Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Main Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biogas Systems in China

  • 459 Accesses

Abstract

In order to have a better understanding of the different aspects (economic performance, environmental impacts, sustainability) of the biogas projects, ecological–economic methods are used to formulate the integrated assessment framework. First, economic method (cost–benefit analysis) was used to assess the economic feasibility of the biogas project. Moreover, DEA method was used to make an economic efficiency assessment, based on which the optimization suggestions could be provided. In terms of the environmental impact evaluation, life-cycle assessment model was established to evaluate the energy cost and environmental impact of biogas system, based on which the key sections for energy saving and emission reduction of biogas systems could be identified. As for the sustainability analysis, considering ecological and social inputs, emergy analysis and exergy analysis were employed to quantify the environmental pressure, renewability, economic efficiency, and sustainability of biogas systems. Possible pathways to achieve sustainable and low-carbon biogas project management were also analyzed based on the scenario analysis. Finally, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was adopted to incorporate categories of indicators to have a comprehensive performance analysis of the biogas system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Almeida CMVB, Barrella FA, Giannetti BF. Emergetic ternary diagrams: five examples for application in environmental accounting for decision-making. J Clean Prod. 2007;15:63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres RU. Life cycle analysis: a critique. Resour Conserv Recycl. 1995;14:199–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci. 1984;30(9):1078–92.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Emergy-based indices and rations to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecol Eng. 1997;9(1–2):51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MT, Cohen MJ, Bardi E, Ingwersen WW. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades USA: a systems approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquat Sci. 2006;68(3):254–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard C, Herendeen R. The energy cost of goods and services. Energy Policy. 1975;3:263–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DE. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: an example using the state of Maine. Environ Monit Assess. 1998;51(1–2):531–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluation of the program follow through experiment in US public school education. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Management Sciences Research Group; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen GQ, Chen B. Extended exergy analysis of the Chinese society. Energy. 2009;34(9):1127–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SQ, Chen B. Sustainability and future alternatives of biogas-linked agrosystem (BLAS) in China: an emergy synthesis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16(6):3948–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SQ, Chen B, Fath BD. Assessing the cumulative environmental impact of hydropower construction on river systems based on energy network model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford RH. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J Environ Manage. 2008;88:496–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai J, Fath BD, Chen B. Constructing a network of the social-economic consumption system of China using Extended Exergy Analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16(7):4796–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dincer I, Rosen MA. EXERGY: energy, environment and sustainable development. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong X, Ulgiati S, Yan M, Gao W. Progress, influence and perspectives of emergy theories in China, in support of environmentally sound economic development and equitable trade. Energy Policy. 2008;36(3):1019–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Life-cycle assessment research. 2013. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/nrmrldatabases.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2013.

  • European Commission. Joint Research Centre life cycle thinking and assessment. 2013. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 20 Aug 2013.

