Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy
Available
Available Procedia
online
online 00 (2018) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy Procedia
Energy Procedia 00
148(2017)
(2018)000–000
34–41
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association (ATI 2018),
73rd Conference of the Italian
12–14Thermal Machines
September 2018, Engineering
Pisa, Italy Association (ATI 2018),
12–14 September 2018, Pisa, Italy
Bioenergy recovery from waste: comparison of different treatment
Bioenergy Therecovery from waste:
15th International comparison
Symposium of different treatment
scenarios byonLCA
District Heating and Cooling
scenarios by LCA
Assessing the feasibility
Elena Albini , Donata Bacchia, Giovanni
a of using the
Ferrara heat demand-outdoor
b, Giovanni Francinia, Giovanni
Elena Albini
temperature
a
Galoppi, function
Donata Bacchi
b, Lidia
for ,aGiovanni
a
Lombardi long-termFerrara
c, Isabella
b , Giovanni
district
Pecorini heatFrancini
demand
b*, Caterina
a, Giovanni
Susini d
forecast
Galoppi , Lidia Lombardi , Isabella Pecorini , Caterina Susini
a
b c b* d
PIN S.c.r.l., Servizi didattici e scientifici per l’Università di Firenze, Piazza G. Ciardi 25 - 59100 Prato, Italy
a,b,c a a b c c
I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Corre
b a
DIEF, Department
PIN S.c.r.l., Serviziofdidattici
c
Industrial Engineering,
e scientifici per University
l’UniversitàofdiFlorence,
Firenze, Via Santa
Piazza G. Marta
Ciardi325- 50139
- 59100Florence, Italy
Prato, Italy
b Niccolò Cusano University, Via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, 00166 Rome, Italy
DIEF, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, Via Santa Marta 3 - 50139 Florence, Italy
d
a c
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology
NiccolòSEA Cusano
Risorse S.p.a.,
and Policy Via dei
Research
University, Via-Comparini
Instituto
Don 186, 55049
Superior
Carlo Gnocchi 3,Viareggio,
Técnico,
00166 ItalyItaly
Av.Rome,
Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
VeoliadRecherche
SEA Risorse& S.p.a., Via dei
Innovation, 291 Comparini 186, 55049
Avenue Dreyfous Viareggio,
Daniel, 78520 Italy
Limay, France
c
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Abstract
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge generally produces an amount of biogas that is not enough to cover the energy
Abstract digestion
Anaerobic
requirements of sewageOne
of the digester. sludge generally
possibility producesthe
to increase an biogas
amountproduction
of biogas that
is toisco-digest,
not enough to cover
together the sewage
with energy
requirements of the digester.
sludge, other substrates, One possibility
for istance the organictofraction
increaseofthe biogas production
municipal solid waste.is Alternatively,
to co-digest, together with sewage
a preliminary step of
District
sludge,
dark heating
other networks
substrates,
co-fermentation areistance
for
of those commonly
mixedthe addressed
organic
substrates in be
theapplied.
fraction
can literatureInasthis
of municipal one of the
solid
work, most
waste.
such effective solutions
Alternatively,
possible cases for decreasing
a preliminary
are compared step
by the
of
Life
greenhouse
dark gas emissions
co-fermentation of from
those the building
mixed sector.
substrates These
can be systems
applied. require
In this high
work, investments
such which
possible
Cycle Assessment approach. The study was carried out with reference to the Viareggio wastewater treatment plant, are
cases returned
are through
compared bythe heat
Life
sales. Assessment
Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demandwastewater
Cycle
Italy. Anaerobic approach.
co-digestion The study
of sewage was carried
sludge and theoutorganic
with reference
fraction to
of the Viareggio
municipal solidinwaste
the future could decrease,
treatment
emerges as theplant,
best
prolonging the
Italy. Anaerobic investment return period.
treatment option co-digestion of sewage sludge
in terms of environmental and the
impacts. organicalso
However, fraction of municipal solid
dark co-fermentation waste emerges
presents, as benefits
albeit less, the best
The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
treatment option in
and a reduction in environmental
terms of environmental
burdens. impacts. However,
The robustness alsoresults
of the dark co-fermentation
is explored by presents, albeit analysis
the sensitivity less, benefits
with
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
and a reduction
respect to the in environmental
effective thermal burdens.
energy use. The robustness of the results is explored by the sensitivity analysis with
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
respect to the effective thermal energy use.
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
©compared
2018 The with results
Authors. from a dynamic
Published heatLtd.
by Elsevier demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
© 2018
This The
is an Authors.
open accessPublished by
article under Elsevier Ltd.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Theisresults
This an showed
open accessthat when
article onlythe
under weather
CC change is license
BY-NC-ND considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection openpeer-review
access article under
under the CC BY-NC-ND
responsibility licensecommittee
of the scientific (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the 73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines
Selection
(the errorand
in peer-review
annual demand under responsibility
was lower than of
20%the for
scientific committee
all weather of theconsidered).
scenarios 73rd Conference of theafter
However, Italian Thermal Machines
introducing renovation
Selection
EngineeringandAssociation
peer-review(ATI
under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines
2018).
Engineering Association
scenarios, the error value(ATI 2018). up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
increased
Engineering Association (ATI 2018).
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
Keywords: sewage sludge, food waste, Life Cycle Assessment, anaerobic digestion, dark fermentation, biohydrogen, biofertilizer
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
Keywords: sewage sludge, food waste, Life Cycle Assessment, anaerobic digestion, dark fermentation, biohydrogen, biofertilizer
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-2758718; fax: +39-055-2758755; e-mail address: [email protected]
Cooling.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-2758718; fax: +39-055-2758755; e-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
This is an open
1876-6102 access
© 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection
This is an and
openpeer-review under
access article responsibility
under of the scientific
the CC BY-NC-ND licensecommittee of the 73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Association
Selection and(ATI 2018). under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering
peer-review
Association (ATI 2018).
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 73rd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines
Engineering Association (ATI 2018).
10.1016/j.egypro.2018.08.016
 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41 35
2 Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

