Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/13334
Title: | Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? II: Economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production | Authors: | WITTERS, Nele Mendelsohn, R. VAN PASSEL, Steven Van Slycken, S. WEYENS, Nele SCHREURS, Eloi MEERS, Erik Tack, F. VANHEUSDEN, Bernard VANGRONSVELD, Jaco |
Issue Date: | 2012 | Source: | BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 39, p. 470-477 | Abstract: | Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 (€ 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between € 55 and € 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over “normal” biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land. | Keywords: | Marginal abatement cost (MAC) CO2; Metal contamination; Subsidy; Energy crops; Adapted gross income (AGI); Phytoremediation | Document URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/13334 | ISSN: | 0961-9534 | e-ISSN: | 1873-2909 | DOI: | 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.11.017 | ISI #: | 000302829900054 | Category: | A1 | Type: | Journal Contribution | Validations: | ecoom 2013 |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Witters et al 2012.pdf Restricted Access | 224.85 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
43
checked on Sep 3, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
58
checked on Oct 13, 2024
Page view(s)
58
checked on Sep 7, 2022
Download(s)
44
checked on Sep 7, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.