Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy (2021) 23:1715–1725

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02054-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity

production from organic waste for utilization as a vehicle fuel
Amar Mohan Shinde1 · Anil Kumar Dikshit2 · Monica Odlare3 · Eva Thorin3 · Sebastian Schwede3

Received: 26 March 2020 / Accepted: 12 February 2021 / Published online: 2 March 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The concerns about climate change, energy security and price fluctuation of fossil fuels are driving the growing interest in
the development and utilization of renewable energy as a transportation fuel. In this aspect, the utilization of organic house-
hold waste for the production of biogas avoids the environmental impact of landfills. The further upgrading and utilization
of biogas as a vehicle fuel avoids the environmental impact of fossil fuels. This paper presents the life cycle assessment of
two utilization pathways of biogas produced from co-digestion of organic household waste, grease trap removal sludge and
ley crops grown by local farmers. Specifically, this study assessed and compared the environmental impact of the production
and utilization of bio-methane and biogas-based electricity as a vehicle fuel for public transport buses in Västerås, Sweden.
The system boundary for biogas production covered seven main steps: cultivation, harvesting and transport of ley crops,
collection and transport of waste, pre-treatment and co-digestion of the substrate. The system boundary for bio-methane was
further extended to account for the upgrading process and tailpipe emissions from combustion of bio-methane in the buses.
In the case of biogas-based electricity, the system boundary was further extended to account for the combustion of biogas in
the CHP unit and further utilization of electricity in the electric bus. The evaluation of the production routes showed that the
methane losses and high energy consumption for both biogas production and upgrading process dominated the environmental
impact of bio-methane production. However, the emissions from the CHP unit were solely responsible for the environmental
impact of biogas-based electricity production. The functional unit identified for this study is 1 vehicle km travelled (VKT)
of the bio-methane fuelled bus and electric bus. The global warming potential of the electric buses was 0.11 kg C ­ O2-eq/
VKT compared to 0.26 kg C ­ O2-eq/VKT for the bio-methane buses. The electric buses could also reduce about half of the
acidification and eutrophication impacts associated with the bio-methane fuelled buses. The lower fuel efficiency and high
tailpipe emissions decreased the environmental advantages of the bio-methane buses. Eventually, this study ensures the
biogas utilization which is environmentally sound and compares favourably with the alternative options.

* Anil Kumar Dikshit

dikshit@iitb.ac.in
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute
of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education,
Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India
2
Department for Environmental Science and Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
3
School of Business, Society and Engineering, Future Energy
Centre, Mälardalen University, 72123 Västerås, Sweden

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1716 A. M. Shinde et al.

Graphic abstract

Keywords Biogas · Bio-methane · Biogas-based electricity · Electric bus · Life cycle assessment

Introduction remaining in industry and for heating. The bio-methane pro-

duced is used for fuelling over 2000 buses, which constitutes
The concerns about the increasing utilization of fossil fuels 17 percent of all buses in Sweden (Swedish biogas Associa-
and associated greenhouse gas emissions have become more tion 2020). However, it is important to consider the envi-
significant in international policies. The use of renewable ronmental impact of the biogas upgrading process followed
energy is often proposed for mitigating global warming by tailpipe emissions from the combustion process in the
effects and reduces the fossil fuel dependency. In this aspect, internal combustion engine of the vehicles. Besides, there
biogas is recognized as one of the most promising options is an alternative way to utilize the energy produced from the
to reduce these problems since it can be produced from all biogas as a vehicle fuel. The raw biogas can be directly used
kinds of feedstock from the agricultural sector and from to produce combined heat and power (CHP) where the heat
various organic solid waste streams. Moreover, the use of produced can be injected into a district heating grid. The
organic waste for energy production offers an environmen- biogas-based electricity produced can be subsequently used
tally efficient approach for waste management. The number for operating electric vehicles. The integrated assessment of
of biogas plant installations has increased considerably in the environmental impact of biogas production and utiliza-
Sweden. In 2018, 2044 GWh of biogas was produced in 280 tion pathways was essential for locating the hotspots where
plants around Sweden. Additionally, 1.6 TWh of biogas was overall environmental sustainability could be enhanced.
imported from Denmark. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an effective tool widely
Biogas presents a viable alternative to natural gas as a used for the evaluation of cleaner biogas production and
vehicle fuel since it is rich in methane. In 2018, 1249 GWh utilization pathways, and mitigation strategies for reducing
of bio-methane was produced in 69 upgrading plants for the associated environmental impact. Recent studies evalu-
fuelling 47,000 vehicles in Sweden. A 63 percent of the ated the environmental impact of the production of biogas
biogas was upgraded for use primarily as vehicle gas and the from manure, agricultural feedstock and energy crops, in