The bioeconomy concerns the recovery of raw materials of biological origin, playing an important role in industrial
ecology. Within this frame bio-waste has an enormous potential as an alternative to chemical fertilizers or for
conversion into bio-energy [1]. The sewage sludge (SS) valorisation through anaerobic digestion (AD) is a crucial
step to produce renewable energy in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Moreover, AD is a technology for energy
recovery from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), originated from the separate collection. The
SS thus can be used together with the OFMSW in a process of anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) to produce fertilizers
and energy, in order to replacing the use of non-renewable sources [2]. In this respect, biohydrogen production through
dark fermentation (DF) can be considered the new borders of AD process development [3]. The coupling of DF in the
first step and AD in the second step, can increase the process sustainability and the treatment of the organic waste.
Thus, in order to improve the economic sustainability of DF, AD could provide an appealing solution [4].
In this study, the two possibilities of applying AcoD or DF coupled with AD were investigated with reference to a
specific study case, related to the WWTP of Viareggio in Tuscany (IT). The two alternative treatments of SS and
OFMSW were evaluated from the environmental point of view, by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and compared with
the current management for SS and OFMSW. LCA can identify the environmental impacts of a product or process at
each stage of its life cycle and also it is generally adopted as a tool for supporting policies particularly concerning
bioenergy [5]. Of course, not only the enviromental issues can guide the final decision about innovative technologies.
For this reason a preliminary analsysis of investement costs for the different compared cases is reported in this work.

