Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass

Heller, Martin; Keoleian, Gregory A.; Mann, Margaret; Volk, Timothy A.

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2003.11.018

Cited by 178 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the provision phase, emissions occurred from the use of machinery during cultivation and harvesting in the case of energy crops, whereas no emissions were typically associated with wood residues (adopting a zero burden approach). Combustion of furniture wood residues may result in larger emissions due to the nitrogen content of the fuel [71]. Emissions of SO 2 also showed high variability for all three technologies assessed, ranging from 0.03 to 0.94 kg SO 2 /MWh, with the largest contribution from fuel provision.…”

Section: Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Determination of emission factors for electricity generation from multi-stream systems involves allocation of emissions, which makes results uncertain because they are highly influenced by the chosen allocation criteria [78]. To avoid this allocation issue, in some cases, authors perform system expansion and provide emission factors based on the fuel mix (e.g., coal and biomass) [71]. However, both allocation and system expansion limit comparability among studies because of the subjective underlying assumption (e.g., allocation criteria) and the countless number of possible fuel mixes and operational conditions.…”

Section: Multi-input/output Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations

Turconi

Boldrin

Astrup

2013

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

576

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electricity generation is a key contributor to global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), NO x and SO 2 and their related environmental impact. A critical review of 167 case studies involving the life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation based on hard coal, lignite, natural gas, oil, nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind was carried out to identify ranges of emission data for GHG, NO x and SO 2 related to individual technologies. It was shown that GHG emissions could not be used as a single indicator to represent the environmental performance of a system or technology. Emission data were evaluated with respect to three life cycle phases (fuel provision, plant operation, and infrastructure). Direct emissions from plant operation represented the majority of the life cycle emissions for fossil fuel technologies, whereas fuel provision represented the largest contribution for biomass technologies (71% for GHG, 54% for NO x and 61% for SO 2 ) and nuclear power (60% for GHG, 82% for NO x and 92% for SO 2 ); infrastructures provided the highest impact for renewables. These data indicated that all three phases should be included for completeness and to avoid problem shifting. The most critical methodological aspects in relation to LCA studies were identified as follows: definition of the functional unit, the LCA method employed (e.g., IOA, PCA and hybrid), the emission allocation principle and/or system boundary expansion. The most important technological aspects were identified as follows: the energy recovery efficiency and the flue gas cleaning system for fossil fuel technologies; the electricity mix used during both the manufacturing and the construction phases for nuclear and renewable technologies; and the type, quality and origin of feedstock, as well as the amount and type of co-products, for biomass-based systems. This review demonstrates that the variability of existing LCA results for electricity generation can give rise to conflicting decisions regarding the environmental consequences of implementing new technologies.

show abstract

Section: Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multi-input/output Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations

Turconi

Boldrin

Astrup

2013

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

576

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This allows comparison of the potential benefits/drawbacks of the bioenergy system in question. As such, the results of this LCA are compared to some common fossil fuels including coal and peat, feedstocks with which biomass is commonly co-fired in Ireland (Mann & Spath, 2001;Heller et al, 2004;Styles & Jones, 2008;Sebasti an et al, 2011).…”

Section: Why Life Cycle Assessment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy requirements and environmental impacts associated with the production of short rotation willow (Salix sp.) chip in Ireland

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Willow Salix sp. is currently cultivated as a short rotation forestry crop in Ireland as a source of biomass to contribute to renewable energy goals. The aim of this study is to evaluate the energy requirements and environmental impacts associated with willow (Salix sp.) cultivation, harvest, and transport using life cycle assessment (LCA). In this study, only emissions from the production of the willow chip are included, end-use emissions from combustion are not considered. In this LCA study, three impact categories are considered; acidification potential, eutrophication potential and global warming potential. In addition, the cumulative energy demand and energy ratio of the system are evaluated. The results identify three key processes in the production chain which contribute most to all impact categories considered; maintenance, harvest and transportation of the crop. Sensitivity analysis on the type of fertilizers used, harvesting technologies and transport distances highlights the effects of these management techniques on overall system performance. Replacement of synthetic fertilizer with biosolids results in a reduction in overall energy demand, but raises acidification potential, eutrophication potential and global warming potential. Rod harvesting compares unfavourably in comparison with direct chip harvesting in each of the impact categories considered due to the additional chipping step required. The results show that dedicated truck transport is preferable to tractor-trailer transport in terms of energy demand and environmental impacts. Finally, willow chip production compares favourably with coal provision in terms of energy ratio and global warming potential, while achieving a higher energy ratio than peat provision but also a higher global warming potential.

show abstract

“…The results indicated that renewable energy, especially wind and biomass, should be the new generating capacity [17]. Since biomass power generation project is still on the primary stage, external costs of biomass co-fired with coal power generation are estimated in many studies [18][19][20][21]. One of the insights from these studies is that fossil power generation, particularly coal-fired power generation, with adverse impacts and its high life cycle costs are widespread, and therefore policy and decisions need to be made in an energy diversity framework so that outcomes are socially acceptable, environmentally benign and economically viable.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monetization of External Costs Using Lifecycle Analysis—A Comparative Case Study of Coal-Fired and Biomass Power Plants in Northeast China

Wang

Watanabe

Xu³

2015

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this study, the structures of external costs are built in line with coal-fired and biomass power plant life cycle activities in Northeast China. The external cost of coal-fired and biomass power plants was compared, using the lifecycle approach. In addition, the external costs of a biomass power plant are calculated for each stage for comparison with those of a coal-fired power plant. The results highlight that the external costs of a coal-fired plant are 0.072 US $/kWh, which are much higher than that of a biomass power plant, 0.00012 US$/kWh. The external cost of coal-fired power generation is as much as 90% of the current price of electricity generated by coal, while the external cost of a biomass power plant is 1/1000 of the current price of electricity generated by biomass. In addition, for a biomass power plant, the external cost associated with SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are particularly lower than those of a coal-fired power plant. The prospect of establishing precise estimations for external cost mechanisms and sustainable energy policies is discussed to show a possible direction for future energy schemes in China. The paper has significant value for supporting the biomass power industry and taxing or regulating coal-fired power industry to optimize the energy structure in China. OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2015, 8 1441

show abstract

Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass

Cited by 178 publications

References 12 publications

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations

Energy requirements and environmental impacts associated with the production of short rotation willow (Salix sp.) chip in Ireland

Monetization of External Costs Using Lifecycle Analysis—A Comparative Case Study of Coal-Fired and Biomass Power Plants in Northeast China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About