13
Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity production from organic… 1717

addition to very few studies on organic household waste. Methodology

The studies mainly concerned the generalized assessment of
the environmental impact of specific feedstock and biogas Goal and scope definition
plant (Stucki et al. 2011; Gissen et al. 2014; Borjesson et al.
2015; Zhang and Qiu 2018; Guerini Filho et al. 2019; Florio The goal of the LCA was to identify, evaluate and compare
et al. 2019; Lask et al. 2020) comprised only one or few unit the life cycle environmental impacts of producing and uti-
processes in the biogas production chain (Buhle et al. 2011; lizing biogas as a vehicle fuel for public bus transport in
Mezzullo et al. 2013; Fusi et al. 2016; Markou et al. 2017; Västerås, Sweden. The municipality represents a typical
Lyng and Andreas 2019; Enrique et al. 2019; Sharvini et al. example for the organic waste treatment system in Sweden,
2020), or compared the different biogas upgrading tech- where source-separated organic household waste is used
nologies for bio-methane production (Papong et al. 2014; as a feedstock for biogas production and upgraded biogas
Morero et al. 2015; Lorenzi et al. 2018). However, these is utilised as a vehicle fuel in public bus transport. Addi-
studies did not consider the pathways for biogas production tional feedstocks for biogas production within this specific
and utilization as a vehicle fuel. There are only a few LCAs system are grease trap removal sludge and ley crops. As
of biogas utilization in Sweden and none of them provide shown in Fig. 1, the system boundary for biogas produc-
the comprehensive environmental footprint of biogas utiliza- tion covered the cultivation, harvesting and transport of
tion as a vehicle fuel. Therefore, this study aims to extend ley crops, collection and transport of waste, pre-treatment
the knowledge on the environmental sustainability of biogas and co-digestion of the substrate. The system boundary
utilization pathways. The specific objectives of the present for bio-methane comprised of the upgrading process and
study are: combustion of bio-methane in the CNG fuelled bus. In
the case of biogas-based electricity, the system boundary
• to assess the environmental impact associated with the comprised the combustion of biogas in the CHP unit and
production of bio-methane and biogas-based electricity further utilization of electricity in the electric bus. The
from biogas using organic household waste, grease trap environmental impact of the CHP unit has been allocated
removal sludge and ley crops; to the electricity and heat produced on the energy content
• to assess and compare the life cycle environmental basis. Moreover, the methane leakage from the digester,
impact of the bio-methane fuelled and electric bus.

Fig. 1  System boundary of

biogas production and utiliza-
tion as a vehicle fuel

13
1718 A. M. Shinde et al.

upgrading process and flared biogas have been considered. Table 1  Summary of inventory data used in this study
This study omitted the environmental impact of manufac- Stage Key parameter Average data
turing, maintenance and end-of-life of the bus mainly due
to their insignificant environmental impact (Chester and Transport of waste Distance 12 km
Horvath 2009; Shinde et al. 2018, 2019). Fuel consumption 0.5 MJ/tonne km
Collection of waste Distance 5 km
Functional unit Fuel consumption 1.1 MJ/tonne km
Transport of ley crops Distance 10 km
The functional unit expresses the quantified function of the Fuel consumption 0.5 MJ/tonne km
system to which all the inputs and outputs of the product sys- Anaerobic digestion Electricity 0.5 kWh/N ­m3 biogas
tem are normalized (Guinee et al. 2002). This study focussed Heat 0.84 kWh/N ­m3 biogas
on two different aspects of the bioenergy conversion (bio- Methane losses 1.63%
methane and biogas-based electricity produced from biogas). Upgrading (water scrub- Electricity 0.52 kWh/N ­m3 biogas
ber) Biogas flared 49,430 N ­m3 biogas
As bioenergy produced is further utilized for operating pub-
lic transport buses, the LCA results are normalized and com- Methane losses 0.87%
pared for 1 vehicle km travelled (VKT) of the bio-methane Compression Electricity 0.23 kWh/N ­m3 biogas
fuelled bus and electric bus.

