IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i11p3872-d822990.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Modelling of Densified Fuel Production from Various Biomass Species

Author

Listed:
  • Rukayya Ibrahim Muazu

    (Centre for Environment & Sustainability (CES), University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Siddharth Gadkari

    (Chemical and Process Engineering (CPE), University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Jhuma Sadhukhan

    (Centre for Environment & Sustainability (CES), University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

This work presents new data on the life cycle impact assessment of various lignocellulosic biomass types in Mexico. A comparative life cycle assessment model of biomass densification systems was conducted. An integrated approach that incorporated various process variables, such as technology and variations in feed properties, within the analysis was employed to evaluate the environmental impact of producing 1 MJ of energy-containing densified fuel. The results show that the densification unit and curing (fuel drying) have the highest impact on the life cycle’s operational energy and the total life cycle energy, respectively. Of all the 33 biomass types from the 17 species sources considered in this study, sweet sorghum and sandbur grass have the highest global warming potential, 0.26 and 0.24 (kg CO 2 -eq), and human toxicity 0.58 and 0.53 (kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq), respectively, while coffee pulp and cooperi pine wood have the least impact in both categories, with values of 0.08 and 0.09 (kg CO 2 -eq), and 0.17 and 0.16 (kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq), respectively. Chichicaxtla sawmill slabs also have a low environmental impact, and cooperi pine and Ceiba wood have the lowest ozone depletion and ecotoxicity potential. A sensitivity analysis indicated the effects of the transportation system and energy source on the life cycle’s environmental impact. Adequate feed preparation, the blending of multiple feeds in the optimum ratio, and the careful selection of densification technology could improve the environmental performance of densifying some of the low-bulk-density feed biomass types.

Suggested Citation

  • Rukayya Ibrahim Muazu & Siddharth Gadkari & Jhuma Sadhukhan, 2022. "Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Modelling of Densified Fuel Production from Various Biomass Species," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:11:p:3872-:d:822990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/11/3872/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/11/3872/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dinko Vusić & Filip Vujanić & Karlo Pešić & Branimir Šafran & Vanja Jurišić & Željko Zečić, 2021. "Variability of Normative Properties of Wood Chips and Implications to Quality Control," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Maria Milousi & Manolis Souliotis & George Arampatzis & Spiros Papaefthimiou, 2019. "Evaluating the Environmental Performance of Solar Energy Systems Through a Combined Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Sadhukhan, Jhuma, 2022. "Net zero electricity systems in global economies by life cycle assessment (LCA) considering ecosystem, health, monetization, and soil CO2 sequestration impacts," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 960-974.
    4. Bogusława Waliszewska & Mieczysław Grzelak & Eliza Gaweł & Agnieszka Spek-Dźwigała & Agnieszka Sieradzka & Wojciech Czekała, 2021. "Chemical Characteristics of Selected Grass Species from Polish Meadows and Their Potential Utilization for Energy Generation Purposes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Hu, Jianjun & Lei, Tingzhou & Wang, Zhiwei & Yan, Xiaoyu & Shi, Xinguang & Li, Zaifeng & He, Xiaofeng & Zhang, Quanguo, 2014. "Economic, environmental and social assessment of briquette fuel from agricultural residues in China – A study on flat die briquetting using corn stalk," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 557-566.
    6. Wang, Zhiwei & Lei, Tingzhou & Yang, Miao & Li, Zaifeng & Qi, Tian & Xin, Xiaofei & He, Xiaofeng & Ajayebi, Atta & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2017. "Life cycle environmental impacts of cornstalk briquette fuel in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 83-94.
    7. Hívila M. P. Marreiro & Rogério S. Peruchi & Riuzuani M. B. P. Lopes & Silvia L. F. Andersen & Sayonara A. Eliziário & Paulo Rotella Junior, 2021. "Empirical Studies on Biomass Briquette Production: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-40, December.
    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. Jhuma Sadhukhan, 2022. "Net-Zero Action Recommendations for Scope 3 Emission Mitigation Using Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, July.

