IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v285y2023ics0360544223027871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy recovery and GHG impact assessment of biomass, polymers, and coal

Author

Listed:
  • Bourtsalas, A.C. (Thanos)

Abstract

In recent decades, rising energy consumption, population growth, and material production have contributed to environmental degradation. Harnessing the chemical energy in these materials in a circular economy can mitigate these issues. While recycling processes recover valuable constituents, significant post-recycling fractions remain viable for energy recovery. This study investigates the energy recovery potential from biomass materials via combustion, gasification, and anaerobic treatment, and from polymers and coal through combustion and gasification. Some materials not typically considered for combustion, such as food and green waste, are included due to their potential processing in combustion plants. Using thermodynamic principles, we assess the limits and opportunities for sustainable energy recovery across 200 materials, identifying correlations between the heating value and compositional analyses. The study also estimates the potential products and environmental impacts of energy production from these materials. Despite their lower heating value, biomass materials offer considerable net carbon reductions, but land use, water consumption, public health issues, and feedstock supply risks warrant consideration. Biomass combustion yields lower carbon emissions than polymer or coal combustion. Biomass and polymer gasification show high potential due to their higher H2/CO ratios. Anaerobic treatment of biomass materials generates significant methane, offering modest energy output. Synthetic polymers possess high heating values, comparable to fossil fuels, and provide net CO2 emission benefits, although substantially lower than those of biomass materials. Biomass combustion or gasification results in significantly lower NOx and SOx emissions compared to polymers and coal. Accounting for energy output, biomass gasification generates the lowest emissions per MJ.

