IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i11p1181-d82976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Akhil Kadiyala

    (Center for Energy & Environmental Sustainability, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA)

  • Raghava Kommalapati

    (Center for Energy & Environmental Sustainability, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA
    Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA)

  • Ziaul Huque

    (Center for Energy & Environmental Sustainability, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Biomass Feedstock Electricity Generation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1181-:d:82976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1181/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1181/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastián, F. & Royo, J. & Gómez, M., 2011. "Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2029-2037.
    2. Fan, Jiqing & Kalnes, Tom N. & Alward, Matthew & Klinger, Jordan & Sadehvandi, Adam & Shonnard, David R., 2011. "Life cycle assessment of electricity generation using fast pyrolysis bio-oil," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 632-641.
    3. Royo, Javier & Sebastián, Fernando & García-Galindo, Daniel & Gómez, Maider & Díaz, Maryori, 2012. "Large-scale analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction by means of biomass co-firing at country-scale: Application to the Spanish case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 255-267.
    4. Heller, Martin C & Keoleian, Gregory A & Mann, Margaret K & Volk, Timothy A, 2004. "Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 1023-1042.
    5. Shafie, S.M. & Masjuki, H.H. & Mahlia, T.M.I., 2014. "Life cycle assessment of rice straw-based power generation in Malaysia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 401-410.
    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. Yuwen Chu & Yunlong Pan & Hongyi Zhan & Wei Cheng & Lei Huang & Zi Wu & Ling Shao, 2022. "Systems Accounting for Carbon Emissions by Hydropower Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Guerra, K. & Haro, P. & Gutiérrez, R.E. & Gómez-Barea, A., 2022. "Facing the high share of variable renewable energy in the power system: Flexibility and stability requirements," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    3. Lechón, Yolanda & Lago, Carmen & Herrera, Israel & Gamarra, Ana Rosa & Pérula, Alberto, 2023. "Carbon benefits of different energy storage alternative end uses. Application to the Spanish case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Sunday Yusuf Kpalo & Mohamad Faiz Zainuddin & Latifah Abd Manaf & Ahmad Muhaimin Roslan, 2020. "A Review of Technical and Economic Aspects of Biomass Briquetting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-30, June.
    5. Noha H. El-Amary & Alsnosy Balbaa & R. A. Swief & T. S. Abdel-Salam, 2018. "A Reconfigured Whale Optimization Technique (RWOT) for Renewable Electrical Energy Optimal Scheduling Impact on Sustainable Development Applied to Damietta Seaport, Egypt," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Aberilla, Jhud Mikhail & Gallego-Schmid, Alejandro & Azapagic, Adisa, 2019. "Environmental sustainability of small-scale biomass power technologies for agricultural communities in developing countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 493-506.
    7. Mario Martín-Gamboa & Paula Quinteiro & Ana Cláudia Dias & Diego Iribarren, 2021. "Comparative Social Life Cycle Assessment of Two Biomass-to-Electricity Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Valerii Havrysh & Antonina Kalinichenko & Edyta Szafranek & Vasyl Hruban, 2022. "Agricultural Land: Crop Production or Photovoltaic Power Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    9. He, Jiaxin & Liu, Ying & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Should China support the development of biomass power generation?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 416-425.
    10. Xuerong Li & Faliang Gui & Qingpeng Li, 2019. "Can Hydropower Still Be Considered a Clean Energy Source? Compelling Evidence from a Middle-Sized Hydropower Station in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Reyseliani, Nadhilah & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu, 2021. "Pathway towards 100% renewable energy in Indonesia power system by 2050," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 305-321.
    12. Li, Jinying & Li, Sisi & Wu, Fan, 2020. "Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power project based on life cycle assessment theory," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 456-468.
    13. Christos S. Ioakimidis & Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis, 2018. "Integration of Seawater Pumped-Storage in the Energy System of the Island of São Miguel (Azores)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Jager, Henriette I. & Griffiths, Natalie A. & Hansen, Carly H. & King, Anthony W. & Matson, Paul G. & Singh, Debjani & Pilla, Rachel M., 2022. "Getting lost tracking the carbon footprint of hydropower," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    15. Héctor Álvarez & Guillermo Domínguez & Almudena Ordóñez & Javier Menéndez & Rodrigo Álvarez & Jorge Loredo, 2021. "Mine Water for the Generation and Storage of Renewable Energy: A Hybrid Hydro–Wind System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Alberto Gianoli & Rishi Bhatnagar, 2019. "Managing the Water-Energy Nexus within a Climate Change Context—Lessons from the Experience of Cuenca, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    17. João Paulo Guerra & Fernando Henrique Cardoso & Alex Nogueira & Luiz Kulay, 2018. "Thermodynamic and Environmental Analysis of Scaling up Cogeneration Units Driven by Sugarcane Biomass to Enhance Power Exports," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
    18. Murillo Vetroni Barros & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Antonio Carlos De Francisco, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation in Brazil: An Analysis of the 2016–2026 Period," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Fan, Yee Van & Romanenko, Sergey & Gai, Limei & Kupressova, Ekaterina & Varbanov, Petar Sabev & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, 2021. "Biomass integration for energy recovery and efficient use of resources: Tomsk Region," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).

