Next Article in Journal
Drivers of Consumer Participation in Online Second-Hand Transactions
Previous Article in Journal
Technological Innovation, Fiscal Decentralization, Green Development Efficiency: Based on Spatial Effect and Moderating Effect
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/su14074317
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions Related to Wine Production: The Case Study of a Winery in Douro Wine Region-Portugal

by
Cristina Matos
1,2,* and
António Pirra
3,4
1
ECT, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
CIIMAR, Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research of the University of Porto Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões Avenida General Norton de Matos, S/N, 4450-208 Matosinhos, Portugal
3
ECAV, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
4
CQ-VR, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 4317; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074317
Submission received: 7 February 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2022 / Accepted: 1 April 2022 / Published: 5 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue For Sustainable Development: The Differences in Water and Energy Consumptions in Urban and Rural Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Water use and its associated energy consumption in wine processes are often unnoticed in best practice. Many proprietors are insensitive to how water is used within their winery procedures. Key areas of environmental concern currently faced by the wine industry include water and energy use and the production of greenhouse effect gas emissions, among others. This review revealed that the practice within wine organizations tends to be largely unexplored and inadequate. To address the present needs for accurate water and energy resources control, it is vital to develop research on how water and energy are related and used in wine production to increase the effective use of these resources, minimizing the related environmental impact. The main aim of this paper was to find the relationship between energy and water utilization and subsequent CO2 emissions from a winery located in the Douro Valley, contributing to its sustainability in terms of resources consumption. A two-year monitoring plan on water use was implemented, and the related energy consumption and CO2 emissions were calculated. The results showed high values of energy (148.5 kWh/day) as well as related CO2 emissions (54 kg CO2/day) associated with high water consumption (that ranged from 16.20 to 27.66 m3 water/day). This information is very important and contributes to enlarging the database of environmental parameters related to wine production in the Douro wine region, creating opportunities for environmental improvement.

