IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i11p2773-d365751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Biomass Gasification and Solid Oxid Fuel Cell for Heat and Power Generation: An Early-Stage Life Cycle Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Moretti

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Blanca Corona

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Viola Rühlin

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Thomas Götz

    (Division Energy, Transport and Climate Policy, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, D-42103 Wuppertal, Germany)

  • Martin Junginger

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Thomas Brunner

    (BIOS BIOENERGIESYSTEME GmbH., A-8020 Graz, Austria)

  • Ingwald Obernberger

    (BIOS BIOENERGIESYSTEME GmbH., A-8020 Graz, Austria)

  • Li Shen

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Biomass-fueled combined heat and power systems (CHPs) can potentially offer environmental benefits compared to conventional separate production technologies. This study presents the first environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of a novel high-efficiency bio-based power (HBP) technology, which combines biomass gasification with a 199 kW solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) to produce heat and electricity. The aim is to identify the main sources of environmental impacts and to assess the potential environmental performance compared to benchmark technologies. The use of various biomass fuels and alternative allocation methods were scrutinized. The LCA results reveal that most of the environmental impacts of the energy supplied with the HBP technology are caused by the production of the biomass fuel. This contribution is higher for pelletized than for chipped biomass. Overall, HBP technology shows better environmental performance than heat from natural gas and electricity from the German/European grid. When comparing the HBP technology with the biomass-fueled ORC technology, the former offers significant benefits in terms of particulate matter (about 22 times lower), photochemical ozone formation (11 times lower), acidification (8 times lower) and terrestrial eutrophication (about 26 times lower). The environmental performance was not affected by the allocation parameter (exergy or economic) used. However, the tested substitution approaches showed to be inadequate to model multiple environmental impacts of CHP plants under the investigated context and goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Viola Rühlin & Thomas Götz & Martin Junginger & Thomas Brunner & Ingwald Obernberger & Li Shen, 2020. "Combining Biomass Gasification and Solid Oxid Fuel Cell for Heat and Power Generation: An Early-Stage Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:11:p:2773-:d:365751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/11/2773/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/11/2773/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Höök, Mikael & Tang, Xu, 2013. "Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 797-809.
    2. Lee, Young Duk & Ahn, Kook Young & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tsatsaronis, George, 2015. "Environmental impact assessment of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined-heat-and-power-generation system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 455-466.
    3. Lombardi, Francesco & Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo & Colombo, Emanuela, 2019. "A multi-layer energy modelling methodology to assess the impact of heat-electricity integration strategies: The case of the residential cooking sector in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1249-1260.
    4. Rillo, E. & Gandiglio, M. & Lanzini, A. & Bobba, S. & Santarelli, M. & Blengini, G., 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of biogas-fed Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 585-602.
    5. Bloess, Andreas & Schill, Wolf-Peter & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2018. "Power-to-heat for renewable energy integration: A review of technologies, modeling approaches, and flexibility potentials," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 212, pages 1611-1626.
    6. Rabl,Ari & Spadaro,Joseph V. & Holland,Mike, 2014. "How Much Is Clean Air Worth?," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107043138, October.
    7. Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Thomas Dandres & Stefan Pauliuk & Richard Wood & Edgar Hertwich & Réjean Samson & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2018. "Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(4), pages 656-670, August.
    8. Luke Conibear & Edward W. Butt & Christoph Knote & Stephen R. Arnold & Dominick V. Spracklen, 2018. "Residential energy use emissions dominate health impacts from exposure to ambient particulate matter in India," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Sadhukhan, Jhuma, 2014. "Distributed and micro-generation from biogas and agricultural application of sewage sludge: Comparative environmental performance analysis using life cycle approaches," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 196-206.
    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. Khaled M. A. Salim & Ruhanita Maelah & Hawa Hishamuddin & Amizawati Mohd Amir & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, 2022. "Two Decades of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs): A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Nguyen Van Song & Thai Van Ha & Tran Duc Thuan & Nguyen Van Hanh & Dinh Van Tien & Nguyen Cong Tiep & Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong & Phan Anh Tu & Tran Ba Uan, 2021. "Development of Rice Husk Power Plants Based on Clean Development Mechanism: A Case Study in Mekong River Delta, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Marta Ros Karlsdottir & Jukka Heinonen & Halldor Palsson & Olafur Petur Palsson, 2020. "High-Temperature Geothermal Utilization in the Context of European Energy Policy—Implications and Limitations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Singara Veloo Kanageswari & Lope G. Tabil & Shahabaddine Sokhansanj, 2022. "Dust and Particulate Matter Generated during Handling and Pelletization of Herbaceous Biomass: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, April.

