Peer-Reviewed Journal Details
Mandatory Fields
O'Shea R;Lin R;Wall DM;Browne JD;Murphy JD;
Journal of Environmental Management
A comparison of digestate management options at a large anaerobic digestion plant.
WOS: 1 ()
Optional Fields
Increased biogas production from increasing numbers of anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities has increased the mass of digestate applied to agricultural land close to AD plants and has led to an oversupply in some regions. This necessitates long distance digestate transportation accompanied by economic, environmental, and social drawbacks. This work assesses the performance of three different digestate management options (MOs); land application of whole digestate (MO1), digestate separation (MO2), and digestate separation and evaporation (MO3), combined with centralised or decentralised digestate storage. All MOs required the same landbank area, whilst MO2 and MO3 reduced digestate management costs by 9% and 37% (if recovered heat is used) respectively. GHG emissions from MO2 were 41% lower than MO1 if renewable electricity was used. MO3 reduced GHG emissions by 63% compared to MO1, if renewable electricity and recovered heat were used. MO2 required the same centralised digestate storage volume as MO1 while MO3 required 44% of the centralised storage volume. Centralised digestate storage required a maximum of 79 days for digestate transportation (33 trucks/day, 20 m3 capacity) to land for MO1 and MO2, and 35 days for MO3. Decentralised digestate storage required 63 storage tanks and 15 trucks/day for MO1, 69 tanks and 15 trucks/day for MO2, and 68 tanks and 7 trucks/day for MO3. Tank size ranged from 500 m3 to 20,000 m3. MO3 combined with decentralised storage could reduce the cost and GHG emissions (if recovered energy is used), vehicle movements, and the number of storage tanks required for digestate management.
Grant Details