IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10594-d464308.html

Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Performance Analysis of Bagasse-Based Electricity in Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Hafiz Usman Ghani

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

  • Awais Mahmood

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

  • Asmat Ullah

    (US Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76020, Pakistan)

  • Shabbir H. Gheewala

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

Abstract

Bagasse-based electricity is gaining attention as an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and promising renewable energy source in Pakistan. Therefore, the focus of this analysis was to identify the environmental burdens associated with bagasse-based electricity production via high-pressure cogeneration. The scope of this study was defined as cradle to gate; involving cane production, cane transportation to the mill, the production of bagasse, and then the burning of bagasse in the cogeneration power plant to produce electricity. The overall results revealed that most of the impacts were contributed by the agricultural phase. For some impact categories—such as global warming, fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, and fossil resource scarcity—the bagasse-based electricity performed better than the grid mix electricity. However, the grid mix electricity performed better than the bagasse-based electricity in terms of eutrophication, land use, and water consumption. When considering the final damage, the bagasse-based electricity proved to be the favorable option in terms of human health and resource availability; however, ecosystem quality was poor in bagasse-based electricity. In terms of environmental prices, the bagasse-based electricity was found to be a promising option compared to the grid mix electricity.

Suggested Citation

  • Hafiz Usman Ghani & Awais Mahmood & Asmat Ullah & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2020. "Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Performance Analysis of Bagasse-Based Electricity in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10594-:d:464308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10594/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10594/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lopes Silva, Diogo Aparecido & Delai, Ivete & Delgado Montes, Mary Laura & Roberto Ometto, Aldo, 2014. "Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 532-547.
    3. Uzair, Muhammad & Sohail, Syed Sarosh & Shaikh, Nasir Uddin & Shan, Ali, 2020. "Agricultural residue as an alternate energy source: A case study of Punjab province, Pakistan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 2066-2074.
    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. Ukrit Jaroenkietkajorn & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2026. "Moving Towards Sustainability of Sugarcane Value Chain through Bio-Circular-Green Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1-37, April.
    2. Muhammad Fahad Ejaz & Muhammad Rizwan Riaz & Rizwan Azam & Rashid Hameed & Anam Fatima & Ahmed Farouk Deifalla & Abdeliazim Mustafa Mohamed, 2022. "Physico-Mechanical Characterization of Gypsum-Agricultural Waste Composites for Developing Eco-Friendly False Ceiling Tiles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Duong Minh Ngoc & Montri Luengchavanon & Pham Thi Anh & Kim Humphreys & Kuaanan Techato, 2022. "Shades of Green: Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Small-Scale Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Tree," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-21, October.

    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. Ling-Chin, J. & Heidrich, O. & Roskilly, A.P., 2016. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) – from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA framework for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 352-378.
    2. Gao, Cheng-kang & Na, Hong-ming & Song, Kai-hui & Dyer, Noel & Tian, Fan & Xu, Qing-jiang & Xing, Yu-hong, 2019. "Environmental impact analysis of power generation from biomass and wind farms in different locations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    3. 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).
    4. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    5. Moroni, Stefano & Antoniucci, Valentina & Bisello, Adriano, 2016. "Energy sprawl, land taking and distributed generation: towards a multi-layered density," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 266-273.
    6. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    7. Ludin, Norasikin Ahmad & Mustafa, Nur Ifthitah & Hanafiah, Marlia M. & Ibrahim, Mohd Adib & Asri Mat Teridi, Mohd & Sepeai, Suhaila & Zaharim, Azami & Sopian, Kamaruzzaman, 2018. "Prospects of life cycle assessment of renewable energy from solar photovoltaic technologies: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 11-28.
    8. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2016. "Estimation of Turkey׳s GHG emissions from electricity generation by fuel types," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 832-840.
    9. Iosifov Valeriy Victorovich & Evgenii Yu. Khrustalev & Sergey N. Larin & Oleg E. Khrustalev, 2021. "The Linear Programming Problem of Regional Energy System Optimization," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 281-288.
    10. Wang, Yuting & Zhou, Yuegui, 2025. "Equipment capacity matching methodology and techno-economic analysis for a novel low-carbon multi-energy system with the integration of oxy-coal combustion power plant and power-to-gas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    11. Jabeen, Gul & Ahmad, Munir & Zhang, Qingyu, 2021. "Perceived critical factors affecting consumers’ intention to purchase renewable generation technologies: Rural-urban heterogeneity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Alizadeh, Sadegh & Avami, Akram, 2021. "Development of a framework for the sustainability evaluation of renewable and fossil fuel power plants using integrated LCA-emergy analysis: A case study in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1548-1564.
    14. Kis, Zoltán & Pandya, Nikul & Koppelaar, Rembrandt H.E.M., 2018. "Electricity generation technologies: Comparison of materials use, energy return on investment, jobs creation and CO2 emissions reduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 144-157.
    15. Nur Izzah Hamna A. Aziz & Marlia M. Hanafiah & Shabbir H. Gheewala & Haikal Ismail, 2020. "Bioenergy for a Cleaner Future: A Case Study of Sustainable Biogas Supply Chain in the Malaysian Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    16. Jenniches, Simon & Worrell, Ernst & Fumagalli, Elena, 2019. "Regional economic and environmental impacts of wind power developments: A case study of a German region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 499-514.
    17. Dai, Tao & Scown, Corinne D., 2025. "A novel approach for large-scale wind energy potential assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    18. Abbasi, H.N. & Zeeshan, Muhammad, 2023. "An integrated Geographic Information System and Analytical Hierarchy process based approach for site suitability analysis of on-grid hybrid concentrated solar-biomass powerplant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    19. Nogueira, Carlos Eduardo Camargo & de Souza, Samuel Nelson Melegari & Micuanski, Viviane Cavaler & Azevedo, Ricardo Lessa, 2015. "Exploring possibilities of energy insertion from vinasse biogas in the energy matrix of Paraná State, Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 300-305.
    20. Coilín ÓhAiseadha & Gerré Quinn & Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly & Willie Soon, 2020. "Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-49, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10594-:d:464308. 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.