Large-scale analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction by means of biomass co-firing at country-scale: Application to the Spanish case

Royo, Javier; Sebastián, Fernando; García-Galindo, D.; Gómez, Maider; Díaz, Maryori

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.046

Cited by 38 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The median impact on GW of power bf above 100 MW el (n = 39) is 0.109 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh el −1 . Observed was a minimum impact on GW of 0.035 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh el −1 (Hartmann and Kaltschmitt 1999) owing to the treatment of wood as a by-product, short transportation assumptions, and high electrical efficiencies, as well as a maximum of 0.343 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh el −1 (Royo et al 2012), possibly owing to the employed emissions factor for biomass combustion. Even though all conversion efficiencies were not disclosed by the studies, it has to be assumed that they are the reason for the lower emissions of larger power plants' capacities above 500 MW el .…”

Section: Power Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Wood Energy Services

Wolf¹,

Klein²,

Weber‐Blaschke³

et al. 2015

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryEnvironmental impacts of the provision of wood energy have been analyzed through life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques for many years. Systems for the generation of heat, power, and combined heat and power (CHP) differ, and methodological choices for LCA can vary greatly, leading to inconsistent findings. We analyzed factors that promote these findings by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing LCA studies for wood energy services. The systematic review investigated crucial methodological and systemic factors, such as system boundaries, allocation, transportation, and technologies, for transformation and conversion of North American and European LCA studies. MetaAnalysis was performed on published results in the impact category global warming (GW). A total of 30 studies with 97 systems were incorporated. The studies exhibit great differences in their systemic and methodological choices, as well as their functional units, technologies, and resulting outcomes. A total of 44 systems for the generation of power, with a median impact on GW of 0.169 kilograms (kg) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 -eq) per kilowatthour (kWh el ), were identified. Results for the biomass fraction only show a median impact on GW of 0.098 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh el −1 . A total of 31 systems producing heat exhibited a median impact on GW of 0.040 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh th −1 . With a median impact on GW of 0.066 kg CO 2 -eq * kWh el+th −1 , CHP systems show the greatest variability among all analyzed wood energy services. To facilitate comparisons, we propose a methodological approach for the description of system boundaries, the basis for calculations, and reporting of findings. Keywords:biomass combined heating and power (CHP) energy harmonization industrial ecology life cycle assessment (LCA) Supporting information is available on the JIE Web site

show abstract

Section: Power Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Wood Energy Services

Wolf¹,

Klein²,

Weber‐Blaschke³

et al. 2015

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to this the government aims to have 800 MW of installed CHP (Combined Heat and Power) capacity by 2020, with particular emphasis on biomass fuelled CHP [10]. In 2012, the total renewable electricity penetration reached 19.6% with wind energy accounting for over 15.3% of all electricity generation in 2012, hydro accounting for 2.7%, and biomass only contributing 1.6% mainly from co-firing and landfill gas [2]. The renewable energy contribution towards the RES-H target reached 5.2% in 2012, with the use of solid biomass (wood) and renewable wastes (tallow) accounting for the majority (84%) of overall renewable heat consumption [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of biomass-to-energy systems in Ireland modelled with biomass supply chain optimisation based on greenhouse gas emission reduction

Murphy

Sosa

McDonnell

et al. 2016

Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe energy sector is the major contributor to GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) in Ireland. Under EU Renewable energy targets, Ireland must achieve contributions of 40%, 12% and 10% from renewables to electricity, heat and transport respectively by 2020, in addition to a 20% reduction in GHG emissions. Life cycle assessment methodology was used to carry out a comprehensive, holistic evaluation of biomass-toenergy systems in 2020 based on indigenous biomass supply chains optimised to reduce production and transportation GHG emissions. Impact categories assessed include; global warming, acidification, eutrophication potentials, and energy demand. Two biomass energy conversion technologies are considered; co-firing with peat, and biomass CHP (combined heat and power) systems. Biomass is allocated to each plant according to a supply optimisation model which ensures minimal GHG emissions. The study shows that while CHP systems produce lower environmental impacts than co-firing systems in isolation, determining overall environmental impacts requires analysis of the reference energy systems which are displaced. In addition, if the aims of these systems are to increase renewable energy penetration in line with the renewable electricity and renewable heat targets, the optimal scenario may not be the one which achieves the greatest environmental impact reductions.

show abstract

“…Another study noted that the use of the DEC (switchgrass) having low sulfur content produced less SO 2 emissions when generating electricity through direct combustion [12]. There are numerous studies [12,13,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] that evaluated the life cycle environmental impacts of using biomass in combination with coal fuel for electricity generation.…”

Section: Review Of Biomass-only Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to these activities, some studies [20,25] also included the construction and dismantling of a power station within their system boundaries. Other studies [23,24,26,27] did not consider ash disposal within their system boundaries.…”

Section: Review Of Biomass-only Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have analyzed the LCA of biomass-only combustion [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and biomass cofiring with coal [12,13,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The two distinct advantages of cofiring in existing coal power plants are the achievement of a higher net efficiency of biofuels conversion to electricity (the generally higher efficiency of very large-scale power plants offsets the lower efficiency of the coal boiler) and a significant reduction in the investment costs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Biomass Feedstock Electricity Generation Systems

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of different biomass feedstock categories (agriculture residues, dedicated energy crops, forestry, industry, parks and gardens, wastes) independently on biomass-only (biomass as a standalone fuel) and cofiring (biomass used in combination with coal) electricity generation systems. The statistical evaluation of the life cycle GHG emissions (expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour, gCO 2 e/kWh) for biomass electricity generation systems was based on the review of 19 life cycle assessment studies (representing 66 biomass cases). The mean life cycle GHG emissions resulting from the use of agriculture residues (N = 4), dedicated energy crops (N = 19), forestry (N = 6), industry (N = 4), and wastes (N = 2) in biomass-only electricity generation systems are 291.25 gCO 2 e/kWh, 208.41 gCO 2 e/kWh, 43 gCO 2 e/kWh, 45.93 gCO 2 e/kWh, and 1731.36 gCO 2 e/kWh, respectively. The mean life cycle GHG emissions for cofiring electricity generation systems using agriculture residues (N = 10), dedicated energy crops (N = 9), forestry (N = 9), industry (N = 2), and parks and gardens (N = 1) are 1039.92 gCO 2 e/kWh, 1001.38 gCO 2 e/kWh, 961.45 gCO 2 e/kWh, 926.1 gCO 2 e/kWh, and 1065.92 gCO 2 e/kWh, respectively. Forestry and industry (avoiding the impacts of biomass production and emissions from waste management) contribute the least amount of GHGs, irrespective of the biomass electricity generation system.

show abstract

Large-scale analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction by means of biomass co-firing at country-scale: Application to the Spanish case

Cited by 38 publications

References 25 publications

Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Wood Energy Services

Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Life Cycle Assessments for Wood Energy Services

Life cycle assessment of biomass-to-energy systems in Ireland modelled with biomass supply chain optimisation based on greenhouse gas emission reduction

Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Biomass Feedstock Electricity Generation Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About