1. Introduction

Given the socio-economical importance of the wine industry in Portugal and the rest of the global wine areas where vitiviniculture is a major activity [1,2], and considering the existing necessity for accurate water and energy resources management, it is imperative to develop research concerning how water and associated energy are used in wine production to increase the effective use of these resources. At each step of the winemaking process, water is always required, from crushing and pressing grapes over fermentation and aging to the end product. Water is also at the core of the cleaning and disinfecting system, ensuring that wine-making areas, tanks, barrels, and the bottling line are properly cleaned [3].
Due to its international scale, wine production environmental issues, among all the water and energy use, have gone largely unmapped. Water use and its associated energy consumption in wine processes are often unnoticed in best practices, with many proprietors being insensible about how water is used [4,5]. However, wine companies are currently adopting more sustainable beliefs and shifting their practices to attain sustainability goals (namely “Goal 6–Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” and “Goal 12- Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”), increasing their social responsibility and increasing the value of their wines simultaneously.
Freshwater scarcity is an imperative issue on the environmental agenda, being increasingly considered in different sectors [6], while the water footprint (WF) is quickly gaining worldwide recognition [7]. There are some interesting studies about water footprint assessment in the wine industry.
Herath et al. studying New Zealand’s wines, assessed the WFs of a wine bottle using diverse methods [8] and assessed the impact of water use through the life cycle of grape-wine production on water resources [9]. Ene et al. [10] carried out a water footprint calculation of a bottle of wine produced in a medium-size wine production plant in Romania.
Due to its importance in economic production and the world distribution market, wine is one of the most analyzed products. Literature studies highlighted matters such as glass bottle production, energy consumption, and the final distribution [7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Other publications analyzed conceptual and methodological aspects [20,21], focused on the wine chain [22,23].
Nowadays, the wine industry is under an increasing legislative burden to be more efficient and sustainable and has started to adopt integrative protective methods instead of the old-style reparatory environmental practices [24]. Therefore, there is rising attention within the wine industry on highlighting its input to sustainable development. Several regulation documents from national or international entities working in the wine sector were published [25,26,27], and also several programs and frameworks to assist winemakers were made, for example [25]: the Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Practices Workbook as the basis for the Sustainable Winegrowing Program [28], the “Commitment to Sustainable Development” [29], the “Vignerons en Développement Durable” [30], the “Entwine,” the Australian Environmental Protection System [31], the Certified Sustainable Wine of Chile [32], and in Portugal, in 2016, the Alentejo wine production region developed a set of rules to support the production and promotion of more sustainable wine [33].
According to some authors, an appropriate evaluation of the sustainability of a product or process has to adopt a Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) perspective, considering all the life cycle steps involved [25,34,35,36,37]. Petti et al. [38] conducted ample scrutiny of LCA studies in the wine area to determine imperative operational aspects related to goal and scope, system boundary, data quality and availability, multi-functionality concerns, inventory tools and impact assessment approaches, as well as results and research findings. These authors emphasized the key points in the methodology and administration of the wine supply sequence and processes, highlighting the assets and missing items and providing valuable insights and pertinent endorsements for both LCA analysts and winemakers.
The main concerns in vinification are electric energy use in equipment; production of solids during the process, which may be reused in other sectors; wastewater generation due to cleaning and some leakage that may occur during the process; CO2 emissions (about 80 kg/t grapes) and volatile organic compounds (0.93 kg/t grapes) during the fermentation [39], apart from the CO2 associated with the energy to water use. The major sectors/processes that use water are the fermentation tanks, cask washing, vat sopping, bottling lines, cellars, and the crush pad. Water use and disposal require pumping and other processes, raising energy costs [40].
Christ and Burritt [41] have performed a state of the art review to examine the key areas of environmental concern presently handled by societies in the global wine trade. Among others, water and energy use and the production of greenhouse gas emissions were some of the most relevant environmental factors. According to the authors, practice within wine associations tends to be largely unexplored and inadequate, reflecting the absence of quantitative and qualitative environmental data required to bring environmental improvement.
In Portugal, few works have been done:
  • Some of them mainly focused on the determination of the water footprint of a wine bottle [42,43];
  • Sustainability evaluation of Portuguese wines [25];
  • LCA considering freshwater use in the wine industry [44];
  • Water to wine production [2].
The setup that delivers water for several uses needs clean water treatment and supply systems that consume energy, mainly for pumping and subsequent treatment and distribution. Water preservation is consequently directly related to energy preservation [45].
Regarding the present necessity for accurate water and energy management, it is essential to investigate how the water and energy nexus is considered in wine production to increase the efficient use of these resources, minimizing the related environmental impact. This paper aims to understand the energy used for water utilization and the related CO2 emissions from a medium-sized winery in the Douro Valley to propose some efficient measures and contribute to the winery’s sustainability in terms of resource consumption. The paper is divided into several sections. In Section 2, the methods used and the case study are described, then Section 3 discusses the results and the study’s main findings. In Section 4, some conclusions and further ideas for future works are presented.

2. Methods

2.1. Energy to Water in Pumping Operation

Electrical energy (kWh) is consumed when a unit volume (m3) of water is pumped. Reardon and Newell [46] highlight that there is a linear relationship between the energy spent for groundwater pumping and the depth from which it is pumped at a specific pressure.
The energy consumed for pumping well water depends on the location of the water source relative to the release site and the frictional resistance to flow [47]. It also depends on the pump efficiency, pipeline length, diameter and roughness, and volumetric demand for water.
Table 1 presents some referenced values for energy to water pumping.

2.2. Energy to Water in Clean Water Treatment Processes

Groundwater pushed from underground aquifers generally needs basic disinfection with the help of simple technologies (filtration, chlorination, ozonation, or ultraviolet irradiation). Normally, a groundwater treatment plant may have a pumping system, a filtration system, a storage tank, a disinfection tank, and a support distribution pump [45]. Most of the groundwater treatment in the north of Portugal depends on the aquifer’s quantity, quality, and contamination. Most of them are composed of a filtration unit (normally a sand composed filter), a storage tank, and a disinfection process.
Filtration is very important as it clears the water, helping to remove the major of the coarse impurities, including the major suspended solids. The energy requirements for these gravity filters are in the range of 0.005–0.014 kW h/m3 [45].
According to Arpke, & Hutzler, Ref. [51] groundwater chlorination consumes 0.002 kWh/m3.

