Comparative analysis of different CHP systems using biogas for the cassava starch plants

Yin, Yongjun; Chen, Shaoxu; Li, Xusheng; Jiang, Bo; Zhao, Joe RuHe; Nong, Guangzai

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121028

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the case of methane and considering the average scenario, the CH 4 flow rate of 91.04 m 3 /minute would involve a total power generation capacity of 5925.32 kW and net energy production of 35,018 GWh/year. This energy potential is consistent with reported projects that used similar technologies (Coskuner et al, 2020; Yin et al, 2021). By contrast, the waste incineration would produce 537.71 GWh/year.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

A comparison assessment of landfill waste incineration and methane capture in the central region of Mexico

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to conduct a techno-economic feasibility assessment of producing energy by waste incineration and methane capture in the central region of Mexico. Three scenarios at different efficiency rates were considered: 50, 80 and 100%. For the methane project, yields and power capacity were determined using the potential generation rate and the degradable organic carbon content through the LandGEM model. For incineration, the waste calorific potential and the average moisture content were used to estimate the achievable electrical performance. The estimated annual energy was 35,018 GWh for methane, compared to 537.71 GWh for incineration. Both projects reported financial economic feasibilities when evaluated at a discount rate of 12%. Incineration reported an net present value of US$49,942,534 and an internal rate of return of 26% in contrast to US$4,054,109 and 17% for the methane project. Although the payback period for incineration was lower than for methane, its levelized cost of energy was significantly higher. These results are intended to assist the decision-making process when planning and developing waste management strategies under principles of circular economy in Mexico and similar regions worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

A comparison assessment of landfill waste incineration and methane capture in the central region of Mexico

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CHP unit for biogas utilization provides the most carbon offset (226.0 kgCO 2 -eq/t). The energy utilization efficiency in the CHP unit of biogas is generally above 60%, earning considerable heating and electricity credits. It is generally believed that land use of fiber digestate and liquid digestate earns the best environmental benefits, and its contribution to carbon reduction is comparable to that of biogas utilization .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The amount of biogas is about 100 m 3 per tonne of FW, where the methane content is 63% (v/v) . Biogas generated from the fermentation process is combusted in a CHP unit, with a power efficiency of 33% and heat efficiency of 30% . After the digestate is dewatered, the liquid digestate is treated by an “Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor + Membrane Bioreactor + Nanofiltration + Reverse Osmosis” (UASB + MBR + NF + RO) process before being discharged into surface water, consuming 30 kWh per tonne of liquid .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change Impact of Diverse Food Waste Valorization Processes beyond Anaerobic Digestion

Guo

Liao

et al. 2023

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the beneficial utilization of food waste (FW), valorization processes that output high-value products including carbon source alternatives for biological nutrient removal, biochar, or refuse-derived fuels (RDF) are reported to be technically and economically beneficial, while the climate change impact of these emerging valorization technologies is unclear and lacks a benchmark for comparison. In this study, the climate change impacts of six diverse valorization scenarios for FW were evaluated through a life cycle assessment and compared with that of incineration and anaerobic digestion (AD). Six valorization scenarios all exhibit better climate change benefits than incineration (−40.8 kgCO2-eq/t), and hydrolysis for the carbon source alternatives production coupled with thermal drying-RDF scenario and thermal drying-RDF scenario achieves the best (−276.8 kgCO2-eq/t) and the second-best (−224.2 kgCO2-eq/t) climate change benefits beyond AD with digestate incineration (−149.1 kgCO2-eq/t). Sensitivity analysis implies that the diverse total solid content of FW, biodrying efficiency, hydrolysis efficiency, dewatering efficiency, and energy efficiency of biomass power plants are key parameters affecting the global warming potential results. This study provided the data basis and insight for estimating the climate change relating to FW valorization decision-making.

show abstract

“…Each pretreatment has merits and demerits and should be chosen carefully to improve methane yield and avoid downstream processing (Periyasamy et al 2022 ). After the anaerobic digestion process, biogas can be combusted directly as a cooking fuel (Rajendran et al 2013 ), combusted in a combined heat and power unit for heat and power generation (Yin et al 2021 ), combusted in a boiler for heat generation (Kim et al 2020 ), reformed for hydrogen production (Guerrero et al 2020 ), or upgraded into pure biomethane (Ardolino et al 2021 ). Another important process after anaerobic digestion is managing the digestate generated after biogas production (Alengebawy et al 2022b ).…”

Section: Bioenergymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rice straw for energy and value-added products in China: a review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of global waste and the decline of fossil fuels are calling for recycling waste into energy and materials. For example, rice straw, a by-product of rice cultivation, can be converted into biogas and by-products with added value, e.g., biofertilizer, yet processing rice straw is limited by the low energy content, high ash and silica, low nitrogen, high moisture, and high-quality variability. Here, we review the recycling of rice straw with focus on the global and Chinese energy situations, conversion of rice straw into energy and gas, biogas digestate management, cogeneration, biogas upgrading, bioeconomy, and life cycle assessment. The quality of rice straw can be improved by pretreatments, such as baling, ensiling, and co-digestion of rice straw with other feedstocks. The biogas digestate can be used to fertilize soils. The average annual potential energy of collectable rice straw, with a lower heating value of 15.35 megajoule/kilogram, over the past ten years (2013–2022) could reach 2.41 × 109 megajoule.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of different CHP systems using biogas for the cassava starch plants

Cited by 22 publications

References 49 publications

A comparison assessment of landfill waste incineration and methane capture in the central region of Mexico

A comparison assessment of landfill waste incineration and methane capture in the central region of Mexico

Climate Change Impact of Diverse Food Waste Valorization Processes beyond Anaerobic Digestion

Rice straw for energy and value-added products in China: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About