IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i12p5144-d375635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study on the Reduction Effect in Greenhouse Gas Emissions between the Combined Heat and Power Plant and Boiler

Author

Listed:
  • Dahye Kim

    (School of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea)

  • Kyung-Tae Kim

    (Department of Business Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea)

  • Young-Kwon Park

    (School of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions between the combined heat and power (CHP) plant and boiler, which became the main energy-generating facilities of “anaerobic digestion” (AD) biogas produced in Korea, and analyze the GHG emissions in a life cycle. Full-scale data from two Korean “wastewater treatment plants” (WWTPs), which operated boilers and CHP plants fueled by biogas, were used in order to estimate the reduction potential of GHG emissions based on a “life cycle assessment” (LCA) approach. The GHG emissions of biogas energy facilities were divided into pre-manufacturing stages, production stages, pretreatment stages, and combustion stages, and the GHG emissions by stages were calculated by dividing them into Scope1, Scope2, and Scope3. Based on the calculated reduction intensity, a comparison of GHG reduction effects was made by assuming a scenario in which the amount of biogas produced at domestic sewage treatment plants used for boiler heating is replaced by a CHP plant. Four different scenarios for utilizing biogas are considered based on the GHG emission potential of each utilization plant. The biggest reduction was in the scenario of using all of the biogas in CHP plants and heating the anaerobic digester through district heating. GHG emissions in a life cycle were slightly higher in boilers than in CHP plants because GHG emissions generated by pre-treatment facilities were smaller than other emissions, and lower Scope2 emissions in CHP plants were due to their own use of electricity produced. It was confirmed that the CHP plant using biogas is superior to the boiler in terms of GHG reduction in a life cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Dahye Kim & Kyung-Tae Kim & Young-Kwon Park, 2020. "A Comparative Study on the Reduction Effect in Greenhouse Gas Emissions between the Combined Heat and Power Plant and Boiler," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:5144-:d:375635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/5144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/5144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rasi, S. & Veijanen, A. & Rintala, J., 2007. "Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas production plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1375-1380.
    2. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammad Hemmati & Mehdi Abapour & Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo & Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam, 2020. "Optimal Operation of Integrated Electrical and Natural Gas Networks with a Focus on Distributed Energy Hub Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Mei Bai & Wen Li & Jin Xu, 2023. "Research on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Methods of SBR and Anoxic Oxic Urban Sewage Treatment System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Sun, Hui & Wang, Enzhen & Li, Xiang & Cui, Xian & Guo, Jianbin & Dong, Renjie, 2021. "Potential biomethane production from crop residues in China: Contributions to carbon neutrality," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Huibing Cheng & Shanshui Zheng, 2022. "Incentive Compensation Mechanism for the Infrastructure Construction of Electric Vehicle Battery Swapping Station under Asymmetric Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Elnaz Davoodi & Salar Balaei-Sani & Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo & Mehdi Abapour, 2021. "Flexible Continuous-Time Modeling for Multi-Objective Day-Ahead Scheduling of CHP Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tiwari, Prince & Wang, Tiantian & Indlekofer, Julian & El Haddad, Imad & Biollaz, Serge & Prevot, Andre Stephan Henry & Lamkaddam, Houssni, 2022. "Online detection of trace volatile organic sulfur compounds in a complex biogas mixture with proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 1197-1203.
    2. Parente, Marcelo & Soria, M.A. & Madeira, Luis M., 2020. "Hydrogen and/or syngas production through combined dry and steam reforming of biogas in a membrane reactor: A thermodynamic study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 1254-1264.
    3. Song, Guohui & Xiao, Jun & Yan, Chao & Gu, Haiming & Zhao, Hao, 2022. "Quality of gaseous biofuels: Statistical assessment and guidance on production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Mulu, Elshaday & M'Arimi, Milton M. & Ramkat, Rose C., 2021. "A review of recent developments in application of low cost natural materials in purification and upgrade of biogas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Scholz, Marco & Melin, Thomas & Wessling, Matthias, 2013. "Transforming biogas into biomethane using membrane technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 199-212.
    7. Piotr Bórawski & Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska & Zuzana Kapsdorferová & Tomasz Rokicki & Andrzej Parzonko & Lisa Holden, 2024. "Perspectives of Electricity Production from Biogas in the European Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Fernandez, Helen Coarita & Buffiere, Pierre & Bayard, Rémy, 2022. "Understanding the role of mechanical pretreatment before anaerobic digestion: Lab-scale investigations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 193-203.
    9. Dumitru Peni & Marcin Dębowski & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2022. "Influence of the Fertilization Method on the Silphium perfoliatum Biomass Composition and Methane Fermentation Efficiency," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Maktabifard, Mojtaba & Al-Hazmi, Hussein E. & Szulc, Paulina & Mousavizadegan, Mohammad & Xu, Xianbao & Zaborowska, Ewa & Li, Xiang & Mąkinia, Jacek, 2023. "Net-zero carbon condition in wastewater treatment plants: A systematic review of mitigation strategies and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    11. Krzysztof Gaska & Agnieszka Generowicz & Anna Gronba-Chyła & Józef Ciuła & Iwona Wiewiórska & Paweł Kwaśnicki & Marcin Mala & Krzysztof Chyła, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence Methods for Analysis and Optimization of CHP Cogeneration Units Based on Landfill Biogas as a Progress in Improving Energy Efficiency and Limiting Climate Change," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    13. Yankun Sun & Wanzhen Liu & Xinzhong Wang & Haiyan Yang & Jun Liu, 2020. "Enhanced Adsorption of Carbon Dioxide from Simulated Biogas on PEI/MEA-Functionalized Silica," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Park, Min-Ju & Kim, Hak-Min & Gu, Yun-Jeong & Jeong, Dae-Woon, 2023. "Optimization of biogas-reforming conditions considering carbon formation, hydrogen production, and energy efficiencies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    15. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Anca-Couce, A. & Hochenauer, C. & Scharler, R., 2021. "Bioenergy technologies, uses, market and future trends with Austria as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Psarros, Georgios N. & Papathanassiou, Stavros A., 2023. "Generation scheduling in island systems with variable renewable energy sources: A literature review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1105-1124.
    18. Bharathiraja, B. & Chakravarthy, M. & Ranjith Kumar, R. & Yogendran, D. & Yuvaraj, D. & Jayamuthunagai, J. & Praveen Kumar, R. & Palani, S., 2015. "Aquatic biomass (algae) as a future feed stock for bio-refineries: A review on cultivation, processing and products," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 634-653.
    19. Bedoić, Robert & Dorotić, Hrvoje & Schneider, Daniel Rolph & Čuček, Lidija & Ćosić, Boris & Pukšec, Tomislav & Duić, Neven, 2021. "Synergy between feedstock gate fee and power-to-gas: An energy and economic analysis of renewable methane production in a biogas plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 12-23.
    20. Mulka, Rafał & Szulczewski, Wiesław & Szlachta, Józef & Mulka, Mariusz, 2016. "Estimation of methane production for batch technology – A new approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 440-449.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:5144-:d:375635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.