IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i20p3864-d275753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CO 2 Efficiency Break Points for Processes Associated to Wood and Coal Transport and Heating

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Baťa

    (Institute of Administrative and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Studentská 84, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic)

  • Jan Fuka

    (Institute of Administrative and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Studentská 84, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic)

  • Petra Lešáková

    (Institute of Administrative and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Studentská 84, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic)

  • Jana Heckenbergerová

    (Institute of Administrative and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, Studentská 84, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This paper aims to deal with CO 2 emissions in energy production process in an original way, based on calculations of total specific CO 2 emissions, depending on the type of fuel and the transport distance. This paper has ambition to set a break point from where it is not worthwhile to use wood as an energy carrier as the alternative to coal. The reason for our study is the social urgency of selected problem. For example, in the area of public sector decision-making, wood heating is promoted regardless of the availability within the reasonable distance. From the current state of the research, it is also clear that none of the studies compare coal and biomass fuel transportation from the point of view of CO 2 production. For this purpose, an original methodology has been proposed. It is based on a modified life cycle assessment (LCA), supplemented with a system of equations. The proposed methodology has a generalizable nature, and therefore, it can be applied to different regions. However, calculation inputs and modelling are based on specific site data. Based on the presented numerical analysis, the key finding is the break point for associated processes at a distance of 1779.64 km, since when that it is better to burn brown coal than wood in terms of total CO 2 emissions. We can conclude that, in some cases, it is more efficient to use coal instead of wood as fuel in terms of CO 2 emissions, particularly in regard to transport distance and type of transport.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Baťa & Jan Fuka & Petra Lešáková & Jana Heckenbergerová, 2019. "CO 2 Efficiency Break Points for Processes Associated to Wood and Coal Transport and Heating," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:20:p:3864-:d:275753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/20/3864/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/20/3864/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Changbo & Chang, Yuan & Zhang, Lixiao & Pang, Mingyue & Hao, Yan, 2017. "A life-cycle comparison of the energy, environmental and economic impacts of coal versus wood pellets for generating heat in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 374-384.
    2. Sedjo, ROger A., 2013. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessments: Carbon Neutrality and Wood Biomass Energy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-11, Resources for the Future.
    3. Hondo, Hiroki, 2005. "Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 2042-2056.
    4. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    5. Weldu, Yemane W. & Assefa, Getachew & Jolliet, Olivier, 2017. "Life cycle human health and ecotoxicological impacts assessment of electricity production from wood biomass compared to coal fuel," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 564-574.
    6. Zhu Liu & Dabo Guan & Wei Wei & Steven J. Davis & Philippe Ciais & Jin Bai & Shushi Peng & Qiang Zhang & Klaus Hubacek & Gregg Marland & Robert J. Andres & Douglas Crawford-Brown & Jintai Lin & Hongya, 2015. "Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 524(7565), pages 335-338, August.
    7. Thakur, Amit & Canter, Christina E. & Kumar, Amit, 2014. "Life-cycle energy and emission analysis of power generation from forest biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 246-253.
    8. Nian, Victor, 2016. "The carbon neutrality of electricity generation from woody biomass and coal, a critical comparative evaluation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1069-1080.
    9. Tarantini, Mario & Loprieno, Arianna Dominici & Cucchi, Eleonora & Frenquellucci, Ferdinando, 2009. "Life Cycle Assessment of waste management systems in Italian industrial areas: Case study of 1st Macrolotto of Prato," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 613-622.
    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. Wen-Hsien Tsai, 2020. "Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-7, November.