    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. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    2. Patel, Madhumita & Zhang, Xiaolei & Kumar, Amit, 2016. "Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1486-1499.
    3. Yang, Qing & Han, Fei & Chen, Yingquan & Yang, Haiping & Chen, Hanping, 2016. "Greenhouse gas emissions of a biomass-based pyrolysis plant in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1580-1590.
    4. Shafie, S.M. & Mahlia, T.M.I. & Masjuki, H.H., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power generation in Malaysia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 284-294.
    5. Murphy, Fionnuala & Sosa, Amanda & McDonnell, Kevin & Devlin, Ger, 2016. "Life cycle assessment of biomass-to-energy systems in Ireland modelled with biomass supply chain optimisation based on greenhouse gas emission reduction," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1040-1055.
    6. Maung, Thein A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2013. "Economic factors influencing potential use of cellulosic crop residues for electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-91.
    7. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    8. Restrepo, Álvaro & Bazzo, Edson, 2016. "Co-firing: An exergoenvironmental analysis applied to power plants modified for burning coal and rice straw," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 107-119.
    9. Dzikuć, Maciej & Piwowar, Arkadiusz, 2016. "Ecological and economic aspects of electric energy production using the biomass co-firing method: The case of Poland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 856-862.
    10. Thakur, Amit & Canter, Christina E. & Kumar, Amit, 2014. "Life-cycle energy and emission analysis of power generation from forest biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 246-253.
    11. Yuan Wang & Youzhen Yang, 2022. "Research on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Biomass Gasification Power Generation Technology in China Based on LCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Pöschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 3305-3321, November.
    13. Leonel J. R. Nunes & João C. O. Matias, 2020. "Biomass Torrefaction as a Key Driver for the Sustainable Development and Decarbonization of Energy Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, January.
    14. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Pongrácz, Eva & Fabritius, Timo, 2013. "The potential of using biomass-based reducing agents in the blast furnace: A review of thermochemical conversion technologies and assessments related to sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 511-528.
    15. Hadi Karimi & Sandra D. Ekşioğlu & Michael Carbajales-Dale, 2021. "A biobjective chance constrained optimization model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of biopower supply chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 95-130, January.
    16. Xinhua Shen & Raghava R. Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2015. "The Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Power Generation from Lignocellulosic Biomass," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Cambero, Claudia & Hans Alexandre, Mariane & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2015. "Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 59-72.
    18. Brassard, P. & Godbout, S. & Hamelin, L., 2021. "Framework for consequential life cycle assessment of pyrolysis biorefineries: A case study for the conversion of primary forestry residues," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. He, Jiaxin & Liu, Ying & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Should China support the development of biomass power generation?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 416-425.
    20. Agar, D. & Gil, J. & Sanchez, D. & Echeverria, I. & Wihersaari, M., 2015. "Torrefied versus conventional pellet production – A comparative study on energy and emission balance based on pilot-plant data and EU sustainability criteria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 621-630.

    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:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1181-:d:82976. 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.