“Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? 2 : economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production”. Witters N, Mendelsohn R, Van Passel S, Van Slycken S, Weyens N, Schreurs E, Meers E, Tack F, Vanheusden B, Vangronsveld J, Biomass &, Bioenergy 39, 470 (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
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: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 3.219
Times cited: 38
DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.11.017
|
“Groundwater remediation and the cost effectiveness of phytoremediation”. Compernolle T, Van Passel S, Weyens N, Vangronsveld J, Lebbe L, Thewys T, International Journal Of Phytoremediation 14, 861 (2012). http://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2011.628879
Abstract: In 1999, phytoremediation was applied at the site of a Belgian car factory to contain two BTEX plumes. This case study evaluates the cost effectiveness of phytoremediation compared to other remediation options, applying a tailored approach for economic evaluation. Generally, when phytoremediation is addressed as being cost effective, the cost effectiveness is only determined on an average basis. This study however, demonstrates that an incremental analysis may provide a more nuanced conclusion. When the cost effectiveness is calculated on an average basis, in this particular case, the no containment strategy (natural attenuation) has the lowest cost per unit mass removed and hence, should be preferred. However, when the cost effectiveness is determined incrementally, no containment should only be preferred if the value of removing an extra gram of contaminant mass is lower than 320. Otherwise, a permeable reactive barrier should be adopted. A similar analysis is provided for the effect determined on the basis of remediation time. Phytoremediation is preferred compared to no containment if reaching the objective one year earlier is worth 7 000.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 1.77
Times cited: 12
DOI: 10.1080/15226514.2011.628879
|
