4.7 Article

Environmental competitiveness evaluation by life cycle assessment for solid fuels generated from Sida hermaphrodita biomass

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.105966

关键词

Life cycle assessment; Biogenic energy source; Small-scale combustion; Biomass; Perennial energy crop; Solid biofuels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive evaluation of Sida biomass as a solid biofuel was conducted using a life cycle assessment, revealing that Sida has lower environmental impacts compared to alternative biofuels like wood or Miscanthus. The study identified areas for improvement within the Sida process chains, with results suggesting that Sida provides a more sustainable option for biomass use in combustion processes.
As part of a comprehensive evaluation of the use of Sida hermaphrodita (hereafter referred to as Sida) biomass as a solid biofuel, a life cycle assessment (LCA) according to ISO 14040/14044 was carried out by means of a suitable cradle-to-gate system design. The supply and use of chips, pellets and briquettes was studied by internal and external comparisons to show competitiveness and improvement options. The results show fewer differences within the Sida process chain designs but larger distinctions to compared alternative biofuels such as wood or Miscanthus pellets. A major finding is that Sida process chains cause lower environmental impacts in comparison with alternative biofuels. The study identified hot spots within the Sida process chains and starting points for further improvement. A sensitivity analysis of important parameters, such as specific yield or heating values was performed. Because there are no similar investigations on the environmental impact of Sida used as a biogenic solid fuel to date this manuscript presents first results. So far, the results indicate that Sida provides a more sustainable option for the use of biomass in combustion processes in relation to environmental impacts.

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

4.7
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