Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass utilization for electricity generation in the European Union and the United States

Beagle, Emily; Belmont, Erica L.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.006

Cited by 71 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biomass systems have impacts during the cultivation/harvest stage, especially on land use and climate change [19] but also during combustion, depending on the type of biomass used [20].…”

Section: Life-cycle Assessment (Lca) Of Electricity Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cost is still a disadvantage (113 $/MWh vs. 95.1 $/MWh for the coal-based electricity) however if the processing cost is reduced, it could lower the total cost of biopower. -Beagle et al, 2019 [20]: The study focused on biomass utilization for electricity generation in the EU and in the USA, it was found out that for 1 kWh generated, the GWP could be 76% lower than coal-based electricity (0.28 vs. 1 kg CO 2 /kWh), however the results are largely dependent on the biomass heating value, the type of wood (chips or pellets), and the biomass transportation distance. -Sanchez Moore et al, 2019 [73]: A focus on co-generation process operated with sugarcane biomass (bagasse and straw) in Brazil, the lowest environmental impact was found at 688 kg CO 2 eq/MWh with a high boiler operating pressure (100 bar), a straw addition rate of 50% and a low moisture content (10%).…”

Section: Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The external costs derived from the environmental impacts of electricity generation can be significant and should not be underrated, as their consideration can be useful to establish a ranking between different electricity generation sources to inform decision-makers. The aim of this research is to transparently evaluate the recent external cost of electricity generation in G20 countries using a global life-cycle impact-assessment (LCIA) method: life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME3). The weighting factors developed in the LIME3 method for each G20 country enable one to convert the different environmental impacts (not only climate change and air pollution) resulting from the emissions and resources consumption during the full lifecycle of electricity generation—from resource extraction to electricity generation—into a monetary value. Moreover, in LIME3, not only the weighting factors are developed for each G20 country but also all the impact categories. Using this method, it was possible to determine accurately which resources or emission had an environmental impact in each country. This study shows that the countries relying heavily on coal, such as India (0.172 $/kWh) or Indonesia (0.135 $/kWh) have the highest external costs inside the G20, with air pollution and climate accounting together for more than 80% of the costs. In these two countries, the ratio of the external cost/market price was the highest in the G20, at 2.3 and 1.7, respectively. On the other hand, countries with a higher reliance on renewable energies, such as Canada (0.008 $/kWh) or Brazil (0.012 $/kWh) have lower induced costs. When comparing with the market price, it has to be noted also that for instance Canada is able to generate cheap electricity with a low-external cost. For most of the other G20 countries, this cost was estimated at between about 0.020$ and 0.040 $/kWh. By estimating the external cost of each electricity generation technology available in each G20 country, this study also highlighted that sometimes the external cost of the electricity generated from one specific technology can be significant even when using renewables due to resource scarcity—for example, the 0.068 $/kWh of electricity generated from hydropower in India. This information, missing from most previous studies, should not be omitted by decision makers when considering which type of electricity generation source to prioritize.

show abstract

“…Biomass systems have impacts during the cultivation/harvest stage, especially on land use and climate change [19] but also during combustion, depending on the type of biomass used [20].…”

Section: Life-cycle Assessment (Lca) Of Electricity Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research revealed that the overall efficiency of the system and the applied technology have a significant impact on the environmental consequences. Beagle and Belmont [30] discussed the advantage of wood chips and pellets utilization for electricity production in relation to hard coal. It was underlined that the transportation type and distance play an important role in the final results of the LCA analysis.…”

Section: Peach Cherry Citrusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life-Cycle Assessment of the Use of Peach Pruning Residues for Electricity Generation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass residues from permanent crops might be an alternative fuel for energy generation in a local market with limited transport distances. Moreover, as activities related to CO2 reduction are of special attention in the European Union (EU), sustainable use of resources plays an important role in climate change mitigation. In this paper, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the integrated value chain from peach pruning residues for electricity generation is presented and compared with the common practice including the mulching process of the pruned biomass in an orchard. It was shown that biomass harvesting, chipping and its delivery to a power plant—the Pruning-to-Energy (PtE) scenario—is feasible from an environmental point of view. The total global warming potential (GWP) of this value chain was 200 kg CO2 eq.·ha−1 (or 27 kg CO2 eq.·GJ−1). In turn, the mulching and leaving of the pruned biomass in an orchard—the pruning-to-soil (PtS) scenario—is characterized by a CO2 equivalent of 2360 kg·ha−1. Other impact categories showed a lower environmental impact for the PtE scenario as well. When considering the Spanish electricity-mix instead of coal-based electricity, the PtS scenario score better in most impact categories, but the GWP for the PtE scenario remains lower.

show abstract

“…A generalized model for estimation of bioenergy emissions is presented in Ref. [6]. Emissions for biomass firing alone and co-firing with coal using wood chips and pellets are compared to a baseline coal-fired power plant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emissions for biomass firing alone and co-firing with coal using wood chips and pellets are compared to a baseline coal-fired power plant. In nearly all cases, biomass utilization for electricity production produces lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to the coal baseline, with emission reductions as high as 76% [6]. Thus, biomass can indeed be co-fired with coal to reduce the impact of fossil-fuel power plants on the environment [7].To help in the transition to fully replace fossil fuels, co-firing of coal and biomass provides a less expensive means [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coal-Biomass Co-Firing Power Generation Technology: Current Status, Challenges and Policy Implications

Yang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The severity of climate change and the urgency of ecological environment protection make the transformation of coal power imperative. In this paper, the relevant policies of coal-biomass co-firing power generation are combed, and the technical and economic evaluation of coal-biomass co-firing power generation technology is carried out using Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) model. The result is that the LCOE of coal-biomass indirect co-firing power generation project is significantly higher than that of the pure coal-fired unit, with the LCOE rising by nearly 8%. Through sensitivity analysis, the LCOE will increase by 10.7% when it combusts 15% biomass, and increase by 19.1% when it combusts 20% biomass. The LCOE corresponding to wood chips increased by 5.71% and the LCOE to rice husks decreased by 6.06%. Finally, this paper puts forward some relevant policy suggestions, hoping to provide some reference for the promotion of coal-biomass co-firing power generation in China.

show abstract

Comparative life cycle assessment of biomass utilization for electricity generation in the European Union and the United States

Cited by 71 publications

References 33 publications

External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method

External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method

Life-Cycle Assessment of the Use of Peach Pruning Residues for Electricity Generation

Coal-Biomass Co-Firing Power Generation Technology: Current Status, Challenges and Policy Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About