IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10594-d464308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Performance Analysis of Bagasse-Based Electricity in Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Hafiz Usman Ghani

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

  • Awais Mahmood

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

  • Asmat Ullah

    (US Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76020, Pakistan)

  • Shabbir H. Gheewala

    (The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
    Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment (CEE), PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10400, Thailand)

Abstract

Bagasse-based electricity is gaining attention as an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and promising renewable energy source in Pakistan. Therefore, the focus of this analysis was to identify the environmental burdens associated with bagasse-based electricity production via high-pressure cogeneration. The scope of this study was defined as cradle to gate; involving cane production, cane transportation to the mill, the production of bagasse, and then the burning of bagasse in the cogeneration power plant to produce electricity. The overall results revealed that most of the impacts were contributed by the agricultural phase. For some impact categories—such as global warming, fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, and fossil resource scarcity—the bagasse-based electricity performed better than the grid mix electricity. However, the grid mix electricity performed better than the bagasse-based electricity in terms of eutrophication, land use, and water consumption. When considering the final damage, the bagasse-based electricity proved to be the favorable option in terms of human health and resource availability; however, ecosystem quality was poor in bagasse-based electricity. In terms of environmental prices, the bagasse-based electricity was found to be a promising option compared to the grid mix electricity.

Suggested Citation

  • Hafiz Usman Ghani & Awais Mahmood & Asmat Ullah & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2020. "Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Performance Analysis of Bagasse-Based Electricity in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10594-:d:464308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10594/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10594/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Uzair, Muhammad & Sohail, Syed Sarosh & Shaikh, Nasir Uddin & Shan, Ali, 2020. "Agricultural residue as an alternate energy source: A case study of Punjab province, Pakistan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 2066-2074.
    3. Lopes Silva, Diogo Aparecido & Delai, Ivete & Delgado Montes, Mary Laura & Roberto Ometto, Aldo, 2014. "Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 532-547.
    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. Muhammad Fahad Ejaz & Muhammad Rizwan Riaz & Rizwan Azam & Rashid Hameed & Anam Fatima & Ahmed Farouk Deifalla & Abdeliazim Mustafa Mohamed, 2022. "Physico-Mechanical Characterization of Gypsum-Agricultural Waste Composites for Developing Eco-Friendly False Ceiling Tiles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Duong Minh Ngoc & Montri Luengchavanon & Pham Thi Anh & Kim Humphreys & Kuaanan Techato, 2022. "Shades of Green: Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Small-Scale Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Tree," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-21, October.

    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. Gao, Cheng-kang & Na, Hong-ming & Song, Kai-hui & Dyer, Noel & Tian, Fan & Xu, Qing-jiang & Xing, Yu-hong, 2019. "Environmental impact analysis of power generation from biomass and wind farms in different locations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    2. Ling-Chin, J. & Heidrich, O. & Roskilly, A.P., 2016. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) – from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA framework for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 352-378.
    3. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Kazemi, Abolghasem & Moreno, Jovita & Iribarren, Diego, 2023. "Economic optimization and comparative environmental assessment of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO2 capture," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    5. Meng, Wenliang & Wang, Dongliang & Zhou, Huairong & Yang, Yong & Li, Hongwei & Liao, Zuwei & Yang, Siyu & Hong, Xiaodong & Li, Guixian, 2023. "Carbon dioxide from oxy-fuel coal-fired power plant integrated green ammonia for urea synthesis: Process modeling, system analysis, and techno-economic evaluation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    6. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    8. Moroni, Stefano & Antoniucci, Valentina & Bisello, Adriano, 2016. "Energy sprawl, land taking and distributed generation: towards a multi-layered density," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 266-273.
    9. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    10. Xu Kuang & Fuquan Zhao & Han Hao & Zongwei Liu, 2019. "Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Intelligent Connected Vehicles in China: A Cost–Benefit Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    11. Mahmud, M. A. Parvez & Huda, Nazmul & Farjana, Shahjadi Hisan & Lang, Candace, 2019. "A strategic impact assessment of hydropower plants in alpine and non-alpine areas of Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 198-214.
    12. Ludin, Norasikin Ahmad & Mustafa, Nur Ifthitah & Hanafiah, Marlia M. & Ibrahim, Mohd Adib & Asri Mat Teridi, Mohd & Sepeai, Suhaila & Zaharim, Azami & Sopian, Kamaruzzaman, 2018. "Prospects of life cycle assessment of renewable energy from solar photovoltaic technologies: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 11-28.
    13. Yihsuan Wu & Jian Hua, 2022. "Investigating a Retrofit Thermal Power Plant from a Sustainable Environment Perspective—A Fuel Lifecycle Assessment Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-26, April.
    14. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    15. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2016. "Estimation of Turkey׳s GHG emissions from electricity generation by fuel types," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 832-840.
    16. Iosifov Valeriy Victorovich & Evgenii Yu. Khrustalev & Sergey N. Larin & Oleg E. Khrustalev, 2021. "The Linear Programming Problem of Regional Energy System Optimization," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 281-288.
    17. Sokka, L. & Sinkko, T. & Holma, A. & Manninen, K. & Pasanen, K. & Rantala, M. & Leskinen, P., 2016. "Environmental impacts of the national renewable energy targets – A case study from Finland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1599-1610.
    18. Xue-Ting Jiang & Rongrong Li, 2017. "Decoupling and Decomposition Analysis of Carbon Emissions from Electric Output in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, May.
    19. Matsuo, Yuhji & Endo, Seiya & Nagatomi, Yu & Shibata, Yoshiaki & Komiyama, Ryoichi & Fujii, Yasumasa, 2018. "A quantitative analysis of Japan's optimal power generation mix in 2050 and the role of CO2-free hydrogen," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 1200-1219.
    20. Jabeen, Gul & Ahmad, Munir & Zhang, Qingyu, 2021. "Perceived critical factors affecting consumers’ intention to purchase renewable generation technologies: Rural-urban heterogeneity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10594-:d:464308. 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.