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
  • [41] Life cycle assessment of forest biomass energy feedstock in the Northeast United States
    Quinn, Ryan J.
    Ha, HakSoo
    Volk, Timothy A.
    Brown, Tristan R.
    Bick, Steven
    Malmsheimer, Robert W.
    Fortier, Marie-Odile P.
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2020, 12 (09): : 728 - 741
  • [42] Best Practices of Biomass Energy Life Cycle Assessment and Possible Applications in Serbia
    Peric, Milica
    Komatina, Mirko
    Bugarski, Branko
    Antonijevic, Dragi
    [J]. CROATIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST ENGINEERING, 2016, 37 (02) : 375 - 390
  • [43] Life-cycle assessment for energy analysis and management
    de Haes, Helias A. Udo
    Heijungs, Reinout
    [J]. APPLIED ENERGY, 2007, 84 (7-8) : 817 - 827
  • [44] Life cycle energy analysis and environmental life cycle assessment of carbon nanofibers production
    Khanna, Vikas
    Bakshi, Bhavik R.
    Lee, L. James
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2007 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ELECTRONICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, CONFERENCE RECORD, 2007, : 128 - +
  • [45] Life Cycle Assessment of Ocean Energy Technologies: A Systematic Review
    Guadalupe Paredes, Maria
    Padilla-Rivera, Alejandro
    Patricia Guereca, Leonor
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2019, 7 (09)
  • [46] Renewable Energy Resources Technologies and Life Cycle Assessment: Review
    Hemeida, Mahmoud G. G.
    Hemeida, Ashraf M. M.
    Senjyu, Tomonobu
    Osheba, Dina
    [J]. ENERGIES, 2022, 15 (24)
  • [47] Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Building Energy Retrofitting; A Review
    Toosi, Hashem Amini
    Lavagna, Monica
    Leonforte, Fabrizio
    Del Pero, Claudio
    Aste, Niccolo
    [J]. SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2020, 60
  • [48] Life cycle energy, environment and economic assessment of soybean-based biodiesel as an alternative automotive fuel in China
    Hu, Zhiyuan
    Tana, Piqiang
    Yan, Xiaoyu
    Lou, Diming
    [J]. ENERGY, 2008, 33 (11) : 1654 - 1658
  • [49] Life Cycle Assessment of the UK Space Energy Initiative Technology Roadmap
    Wilson, Andrew R.
    Vasile, Massimiliano
    Ooab, Haroon B.
    [J]. JBIS - Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 2023, 76 (01): : 18 - 28
  • [50] Life cycle assessment of biomass-based hydrogen production technologies: A review
    Singh, Sakshi
    Pandey, Gaurav
    Rath, Gourav Kumar
    Veluswamy, Hari Prakash
    Molokitina, Nadezhda
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY, 2023,