System description Table 2  Energy input required Parameter Energy

for cultivation, harvesting, input (GJ/
storage and transport of ley
Data from a biogas plant in Västerås, Sweden have been crops (Gissen et al. 2014)
ha)
used for the study. The substrate used for biogas production
Cultivation and 6.3
mainly comprises the source-separated organic waste from harvest
households in the city, liquid waste (grease trap removal Storage 1.4
sludge) from institutional kitchens and restaurants and ley Transport 2.6
crops from farmers in the areas produced as an energy crop Total 10.3
(Wang et al. 2013; Huopana et al. 2014). After pre-treatment
(i.e. shredding, sieving, mixing and sanitization), the wastes
are co-digested in a 4000 ­m3 digestion tank. At present, this biogas plant where it is stored as silage in 80–90 m long
biogas plant utilizes 18,059 t organic waste, 5699 t liquid plastic containers. The energy input required for the cultiva-
waste and 491 t ley crops and produces 2.9 million ­m3 of tion, harvesting, storage and transport from field to biogas
biogas annually. For utilizing biogas as a transport fuel in plant has been considered. In the cultivation of ley crops, the
public transport buses, the biogas is subsequently cleaned energy input is in the form of diesel fuel, seeds, fertilizers
and upgraded to natural gas quality (97% methane). The and pesticides. Moreover, the energy input for the loading
upgraded biogas is piped for 8 km to the centrally located and unloading of ley crops has been included. The energy
bus depot where it is stored and utilized for refuelling the input required for cultivation, harvesting and storage has
public transport bus fleet. In addition, the plant produces been adopted from Gissen et al. (2014) and summarized in
2456 t solid digestate and 23,343 t liquid digestate. The Table 2.
digestate is transported to farmland and further utilized as
organic fertilizer by the local farmers. Collection and transport of organic and liquid waste
The following sections describe all stages involved in the
bio-methane and biogas-based electricity production and Source-separated household waste has been collected from
utilization and associated energy inputs and the emissions 144,000 households in the region. To maintain the source
released. The inventory data for a biogas plant in Västerås, separation quality and minimize the level of contamination,
Sweden in the year 2016 are summarized in Table 1. paper bags are provided to the household, in addition to the
constant inspection and public education. The compacting
Cultivation, harvesting and transport of ley crops trucks have been used for the collection of organic waste,
whereas the trucks with loading capacities of 35 t have been
All of the participating farmers are contracted to grow ley used for transport to the biogas plant. The fuel consumption
crops to be used for biogas production in a biogas plant at per km during collection is higher mainly due to the frequent
Västerås, Sweden. Clover ley crop is cultivated in rotation stops necessary. However, the driving distances, the num-
with cereal and oil crops. Trucks with loading capacities ber of stops and households per stop and the level of traffic
of 35 t have been used for transportation of feedstock to congestion greatly affect fuel consumption. Likewise, slurry

13
Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity production from organic… 1719

tankers are used to collect sludge from grease separators in technology at a pressure of 10 bar. The energy requirement
institutional kitchens and restaurants and delivered directly of the compression process was measured to be 0.23 kWh/
to the plant. m3 of biogas. The energy consumption of the water scrub-
bing process was measured to be 0.52 kWh/m3 of raw gas.
Pre‑treatment and anaerobic digestion The methane slip from the upgrading process was measured
to be 0.87% of the total methane production. Some of the
The biogas plant has three separate halls for unloading and biogas produced was not upgraded but flared mainly due
pre-treatment of the substrate. The silage is continuously to emergency and planned downtime for the maintenance
taken out from the plastic bags by a wheel loader, while of upgrading plant. In 2016, approximately 32,000 ­m3 of
liquid waste is pumped directly. The organic waste is mixed methane was flared, which is close to 2% of the total produc-
with process water in a turbomixer, and the produced sus- tion. Based on the estimates of Gogolek (2012), assuming
pension flows through a grit system that separates the heavy 98% efficiency of conversion of methane into the carbon
impurities like glass, stone, etc. The suspension further dioxide in the flare, 422 kg of methane was released into
passes through a screening unit to remove floating materials the atmosphere. The produced bio-methane is piped to the
like plastic and wood. The suspension is then discharged to bus depot and further compressed to 330 bar pressure for
an aerated sand trap to separate out small inert particles like refuelling city bus fleet.
sand, glass, stones, etc. After ensuring particles with a size
of less than 12 mm in a crushing unit, the suspension is sani- Biogas‑based electricity production and utilization
tized at 70 °C for one hour immediately before the anaerobic
digestion. The suspension is further pumped into the digester On the other hands, raw biogas can be used in the CHP
tank which has a volume of 4000 ­m3. The biogas plant is unit to produce electricity and heat. For 729 kW capac-
operated under mesophilic conditions (37 °C) and a retention ity CHP unit, the electric and thermal efficiencies were
time of 20 days. Mixing is carried out by compressed biogas assumed to be 38% and 52%, respectively. Depending
injection. The new substrate is fed continuously 6 days per on local and regional conditions, engines with sparkplug
week year round. The biogas is collected into a gas dome, ignition or compression ignition can be used to produce
while liquid digastate is dewatered using centrifuges. The CHP from biogas. Comparing different technologies for
process heat has been produced from landfill gas, while the CHP, the compression ignition engine is in most cases
electricity is provided by the national grid. Moreover, this the best choice from an economic point-of-view (Lantz
stage consumes 0.5 and 0.84 kWh of electricity and heat, 2012). Moreover, the electricity produced is utilized for
respectively, to produce 1 ­m3 of biogas. The measurement operating the CHP unit. The electricity demand of the
showed that the methane leakage from the biogas plant cor- CHP unit was assumed to be 10% of generated electricity
responds to 1.63% of the total methane production. (Boulamanti et al. 2013; Fusi et al. 2016). The remain-
ing heat can be utilized for district heating. The dynamic
Bio‑methane production and utilization operability of interconnected CHP plants and district heat-
ing networks should be analysed for achieving the balance
In order to feed the raw biogas into a modified internal between the total heat produced and total heat consumed
combustion engine of vehicles, it needs to be cleaned (Korpela et al. 2017). The general specifications of the
and upgraded to natural gas quality, 97% methane. After bio-methane fuelled and electric bus are summarized in
compression, the biogas is upgraded with water scrubbing Table 3. The data regarding average fuel consumption and