    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. Raghava Rao Kommalapati & Iqbal Hossan & Venkata Sai Vamsi Botlaguduru & Hongbo Du & Ziaul Huque, 2018. "Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Biomass Co-Firing with Coal at a Power Plant in the Greater Houston Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Qianyu Zhao & Boyu Xie & Mengyao Han, 2023. "Unpacking the Sub-Regional Spatial Network of Land-Use Carbon Emissions: The Case of Sichuan Province in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Wang, Ke & Zhang, Jianjun & Cai, Bofeng & Yu, Shengmin, 2019. "Emission factors of fugitive methane from underground coal mines in China: Estimation and uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 273-282.
    4. Nian, Victor, 2015. "Change impact analysis on the life cycle carbon emissions of energy systems – The nuclear example," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 437-450.
    5. Wang, Yabo & Liu, Shengchun & Nian, Victor & Li, Xueqiang & Yuan, Jun, 2019. "Life cycle cost-benefit analysis of refrigerant replacement based on experience from a supermarket project," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    6. Karolina Wojtacha-Rychter & Piotr Kucharski & Adam Smolinski, 2021. "Conventional and Alternative Sources of Thermal Energy in the Production of Cement—An Impact on CO 2 Emission," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Gilbert, Alexander Q. & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2017. "US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports: Boom or bust for the global climate?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1671-1680.
    8. Shaikh, Mohammad A. & Kucukvar, Murat & Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kirkil, Gokhan, 2017. "A framework for water and carbon footprint analysis of national electricity production scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 406-421.
    9. Nadiia Charkovska & Mariia Halushchak & Rostyslav Bun & Zbigniew Nahorski & Tomohiro Oda & Matthias Jonas & Petro Topylko, 2019. "A high-definition spatially explicit modelling approach for national greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes: reducing the errors and uncertainties in global emission modelling," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 907-939, August.
    10. Nian, Victor & Liu, Yang & Zhong, Sheng, 2019. "Life cycle cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy under the climatic conditions in Southeast Asia – Setting the bottom-line for deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 1003-1014.
    11. Yabo Wang & Victor Nian & Hailong Li & Jun Yuan, 2018. "Life Cycle Analysis of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Generation in the Context of Southeast Asia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Zhao, Zhitong & Chong, Katie & Jiang, Jingyang & Wilson, Karen & Zhang, Xiaochen & Wang, Feng, 2018. "Low-carbon roadmap of chemical production: A case study of ethylene in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 580-591.
    13. Ali, Babkir & Hedayati-Dezfooli, M. & Gamil, Ahmed, 2023. "Sustainability assessment of alternative energy power generation pathways through the development of impact indicators for water, land, GHG emissions, and cost," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Maciej Dzikuć & Joanna Wyrobek & Łukasz Popławski, 2021. "Economic Determinants of Low-Carbon Development in the Visegrad Group Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-12, June.
    15. Fangyi Li & Zhaoyang Ye & Xilin Xiao & Dawei Ma, 2019. "Environmental Benefits of Stock Evolution of Coal-Fired Power Generators in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Man, Yi & Yan, Yukun & Wang, Xu & Ren, Jingzheng & Xiong, Qingang & He, Zhenglei, 2023. "Overestimated carbon emission of the pulp and paper industry in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    17. Zhi-Fu Mi & Yi-Ming Wei & Chen-Qi He & Hua-Nan Li & Xiao-Chen Yuan & Hua Liao, 2017. "Regional efforts to mitigate climate change in China: a multi-criteria assessment approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 45-66, January.
    18. Chen, Yuhong & Lyu, Yanfeng & Yang, Xiangdong & Zhang, Xiaohong & Pan, Hengyu & Wu, Jun & Lei, Yongjia & Zhang, Yanzong & Wang, Guiyin & Xu, Min & Luo, Hongbin, 2022. "Performance comparison of urea production using one set of integrated indicators considering energy use, economic cost and emissions’ impacts: A case from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    19. Odeh, Naser A. & Cockerill, Timothy T., 2008. "Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 367-380, January.
    20. Shuhao Chang & Qiancheng Wang & Haihua Hu & Zijian Ding & Hansen Guo, 2018. "An NNwC MPPT-Based Energy Supply Solution for Sensor Nodes in Buildings and Its Feasibility Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.

    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:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:20:p:3864-:d:275753. 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.