Table 2FE cost and GEin emissions of the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system.3.2. Calculation of the GHG Emissions of the ��Pig-Biogas-Fish�� SystemThe indirect and direct GHG emissions of the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system are showed separately in Tables than Tables22 and and3,3, thus the total GHG emissions can be obtained (see Table 4). The total GHG emissions for the system is summed up to be 6.17E + 03kg CO2-eq/yr. Then, EI of the ��pig-biogas-fish��system is evaluated as 0.05kg CO2-eq/MJ.Table 3Direct GHG emissions of the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system.Table 4GE of the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system.Analysis of the GE of the system shows that the fishpond link (42.91%) is the largest contributor, followed by the pigsty link (33.03%), and the biogas link (24.06%) is the smallest one as showed in Figure 4.
The GEin emission inventory of the fishpond link is showed in Table 2. Because biogas manure cannot meet the need of fish farming, nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers are applied to the fishpond. These two materials account for a large proportion of the total GHG emission of the fishpond, at 16.76%. Therefore, if the nutrient content of the biogas manure could be improved by biochemical methods, the amount of these two fertilizers could be reduced and the GHG emissions would also be reduced.Figure 4GM fractions for the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system.3.3. Comparison with the Conventional Animal Husbandry SystemThe FE cost of the conventional animal husbandry system is 2.12E + 05MJ/yr, showed in Table 5, the Eout of the system is 1.03E + 05MJ/yr, and the GE of the system is summed up to be 9.
59E + 03kg CO2-eq/yr (see Table 6). Therefore, FEIED of the conventional animal husbandry system is 2.06MJ/MJ, greater than 1, revealing that this system is a nonrenewable system, and EI of the plant is 0.09kg CO2-eq/MJ. Compared with the conventional animal husbandry system, the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system has higher renewability because its FEIED is smaller, and the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system also has a higher GHG reduction benefit because its EI is smaller. This is mainly because the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system makes use of waste feces to provide families with the energy for everyday needs. It can therefore reduce the quantity of coal, biomass, fertilizer, and other combustions, and thus the nonrenewable energy cost and the GHG emissions are reduced, also.
Table 5FE cost and GEin emissions of the conventional animal husbandry system.Table 6GE of the conventional animal husbandry system.At present, the national average FEIED and EI of thermal power plants are 2.64MJ/MJ and 0.22kg CO2-eq/MJ, respectively AV-951 [23]. The coal power system therefore tends to consume 3.4 times more FE and 3.4 times more GHG emissions than the ��pig-biogas-fish�� system per unit energy output to the society.4.
Related posts:
- To date, FISH is the check most often applied in clinical trials
- As with other scientific studies in fish, regulation of metabolic
- Tie-2 fish with a previously generated PRL RFP transgenic line
- Table 1 Whole-cell bioreporters referenced in the text Reporters
- As summarized in Table , no vital differences had been found amon