  • Fava JA, Page A. Application of product life cycle assessment to product stewardship and pollution prevention programs. Water Sci Technol. 1992;26(1–2):275–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fava JA, Consoli FJ, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B. A conceptual framework for life cycle impact assessment, workshop report society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC); 1993. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G. On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2000;5:229–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti BF, Barrella FA, Almeida CMVB. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. J Clean Prod. 2006;14:201–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Udo de Haes HA, Huppes G. Quantitative life cycle assessment of products: 1: goal definition and inventory. J Clean Prod. 1993a;1(1):3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Udo de Haes HA, Huppes G. Quantitative life cycle assessment of products: 2: classification, valuation and improvement analysis. J Clean Prod. 1993b;1(2):81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagin A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(1):90–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins TC, Hendrickson C, Higgins HS, Matthews HS, Suh S. A mixed-unit input-output model for environmental life cycle assessment and material flow analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(3):1024–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L. Economic input output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol. 1998;32(7):184A–91A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstertter P, Braunschweig A, Mettier T, Müeller-Wenk R, Tietje O. The mixing triangle: correlation and graphical decision support for LCA-based comparisons. J Ind Ecol. 2000;3(4):97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G. LCA yesterday, today and tomorrow. Centre of environmental science: Leiden University; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO 14040 International standard. In: Environmental management—life cycle. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalal KF, Rogers PP. Measuring environmental performance in Asia. Ecol Ind. 2002;2:39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ju LP, Chen B. Embodied energy and emergy evaluation of a typical biodiesel production chain in China. Ecol Model. 2011;222(14):2385–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapp CW. Emergy analysis of the nuclear power system in the United States. Gaineswille: University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave LB, Cobas-Flores E, Hendrickson CT, McMichael FC. Using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges. Environ Sci Technol. 1995;29(9):420–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M. A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid LCA: some Australian results. J Clean Prod. 2002;10(6):545–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin W, Chen B, Xie L, Pan H. Estimating energy consumption of transport modes in China using DEA. Sustainability. 2015;7(4):4225–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano R. A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). J Clean Prod. 2006;14:963–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Feng KS, Siu YL, Hubacek K. Energy-water nexus of wind power in China: the balancing act between CO2 emissions and water consumption. Energ Policy. 2012;45:440–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma HY, Oxley L, Gibson J, Li W. A survey of China's renewable energy economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14(1):438–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattila TJ, Pakarinen S, Sokka L. Quantifying the total environmental impacts of an industrial symbiosis—a comparison of process-, hybrid and input–output life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(11):4309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishioka Y, Levy JI, Norris GA. Integrating air pollution, climate change, and economics in a risk-based life-cycle analysis: a case study of residential insulation. Human Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2006;12(3):552–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum HT. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science. 1988;242(4882):1132–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum HT. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. New York: Wiley; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum HT, Brown MT, Williams SB. Handbook of emergy evaluation folio 1: introduction and global budget. Gainesville: Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira CL, Ortega E. Sustainability assessment of large-scale ethanol production from sugarcane. J Clean Prod. 2010;18(1):77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters G. Efficient algorithms for Life Cycle Assessment, input output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2007;12(6):373–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saouter E, Feijtel TCJ. Use of life cycle analysis and environmental risk assessment in an integrated product assessment. Environmental Strategies. Nordic Workshop, Vedbaek. 1999;81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • SETAC. Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, Life Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice, 1993. Available on: www.setac.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabanpour H, Yousefi S, Saen RF. Future planning for benchmarking and ranking sustainable suppliers using goal programming and robust double frontiers DEA. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2017;50:129–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemann G, Castells F, Schuhmacher M. Integrated lifecycle and risk assessment for industrial processes. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G. System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(3):657–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA. Applications of life cycle assessment: expectations, drawbacks and perspectives. J Clean Prod. 1993;1(3–4):131–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulgiati S, Brown MT. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecol Model. 1998;108:23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulgiati S, Ascione M, Zucaro A, Campanella L. Emergy-based complexity measures in natural and social systems. Ecol Ind. 2011;11:1185–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall G. Exergy-A useful concept within resource accounting. Chalmers Tekniska Högskola Göteborgs Universitet. 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker MB, Heath GA, Burkhardt JJ III, Turchi CS. Life cycle assessment of a power tower concentrating solar plant and the impacts of key design alternatives. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:5896–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams E. Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(22):6166–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang J, Chen B. Emergy analysis of a biogas–linked agricultural system in rural China–a case study in Gongcheng Yao Autonomous County. Appl Energy. 2014;118:173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang ZF, Jiang MM, Chen B, Zhou BJ, Chen GQ, Li SC. Solar emergy evaluation for Chinese economy. Energy Policy. 2010;38:875–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Chen L, Yan ZC, Wang HL. Emergy analysis of cassava-based fuel ethanol in China. Biomass Bioenerg. 2011;35:581–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai P, Williams ED. Dynamic hybrid life cycle assessment of energy and carbon of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(20):7950–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Bin Chen

  2. Department of Mathematics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Tasawar Hayat

  3. Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Ahmed Alsaedi

Authors
  1. Bin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tasawar Hayat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Alsaedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Chen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chen, B., Hayat, T., Alsaedi, A. (2017). Main Methods. In: Biogas Systems in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55498-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55498-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55496-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55498-2

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation