Biowaste Management in Italy: Challenges and Perspectives
Open Access
- 4 August 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Sustainability
- Vol. 11 (15), 4213
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154213
Abstract
The aim of this work is the development of a methodology for the technical and environmental assessment of biowaste valorization in 2G biorefineries. Italy was chosen as case study, considering years 2016–2017. Approach: the Italian context was evaluated through the following key parameters: Gross domestic power, climate, demography, and population density distribution described the Italian framework. The four most abundant biowaste categories were defined through their amounts and geo-localization: wastewater and sewage sludge (WSS, 4.06 Mt/y), organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW, 1.7 Mt/y), agricultural livestock waste (ALW, 5.7 Mt/y), and waste deriving from the food industry (FIW, 2.6 Mt/y). The geo-localization and quantitative evaluations of the available biowaste amounts were aimed at defining the dimension and localization of the biorefinery plant and at optimizing supply and transport chains, while the qualitative characteristic were aimed to evaluate the most promising process among thermo-valorization (TH) and anaerobic digestion (AD). Results: All considered biowastes were appropriate for biorefinery processes, since carbon content exceeds 40% and the carbon–nitrogen ratio was between 10 and 30. All biowaste categories were evaluated as feedstocks for two biorefinery processes: anaerobic digestion (AD) and thermo-valorization (TH) with energy recovery. Compared to TH, AD achieved in all cases the best performances in terms of produced energy and avoided CO2 emissions. The primary energy production of AD and TH for WSS, OFMSW, ALW, and FIW were respectively: 7.89 vs. 2.4 kWh/kg; 8.7 vs. 2.6 kWh/kg; 10.85 vs. 5.5 kWh/kg; and 12.5 vs. 7.8 kWh/kg. The main findings of this work were: the adoption of AD was technically more suitable than TH; AD increased the avoided CO2 emissions of 10%–89.9% depending on biowaste category.This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Food waste biorefinery: Sustainable strategy for circular bioeconomyBioresource Technology, 2018
- Feedstock flexibility in sustainable chemistry: Bridging sectors still not sufficiently familiar with each other – Showcases of ongoing and emerging initiativesCurrent Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 2017
- Cost to produce liquid biofuel from invasive eastern redcedar biomassBiomass and Bioenergy, 2017
- Biomass transport cost from field to conversion facility when biomass yield density and road network vary with transport radiusApplied Energy, 2016
- Opportunities, recent trends and challenges of integrated biorefinery: Part IRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015
- Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologiesRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015
- Biorefinery Concepts in Comparison to Petrochemical RefineriesPublished by Elsevier BV ,2015
- Importance of chemical pretreatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomassRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014
- Development of tortuosity factor for assessment of lignocellulosic biomass delivery cost to a biorefineryApplied Energy, 2014
- Valorization of industrial waste and by-product streams via fermentation for the production of chemicals and biopolymersChemical Society Reviews, 2014