Table 3  General specifications Specifications Bio-methane fuelled bus Electric bus

of bio-methane fuelled and
electric bus (Vassileva et al. Length 12 m
2017)
Weight 18,000 kg
Passenger capacity 31 passengers
Power transmission system Conventional gearbox and dif- Traction motor TSA and
ferential 160 kWh Li-ion battery
pack
Fuel consumption (kWh/km) 4.76 1.13
Range (km) 550 140
Fuel consumption (GWh/annum) 21 6.3
VKT/annum (in million) 4.4 5.6

13
1720 A. M. Shinde et al.

the estimated range were gathered from the local public been selected based on environmental issues related to
transport company Västerås Lokaltrafik (VL) which oper- transport sector.
ates both electric and bio-methane fuelled buses (Vassileva
et al. 2017). The allocation of the environmental impact of
the CHP unit between biogas-based electricity and heat is LCIA results
based on energy content.
Impact results for bio‑methane production

Life cycle inventory The relative contribution of major stages in the bio-meth-
ane production is illustrated in Fig. 2. The life cycle GWP
The emissions from the cultivation and harvesting of ley impact of bio-methane production is 14.3 g ­CO2-eq/MJ.
crops and transport of feedstock have been adopted from The uncontrolled methane losses from the biogas produc-
Börjesson et al. (2010) and Gissen et al. (2014). The tail- tion and upgrading process contribute to nearly two-thirds
pipe emissions from the bio-methane fuelled bus were of the total GWP impact of bio-methane production. The
based on the Baltic Biogas Project data (Kyto and Mur- reminder GWP impact stems from the collection (9%) and
tonen 2012). The buses used for evaluation were adher- transport (10%) of waste and upgrading process (7%). The
ing to Euro 5 emission norms. The emissions from the largest portion of POCP impact is also related to these
CHP unit were calculated based on Nielsen et al. (2010) methane losses. However, the biogas production domi-
and Nielsen et al. (2014). In the combustion stage, the nates the AP (37%) and EP (33%) impacts of bio-methane
­CO2 emission is not accounted for as they are biogenic production. The significant environmental impact of this
in nature. stage resulted from the high energy consumption for the
pre-treatment and digestion process. The upgrading pro-
cess also entails the considerable contribution to AP (26%)
Life cycle impact assessment and EP (20%) impacts owing to electricity consumption.
However, the compression process and flared biogas have a
The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) was conducted negligible environmental impact. The collection and trans-
according to CML 2001 methodology (University of port of waste account for notable contribution to GWP
Leiden 2001). The environmental impact categories (19%), AP (20%) and EP (27%) impacts. The results also
considered go beyond global warming potential (GWP) highlighted the important question on the kind of feed-
to include acidification potential (AP), eutrophication stock utilized for biogas production. Though ley crop com-
potential (EP) and photochemical ozone creation potential prises only 2% of feedstock used for biogas production, it
(POCP). Based on the literature review, it was desirable is responsible for AP (17%) and EP (20%) impacts of bio-
to consider environmental impact categories beyond GWP methane production. The deliberately grown energy crops
to include AP, EP and POCP. The impact categories have have a higher yield but the considerable environmental
impact of their cultivation and harvesting practices. Using

