Table 5 Summary of arguments for the use of substrates from de-weeding operations
From: Biogas production from submerged macrophytes—a case study of regional biomass potentials in Germany
Sources | |
|---|---|
Supporting factors | |
Nutrient contents of the substrates are comparably high | |
Storage and ensiling well possible under certain conditions | |
Substrates are essentially disposed of today | Based on our survey |
Regionally, large quantities of the substrates are harvested (e.g., Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) | Based on our survey |
Biogas yields are high in combination with other substrates | [13] |
In the flowing and standing water bodies there are high quantities that were not harvested | Based on our survey |
Inhibitory factors | |
The amount of harvested biomass can vary from year to year | Based on our survey |
The costs of mowing and harvesting are quite high | [26] |
Legal status of substrates from de-weeding operations is not clear, especially whether they are renewable resources | [27] |
In semi-natural or natural water bodies, conflicts with nature conservation can occur | Based on our survey |
The use of the substrates can endanger the approval of biogas plant | [27] |
Cost efficiency also depends on the development of new machines for mowing and harvesting | [26] |