2.3. Energy to Water in Wastewater Treatment Processes

Generally, wastewater is treated following three degrees of treatment: primary, secondary, and sometimes tertiary.
Primary treatment is typical among different WWTP, and the different phases within the treatment have diverse energy consumption. Screening and inorganic suspended solids removal processes need low energy intensity, while primary sludge pumping is the process within the primary treatment that consumes more energy. According to Kenway et al. [52], in Australia, the total energy requirements for the primary treatment varies between 0.01 and 0.37 kWh/m3.
For the second stage of treatment, there is a wide range of options, most commonly the activated sludge treatment process. However, this choice widely influences the energy intensity values required for this treatment. Different values of energy consumption are pointed out in different countries. The mean electrical energy consumption for the secondary stage of treatment may vary between 0.2 and 1.89 kWh/m3 in the USA [53,54], while in Sweden, this value extends to 0.42 kWh/m3 [55] per example.
The energy intake during the tertiary treatment depends on the level of treatment required, depending on the quality of the discharge effluent required, according to the point of discharge referred to in national/local legislation. The state-of-the-art review discloses that tertiary treatment is the stage where energy consumption is higher. The total energy consumption required for the advanced tertiary treatment ranges between 0.23 and 10.55 kWh/m3 in Australia [56]. In New Zealand, these values are lower, varying between 0.32 and 0.88 kWh/m3 [57,58]

2.4. CO2 Related Emissions

CO2 production depends on the total energy intake, so different values are presented for several countries [58]. The procedures and backup tools adopted to estimate CO2 emissions are “made-to-order” with respect to direct needs [59,60]. According to Rothausen and Conway, [61] in South Africa, 112 kg CO2/m3 are emitted in the wastewater treatment, while in California, the value for recycled water is 1.023 kg CO2/m3, and in Canada (Toronto), 117.31 g CO2/m3 are emitted in the water-treatment facility [58]. In Portugal, 369.23 g of CO2 is emitted per kWh of electricity consumed [62]. This value is an outcome of the mixed technologies used in Portugal to produce electrical power: renewable energy (hydroelectric, wind power, solar power, among others) and non-renewable electric energy (petrol/gas-based).

2.5. Study Area

The study area (Lower Corgo) is part of the Alto Douro Wine Region, designated as a World Heritage by UNESCO as a Living Cultural Landscape [Figure 1].
The vinification center studied is a modern medium-sized winery that employs around twelve employees (Winery B from [2]).
This winery uses water exclusively from a private well that is filtered and treated locally.
In Figure 2, it is possible to observe the operations where water and energy are interrelated in the winery. Energy use is inherent to water use; however, this is directly related to the amount of water pumped since no energy is used to produce hot water used in the process.

2.6. Data Collection

Data were collected from bibliographic sources (when they were not available/trustworthy in the case study), and others were collected in the winery.
Water consumption was collected by the authors in the winery daily for two years using common water metering and register devices (Winery B [2]). The energy consumption was estimated considering the range of values obtained through the bibliographic review. As said before, this winery uses water exclusively from a private well, so the extraction of water from underground aquifers primarily requires energy for pumping. Then the water is treated with a filtration and sometimes with a disinfection process. After use, the wastewater produced is gravitationally conduced to a wastewater treatment plant that performs the primary and secondary treatment. It is then discharged into a municipal wastewater network for final treatment in the municipal wastewater treatment plant.
The contribution for CO2 emissions was obtained using the conversion factors referred to before (369.23 g of CO2 emitted per kWh of electricity consumed as referred by Silva-Afonso et al. [62].
A previous paper published by the authors presented the water used in the winery (Table 2). Two years of monitoring were performed, and there was a considerable difference between the water consumption in the first and the second year. These differences were correlated with the different volumes of wine production within these years, according to the irregularity in grape production over different years due to normal variations in climatic and agronomic conditions.