Fig. 2  Relative contribution of Production of ley crops Collection of waste

major stages of bio-methane Transport of waste Biogas production
production Methane losses from biogas production Upgrading process
Methane losses from upgrading process

GWP
Impact categories

AP

EP

POCP

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Contribution

13
Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity production from organic… 1721

energy crops such as maize instead of waste would signifi- Comparison of bio‑methane fuelled bus and electric
cantly alter the outcome of the assessment (Borjesson and bus
Tufvesson 2011; Hijazi et al. 2016; Bedoić et al. 2019).
Therefore, the overall results show that using organic Figure 4 compares the life cycle environmental impact of
waste is an efficient way of producing bioenergy. The ley the bio-methane bus and electric bus. The GWP impact
crop was mostly delivered from local farms located within of the electric bus is 0.11 kg ­CO2-eq/VKT compared to
10 km from the production facility. The transport of ley 0.26 kg ­CO 2-eq/VKT with bio-methane, and therefore,
crops showed a negligible contribution to all impact cate- the introduction of electric buses can reduce the GWP
gories largely due to very less transport distance. However, impacts by 58%. The larger GWP impact of the bio-
the contribution of transport of ley crops would likely rise, methane bus compared to the electric bus stems from the
if the distances would increase. uncontrolled methane losses associated with the upgrad-
ing process. The combustion of bio-methane in IC engine
vehicles and biogas in the CHP unit does not contribute
Impact results of biogas‑based electricity to the GWP impact as it emits only biogenic C ­ O 2. The
production electric buses can also reduce about half of the AP and EP
impacts associated with the bio-methane buses. Here, the
The life cycle GWP impact of biogas-based electricity tailpipe ­NOx emissions from the combustion of the bio-
production is 23.7 g ­CO2-eq/MJ. As shown in Fig. 3, the methane are responsible for around 91% and 94% of acidi-
biogas combustion in the CHP unit dominates the envi- fying and eutrophying emissions, respectively. The bio-
ronmental impact of biogas-based electricity production. methane buses used for evaluation were following Euro 5
More ­CO 2 emissions are produced during biogas com- emission norms. The buses following the Euro 6 emission
bustion in the CHP unit, but these biogenic ­CO 2 emis- norms have been equipped with exhaust gas recirculation
sions do not contribute to the GWP impact. Therefore, (EGR) after-treatment to achieve a considerable reduction
methane emissions from the CHP unit are responsible for in ­NOx emissions and therefore can reduce the AP and EP
nearly half of the GWP impact of biogas-based electric- impacts. However, the higher CO and hydrocarbon emis-
ity production. The remainder GWP impact comes from sions from the CHP unit lead to the considerably higher
the methane loss from biogas production (33%), collection POCP impact of the electric bus.
(7%) and transport (8%) of waste. Likewise, the biogas The fuel economy of the electric bus and bio-methane
combustion in the CHP unit is responsible for AP (96%), bus is 4.1 and 17.1 MJ/km, respectively. Therefore, lower
EP (96%) and POCP (98%) impacts. The impact in AP and fuel efficiency and high-end use emissions degrade the
EP impacts was largely due to high sulphur dioxide and environmental performance of bio-methane fuelled buses.
nitrogen oxide emissions from the CHP unit, respectively, Even though the fuel economy of the electric bus is high,
whereas in the case of POCP impact, the hydrocarbon and the upstream efficiencies of generating electricity can sig-
carbon monoxide emissions were most relevant. nificantly degrade its environmental performance. This study

Fig. 3  Relative contribution of Production of ley crops Collection of waste

major stages of biogas-based Transport of waste Biogas production
electricity production Methane losses from the biogas production CHP plant

GWP
Impact categories

AP

EP

POCP

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Contribution

13
1722 A. M. Shinde et al.

Fig. 4  Comparison of life cycle Fuel production Operation phase

environmental impact of the 1.8
bio-methane bus and electric
bus 1.6

1.4

1.2

Contribution
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Bio-methane Electric bus Bio-methane Electric bus Bio-methane Electric bus Bio-methane Electric bus
bus bus bus bus

GWP (kg CO2 eq/VKT) AP (kg SO2 eq/VKT) EP (kg PO4 eq/VKT) POCP (kg C2H4 eq/VKT)

Table 4  Sensitivity analysis Life cycle phase Parameter Variation (%) GWP (%) AP (%) EP (%) POCP (%)

