The impact of heat production from vineyard pruning pellets has been evaluated in this paper. The study considers two different systems: the first one based on a mobile pelletizer (PS1) and the second one based on a stationary pellet plant (PS2). The analysis conducted is from "cradle to grave"; the systems under analysis includes pruning harvesting, transport to storage area, pelletization (mobile system or stationary production plant), transport to consumer and combustion. The functional unit selected is 1 MJ of thermal energy produced. The impact assessment calculation methods selected are Eco-Indicator 99 (H) LCA Food V2.103/Europe EI 99 H/A with a midpoint and endpoint approach, and ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.10. Considering Life Cycle Assessment results, Eco-indicator shows a total impact of 4.25 and 4.07 mPt for mobile pelletizer and stationary pellet plant, respectively. Considering the three damage categories, PS1 has values of 2.4% (Human Health), 3.8% (Ecosystem Quality) and 17.3% (Resources), more impactful than PS2. Contribution analysis shows that direct emissions are the major damage contributor, followed by wood ash management. From a comparison between the baseline scenario and a scenario with an avoided product (wood ash as a standard potassium fertilizer), PS1 and PS2 with an avoided product approach are 41% and 40% less impactful than in the baseline scenarios. When testing the impact of mobile pelletizer while considering transportation as a factor, a reduction of distance for pellet has been evaluated. Reducing the distance from 100 to 10 km, the total impact of PS1 almost reaches the impact of PS2 with a difference of around 4.6% (Eco-indicator 99 method). The most impactful processes are pellet production, direct emissions and ash management, while a less impactful factor is the electricity consumption. Transportation shows the lowest impact. Considering the ReCiPe impact calculation method with a midpoint approach, the results confirm what was found with Eco-indicator 99; the PS1 shows a slightly higher impact than PS2.
Environmental Sustainability of Heating Systems Based on Pellets Produced in Mobile and Stationary Plants from Vineyard Pruning Residues
Alessio Ilari;Giuseppe Toscano;Ester Foppa Pedretti;Sara Fabrizi;Daniele Duca
2020-01-01
Abstract
The impact of heat production from vineyard pruning pellets has been evaluated in this paper. The study considers two different systems: the first one based on a mobile pelletizer (PS1) and the second one based on a stationary pellet plant (PS2). The analysis conducted is from "cradle to grave"; the systems under analysis includes pruning harvesting, transport to storage area, pelletization (mobile system or stationary production plant), transport to consumer and combustion. The functional unit selected is 1 MJ of thermal energy produced. The impact assessment calculation methods selected are Eco-Indicator 99 (H) LCA Food V2.103/Europe EI 99 H/A with a midpoint and endpoint approach, and ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.10. Considering Life Cycle Assessment results, Eco-indicator shows a total impact of 4.25 and 4.07 mPt for mobile pelletizer and stationary pellet plant, respectively. Considering the three damage categories, PS1 has values of 2.4% (Human Health), 3.8% (Ecosystem Quality) and 17.3% (Resources), more impactful than PS2. Contribution analysis shows that direct emissions are the major damage contributor, followed by wood ash management. From a comparison between the baseline scenario and a scenario with an avoided product (wood ash as a standard potassium fertilizer), PS1 and PS2 with an avoided product approach are 41% and 40% less impactful than in the baseline scenarios. When testing the impact of mobile pelletizer while considering transportation as a factor, a reduction of distance for pellet has been evaluated. Reducing the distance from 100 to 10 km, the total impact of PS1 almost reaches the impact of PS2 with a difference of around 4.6% (Eco-indicator 99 method). The most impactful processes are pellet production, direct emissions and ash management, while a less impactful factor is the electricity consumption. Transportation shows the lowest impact. Considering the ReCiPe impact calculation method with a midpoint approach, the results confirm what was found with Eco-indicator 99; the PS1 shows a slightly higher impact than PS2.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