    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. Wang, Changbo & Zhang, Lixiao & Chang, Yuan & Pang, Mingyue, 2021. "Energy return on investment (EROI) of biomass conversion systems in China: Meta-analysis focused on system boundary unification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    2. Guo, Feihong & Chen, Jun & He, Yi & Gardy, Jabbar & Sun, Yahui & Jiang, Jingyu & Jiang, Xiaoxiang, 2022. "Upgrading agro-pellets by torrefaction and co-pelletization process using food waste as a pellet binder," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 213-224.
    3. Junnian Song & Yang Pu & Wei Yang & Jingzheng Ren, 2019. "Highlighting Regional Energy-Economic-Environmental Benefits of Agricultural Bioresources Utilization: An Integrated Model from Life Cycle Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Rômulo de Oliveira Azevêdo & Paulo Rotela Junior & Luiz Célio Souza Rocha & Gianfranco Chicco & Giancarlo Aquila & Rogério Santana Peruchi, 2020. "Identification and Analysis of Impact Factors on the Economic Feasibility of Photovoltaic Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-40, September.
    5. D'Adamo, Idiano & Mammetti, Marco & Ottaviani, Dario & Ozturk, Ilhan, 2023. "Photovoltaic systems and sustainable communities: New social models for ecological transition. The impact of incentive policies in profitability analyses," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 1291-1304.
    6. Alammar, Ahmed A. & Rezk, Ahmed & Alaswad, Abed & Fernando, Julia & Olabi, A.G. & Decker, Stephanie & Ruhumuliza, Joseph & Gasana, Quénan, 2022. "The technical, economic, and environmental feasibility of a bioheat-driven adsorption cooling system for food cold storing: A case study of Rwanda," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    7. Fang, Yan Ru & Hossain, MD Shouquat & Peng, Shuan & Han, Ling & Yang, Pingjian, 2024. "Sustainable energy development of crop straw in five southern provinces of China: Bioenergy production, land, and water saving potential," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    8. Wang, Zhiwei & Li, Zaifeng & Lei, Tingzhou & Yang, Miao & Qi, Tian & Lin, Lu & Xin, Xiaofei & Ajayebi, Atta & Yang, Yantao & He, Xiaofeng & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2016. "Life cycle assessment of energy consumption and environmental emissions for cornstalk-based ethyl levulinate," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 170-181.
    9. Qiang Wang & Thomas Dogot & Xianlei Huang & Linna Fang & Changbin Yin, 2020. "Coupling of Rural Energy Structure and Straw Utilization: Based on Cases in Hebei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Zhang, Shuangqi & Deng, Mengsi & Shan, Ming & Zhou, Chuang & Liu, Wei & Xu, Xiaoqiu & Yang, Xudong, 2019. "Energy and environmental impact assessment of straw return and substitution of straw briquettes for heating coal in rural China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 654-664.
    11. Tabakaev, Roman & Kahn, Victor & Dubinin, Yury & Rudmin, Maxim & Yazykov, Nikolay & Skugarov, Artem & Alekseenko, Eduard & Zavorin, Alexander & Preis, Sergei, 2022. "High-strength fuel pellets made of flour milling and coal slack wastes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    12. Jadwiga Wyszkowska & Agata Borowik & Magdalena Zaborowska & Jan Kucharski, 2023. "Calorific Value of Zea mays Biomass Derived from Soil Contaminated with Chromium (VI) Disrupting the Soil’s Biochemical Properties," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, April.
    13. Stich, J. & Ramachandran, S. & Hamacher, T. & Stimming, U., 2017. "Techno-economic estimation of the power generation potential from biomass residues in Southeast Asia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 930-942.
    14. Zhao, Guanhan & Jiang, Peng & Zhang, Hao & Li, Lin & Ji, Tuo & Mu, Liwen & Lu, Xiaohua & Zhu, Jiahua, 2024. "Mapping out the regional low-carbon and economic biomass supply chain by aligning geographic information systems and life cycle assessment models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 369(C).
    15. Vidhyalakshmi Chandrasekaran & Jolanta Dvarioniene & Ausrine Vitkute & Giedrius Gecevicius, 2021. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Renovated Multi-Apartment Building Using LCA Approach: Case Study from Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Liu, Beibei & Wu, Qiaoran & Wang, Feng & Zhang, Bing, 2019. "Is straw return-to-field always beneficial? Evidence from an integrated cost-benefit analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 393-402.
    17. Qiang Wang & Liying Yu & Yueling Yang & Haoran Zhao & Yanqing Song & Wenhao Song & Jinmeng Liu, 2022. "Let the Farmers Embrace “Carbon Neutrality”: Taking the Centralized Biogas as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    18. Promdee, Kittiphop & Chanvidhwatanakit, Jirawat & Satitkune, Somruedee & Boonmee, Chakkrich & Kawichai, Thitipong & Jarernprasert, Sittipong & Vitidsant, Tharapong, 2017. "Characterization of carbon materials and differences from activated carbon particle (ACP) and coal briquettes product (CBP) derived from coconut shell via rotary kiln," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1175-1186.
    19. Marcin Zbieć & Justyna Franc-Dąbrowska & Nina Drejerska, 2022. "Wood Waste Management in Europe through the Lens of the Circular Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-9, June.
    20. Sunday Yusuf Kpalo & Mohamad Faiz Zainuddin & Latifah Abd Manaf & Ahmad Muhaimin Roslan & Nik Nor Rahimah Nik Ab Rahim, 2022. "Techno-Economic Viability Assessment of a Household Scale Agricultural Residue Composite Briquette Project for Rural Communities in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, August.

    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:15:y:2022:i:11:p:3872-:d:822990. 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.