant was investigated. A Life Cycle
Assessment was carried out to explore the environmental impact and energy performance of power
generation from three biomass sorghum genotypes characterized by different earliness (early, mediumlate
and late) in the Po Valley (Italy). To fully cover the plant needs, sorghum was complemented by
winter wheat straw. Productivity and losses of sorghum for the past 39 years as simulated in Serra et al.
(2017) were used to produce a probability distribution of environmental impacts. Soil organic carbon
change relative to the straw removal and sorghum incorporation in soil as well as indirect land use
change CO2 emissions for the substitution of sugar crops with energy crops were also accounted for. To
test the influence of the assumptions an extensive sensitivity analysis over several parameters was
performed. The lowest average GHG emissions (68.9 g CO2eq.MJ1) were achieved with the late genotype
while medium-late and early genotypes emitted 73.5 g CO2eq. MJ1 and 76.8 g CO2eq.MJ1, respectively.
Despite the conservative assumptions, the bioenergy system contributed on average 47.7% less GHG than
a natural gas power plant. In the lowest productivity years the sorghum based energy system emitted
52% less GHG than the Italian electricity mix.
Overall, when harvesting and bailing failed due to unfavourable weather conditions, the lowest GHG
emissions were found, thanks to the increased replacement of sorghum with straw. In fact, soil incorporation
of sorghum biomass resulted in more nutrients added to the soil than with incorporation of
wheat straw. Considering that GHG emissions decreased linearly when sorghum biomass yield increased,
the highest reductions of GHG were found with late genotypes, that produced the highest yields. The
lowest GHG emissions were found when harvesting failed, as the fertilizer debit of straw is lower than
the fertilizer credit of sorghum. However, since carbon and nutrients storage in the soil is not rewarded
monetarily, this option will not correspond to an optimal profit as the risk of failures are highest with late
genotype.
All other environmental impacts assessed were higher for the sorghum based system than for the
fossil alternatives. It was found that the presence of DeNOx SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction)
technology achieved the expected mitigation of acidification potential and photochemical oxidant formation
but at the expenses of an increased climate change impact, due to additional N2O emissions.
AB - The reform of the European sugar market in 2006 paved the way for the development of new agricultural
value chains in the Po Valley (Italy). A value chain based on the use of biomass sorghum (Sorghum bicolor
(L.) Moench) to produce electricity in a medium-scale power plant was investigated. A Life Cycle
Assessment was carried out to explore the environmental impact and energy performance of power
generation from three biomass sorghum genotypes characterized by different earliness (early, mediumlate
and late) in the Po Valley (Italy). To fully cover the plant needs, sorghum was complemented by
winter wheat straw. Productivity and losses of sorghum for the past 39 years as simulated in Serra et al.
(2017) were used to produce a probability distribution of environmental impacts. Soil organic carbon
change relative to the straw removal and sorghum incorporation in soil as well as indirect land use
change CO2 emissions for the substitution of sugar crops with energy crops were also accounted for. To
test the influence of the assumptions an extensive sensitivity analysis over several parameters was
performed. The lowest average GHG emissions (68.9 g CO2eq.MJ1) were achieved with the late genotype
while medium-late and early genotypes emitted 73.5 g CO2eq. MJ1 and 76.8 g CO2eq.MJ1, respectively.
Despite the conservative assumptions, the bioenergy system contributed on average 47.7% less GHG than
a natural gas power plant. In the lowest productivity years the sorghum based energy system emitted
52% less GHG than the Italian electricity mix.
Overall, when harvesting and bailing failed due to unfavourable weather conditions, the lowest GHG
emissions were found, thanks to the increased replacement of sorghum with straw. In fact, soil incorporation
of sorghum biomass resulted in more nutrients added to the soil than with incorporation of
wheat straw. Considering that GHG emissions decreased linearly when sorghum biomass yield increased,
the highest reductions of GHG were found with late genotypes, that produced the highest yields. The
lowest GHG emissions were found when harvesting failed, as the fertilizer debit of straw is lower than
the fertilizer credit of sorghum. However, since carbon and nutrients storage in the soil is not rewarded
monetarily, this option will not correspond to an optimal profit as the risk of failures are highest with late
genotype.
All other environmental impacts assessed were higher for the sorghum based system than for the
fossil alternatives. It was found that the presence of DeNOx SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction)
technology achieved the expected mitigation of acidification potential and photochemical oxidant formation
but at the expenses of an increased climate change impact, due to additional N2O emissions.
KW - EROEI
KW - Environmental impact
KW - GHG emissions
KW - Indirect land use change
KW - Life cycle assessment
KW - Sorghum bicolor
KW - EROEI
KW - Environmental impact
KW - GHG emissions
KW - Indirect land use change
KW - Life cycle assessment
KW - Sorghum bicolor
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/99893
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.208
DO - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.208
M3 - Article
SN - 0959-6526
VL - 154
SP - 242
EP - 254
JO - Journal of Cleaner Production
JF - Journal of Cleaner Production
ER -