Bio-methane fuelled bus

Collection of waste Distance − 10 − 0.86 − 0.07 − 0.08 − 0.01
+ 10 0.86 0.07 0.08 0.01
Transport of waste Distance − 10 − 0.93 − 0.10 − 0.10 − 0.00
+ 10 0.93 0.10 0.10 0.00
Biogas production Energy requirement − 10 − 0.61 − 0.32 − 0.21 − 0.18
+ 10 0.61 0.32 0.21 0.18
Methane losses − 10 − 3.95 0.00 0.00 − 0.77
+ 10 3.95 0.00 0.00 0.77
Upgrading process Energy requirement − 10 − 0.69 − 0.22 − 0.13 − 0.09
+ 10 0.69 0.22 0.13 0.09
Methane losses − 10 − 2.15 0.00 0.00 − 0.41
+ 10 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.41
Production of ley crops Total impact − 10 − 0.16 − 0.15 − 0.13 − 0.02
+ 10 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.02
Electric bus
Biogas production Methane losses − 10 − 3.16 0.00 0.00 − 0.14
+ 10 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.14
CHP plant Total impact − 10 − 4.48 − 8.74 − 8.77 − 8.95
+ 10 4.48 8.74 8.77 8.95

showed that per VKT is one of the efficient functional units Sensitivity analysis
for comparing the environmental impact of bioenergy pro-
duction and utilization as a vehicle fuel. The region-specific characteristics have the potential to
significantly change parameters such as collection and
transport distance for organic waste, energy require-
ment and methane losses from both biogas production
and upgrading process. The reliability of key parameters

13
Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity production from organic… 1723

should be considered while explaining the results and the bio-methane pathway and thereby highlighting the
conclusions based on original assumptions. As shown in importance of efforts for minimising the losses during the
Table 4, the sensitivity analysis has been conducted to biogas production and upgrading process. However, the
understand the effect of most significant parameters on emissions from the CHP unit are solely responsible for the
the environmental impact of bio-methane fuelled bus and environmental impact of biogas-based electricity produc-
electric bus and to broaden the applicability of major out- tion. Comparing the performance of bio-methane fuelled
comes of the study. The results of the sensitivity analy- bus and electric bus, results showed that the utilization of
sis show that the environmental impact of bio-methane biogas-based electricity in the electric bus is environmen-
fuelled bus is sensitive to the transport distance for col- tally friendly compared to the production and utilization
lection as well as transport of waste. Therefore, it would of bio-methane. The electric bus outperforms in terms of
be reasonable to encourage energy efficient transportation GWP, AP and EP impacts, whereas POCP impacts are rel-
and minimum transport distance. The sensitivity analysis atively higher. The deployment of after-treatment for the
results show that a 10% increase in the methane slip from reduction of hydrocarbons from the CHP unit could bring
anaerobic digester and upgrading process would lead to further improvements in terms of POCP impacts of electric
a 3.95% and 2.15% increase in the GWP impact of bio- buses. The centralised end use of biogas in the CHP has a
methane fuelled bus, respectively. The sensitivity of the less overall environmental impact than the distributed end
energy requirement of anaerobic digester and upgrading uses of bio-methane in the vehicle engines. The centralised
process is as important as the methane losses. It highlights end uses of biogas in the CHP also offer the relatively
the requirement of technical and operational measures to efficient control on emissions. Therefore, biogas should
reduce the energy requirement for and methane leakage be used for the CHP on-site rather than upgraded to bio-
from anaerobic digester and upgrading process. The sensi- methane to enhance the environmental footprint of public
tivity of the environmental impact of bio-methane fuelled bus transport in Sweden.
bus to the production of ley crops has been assessed. The The digestate produced has been utilized as a substitute
deliberately grown energy crops have a relatively higher for mineral fertilizers. Likewise, if the heat output from
yield but the considerable environmental impact of their the CHP is supplied to a district heating system, it can
cultivation and harvesting practices. Therefore, using substitute fossil fuels. Future studies can extend the system
energy crops such as sugar beet and maize, instead of ley boundaries for accounting the considerable mitigation of
crops, would significantly alter the environmental impact environmental impacts achieved due to the utilization of
of biogas production and utilization as a vehicle fuel. The digestate and heat. Despite the lesser distance for the col-
CHP unit has been chosen for sensitivity analysis as it is lection of waste, it has an almost equivalent contribution to
the main driver of the life cycle impact of electric bus. A that of transport of waste. The notable contribution of the
10% decrease in the GWP impact of the CHP unit would waste collection process to the environmental footprint of
lead to a 4.48% drop in life cycle GWP impact of electric bioenergy production relies on several factors such as the
bus. Moreover, a 10% decrease in the methane slip from selected collection scheme and the level of traffic conges-
anaerobic digester would reduce the GWP impact of the tion. Future work could further examine the environmental
electric bus by 3.16%. performance and optimization of different organic waste
collection schemes and transport routes. Though electric
bus is more environmentally friendly than the bio-methane
Key findings and discussion bus, the production of charging infrastructure and battery
may not be economical and this may result in relatively
This study assessed the environmental footprint of bio- high production costs. Therefore, research on life cycle
methane and biogas-based electricity production from costing of the electric bus and cradle to grave environ-
biogas produced from the co-digestion of organic waste mental assessment of charging infrastructure and battery
and ley crops. Moreover, the environmental impact of the production is recommended. Generally, the electric buses
utilization of biogas-based electricity and bio-methane as a showed the potential for enhancing the environmental sus-
vehicle fuel for the public bus transport has been assessed tainability of biogas production and utilization. There is
and compared. Based on primary data, the life cycle inven- still optimization potential, but it is clear that biogas-based
tory was developed, comprising both upstream and down- electricity will be a part of the future vehicle fuel as the
stream processes, the supplement of feedstock, processing environmental performance compared to the bio-methane
and digestion of substrate, upgrading of biogas, tailpipe buses is promising. It is expected that the LCA results will
emissions, in addition to the operation of the CHP unit. be helpful to assist the decision makers in the assessment
Methane losses from the biogas production and upgrad- of new bioenergy projects and to transport planners for
ing process had a considerable environmental impact of achieving sustainable urban mobility.