3. Results and Discussion

Given the values presented in the bibliography and considering the minimum and maximum values presented in Table 2, energy consumption was calculated in relation to water use within the winery (Figure 3 and Figure 4). As shown, pumping and secondary wastewater treatment are the most important operations related to energy consumption. Secondary wastewater treatment may consume more than 50 kWh/day, and pumping operations use more than 80 kWh/day, considering the maximum values referred to in the bibliography (Figure 4).
Considering the total energy consumption within the winery, values higher than 140 kWh/day can be reached (which are quite large values) (Figure 5).
As expected, the related CO2 emissions follow the same tendency of the energy consumption used as an emission factor to calculate CO2 emissions (Figure 6). In this case, total emissions of more than 50 kgCO2/day may be achieved, which are important values. Considering that energy is used from the water extraction point until the point where water returns to the natural system [61], a combined approach for reducing energy and water consumption (like dry cleaning with squeegees and brooms before any other water cleaning processes; cleaning with pressurized hot water and the use of foam cleaning solutions) will be extremely important to improve the inter-relationship between energy and water, and consequently to decrease CO2 emissions.

4. Conclusions

In this case study on winery, considering the total energy consumption within the winery, values of more than 140 kWh/day were achieved. According to the total CO2 emissions, more than 50 kgCO2/day were also achieved in this study.
The critical point in the sustainability of the winery industry is the capability to reasonably acquire, use, process, and discharge quality water back into the environment or for reuse (for reuse in irrigation, for instance). Water management faces major challenges due to increasing reservations caused by climate change and fast fluctuating socio-economic boundary conditions. The variability of water resources available over time, unpredictable rainfall, associated climate changes, the intensification of agriculture and industries, and an increasing population lead to major water consumption and management challenges with policy implications in the short term. Making water management more adaptive and flexible is essential under fast-shifting socio-economic conditions and climate changes. Wine companies are currently adopting more sustainable philosophies, changing their practices to achieve these goals, and improving not only water efficiency but also codependent energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
This paper contributes to enlarging the database of environmental data in one of the most important wine regions in the world (Douro Region in Portugal), which is required to bring environmental improvement. In fact, in Portugal, there is a considerable lack of information related to the impact of wineries on water and energy consumption, which is why there is still a significant volume of work to be done on this matter. This paper represents a contribution, presenting a specific case study that may be used in other cases where there is an interest in improving sustainability.
This study may bring environmental awareness to the stakeholders for the proper use of water, and its consequences, related to energy to water use and associated CO2 emissions. Implementing the best accessible practices, moving to sustainable production, and decreasing the impact on natural resources are goals for the wine industry. The reduction of wineries’ water/energy consumption is also essential.
Recognizing the limitations of this study based on a mix of bibliography and real winery collected data, in further research, we intend to expand these studies to more wineries, with more real data measures from several different size wineries. Future work will be developed to identify the level of alignment of the various actors in the wine industry concerning the importance and implementation of sustainable practices.
More sustainable practices are demanded in agriculture to improve sustainability, which is one of the main goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainability Development, boosting the implementation of more sustainable methods and technologies. In the resource-intensive scheme within which this activity is operating, it will be necessary to create new attitudes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.; methodology, C.M.; formal analysis, C.M.; investigation, C.M. and A.P.; data curation, C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.; writing—review and editing, C.M. and A.P.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was partly financed by national funds, through the FCT Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the projects UIDB/00616/2020 and UIDP/00616/2020 for the Unit Institute CQ-VR and by the CIIMAR- Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research of the University of Porto.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, K.; Nelgen, S.; Pinilla, V. Global Wine Markets, 1860 to 2016: A Statistical Compendium; University of Adelaide Press: Adelaide, Australia, 2017; p. 582. Available online: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/system/files/media/documents/2019-04/uap-global-wine-markets-ebook.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2022). [CrossRef]