Nomenclature

AcoD anaerobic co-digestion

AD anaerobic digestion
DF dark fermentation
EE electric energy
ICE internal combustion engine
LCA life cycle assessment
MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell
OFMSW organic fraction of municipal solid waste
SGP specific gas production
SS sewage sludge
TE thermal energy
TS total solid
Turb gas turbine
TVS total volatile solid
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

2. Scenarios and methods

Based on standard criteria defined by the International Standard Organisation [6,7], the LCA analysis is performed
in agreement with the LCA steps: goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment and results interpretation.

2.1. Goal and scope definition

The purpose of this work is the comparison of the environmental impact of the different scenarios for the treatment
of OFMSW and SS, with reference to the WWTP of Viareggio study case. The compared scenarios are:
1. Reference Scenario: SS are processed by simple AD, commonly used in several WWTP, including the
Viareggio plant; OFMSW is composted; the biogas obtained from the SS AD is used in a boiler, thus
producing thermal energy (TE) for the anaerobic digester;
2. Scenario #1: AcoD of SS and OFMSW; two possibilities for energy recovery (both in terms of electricity
and heat) were considered for the produced biogas: (i) Scenario #1-ICE, with an internal combustion engine
(ICE); (ii) Scenario #1-Turb, with a gas turbine (Turb);
36 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41
Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

3. Scenario#2: anaerobic DF of SS and OFMSW, producing what is commonly called the biohydrogen (which
is a gas mixture rich in H2, but also containing CO2), followed by a second step of AD; two possibilities for
biofuels recovery were considered: (i) Scenario #2-ICE, with an ICE for the energy recovery from biogas
and a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) for the energy recovery from the hydrogen-rich gas; (ii) Scenario
#2-Turb, with a Turb, for the energy recovery from the mixture of both biogas and hydrogen-rich gas.
The LCA boundaries of the analyzed scenarios include: pre-treatments, the core biological treatment, the expected
production of energy and soil improver, the transports, the treatment of the produced wastewater, the landfilling of
residues obtained from the pre-treatments and the generated emissions from the various devices. As regards the
production of biogas and hydrogen-rich gas, experimental data were used for the inventory.
System expansion was used in order to avoid the need to allocate multi-functional processes. The substitution
method was applied because of the production of soil improver, electric energy (EE) or TE and the use of equivalent
products was avoided [8].
The reference functional unit for the proposed scenarios is defined as: the treatment of the total annual amount of
SS (189 000 t/y) and OFMSW (15 500 t/y) from the city of Viareggio. The characterization of the OFMSW was
obtained from the average characterization in the area in which the study is located. The following average
composition of the organic waste was considered: organic food (67%), organic (non-food) (3%), paper (3%),
cardboard (6%), high density plastics (2%), plastics films (6%), textile materials (1%), glass (4%), ferrous metals
(1%), non-ferrous metals (1%), hazardous (1%) and inert (5%). Furthermore, the OFMSW has a total solid (TS)
content of 37% and a total volatile solid (TVS) of 68%, while the SS, collected from the municipal WWTP of
Viareggio, has a TS content of 0.7% and a TVS content of 70%.

2.2. Inventory analysis

In the inventory phase the studied systems must be necessarily described in a quantitative way in terms of input
and output streams. Primarily, the data was obtained by the Viareggio management plant society and they were
integrated with laboratory notions, literature data and database information (SimaPro software).

2.2.1. Reference Scenario

A mechanical sorting process is considered to remove all the undesirable materials from the OFMSW. 15 kWh/t
of EE [9] and 1.3 liters/t of diesel [10] are required for this process. As can be seen in Fig. 1, OFMSW is sent to a
biological composting, whose production of compost is 0.43 kg/kg OFMSW [11]. The assumption was made not
considering green waste in addition to the process and considering a consumption of EE equal to 38 kWh/t [10].
The SS, after a thickening phase, moves towards the AD for biogas production with a 2% of TS. Biogas lower
heating value is 22 750 kJ/Nm3 and its composition is: 65% CH4, 0.5% H2S, 32% CO2 and 2.5% H2O [12] (operating
parameters of AD are reported in Table 1). The sludge AD needs EE and TE, 111 MWh/y and 2058 MWh/y
respectively [12]. A boiler (efficiency of 85% [13]) produces TE which is not enough to cover the totally demand: an
input of natural gas equal to 630 MWh/y is estimated. The composting of digestate coming from the AD is inventoried
using the same consumptions as the OFMSW composting.