13
1724 A. M. Shinde et al.

Acknowledgements Authors sincerely thank the management and the Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning
staff of Växtkraft Biogas Plant at Västerås, Sweden for providing the A, van Oers L, Wegener A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn
data needed for carrying out the present research study. The first author JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle
would like to acknowledge The Foundation of Gustav Dahl as the pre- assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: ecoef-
sent study was supported by the Gustav Dahl Scholarship, Malardalen ficiency in industry and science. Kluwer, Dordrecht
University, Västerås, Sweden. Guerini Filho M, Steinmetz RLR, Bezama A et al (2019) Biomass
availability assessment for biogas or methane production in
Funding The first author would like to acknowledge The Foundation Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Clean Technol Environ Policy
of Gustav Dahl as the present study was supported by the Gustav Dahl 21:1353–1366
Scholarship, Malardalen University, Västerås, Sweden. Huopana T, Freidank T, Thorin E, Lindmark J, Harri N, Mikko K,
Jääskeläinen A (2014) Biomethane production from fine MSW
fraction in Västerås: assessment in material, energy and green-
Compliance with ethical standards house gas balance point of view. Implementing advanced concepts
in biological utilization of waste. University of Eastern Finland,
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known com- Joensuu, Finland
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap- Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B, Effenberger M (2016) Review of life
peared to influence the work reported in this paper. cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 54:1291–1300
Kyto M, Murtonen T (2012) Bus emission measurements on chassis
dynamometer. Baltic Biogas Project, VTT Technical Research
References Centre of Finland
Korpela T, Kaivosoja J, Majanne Y, Laakkonen L, Nurmoranta M,
Bedoić R, Čuček L, Ćosić B, Krajnc D, Smoljanić G, Kravanja Z, Vilkko M (2016) Utilization of district heating networks to pro-
Ljubas D, Pukšec T, Duić N (2019) Green biomass to biogas— vide flexibility in CHP production. Energy Procedia 116:310–319
a study on anaerobic digestion of residue grass. J Clean Prod Lantz M (2012) The economic performance of combined heat and
213:700–709 power from biogas produced from manure in Sweden—a com-
Börjesson P, Tufvesson L, Lantz M (2010) Life cycle assessment of parison of different CHP technologies. Appl Energy 98:502–511
biofuels in Sweden. Department of Technology and Society, Lask J, Guajardo AM, Weik J, von Cossel M, Lewandowski I, Wagner
Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Report No 70, Lund M (2020) Comparative environmental and economic life cycle
University, Lund, Sweden assessment of biogas production from perennial wild plant mix-
Borjesson P, Tufvesson L (2011) Agricultural crop-based biofuels— tures and maize (Zea mays L.) in southwest Germany. GCB Bio-
resource efficiency and environmental performance including energy 12
direct land use changes. 19, 108–120 Lorenzi G, Gorgoroni M, Silva C, Santarelli M (2018) Life cycle
Borjesson P, Prade T, Lantz M, Borjesson L (2015) Energy crop-based assessment of biogas upgrading routes. Energy Procedia
biogas as vehicle fuel-the impact of crop selection on energy effi- 158:2012–2018
ciency and greenhouse gas performance. Energies 8:6033–6058 Lyng K, Andreas B (2019) Environmental life cycle assessment of
Boulamanti AK, Donida MS, Giuntoli J, Agostini A (2013) Influence biogas as a fuel for transport compared with alternative fuels.
of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy Energies 12:532
53:149–161 Mezzullo WG, McManus MC, Hammond GP (2013) Life cycle assess-
Buhle L, Stulpnagel R, Wachendorf M (2011) Comparative life ment of a small-scale anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste.
cycle assessment of the integrated generation of solid fuel and Appl Energy 102:657–664
