Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power generation in Malaysia

Shafie, Shafini Mohd; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.002

Cited by 67 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This section presents a sensitivity analysis on how the key parameters of this study (i.e. co‐firing fraction, interest rate, biomass properties and carbon price) vary with the biomass price, relative to the price for the baseline scenario, since the cost of biomass was found to represent the largest part of the power generation costs in co‐firing systems . Results for the four countries combined are presented, since the economic parameters and biomass properties were assumed to be the same in the countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

Cutz

Berndes

Johnsson

2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass co-firing with coal can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and can act as a low-cost stepping-stone for developing biomass supply infrastructures. This paper presents a technoeconomic assessment of the biomass co-firing potential in coal-fired boilers in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland. The current coal power plant infrastructure is characterized by means of geographic location of the coal power plants, installed boiler capacity, type of boiler technology and year of commissioning, as extracted from the Chalmers Power Plant Database. The assessment considers type of boiler technology, type of biomass, co-firing fraction, implementation costs, breakeven prices for co-firing and an alkali index to determine the risk of high-temperature corrosion. The main factors affecting the co-firing potential are the biomass price, carbon price and alkali index. Results indicate that the total co-firing potential in the four countries is around 16 TWh year −1 , with the largest potential from a conversion perspective in Germany, followed by Poland. Biomass co-firing with coal is estimated to be competitive at biomass prices below 13 € MWh input −1 when the carbon price is 20 € t −1 CO 2 . On average, 1 TWh of electricity from biomass co-firing substitutes 0.9 Mt of fossil CO 2 emissions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

Cutz

Berndes

Johnsson

2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The approach of life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly used to evalution on environmental sustainability and economically viable. Shafie et al (2013) investigated rice straw co-firing at coal power plants in Malaysia, analysing environmental, energy and economic aspects by LCA. Roy and Dutta (2013) The results also showed that crop residues with higher heat content played a b etter performance in biopower production and the energy recovery efficiency had significant positive impact.…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Waste

Zhang

Chang

Wang

et al. 2014

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large amount of agricultural waste was generated all over the world, which could cost many problems such as environment pollution, GHG (greenhouse gas) emission, and serious disease. A review of the literature published in 2013 on topics relating to agricultural waste issues is presented, and about 180 papers were selected. The main treatment methods of agricultural waste can be biodegradation, composing, digestion, and hydrolysis. Researchers paid more attention on the waste reuse, focusing on t he environmental friendly utilization such as producing of biofuel, construction material, active carbon, adsorbent etc. Moreover, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been applied to evaluate the economic and environmental impact widely. This review is divided into the following sections: Waste Characterization, reuse, treatment, and management.

show abstract

“…For GHG emissions evaluation, the existing literature compared the air pollutant emissions of biomass power generation systems (mostly gasification and co-firing systems) with conventional coalfired technologies (Hartmann and Kaltsschmitt, 1999;Rafaschieri et al, 1999;Corti and Lombardi, 2004;Spath and Mann, 2004;Shafie et al, 2013) and indicated that the integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) technology with CO 2 removal by chemical absorption could reduce GHG emissions to 178 kg/MWh (Carpentieri et al 2005), significantly lower than coal-fired power generation technologies at approximately 900 kg/MWh on average (Varun and Prakash, 2009;Masanet et al, 2013). Comparatively, studies on biomass direct-fired power generation systems are rare, especially for China (Song et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass direct-fired power generation system in China: An integrated energy, GHG emissions, and economic evaluation for Salix

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power generation in Malaysia

Cited by 67 publications

References 36 publications

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

A techno‐economic assessment of biomass co‐firing in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Poland

Agricultural Waste

Biomass direct-fired power generation system in China: An integrated energy, GHG emissions, and economic evaluation for Salix

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About