4.8 Article

Life-cycle assessment of biohythane production via two-stage anaerobic fermentation from microalgae and food waste

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 395-410

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.061

关键词

Food waste; Algae; Fermentation; Life-cycle assessment; Hythane

资金

  1. National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China [51606021]
  2. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [51836001]
  3. Venture & Innovation Support Program for Chongqing Overseas Returnees [cx2017019]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018CDYJSY0055, 2018CDXYDL0001]
  5. Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST [2018QNRC001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A life-cycle assessment was performed to evaluate the energy conversion characteristics and environmental impacts of industrial-scaled biohythane (i. e., biohydrogen and biomethane) production via two-stage fermentation from microalgae and food waste. The results showed that for the entire system, the ratio of net energy input to net energy output was 0.24. Biomass pretreatment and microalgae cultivation were the dominant energy consumption processes, corresponding to a consumption of 53.8% and 16.6% of total energy input, respectively. The net greenhouse gas emissions per upgraded biohythane for the entire system were 124 g CO2-eq MJ(-1), whereas the absorption of carbon sources by microalgae photosynthesis corresponded to 49 g CO2-eq MJ(-1). The dominant emissions were generated by electricity production (41.6%), CO2 release in pressurized water (27.8%), and energy recovery (19.8%). According to the nutrient balance analysis, 55.3% of nutrients in the liquid fermentation effluents, including carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus sources, were recycled to maintain the microalgae growth conditions. Additionally, the uncertainties caused by changes in the key parameters and the lack of critical processes were quantitatively analysed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据