4.8 Review

Assessment of biomass energy resources and related technologies practice in Bangladesh

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 444-460

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.071

关键词

Biomass; Bio-energy; Electricity generation; RETs; Bangladesh

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bangladesh is energy starve country facing a severe power crisis for the last few decades because of inadequate power generation capacity compared with demand. The power generation of the country largely depends on the non-renewable (fossil fuel) energy sources, mainly on the natural gas as accounts 64.5% of recent installed capacity. This trend causes rapid depletion of non-renewable energy sources. Thus, it is necessary to trim down the dependency on non-renewable energy sources and utilize the available renewable resources to meet the huge energy demand facing the country. Most of the people living in rural, remote, coastal and isolated areas in Bangladesh have no electricity access yet. However, renewable energy resources, especially biomass can play a pivotal role to electrify those rural, remote, coastal and isolated areas in the country. Humankind has been using biomass as an energy source for thousands of years. This study assesses the bio-energy potential, utilization and related Renewable Energy Technologies (RETs) practice in Bangladesh. Improved cooking stove, biogas plant and biomass briquetting are the major RETs commonly practiced in Bangladesh. The assessment includes the potential of agricultural residue, forest residue, animal manure and municipal solid waste. The estimated total amount of biomass resource available for energy in Bangladesh in 2012-2013 is 90.21 million tons with the annual energy potential of 45.91 million tons of coal equivalent. The recoverable amount of biomass (90.21 million tons) in 2012-2013 has an energy potential of 1344.99 PJ which is equivalent to 373.71 TWh of electricity. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据