  2. Matos, C.; Pirra, A. Water to wine in wineries in Portugal Douro Region: Comparative study between wineries with different sizes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garn, J.; Jeff, D. Winery Water Conservation and Water Quality. In California Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Workbook, 3rd ed.; Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, Wine Institute, and California Association of Winegrape Growers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jourjon, F.; Racault, Y.; Rochard, J. Effluents Vinicoles: Gestion et Traitements; Féret: Bordeaux, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pirra, A. Manual de Boas Práticas Ambientais na Adega. In APHVIN-GHEVID (Associação Portuguesa da História da Vinha e do Vinho—Grupo de Estudos de História da Viticultura Duriense e do Vinho do Porto); IVV; Financiado pelo Instituto do Vinho do Douro e Porto: Régua, Portugal, 2008; p. 231. ISBN 978-972-98969-5-8. [Google Scholar]
  6. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Scrucca, F. Comparative life cycle assessment of an innovative CSPair-cooled system and conventional condensers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2015, 20, 1076–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Asdrubali, F.; Cotana, F.; Presciutti, A.; Scrucca, F.; Bonamente, E. The Water Footprint of the Wine Industry: Implementation of an Assessment Methodology and Application to a Case Study. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12190–12208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Herath, I.; Green, S.; Horne, D.; Singh, R.; McLaren, S.; Clothier, B. Water footprinting ofagricultural products: Evaluation of different protocols using a case study of New Zealand wine. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herath, I.; Green, S.; Singh, R.; Horne, D.; van der Zijpp, S.; Clothier, B. Water footprinting ofagricultural products: A hydrological assessment for the water f ootprint of New Zealand’s wines. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ene, S.A.; Teodosiu, C.; Robu, B.; Volf, I. Water footprint assessment in the winemakingindustry: A case study for a Romanian medium size production plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aranda, S.; Scarpellini, I.; Scarpellini, S. Zabalza. Economic and environmental analysis of the wine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2005, 4, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Petti, L.; Ardente, F.; Bosco, S.; De Camillis, C.; Masotti, P.; Pattara, C.; Raggi, G. Tassielli State of the art of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the wine industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, Bari, Italy, 22–24 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carballo-Penela, A.; García-Negro, M.C.; Doménech-Quesada, J.L. A methodological proposal for corporate carbon footprint and its application to a wine-producing company in Galicia, Spain. Sustainability 2009, 1, 302–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gazulla, C.; Raugei, M.; Fullana, P. Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: Where are the bottlenecks? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bosco, S.; di Bene, C.; Galli, M.; Remorini, D.; Massai, R.; Bonari, E. Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 2011, 6, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Environmental analysis of Ribeiro wine from a timeline perspective: Harvest year matters when reporting environmental impacts. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 98, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Point, E.; Tyedmers, P.; Naugle, C. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fusi, A.; Guidetti, R.; Benedetto, G. Delving into the environmental aspect of a Sardinian white wine: From partial to total life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 472, 989–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Iannone, R.; Miranda, S.; Riemma, S.; De Marco, I. Improving environmental performances in wine production by a life cycle assessment analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Iribarren, D.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Rugani, B.; Benetto, E. Tapping carbon footprint variations in the European wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cholette, S.; Kumar, V. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1401–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amienyo, D.; Camilleri, C.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bordiga, M. Valorization of Wine Making By-Products; Illustrated ed. Taylor Francis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; p. 383. ISBN 9781482255331. [Google Scholar]
  25. Martins, A.A.; Araújo, A.R.; Graça, A.; Caetano, N.; Mata, T.M. Towards sustainable wine: Comparison of two portuguese wines. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. OIV. Guidelines for Sustainable Vitiviniculture: Production, Processing and Packaging of Products—Resolution CST 1/2008. 2008. Available online: http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/2089/cst-1-2008-en.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2021).
  27. Vinos de Chile. Sustainability Code of Chilean Wine Industry. 2012. Available online: http://www.sustentavid.org/en/imgmodulo/imagen_producto/26B.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  28. SWP. California Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Workbook Sustainable Winegrowing Program (SWP). 2016. Available online: http://www.sustainablewinegrowing.org/swpworkbook.php (accessed on 24 August 2021).
