Life Cycle Assessment and Economic Analysis of Biomass Energy Technology in China: A Brief Review

被引:39
|
作者
Chen, Shuangyin [1 ,2 ]
Feng, He [1 ]
Zheng, Jun [2 ]
Ye, Jianguo [2 ]
Song, Yi [3 ]
Yang, Haiping [4 ]
Zhou, Ming [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, China EU Inst Clean & Renewable Energy, Wuhan 430074, Peoples R China
[2] Inst New Energy, Wuhan 430206, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518172, Peoples R China
[4] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, State Key Lab Coal Combust, Wuhan 430074, Peoples R China
基金
国家重点研发计划;
关键词
biomass power generation; life cycle assessment; environment load; economic evaluation; POWER-GENERATION; COMBUSTION; CHEMISTRY;
D O I
10.3390/pr8091112
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
This study describes the technological processes and characteristics of biomass direct combustion power generation, biomass gasification power generation, biomass mixed combustion power generation, and biomass biogas power generation in terms of their importance and application in China. Under the perspective of environmental and economic sustainability, the life cycle assessment (LCA) method and dynamic analysis method based on time value are used to simulate and evaluate the environmental loads and economic benefits of different power generation processes. By comparing with coal-fired power generation systems, the environmental and economic benefits of different biomass power generation technologies are illustrated. The results shows that biomass gasification power generation has the best environmental benefits, with a total load of 1.05 x 10(-5), followed by biomass biogas power generation (9.21 x 10(-5)), biomass direct combustion power generation (1.23 x 10(-4)), and biomass mixed combustion power generation (3.88 x 10(-4)). Compared with the environmental load of coal-fired power generation, the reduction rate was 97.69%, 79.69%, 72.87%, and 14.56% respectively. According to the analysis of the technical economy evaluation results, when the dynamic pay-back period and IRR (internal rate of return) were used as evaluation indicators, the biomass direct combustion power generation has the best pay-back period (7.71 years) and IRR (19.16%), followed by the biogas power generation, with higher dynamic payback period (12.03 years), and lower IRR (13.49%). For gasification power generation and mixed-combustion power generation, their dynamic payback period is long, and the IRR is low. If net present value (NPV) is selected as the evaluation index, the biogas power generation appears to be the best because its net present value per megawatt is 11.94 million yuan, followed by direct combustion power generation (6.09 million yuan), and the net present value of mixed-combustion power generation and gasification power generation is relatively low. Compared with coal-fired power generation, direct combustion power generation and biogas power generation present significant economic benefits.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of sustainable bioenergy production: a review
    Ahmed I. Osman
    Bingbing Fang
    Yubing Zhang
    Yunfei Liu
    Jiacheng Yu
    Mohamed Farghali
    Ahmed K. Rashwan
    Zhonghao Chen
    Lin Chen
    Ikko Ihara
    David W. Rooney
    Pow-Seng Yap
    [J]. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2024, 22 : 1115 - 1154
  • [22] Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of sustainable bioenergy production: a review
    Osman, Ahmed I.
    Fang, Bingbing
    Zhang, Yubing
    Liu, Yunfei
    Yu, Jiacheng
    Farghali, Mohamed
    Rashwan, Ahmed K.
    Chen, Zhonghao
    Chen, Lin
    Ihara, Ikko
    Rooney, David W.
    Yap, Pow-Seng
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS, 2024, 22 (03) : 1115 - 1154
  • [23] Life Cycle Assessment of Poplar Biomass for High Value Products and Energy
    Krzyzaniak, Michal
    Stolarski, Mariusz J.
    Warminski, Kazimierz
    Roj, Edward
    Tyskiewicz, Katarzyna
    Olba-Ziety, Ewelina
    [J]. ENERGIES, 2023, 16 (21)
  • [24] A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio-oil: Techno-economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness
    Sorunmu, Yetunde
    Billen, Pieter
    Spatari, Sabrina
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2020, 12 (01): : 4 - 18
  • [25] Life-cycle assessment and embodied energy: a review
    Menzies, G. F.
    Turan, S.
    Banfill, P. F. G.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, 2007, 160 (04) : 135 - 143
  • [26] A life cycle assessment and economic analysis of the Scum-to-Biodiesel technology in wastewater treatment plants
    Mu, Dongyan
    Addy, Min
    Anderson, Erik
    Chen, Paul
    Ruan, Roger
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 204 : 89 - 97
  • [27] Economic and Life Cycle Analysis of Renewable Energy Systems
    Aung, Kendrick T.
    [J]. 2013 ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 2013,
  • [28] Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle cost: a review of environmental-economic studies
    Wagner Teixeira França
    Murillo Vetroni Barros
    Rodrigo Salvador
    Antonio Carlos de Francisco
    Maria Teresa Moreira
    Cassiano Moro Piekarski
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021, 26 : 244 - 274
  • [29] Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle cost: a review of environmental-economic studies
    Franca, Wagner Teixeira
    Barros, Murillo Vetroni
    Salvador, Rodrigo
    de Francisco, Antonio Carlos
    Moreira, Maria Teresa
    Piekarski, Cassiano Moro
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2021, 26 (02): : 244 - 274
  • [30] A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bioethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass
    Roy, Poritosh
    Tokuyasu, Ken
    Orikasa, Takahiro
    Nakamura, Nobutaka
    Shiina, Takeo
    [J]. JARQ-JAPAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 2012, 46 (01): : 41 - 57