Suggested Citation

  • Bourtsalas, A.C. (Thanos), 2023. "Energy recovery and GHG impact assessment of biomass, polymers, and coal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:285:y:2023:i:c:s0360544223027871
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.129393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223027871
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129393?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prins, Mark J. & Ptasinski, Krzysztof J. & Janssen, Frans J.J.G., 2007. "From coal to biomass gasification: Comparison of thermodynamic efficiency," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1248-1259.
    2. Salimifard, Parichehr & Buonocore, Jonathan J. & Konschnik, Kate & Azimi, Parham & VanRy, Marissa & Cedeno Laurent, Jose Guillermo & Hernández, Diana & Allen, Joseph G., 2022. "Climate policy impacts on building energy use, emissions, and health: New York City local law 97," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    3. Marcilla, A. & Catalá, L. & García-Quesada, J.C. & Valdés, F.J. & Hernández, M.R., 2013. "A review of thermochemical conversion of microalgae," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 11-19.
    4. Pala, Laxmi Prasad Rao & Wang, Qi & Kolb, Gunther & Hessel, Volker, 2017. "Steam gasification of biomass with subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: An Aspen Plus model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-492.
    5. Patuzzi, Francesco & Basso, Daniele & Vakalis, Stergios & Antolini, Daniele & Piazzi, Stefano & Benedetti, Vittoria & Cordioli, Eleonora & Baratieri, Marco, 2021. "State-of-the-art of small-scale biomass gasification systems: An extensive and unique monitoring review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    6. Shafiee, Shahriar & Topal, Erkan, 2009. "When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 181-189, January.
    7. Sabine Fuss & Josep G. Canadell & Glen P. Peters & Massimo Tavoni & Robbie M. Andrew & Philippe Ciais & Robert B. Jackson & Chris D. Jones & Florian Kraxner & Nebosja Nakicenovic & Corinne Le Quéré & , 2014. "Betting on negative emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 850-853, October.
    8. Pete Smith & Steven J. Davis & Felix Creutzig & Sabine Fuss & Jan Minx & Benoit Gabrielle & Etsushi Kato & Robert B. Jackson & Annette Cowie & Elmar Kriegler & Detlef P. van Vuuren & Joeri Rogelj & Ph, 2016. "Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 42-50, January.
    9. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    10. 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.
    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. Dominic Woolf & Johannes Lehmann & David R. Lee, 2016. "Optimal bioenergy power generation for climate change mitigation with or without carbon sequestration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Ángel Galán-Martín & Daniel Vázquez & Selene Cobo & Niall Dowell & José Antonio Caballero & Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez, 2021. "Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. 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.
    4. EdwardA. Parson & HollyJ. Buck, 2020. "Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: The Problem ofPhasedown," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 70-92, August.
    5. Ge, Bingyao & Zhang, Man & Hu, Bin & Wu, Di & Zhu, Xuancan & Eicker, Ursula & Wang, Ruzhu, 2024. "Innovative process integrating high temperature heat pump and direct air capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    6. ElSayed, Mai & Aghahosseini, Arman & Caldera, Upeksha & Breyer, Christian, 2023. "Analysing the techno-economic impact of e-fuels and e-chemicals production for exports and carbon dioxide removal on the energy system of sunbelt countries – Case of Egypt," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    7. Jason Hickel & Stéphane Hallegatte, 2022. "Can we live within environmental limits and still reduce poverty? Degrowth or decoupling?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(1), January.
    8. Sugiyama, Masahiro & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Wada, Kenichi & Endo, Seiya & Fujii, Yasumasa & Komiyama, Ryoichi & Kato, Etsushi & Kurosawa, Atsushi & Matsuo, Yuhji & Oshiro, Ken & Sano, Fuminori & Shira, 2019. "Japan's long-term climate mitigation policy: Multi-model assessment and sectoral challenges," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 1120-1131.
    9. Ibrahim, A. & Veremieiev, S. & Gaskell, P.H., 2022. "An advanced, comprehensive thermochemical equilibrium model of a downdraft biomass gasifier," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 912-925.
    10. María Pilar González-Vázquez & Fernando Rubiera & Covadonga Pevida & Daniel T. Pio & Luís A.C. Tarelho, 2021. "Thermodynamic Analysis of Biomass Gasification Using Aspen Plus: Comparison of Stoichiometric and Non-Stoichiometric Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Kang, Jia-Ning & Zhang, Yun-Long & Chen, Weiming, 2022. "Delivering negative emissions innovation on the right track: A patent analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. P. A. Turner & C. B. Field & D. B. Lobell & D. L. Sanchez & K. J. Mach, 2018. "Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 240-245, May.
    13. Ribas, Aline & Lucena, André F.P. & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2017. "Bridging the energy divide and securing higher collective well-being in a climate-constrained world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 435-450.
    14. Laurie Waller & Tim Rayner & Jason Chilvers & Clair Amanda Gough & Irene Lorenzoni & Andrew Jordan & Naomi Vaughan, 2020. "Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), July.
    15. Julianne DeAngelo & Inês Azevedo & John Bistline & Leon Clarke & Gunnar Luderer & Edward Byers & Steven J. Davis, 2021. "Energy systems in scenarios at net-zero CO2 emissions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Paulina Schiappacasse & Bernhard Müller & Le Thuy Linh, 2019. "Towards Responsible Aggregate Mining in Vietnam," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Pina Puntillo, 2023. "Circular economy business models: Towards achieving sustainable development goals in the waste management sector—Empirical evidence and theoretical implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 941-954, March.
    18. AlNouss, Ahmed & McKay, Gordon & Al-Ansari, Tareq, 2020. "Enhancing waste to hydrogen production through biomass feedstock blending: A techno-economic-environmental evaluation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    19. Migo-Sumagang, Maria Victoria & Tan, Raymond R. & Aviso, Kathleen B., 2023. "A multi-period model for optimizing negative emission technology portfolios with economic and carbon value discount rates," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    20. Ali Mubarak Al-Qahtani, 2023. "A Comprehensive Review in Microwave Pyrolysis of Biomass, Syngas Production and Utilisation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, September.

    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:285:y:2023:i:c:s0360544223027871. 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.