  29. ICV. Commitment to Sustainable Development. 2007. Available online: https://www.icv.fr/en/viticulture-oenology-consulting/grower-sustainable-development-vdd (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  30. VDD—Vignerons en Développement Durable. 2016. Available online: http://www.v-dd.com/en/ (accessed on 24 August 2021).
  31. Entwine. Entwine Australia & Environmental Management Systems 2013. Available online: http://www.wfa.org.au/assets/entwine/Entwine-and-EMS.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  32. CSWC. Sustainability Code of the Chilean Wine Industry. 2016. Available online: http://www.sustentavid.org/en/ (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  33. WASP. Wines of Alentejo Sustainability Programme. 2016. Available online: http://sustentabilidade.vinhosdoalentejo.pt/en (accessed on 24 August 2021).
  34. Martins, A.R.; Araújo, A.; Morgado, A.; Graça, N.; Caetano, S.; Mata, T.M. Sustainability Assessment of two Portuguese wines. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–15 July 2016; pp. 213–224. [Google Scholar]
  35. UNEP. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, 2011; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zamagni, A.; Pesonen, H.; Swarr, T. From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Concept, practice and future directions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1637–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Guinée, J.B. Chapter 3-Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges. In Taking Stock in Industrial Ecology; Clift, R., Druckman, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Petti, L.; Arzoumanidis, I.; Benedetto, G.; Bosco, S.; Cellura, M.; Camillis, C.D.; Fantin, V.; Masotti, P.; Pattara, C.; Raggi, A.; et al. Life cycle assessment in the wine sector. In Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector; Notarnicola, B., Salomone, R., Petti, L., Renzulli, P., Roma, R., Cerutti, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 123–184. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mattsson, B.; Sonesson, U. Environmentally-Friendly Food Processing; Technology and Nutrition; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science: Swaston, UK, 2003; ISBN 978-1-85573-677-1. [Google Scholar]
  40. Galitsky, C.; Worrell, E.; Radspieler, A.; Healy, P.; Zechiel, S. BEST Winery Guidebook: Benchmarking and Energy and Water Savings Tool for the Wine Industry; LBNL-3184; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkley, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L. Critical environmental concerns in wine pro duction: An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Duarte, E.; Martins, M.; Ghira, J.; Carvalho, E.; Spranger, I.; Costa, S.; Leandro, M.; et Duarte, J. An integrated approach for assessing the environmental impacts of wineries in Portugal. In Actes du 2éme Congrès International sur le Traitement des Effluents Vinicoles; Cemagref: Bordeaux, France, 1998; pp. 61–69. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pirra, A. Tratamento de Efluentes Vinícolas da região demarcada do Douro. Tese de Doutoramento na Área científica de Ciências Agrárias Ciências Agronómicas, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; p. 296.
  44. Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C.; Pina, L.; Neto, B.; Riddoutt, B.G.; Arroja, L. Addressing the freshwater use of a portuguese wine (Vinho Verde) using different LCA methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 68, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Plappally, A.K.; Lienhard, V.J.H. Energy requirements for water production, treatment, end use, reclamation and disposal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4818–4848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Reardon, D.; Newell, P. Recycling conserves both water and energy. In Proceedings of the Water Energy Sustainability Symposium, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 September–3 October 2012; Water Environment Federation. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahlfeld, D.P.; Laverty, M.M. Analytical solutions for minimization of energy use for groundwater pumping. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. GEI/Navigant (2009). Embedded energy in water studies: Study2: Water agency and function component study and embedded energy—water load profiles-FInal Work Plan. [Online] California Institute for Energy and Environment. Available online: http://uc-ciee.org/library/7/340/79/nested (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  49. Maas, C. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-Benefits of Water Conservation; Research report; POLIS: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2009; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  50. Maas, C. Ontario’s Water-Energy Nexus: Will We Find Ourselves in Hot Water… or Tap into Opportunity? Research report; POLIS: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2010; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  51. Arpke, A.; Hutzler, N. Domestic water use in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2006, 10, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kenway, S.J.; Priestley, A.; Cook, S.; Seo, S.; Inman, M.; Gregory, A. Energy Use in the Provision and Consumption of Urban Water in Australia and New Zealand. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship; Water Service Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  53. WEF. Energy Conservation in Water and Waste Water Facilities, 1st ed.; WEF Press, McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mizuta, K.; Shimada, M. Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 2256–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yang, L.; Zeng, S.; Chen, J.; He, M.; Yang, W. Operational energy performance assessment system of municipal waste water treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Radcliffe, J.C. Water Recycling in Australia, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Melbourne. 2004. Available online: https://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Water/ATSE%20Water%20Recycling%20in%20Australia%202004.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  57. Kneppers, B.; Birchfield, D.; Lawton, M. Energy-Water Relationships in Reticulated Water Infrastructure Systems; WA7090/2; Research report; Beacon Pathway Limited: Rotorua, New Zealand, 2009; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  58. Matos, S.; Pereira, E.V.; Amorim, I.; Bentes, A.; Briga-Sá, A. Wastewater and greywater reuse on irrigation in centralized and decentralized systems—An integrated approach on water quality, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Matos, C.; Bentes, I.; Pereira, S.; Faria, D.; Briga-Sá, A. Energy consumption, CO2 emissions and costs related to baths water consumption depending on the temperature and the use of flow reducing valves. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. WRF. Knowledge Portals and Energy Management: Energy Efficiency & Treatment FAQs Water Research Foundation, Colorado. 2013. Available online: http://www.waterrf.org/knowledge/energy-management/efficiency-treatment/Pages/faqs.aspx (accessed on 9 March 2021).
  61. Rothausen, S.; Conway, D. Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in the water sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 210–219. Available online: www.nature.com/natureology (accessed on 9 March 2021). [CrossRef]
  62. Silva-Afonso, A.; Rodrigues, F.; Pimentel-Rodrigues, C. “Water efficiency in buildings: Assessment of its impact on energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions”—Recent Researches in Energy & Environment. In Proceedings of the 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Energy & Environment—EE’11, Cambridge, UK, 23–25 February 2011; WSEAS Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 191–195, ISSN 1792-8230/ISBN 978-960-474-274-5. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 04317 g001 550
Figure 1. Alto Douro Wine Region [2].
Figure 1. Alto Douro Wine Region [2].
Sustainability 14 04317 g001
Sustainability 14 04317 g002 550
Figure 2. Energy to water relations scheme in the winery (the images are not from the winery in question).
Figure 2. Energy to water relations scheme in the winery (the images are not from the winery in question).
Sustainability 14 04317 g002
Sustainability 14 04317 g003 550
Figure 3. Energy consumption in the winery, considering the minimum values referred to in the literature, for each process.
Figure 3. Energy consumption in the winery, considering the minimum values referred to in the literature, for each process.
Sustainability 14 04317 g003
Sustainability 14 04317 g004 550
Figure 4. Energy consumption in the winery, considering the maximum values referred to in the literature, for each process.
Figure 4. Energy consumption in the winery, considering the maximum values referred to in the literature, for each process.
Sustainability 14 04317 g004
Sustainability 14 04317 g005 550
Figure 5. Average energy consumption in the winery in the two years, considering all the energy-consuming processes.
Figure 5. Average energy consumption in the winery in the two years, considering all the energy-consuming processes.
Sustainability 14 04317 g005
Sustainability 14 04317 g006 550
Figure 6. Total CO2 emissions in the winery in the two years, considering all the processes.
Figure 6. Total CO2 emissions in the winery in the two years, considering all the processes.
Sustainability 14 04317 g006
Table
Table 1. Energy to Water referenced values.
Table 1. Energy to Water referenced values.
WhereEnergy ConsumptionReference
California0.14–0.69 kWh/m3[48]
Canada0.25–3.02 kWh/m3[49,50]
CanadaFlow rate of 100–950 m3/d consumed 0.84–3.02 kw h/m3
Flow rate of 1000–10,000 m3/d consumed 0.25–1.11 kw h/m3		[50]
Table
Table 2. Average water consumption in the winery (Data from [2]).
Table 2. Average water consumption in the winery (Data from [2]).
m3 Water/Day
1st year27.66
2nd year16.20
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matos, C.; Pirra, A. Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions Related to Wine Production: The Case Study of a Winery in Douro Wine Region-Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074317

AMA Style

Matos C, Pirra A. Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions Related to Wine Production: The Case Study of a Winery in Douro Wine Region-Portugal. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):4317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074317

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matos, Cristina, and António Pirra. 2022. "Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions Related to Wine Production: The Case Study of a Winery in Douro Wine Region-Portugal" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 4317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074317

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop