IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v36y2011i4p2029-2037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastián, F.
  • Royo, J.
  • Gómez, M.

Abstract

One way of producing nearly CO2 free electricity is by using biomass as a combustible. In many cases, removal of CO2 in biomass grown is almost the same as the emissions for the bioelectricity production at the power plant. For this reason, bioelectricity is generally considered CO2 neutral. For large-scale biomass electricity generation two alternatives can be considered: biomass-only fired power plants, or cofiring in an existing coal power plant. Among other factors, two important aspects should be analyzed in order to choose between the two options. Firstly, which is the most appealing alternative if their Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions savings are taken into account. Secondly, which biomass resource is the best, if the highest impact reduction is sought. In order to quantify all the GHG emissions related to each system, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been performed and all the processes involved in each alternative have been assessed in a cradle-to-grave manner. Sensitivity analyses of the most dominant parameters affecting GHG emissions, and comparisons between the obtained results, have also been carried out.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:36:y:2011:i:4:p:2029-2037
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210003178
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt96z5s545 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Malça, João & Freire, Fausto, 2006. "Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): Assessing the implications of allocation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 3362-3380.
    3. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2007. "A centurial history of technological change and learning curves for pulverized coal-fired utility boilers," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1996-2005.
    4. Ericsson, Karin, 2007. "Co-firing—A strategy for bioenergy in Poland?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1838-1847.
    5. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt3zz2w2wr is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bugge, Jørgen & Kjær, Sven & Blum, Rudolph, 2006. "High-efficiency coal-fired power plants development and perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1437-1445.
    7. Horne, Ralph E. & Mortimer, Nigel D. & Hetherington, Robert & Grant, John F., 1996. "A comparative assessment of the energy and carbon balance of utilizing straw," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 77-86.
    8. van den Broek, R & Teeuwisse, S & Healion, K & Kent, T & van Wijk, A & Faaij, A & Turkenburg, W, 2001. "Potentials for electricity production from wood in Ireland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(11), pages 991-1013.
    9. Cherubini, Francesco, 2010. "GHG balances of bioenergy systems – Overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1565-1573.
    10. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt1f25b3xq is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    12. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt4xn4w7rn is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Ren, Hongbo & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi & Gao, Weijun, 2010. "Integrated design and evaluation of biomass energy system taking into consideration demand side characteristics," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2210-2222.
    5. 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.
    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. Castanheira, Érica Geraldes & Acevedo, Helmer & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Greenhouse gas intensity of palm oil produced in Colombia addressing alternative land use change and fertilization scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 958-967.
    8. Yao, Lingxiang & Guan, Zhiwen & Wang, Yang & Hui, Hongxun & Luo, Shuyu & Jia, Chuyun & You, Xingxing & Xiao, Xianyong, 2025. "Evaluating the feasibility of concentrated solar power as a replacement for coal-fired power in China: A comprehensive comparative analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 377(PA).
    9. Gómez, Antonio & Zubizarreta, Javier & Rodrigues, Marcos & Dopazo, César & Fueyo, Norberto, 2010. "An estimation of the energy potential of agro-industrial residues in Spain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 972-984.
    10. Styles, David & Jones, Michael B., 2007. "Current and future financial competitiveness of electricity and heat from energy crops: A case study from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4355-4367, August.
    11. Portugal Pereira, Joana & Troncoso Parady, Giancarlos & Castro Dominguez, Bernardo, 2014. "Japan's energy conundrum: Post-Fukushima scenarios from a life cycle perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 104-115.
    12. Evgeny Lisin & Andrey Rogalev & Wadim Strielkowski & Ivan Komarov, 2015. "Sustainable Modernization of the Russian Power Utilities Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-23, August.
    13. Yi, Ji Hyun & Ko, Woong & Park, Jong-Keun & Park, Hyeongon, 2018. "Impact of carbon emission constraint on design of small scale multi-energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 792-808.
    14. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Gasol, Carles M. & Martínez, Sergio & Rigola, Miquel & Rieradevall, Joan & Anton, Assumpció & Carrasco, Juan & Ciria, Pilar & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2009. "Feasibility assessment of poplar bioenergy systems in the Southern Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 801-812, May.
    16. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    17. Kumar, Indraneel & Tyner, Wallace E. & Sinha, Kumares C., 2016. "Input–output life cycle environmental assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 294-301.
    18. Kim, Dongin & Han, Jeehoon, 2020. "Comprehensive analysis of two catalytic processes to produce formic acid from carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    19. Wen, Shaoting & Buyukada, Musa & Evrendilek, Fatih & Liu, Jingyong, 2020. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of co-combustion/pyrolysis of textile dyeing sludge and incense sticks: Regression and machine-learning models," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 463-474.
    20. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:energy:v:36:y:2011:i:4:p:2029-2037. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.