biogas from biomass (IFBB) and whole crop digestion (WCD) Morero B, Groppelli E, Campanella EA (2015) Life cycle assessment
in Germany of biomethane use in Argentina. Biores Technol 182:208–216
Chester M, Horvath A (2009) Environmental assessment of passenger Markou G, Brulé M, Balafoutis A et al (2017) Biogas production from
transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. energy crops in northern Greece: economics of electricity genera-
Environ Res Lett 4:024008 tion associated with heat recovery in a greenhouse. Clean Technol
Fusi A, Becenetti J, Fiala M, Azapagic A (2016) Life cycle environ- Environ Policy 19:1147–1167
mental impacts of electricity from biogas produced by anaerobic Nielsen M, Nielsen O, Plejdrup M (2014) Danish Emission Inventories
digestion. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 4:1–17 for Stationary Combustion Plants: Inventories until 2011, Sci-
Gissen C, Prade T, Kreuger E, Nges IA, Rosenquist H, Snensson S, entific Report from Danish Centre for Environment and Energy
Lantz M, Mattson JE, Borjesson P, Borjesson L (2014) Com- Nielsen M, Nielsen O, Thomsen M (2010) Emissions from decentral-
paring energy crops for biogas production—yields, energy input ized CHP plants. Emission factors and emission inventory for
and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation. decentralized CHP production, Technical Report from National
Biomass Bioenerg 64:199–210 Environmental Research Institute
Enrique AH, Hector A, Gómez JA, Gómez-Méndez M, Pérez-Hernán- Papong S, Rotwiroon P, Chatchupong T, Malakul P (2014) Life cycle
dez A (2019) Biogas power energy production from a life cycle energy and environmental assessment of bio-CNG utilization from
thinking. New Front Life Cycle Assess Theory Appl. https​://doi. cassava starch wastewater treatment plants in Thailand. Renew
org/10.5772/intec​hopen​.82250​ Energy 65:64–69
Florio C, Fiorentino G, Corcelli F, Ulgiati S, Dumontet S, Güsewell J, Shinde AM, Dikshit AK, Singh RK, Campana PE (2018) Life cycle
Eltrop L (2019) A life cycle assessment of biomethane production analysis based comprehensive environmental performance
from waste feedstock through different upgrading technologies. evaluation of Mumbai Suburban Railway, India. J Clean Prod
Energies 12:718 188:989–1003
Gogolek P (2012) Methane emission factors for biogas flares. Article Shinde AM, Dikshit AK, Singh RK (2019) Comparison of life cycle
number 201203 Industrial Combustion, Journal of the Interna- environmental performance of public road transport modes in
tional Flame Research Foundation metropolitan regions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:605

13
Life cycle assessment of bio‑methane and biogas‑based electricity production from organic… 1725

Stucki M, Jungbluth N, Leuenberger M (2011) Life cycle assessment of Wang X, Nordlander E, Thorin E, Yan J (2013) Microalgal biomethane
biogas production from different substrates. ESU-services GmbH production integrated with an existing biogas plant: a case study
fair consulting in sustainability Kanzleistrasse, Uster in Sweden. Appl Energy 112:478–484
Swedish Biogas Association (2020). Statistics on biogas production. Zhang C, Qiu L (2018) Comprehensive sustainability assessment of a
http://www.energi​ gas.se/fakta-​ om-gas/biogas​ /statis​ tik-om-biogas​ / biogas-linked agro-ecosystem: a case study in China. Clean Tech-
Sharvini SR, Noor ZZ, Chong CS, Stringer LC, Glew D (2020) Energy nol Environ Policy 20:1847–1860
generation from palm oil mill effluent: a life cycle assessment of
two biogas technologies. Energy 191:116513 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
University of Leiden (2001) Centre for Environmental Studies: CML jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
2001 Characterization Method. http://www.cml.leide​n.edu/
Vassileva I, Campillo J, Schwede S (2017) Technology assessment of
the two most relevant aspects for improving urban energy effi-
ciency identified in six mid-sized European cities from case stud-
ies in Sweden. Appl Energy 194:808–818

13