Comparative analyses of forest fuels in a life cycle perspective with a focus on transport systems

被引:25
|
作者
Eriksson, Lisa Naeslund [1 ]
机构
[1] Mid Sweden Univ, Dept Engn Math & Phys, SE-83125 Ostersund, Sweden
关键词
Chips; Bundles; Pellets; Transportation; Primary energy; CO2; emissions; Costs; Dry-matter losses; Life cycle perspective;
D O I
10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.06.009
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Local, national and international transportation of forest fuels with regard to costs, primary energy use and CO2 emission was analysed. The main issue was the extent to which both mode and distance of transport affect the monetary cost, CO2 emission and primary energy use arising from the use of various types of forest residues for energy purpose. Local applications proved the most efficient options of those studied. Chipping of bundles at a terminal, for transport by rail and sea to national or international end-users, has low costs and produces only modest CO2 emissions. For the pellet options, the cost is about the same as for chipping, but require more primary energy and emit more CO2. The traditional chipping system is more expensive than the other options. The costs of the international options over a transport distance of 1100 km vary between 21 and 28 is an element of(2007)/MWh, whereas pellet options cost between 22 and 25 is an element of(2007)/MWh. The primary energy required for transport of logging residues vis-A-vis pellets falls in the range 4-7% and 2-4%, respectively, of the bio-energy delivered. The primary energy needed to produce pellets gives them a lower fossil fuel substitution rate per hectare, compared with bundle systems. Similarly, for chip systems vis-A-vis bundle systems, the biomass delivered to the conversion plant is reduced by the greater physical dry-matter losses entailed by chipping systems in the forest-fuel chain. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1190 / 1197
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparative assessment of alternative marine fuels in life cycle perspective
    Bilgili, Levent
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2021, 144
  • [2] Environmental life cycle analyses of transport systems
    Adams, VW
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEHICLE DESIGN, 1996, 17 (5-6) : 718 - 724
  • [3] Evaluation of the Applicability of Synthetic Fuels and Their Life Cycle Analyses
    Richter, Sandra
    Braun-Unkhoff, Marina
    Hasselwander, Samuel
    Haas, Sofia
    [J]. ENERGIES, 2024, 17 (05)
  • [4] Comparative Life Cycle Assessments and Economic Analyses of Alternative Marine Fuels: Insights for Practical Strategies
    Lee, Hyunyong
    Lee, Jinkwang
    Roh, Gilltae
    Lee, Sangick
    Choung, Choungho
    Kang, Hokeun
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (05)
  • [5] Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Marine Fuels
    Zincir, Bugra Arda
    Arslanoglu, Yasin
    [J]. FUEL, 2024, 358
  • [6] A comparative life cycle assessment of clean aviation fuels
    Siddiqui, O.
    Dincer, I
    [J]. ENERGY, 2021, 234
  • [7] A comparative life cycle assessment of alternative aviation fuels
    Bicer, Yusuf
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AVIATION, 2016, 2 (03) : 181 - 202
  • [8] Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen and other selected fuels
    Hacatoglu, Kevork
    Rosen, Marc A.
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2012, 37 (13) : 9933 - 9940
  • [9] Comparative analyses of pig farming management systems using the Life Cycle Assessment method
    Makara, Agnieszka
    Kowalski, Zygmunt
    Lelek, Lukasz
    Kulczycka, Joanna
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 241
  • [10] Life cycle water use of low-carbon transport fuels
    Harto, Christopher
    Meyers, Robert
    Williams, Eric
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2010, 38 (09) : 4933 - 4944