Figure 1. System boundary of Reference Scenario

 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41 37
4 Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

2.2.2. Scenario #1

The OFMSW is sent to an extruder press which required an amount of diesel of 20 000 l/y [12]. After the pre-
treatment, the OFMSW has 4.8% of TS content. SS has 5% of TS after the thickening. The mixture of pre-treated
OFMSW and SS are sent to AcoD. As a preliminary approach, biogas production was estimated considering the
specific gas production (SGP) obtained separately for SS (in the real plant) and OFMSW (in laboratory tests), being
not yet available results for the SGP of AcoD tests (operating parameters of AD are reported in Table 1).
The produced biogas is recovered according to two possible routes (Fig. 2): a 600 kW power ICE (EE efficiency
of 0.42 and TE efficiency of 0.43 [14]) or a 600 kW Turb (EE efficiency of 0.33 [15] and TE efficiency of 0.55 [12]).
The self-sufficiency of the process is guaranteed by both devices, being the AcoD energy consumptions equal to 475
MWh/y of EE and 2620 MWh/y of TE, and ensuring net energy outputs [12].
The final treatment for the exiting from the AcoD consists of mixing it with other substances, such as peat, to
produce a soil improver. Production process for peat was not included into the system boundary (it is anyhow produced
and used for soil improvement purposes). An annual consumption of 110 MWh/y [16] was assumed for the mixing
process.

Figure 2. System boundary of Scenario#1

2.2.3. Scenario #2

In Scenario#2 the SS and OFMSW are mixed and sent for DF, producing hydrogen-rich gas (operating parameters
of DF are reported in Table 1). The output from the DF is further processed in AD, producing biogas and digestate.

Table 1. AD operating parameters in the Reference Scenario and Scenario#1 and DF operating parameters in Scenario#2
Parameters Reference Scenario Scenario#1 Scenario #2 (only DF)
Reactor volume 3000 m3 [12] 4500 m3 [12] 818 m3 [3]
Hydraulic residence time (HRT) 17.84 d 20.69 d 3.8 d
Volumetric organic load (OLR) 0.85 kg TVS/m3 d 1.95 kg TVS/m3 d 10.73 kg TVS/m3 d
Specific gas production (SS) 0.289 Nm3 biogas/kg TVS [3] 0.289 Nm3 biogas/kg TVS [3] 0.06 Nm3 H2/kg TVS [3]
Specific gas production (OFMSW) - 0.678 Nm biogas/kg TVS [3]
3
0.06 Nm3 H2/kg TVS [3]
Biogas produced 730 Nm biogas/d
3
5540 Nm biogas/d
3
526.5 Nm3 H2/d

The consumptions for the DF step are: EE equal to 78 MWh/y and TE equal to 2290 MWh/y [12]. The produced
biofuels are recovered according to two possible routes (Fig. 3): the hydrogen-rich gas in a MCFC (EE efficiency of
0.45 [3]; TE recovery is not considered for the MCFC) and the biogas in a 600 kW power ICE (same efficiencies of
Scenario#1); alternatively, the mixture hydrogen-rich gas and biogas is used in a 600 kW Turb (same efficiencies of
Scenario#1). The self-sufficiency of the process is guaranteed in both cases and ensuring net energy outputs.
The digestate produced from the second stage of AD is assumed to be mixed with peat, according to the same
assumptions previously described for Scenario#1.
38 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41
Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

Figure 3. System boundary of Scenario#2

2.2.4. Energy production, emissions and use of soil improver

The excess of EE is sent into the electricity grid while the TE surplus is presumed to be used by a thermal user near
the plant. In the Ecoinvent archive, the following records were chosen for the EE and TE: Electricity, medium voltage
{IT} and Heat, central or small-scale, Natural gas {Europe without Switzerland} | heat production, natural gas, at
boiler modulating <100kW. The emissions of all devices were determined by using the emission factors reported in
Table 2. The stoichiometric calculation is adopted for CO2 (biogenic) and SO2 emissions, estimated in 2.75 kg CO2/kg
CH4 and 1.88 kg SO2/kg H2S respectively.

Table 2. Devices emission factors

Pollutants Boiler ICE Gas Turbine
NOx 4480 kg/(10^6) Nm3 CH4 [17] 250 mg/Nm3 [14] 18 mg/Nm3 [15]
CO 1344 kg / (10^6) Nm CH4 [17]
3
8.29E-04 kg/Nm [18]
3
100 mg/Nm3 [15]
PM 121.6 kg/(10^6) Nm CH4 [17]
3
1.91E-05 kg/Nm [18]
3
115.2 kg/(10^6) Nm3 CH4 [19]

No information was provided regarding the nutrient characteristic of the compost/soil improver at the end of the
processes, therefore the following composition from literature was assumed [20]. Contents of 18 g/kgTS of N (as
TKN), 30 g/kgTS of P (as P2O5) and 18.5 g/kgTS of K (as K2O) were assumed for compost; while for soil improver
it was estimated a composition of 50 g/kgTS of N (as TKN), 40 g/kgTS of P (as P2O5) and 4 g/kgTS of K (as K2O).
The produced compost is used for 25% replacing peat, 68% substituting mineral fertilisers and 7% without any
substitution [21]. The Ecoinvent records selected are: Peat moss {RoW}| peat moss production, horticultural use,
Nitrogen fertiliser, as N {GLO}| field application of compost, Phosphate fertiliser, as P 2O5 {GLO}| field application
of compost, Potassium fertiliser, as K2O {GLO}| field application of compost. In the case of soil improver production,
the replacing of peat was not considered, therefore the 93% of substitution is for mineral fertilisers.

3. Results

The results are presented according to the CML-IA baseline V3.02/ EU25 method, Institute of Environmental
Sciences of the Leiden University (NL) [22]. The results are here reported only for the following indicators: Abiotic
Depletion, Global Warming and Terrestrial Ecotoxicity, for conciseness reasons.

3.1. Impact assessment

Fig. 4 shows, for the three selected indicators, the values of percentage difference calculated for Scenario#1 and
Scenario#2 with respect to the Reference Scenario. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the use of AcoD is advantageous and the
use of an ICE (or an ICE+MCFC in the Scenario#2) instead of a gas turbine determines a better behavior in terms of
impacts. These environmental performances are due to the better energy balance obtained in the AcoD case, also
because of a larger energy demand, especially in terms of TE for heating the digesters, characterizes the scenarios
with co-fermentation (see in Fig. 5 the energy consumption of the DF+AD in Scenario#2 compared to the energy
consumption of only AD in Scenario#1). Moreover, the recovery of EE is more favorable than the recovery of TE: an
 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41 39
6 Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

ICE produces much more EE compared to a turbine, giving greater avoided impacts. The contribution given by EE
and TE for Abiotic Depletion indicator are respectively 8.63 and 4.27 MJ per kWh of produced energy.

Figure 4. Results of the analysis in terms of percentage difference calculated with respect to the Reference Scenario

The mixing phase, in which the production of soil improver represents a saving, allows lower impacts. For the
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity indicator the values are: 0.00025 kg 1.4 DB eq per kg of replaced peat, 0.169 kg 1.4 DB eq per
kg of replaced N, 0.086 kg 1.4 DB eq per kg of replaced P2O5, 0.067 kg 1.4 DB eq per kg of replaced K2O.