    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. Østergaard, P.A. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Sorknæs, P. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2022. "Review and validation of EnergyPLAN," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. Tanveer, Waqas Hassan & Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali & Kolosz, Ben W. & Rezk, Hegazy & Andresen, John & Cha, Suk Won & Sayed, Enas Taha, 2021. "The role of vacuum based technologies in solid oxide fuel cell development to utilize industrial waste carbon for power production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Marta Gandiglio & Fabrizio De Sario & Andrea Lanzini & Silvia Bobba & Massimo Santarelli & Gian Andrea Blengini, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Biogas-Fed Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Integrated in a Wastewater Treatment Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, April.
    4. Manfroni, Michele & Bukkens, Sandra G.F. & Giampietro, Mario, 2021. "The declining performance of the oil sector: Implications for global climate change mitigation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Khaled M. A. Salim & Ruhanita Maelah & Hawa Hishamuddin & Amizawati Mohd Amir & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, 2022. "Two Decades of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs): A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Al-Khori, Khalid & Bicer, Yusuf & Koç, Muammer, 2021. "Comparative techno-economic assessment of integrated PV-SOFC and PV-Battery hybrid system for natural gas processing plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    7. Mehmeti, Andi & McPhail, Stephen J. & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2018. "Life cycle inventory data and metrics for high-temperature fuel cells: A streamlined decision-support tool and case study application," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 1195-1205.
    8. Stropnik, R. & Sekavčnik, M. & Ferriz, A.M. & Mori, M., 2018. "Reducing environmental impacts of the ups system based on PEM fuel cell with circular economy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 824-835.
    9. de Guibert, Paul & Shirizadeh, Behrang & Quirion, Philippe, 2020. "Variable time-step: A method for improving computational tractability for energy system models with long-term storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. Burton, N.A. & Padilla, R.V. & Rose, A. & Habibullah, H., 2021. "Increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from solar powered water electrolysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Stančin, H. & Mikulčić, H. & Wang, X. & Duić, N., 2020. "A review on alternative fuels in future energy system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    12. Ritter, Hendrik & Zimmermann, Karl, 2019. "Cap-and-Trade Policy vs. Carbon Taxation: Of Leakage and Linkage," EconStor Preprints 197796, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    13. Gerbaulet, Clemens & von Hirschhausen, Christian & Kemfert, Claudia & Lorenz, Casimir & Oei, Pao-Yu, 2019. "European electricity sector decarbonization under different levels of foresight," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 141, pages 973-987.
    14. Brahma, Antara & Saikia, Kangkana & Hiloidhari, Moonmoon & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "GIS based planning of a biomethanation power plant in Assam, India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 596-608.
    15. Guelpa, Elisa & Bischi, Aldo & Verda, Vittorio & Chertkov, Michael & Lund, Henrik, 2019. "Towards future infrastructures for sustainable multi-energy systems: A review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 2-21.
    16. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Ahmed, Saeed & Mahmood, Anzar & Hasan, Ahmad & Sidhu, Guftaar Ahmad Sardar & Butt, Muhammad Fasih Uddin, 2016. "A comparative review of China, India and Pakistan renewable energy sectors and sharing opportunities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 216-225.
    18. Besagni, Giorgio & Premoli Vilà, Lidia & Borgarello, Marco & Trabucchi, Andrea & Merlo, Marco & Rodeschini, Jacopo & Finazzi, Francesco, 2021. "Electrification pathways of the Italian residential sector under socio-demographic constrains: Looking towards 2040," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    19. Vassilis M. Charitopoulos & Mathilde Fajardy & Chi Kong Chyong & David M. Reiner, 2022. "The case of 100% electrification of domestic heat in Great Britain," Working Papers EPRG2206, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Anna Borawska & Mariusz Borawski & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska, 2022. "Effectiveness of Electricity-Saving Communication Campaigns: Neurophysiological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.

    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:13:y:2020:i:11:p:2773-:d:365751. 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.