• Energy Research

Abstract This paper reviews the global status of waste to energy (WTE) technologies as a mean for renewable energy production and municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal method. A case study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) under this concept was developed. The WTE opportunities in the KSA is undertaken in the context of two scenarios: (1) incineration and (2) refuse derived fuel (RDF) along with biomethanation from 2012 to 2035. Biomethanation technology can proved to be the most suitable WTE technology for KSA due to (a) availability of high food waste volume (37% of total MSW) that can be used as a feedstock, (b) higher efficiency (25–30%) and (c) lowest annual capital ($0.1–0.14/ton) and operational cost. However, the need for large space for continuous operation might increase operational cost. The RDF has an advantage over incineration due to (a) less annual capital ($7.5–11.3/ton) and (b) operational cost ($0.3–0.55/ton), but the high labor skills requirements will most probably be a limitation, if appropriate training and related infrastructure are not scheduled to be included as a prerequisite. The incineration technology also proves to be an efficient solution with a relatively higher efficiency (25%) and lower operational cost ($1.5–2.5/ton). However, the need for treatment of air and waterborne pollutants and ash within the incineration facility can be the limiting factors for the development of this technology in KSA. In 2012, the power generation potential for KSA was estimated at 671 MW and 319.4 MW from incineration and RDF with biomethanation scenarios respectively, which was forecasted to reach upto 1447 MW and 699.76 MW for both scenarios respectively by 2035. Therefore, WTE technologies, could make a substantial contribution to the renewable energy production in KSA as well as alleviating the cost of landfilling and its associated environmental impacts. However, the decision to select between the two scenarios requires further in-depth financial, technical and environmental analysis using life cycle assessment (LCA) tool.

Abstract This paper reviews the global status of waste to energy (WTE) technologies as a mean for renewable energy production and municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal method. A case study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) under this concept was developed. The WTE opportunities in the KSA is undertaken in the context of two scenarios: (1) incineration and (2) refuse derived fuel (RDF) along with biomethanation from 2012 to 2035. Biomethanation technology can proved to be the most suitable WTE technology for KSA due to (a) availability of high food waste volume (37% of total MSW) that can be used as a feedstock, (b) higher efficiency (25–30%) and (c) lowest annual capital ($0.1–0.14/ton) and operational cost. However, the need for large space for continuous operation might increase operational cost. The RDF has an advantage over incineration due to (a) less annual capital ($7.5–11.3/ton) and (b) operational cost ($0.3–0.55/ton), but the high labor skills requirements will most probably be a limitation, if appropriate training and related infrastructure are not scheduled to be included as a prerequisite. The incineration technology also proves to be an efficient solution with a relatively higher efficiency (25%) and lower operational cost ($1.5–2.5/ton). However, the need for treatment of air and waterborne pollutants and ash within the incineration facility can be the limiting factors for the development of this technology in KSA. In 2012, the power generation potential for KSA was estimated at 671 MW and 319.4 MW from incineration and RDF with biomethanation scenarios respectively, which was forecasted to reach upto 1447 MW and 699.76 MW for both scenarios respectively by 2035. Therefore, WTE technologies, could make a substantial contribution to the renewable energy production in KSA as well as alleviating the cost of landfilling and its associated environmental impacts. However, the decision to select between the two scenarios requires further in-depth financial, technical and environmental analysis using life cycle assessment (LCA) tool.

Grass biomethane is a sustainable transport biofuel. It can meet the 60% greenhouse gas saving requirements (as compared to the replaced fossil fuel) specified in the EU Renewable Energy Directive, if allowance is made for carbon sequestration, green electricity is used and the vehicle is optimized for gaseous biomethane. The issue in this paper is the effect of the digester type on the overall emissions savings. Examining three digestion configurations; dry continuous (DCAD), wet continuous (WCAD), and a two phase system (SLBR-UASB), it was found that the reactor type can result in a variation of 15% in emissions savings. The system that as modeled produced most biogas, and fuelled a vehicle most distance, the two phase system (SLBR-UASB), was the least sustainable due to biogas losses in the dry batch step. The system as modeled which produced the least biogas (DCAD) was the most sustainable as the parasitic demands on the system were least. Optimal reactor design for sustainability criteria should maximize biogas production, while minimizing biogas losses and parasitic demands.

Grass biomethane is a sustainable transport biofuel. It can meet the 60% greenhouse gas saving requirements (as compared to the replaced fossil fuel) specified in the EU Renewable Energy Directive, if allowance is made for carbon sequestration, green electricity is used and the vehicle is optimized for gaseous biomethane. The issue in this paper is the effect of the digester type on the overall emissions savings. Examining three digestion configurations; dry continuous (DCAD), wet continuous (WCAD), and a two phase system (SLBR-UASB), it was found that the reactor type can result in a variation of 15% in emissions savings. The system that as modeled produced most biogas, and fuelled a vehicle most distance, the two phase system (SLBR-UASB), was the least sustainable due to biogas losses in the dry batch step. The system as modeled which produced the least biogas (DCAD) was the most sustainable as the parasitic demands on the system were least. Optimal reactor design for sustainability criteria should maximize biogas production, while minimizing biogas losses and parasitic demands.

AbstractClimate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate change will impact many activities, but its effects on agricultural production could be acute. Estimates of annual damages in agriculture due to temperature increase or extended periods of drought will be more costly than damages in other activities. Yield losses are caused both by direct effects of climate change on crops and by indirect effects such as increased inputs in crop production for weed control. One possible solution to counteract the effects of climate change is to seek crop cultivars that are adapted to highly variable, extreme climatic conditions and pest changes. Here we review the effects of climate change on crop cultivars and weeds. Biomass increase will augment marketable yield by 8–70 % for C3 cereals, by 20–144 % for cash and vegetable crops, and by 6–35 % for flowers. Such positive effects could however be reduced by decreasing water and nutrient availability. Rising temperature will decrease yields of temperature-sensitive crops such as maize, soybean, wheat, and cotton or specialty crops such as almonds, grapes, berries, citrus, or stone fruits. Rice, which is expected to yield better under increased CO2, will suffer serious yield losses under high temperatures. Drought stress should decrease the production of tomato, soybean, maize, and cotton. Nevertheless, reviews on C4 photosynthesis response to water stress in interaction with CO2 concentration reveal that elevated CO2 concentration lessens the deleterious effect of drought on plant productivity. C3 weeds respond more strongly than C4 types to CO2 increases through biomass and leaf area increases. The positive response of C3 crops to elevated CO2 may make C4 weeds less competitive for C3 crops, whereas C3 weeds in C4 or C3 crops could become a problem, particularly in tropical regions. Temperature increases will mainly affect the distribution of weeds, particularly C4 type, by expanding their geographical range. This will enhance further yield losses and will affect weed management systems negatively. In addition, the expansion of invasive weed species such as itchgrass, cogongrass, and witchweed facilitated by temperature increases will increase the cost for their control. Under water or nutrient shortage scenarios, an r-strategist with characteristics in the order S-C-R, such as Palmer amaranth, large crabgrass, johnsongrass, and spurges, will most probably prevail. Selection of cultivars that secure high yields under climate change but also by competing weeds is of major importance. Traits related with (a) increased root/shoot ratio, (b) vernalization periods, (c) maturity, (d) regulation of node formation and/or internode distance, (e) harvest index variations, and (f) allelopathy merit further investigation. The cumulative effects of selecting a suitable stress tolerator-competitor cultivar will be reflected in reductions of environmental pollution, lower production costs, and sustainable food production.

AbstractClimate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate change will impact many activities, but its effects on agricultural production could be acute. Estimates of annual damages in agriculture due to temperature increase or extended periods of drought will be more costly than damages in other activities. Yield losses are caused both by direct effects of climate change on crops and by indirect effects such as increased inputs in crop production for weed control. One possible solution to counteract the effects of climate change is to seek crop cultivars that are adapted to highly variable, extreme climatic conditions and pest changes. Here we review the effects of climate change on crop cultivars and weeds. Biomass increase will augment marketable yield by 8–70 % for C3 cereals, by 20–144 % for cash and vegetable crops, and by 6–35 % for flowers. Such positive effects could however be reduced by decreasing water and nutrient availability. Rising temperature will decrease yields of temperature-sensitive crops such as maize, soybean, wheat, and cotton or specialty crops such as almonds, grapes, berries, citrus, or stone fruits. Rice, which is expected to yield better under increased CO2, will suffer serious yield losses under high temperatures. Drought stress should decrease the production of tomato, soybean, maize, and cotton. Nevertheless, reviews on C4 photosynthesis response to water stress in interaction with CO2 concentration reveal that elevated CO2 concentration lessens the deleterious effect of drought on plant productivity. C3 weeds respond more strongly than C4 types to CO2 increases through biomass and leaf area increases. The positive response of C3 crops to elevated CO2 may make C4 weeds less competitive for C3 crops, whereas C3 weeds in C4 or C3 crops could become a problem, particularly in tropical regions. Temperature increases will mainly affect the distribution of weeds, particularly C4 type, by expanding their geographical range. This will enhance further yield losses and will affect weed management systems negatively. In addition, the expansion of invasive weed species such as itchgrass, cogongrass, and witchweed facilitated by temperature increases will increase the cost for their control. Under water or nutrient shortage scenarios, an r-strategist with characteristics in the order S-C-R, such as Palmer amaranth, large crabgrass, johnsongrass, and spurges, will most probably prevail. Selection of cultivars that secure high yields under climate change but also by competing weeds is of major importance. Traits related with (a) increased root/shoot ratio, (b) vernalization periods, (c) maturity, (d) regulation of node formation and/or internode distance, (e) harvest index variations, and (f) allelopathy merit further investigation. The cumulative effects of selecting a suitable stress tolerator-competitor cultivar will be reflected in reductions of environmental pollution, lower production costs, and sustainable food production.

Progressive depletion of conventional fossil fuels with increasing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have led to a move towards renewable and sustainable energy sources. Lignocellulosic biomass is available in massive quantities and provides enormous potential for bioethanol production. However, to ascertain optimal biofuel strategies, it is necessary to take into account environmental impacts from cradle to grave. Life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques allow detailed analysis of material and energy fluxes on regional and global scales. This includes indirect inputs to the production process and associated wastes and emissions, and the downstream fate of products in the future. At the same time if not used properly, LCA can lead to incorrect and inappropriate actions on the part of industry and/or policy makers. This paper aims to list key issues for quantifying the use of resources and releases to the environment associated with the entire life cycle of lignocellulosic bioethanol production.

Progressive depletion of conventional fossil fuels with increasing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have led to a move towards renewable and sustainable energy sources. Lignocellulosic biomass is available in massive quantities and provides enormous potential for bioethanol production. However, to ascertain optimal biofuel strategies, it is necessary to take into account environmental impacts from cradle to grave. Life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques allow detailed analysis of material and energy fluxes on regional and global scales. This includes indirect inputs to the production process and associated wastes and emissions, and the downstream fate of products in the future. At the same time if not used properly, LCA can lead to incorrect and inappropriate actions on the part of industry and/or policy makers. This paper aims to list key issues for quantifying the use of resources and releases to the environment associated with the entire life cycle of lignocellulosic bioethanol production.