Figure 5. Sub-processes abiotic depletion impacts

3.2. Interpretation and uncertainty analysis

The comparison between the AcoD and the dark co-fermentation scenarios shows that DF does not appear very
advantageous. In fact, the energy recovered is lower and the produced digestate is lower, giving less soil improver and
therefore less avoided impacts. In the Scenario#2, the MCFC does not imply a significant EE profit; this is because
the production of hydrogen-rich gas is not very high.
It should be noted that the possibility of effective TE use outside the plant is linked to the territorial context. The
energy recovery is a key figure for the results of this analysis. Therefore, it was decided to evaluate how results can
change if the net produced TE is not used (i.e. an external thermal is not available). Fig. 6 shows for the Abiotic
Depletion indicator, the values of percentage difference calculated for Scenario #1 and Scenario#2 with respect to the
Reference Scenario. When TE is not effectively used, the performances of the ICE scenario are decreased more that
the gas turbine’s ones. These results are linked to the fact that the TE recovery from turbines is lower that TE recovery
in ICE, thus the scenarios using ICE are more influenced by the elimination of net TE use.
40 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41
Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

Figure 6. Sensitivity of abiotic depletion indicator with respect to the thermal energy recovery

4. Capital investments

Beside the environmental assessment, it is interesting to estimate the costs that characterize the analyzed processes.
Capital investments costs for each scenario were estimated and reported in Table 3, to give a preliminary idea of the
investment that the study case plant should face for the upgrading of the existing layout with the necessary additional
equipment. For example, the digesters and the cogeneration unit were considered. Data was obtained by the Viareggio
management plant society. The highest investment cost of Scenario#2 is justified by the costs of the co-fermentation
reactor and the MCFC (Scenario#2-ICE). A detailed economic analysis is referred to future studies.

Table 3. Capital investments of each scenario (the same investment cost was assumed for Scenario#1-ICE and Scenario#1-Turb)
Reference Scenario Scenario#1-ICE Scenario#1-Turb Scenario#2-ICE Scenario#2-Turb
Investment [€] - 3 147 000 3 147 000 3 706 000 3 556 000

5. Conclusions

The main results, obtained from the Life Cycle Assessment applied to the case of co-processing sewage sludge and
the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, show that the anaerobic co-digestion case provides better performances
that the dark co-fermentation case, mainly because of the higher energy recovery. Additionally, it was found that, even
if the combustion of the biogas in an internal combustion engine produces higher emissions, its contribution to energy
recovery is higher, providing better results than in the cases using gas turbines. However, it is important to highlight
that both the co-processing scenarios (co-digestion and dark co-fermentation) offer the possibility to cover the in-plant
energy demand, also generating net outputs, thus deleting the energy import requirements of the simple anaerobic
digestion of only sludge. Beneficial results are also significantly influenced by the effective possibility of recovery
the net thermal energy, as shown by the sensitivity analysis. After all, the results may be sensitive to the assumptions
made in the inventory phase. Based on some preliminary experimental data, it is expected that dark fermentation might
increase the gas production of the subsequent anaerobic digestion phase. If such an increase will be confirmed in the
future, the inventory data will be updated and an improvement in scenarios with dark fermentation is expected.

Acknowledgements

The research was carried within the Bio2Energy project, supported by the MIUR-Regione Toscana DGRT
1208/2012 and MIUR-MISE-Regione Toscana DGRT 758/2013 PAR FAS 2007-2013 in sub-programme FAR-FAS
2014 (Linea d’Azione 1.1).

References

[1] L. Campanini, S. Fumagalli, S. Stoppani, L. Trenti, The bioeconomy in Europe, 2018.

 Elena Albini et al. / Energy Procedia 148 (2018) 34–41 41
8 Albini et al. 2018/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

http://assobiotec.federchimica.it/docs/default-source/pubblicazioni/rapporto---
bioeconomia_2018.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
[2] D. Bolzonella, J.E. Drewes, K. Koch, L.D. Nghiem, Full scale co-digestion of wastewater sludge and food
waste : bottlenecks and possibilities, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 72 (2017) 354–362.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers/6423.
[3] E. Albini, D. Bacchi, F. Baldi, C. Carcasci, E.A. Carnevale, G. Ferrara, L. Ferrari, G. Galoppi, L. Lombardi,
I. Pecorini, F. Vizza, Energy recovery from fermentative biohydrogen production of biowaste: A case study
based analysis, Energy Procedia. 126 (2017) 605–612. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.230.
[4] R. Escudie, G. Esposito, L. Frunzo, A. Ghimire, P.N.L. Lens, F. Pirozzi, E. Trably, A review on dark
fermentative biohydrogen production from organic biomass: Process parameters and use of by-products,
Applied Energy. 144 (2015) 73–95. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.045.
[5] R. Clift, A. Druckman, Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, Springer, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7.
[6] UNI EN ISO 14040, Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework,
(2006).
[7] UNI EN ISO 14044, Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines,
(2006).
[8] R. Clift, A. Doig, G. Finnveden, THE APPLICATION OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TO INTEGRATED
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Part 1-Methodology, Trans IChemE. 78 (2000) 279–287.
[9] M. Barbanera, C. Buratti, F. Fantozzi, F. Testarmata, Life Cycle Assessment of organic waste management
strategies : an Italian case study, Journal of Cleaner Production. 89 (2015) 125–136.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.012.
[10] A. Bernstad, J. la Cour Jansen, Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems – Current
status and potential improvements, Waste Management. 32 (2012) 2439–2455.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023.
[11] A. Boldrin, T.H. Christensen, K.R. Hartling, M. Laugen, Environmental inventory modelling of the use of
compost and peat in growth media preparation, Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 54 (2010) 1250–
1260. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.003.
[12] C. Susini, Sea_Risorse_SpA, Upgrading project of the wastewater treatment plant in Viareggio (IT), with the
application of the anaerobic co-digestion of sludge and OFMSW, 2017.
[13] R. Clift, S. Evangelisti, P. Lettieri, C. Tagliaferri, A life cycle assessment of distributed energy production
from organic waste: Two case studies in Europe, Waste Management. 64 (2017) 371–385.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.03.028.
[14] Jenbacher, Jenbacher Gas Engine type 4, (n.d.). https://www.ge.com/power/gas/reciprocating-engines.
[15] Capstone, Turbine C600 600kW Power Package High-pressure Natural Gas, (n.d.).
https://www.capstoneturbine.com/.
[16] Storti, Akita MT 120 - Horizontal Cutter-Mixer Wagon, (n.d.).
[17] U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas Combution, 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf.
[18] E. Carnevale, L. Lombardi, Comparison of different possibilities for biogas use by Life Cycle Assessment,
Energy Procedia. 81 (2015) 215–226. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.088.
[19] U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Stationary Gas Turbines, 1995.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf.
[20] F. Adani, G.D. Imporzano, V. Orzi, S. Salati, B. Scaglia, A. Schievano, F. Tambone, Chemosphere Assessing
amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative study with
digested sludge and compost, Chemosphere. 81 (2010) 577–583. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.08.034.
[21] A. Falbo, M. Grosso, L. Rigamonti, Improvement actions in waste management systems at the provincial scale
based on a life cycle assessment evaluation, Waste Management. 33 (2013) 2568–2578.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.016.
[22] H. de Bruijn, A. de Koning, M. Gorrée, J.B. Guinée, R. Heijungs, M. a. J. Huijbregts, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn,
S. Suh, H. a. Udo de Haes, L. van Oers, R. van Duin, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, Handbook on Life Cycle
Assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards, Kluwer, 2001. doi:10.1007/BF02978784.