Environmental performance of Miscanthus as a fuel alternative for district heat production

Parajuli, Ranjan; Sperling, Karl; Dalgaard, Tommy

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.011

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has to be kept in mind that for the total energy balance of a bioenergy pathway, the conversion process is of decisive importance since total conversion efficiencies differ highly (for details on transformation efficiencies see Refs. [5,10,30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…One ton of miscanthus feedstock yields about 10 GJ heat energy, when burned in a boiler [30]. This leads to a potential mean heat production of about 175 GJ ha À1 a À1 from fertilized miscanthus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This estimation lies below other calculations made by Refs. [30]; who estimated almost 2 t CO 2 -equivalents for the same area. However, when crediting carbon sequestration to the LCA, Parajuli et al [30] estimated an even negative GWP for miscanthus cropping at a field scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Yield and quality development comparison between miscanthus and switchgrass over a period of 10 years

Iqbal

Gauder

Claupein

et al. 2015

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Yield and quality development comparison between miscanthus and switchgrass over a period of 10 years

Iqbal

Gauder

Claupein

et al. 2015

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is due to the related environmental and social problems, which are of high interest to society in general. Climate change, for example, is presently one of the most urgent environmental problems and, as a result, this impact category is included in virtually every study which assesses the environmental performance of miscanthus-based value chains (Godard et al, 2013; Parajuli et al, 2015; Roy et al, 2015). The ALO can be a problem if the utilization of land for biomass production leads to land-use competition and thus hinders the production of food crops.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Miscanthus Germplasm-Based Value Chains: A Life Cycle Assessment

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, considerable progress has been made in miscanthus research: improvement of management practices, breeding of new genotypes, especially for marginal conditions, and development of novel utilization options. The purpose of the current study was a holistic analysis of the environmental performance of such novel miscanthus-based value chains. In addition, the relevance of the analyzed environmental impact categories was assessed. A Life Cycle Assessment was conducted to analyse the environmental performance of the miscanthus-based value chains in 18 impact categories. In order to include the substitution of a reference product, a system expansion approach was used. In addition, a normalization step was applied. This allowed the relevance of these impact categories to be evaluated for each utilization pathway. The miscanthus was cultivated on six sites in Europe (Aberystwyth, Adana, Moscow, Potash, Stuttgart and Wageningen) and the biomass was utilized in the following six pathways: (1) small-scale combustion (heat)—chips; (2) small-scale combustion (heat)—pellets; (3) large-scale combustion (CHP)—biomass baled for transport and storage; (4) large-scale combustion (CHP)—pellets; (5) medium-scale biogas plant—ensiled miscanthus biomass; and (6) large-scale production of insulation material. Thus, in total, the environmental performance of 36 site × pathway combinations was assessed. The comparatively high normalized results of human toxicity, marine, and freshwater ecotoxicity, and freshwater eutrophication indicate the relevance of these impact categories in the assessment of miscanthus-based value chains. Differences between the six sites can almost entirely be attributed to variations in biomass yield. However, the environmental performance of the utilization pathways analyzed varied widely. The largest differences were shown for freshwater and marine ecotoxicity, and freshwater eutrophication. The production of insulation material had the lowest impact on the environment, with net benefits in all impact categories expect three (marine eutrophication, human toxicity, agricultural land occupation). This performance can be explained by the multiple use of the biomass, first as material and subsequently as an energy carrier, and by the substitution of an emission-intensive reference product. The results of this study emphasize the importance of assessing all environmental impacts when selecting appropriate utilization pathways.

show abstract

“…When grown on land otherwise left fallow or unsuited for cultivation of traditional food crops such as cereal, energy crops do not compete with food production. Moreover, scientific literature suggests that cultivating certain energy crops, such as miscanthus may even cause net savings in GHG emissions due to the buildup of soil carbon (Parajuli et al 2015c). However, if energy crops displace agricultural production effects of iLUC may occur reducing the sustainability, though these effects are difficult to quantify and compare individually across feedstock.…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%