Abstract
Between the energy sources biomass waste is considered more and more important and the choice of the most appropriate energy conversion process is essential. The present paper presents a study for biomass waste to two distinguished energy conversion processes and the comparison of their environmental impact. The considered processes are gasification combined with internal combustion engine for power generation and combustion combined with an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system with same electric power and same biomass flow as input to the conversion process. First, energy analysis of both mentioned systems have been investigated by means of Aspen Plus simulation. In the next step, model output is applied to evaluate the environmental profile of these small-scale biomass-based energy production systems. Environmental performance from cradle-to-gate was carried out by life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Results reveal that biomass production has a high influence over all impact categories. In both systems, eutrophication (EP), acidification (AP) and global warming potential (GWP) were identified as the main impacts. As a result, ORC system entails higher environmental burdens in all impacts categories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AEEG. n.d. AEEG Resolution EEN 3/08. 01 April 2008. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://www.autorita.energia.it/it/docs/08/003-08een.htm.
Chaves, L. I., Silva, M. J. D., Souza, S. N. M. D., Secco, D., Rosa, H. A., Nogueira, C. E. C., et al. (2016). Small-scale power generation analysis: Downdraft gasifier coupled to engine generator set. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.033.
Collings, P., Zhibin, Yu., & Wang, E. (2016). A dynamic organic rankine cycle using a zeotropic mixture as the working fluid with composition tuning to match changing ambient conditions. Applied Energy, 171(June), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.014.
Gallagher, E. (2008). The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production. Renewable Fuels Agency.
Hamedani, R., Sara, M. V., Colantoni, A., Moretti, M., & Bocci, E. (2018). Life cycle performance of hydrogen production via agro-industrial residue gasification—A small scale power plant study. Energies, 11(3), 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030675.
Hamedani, S. R., Colantoni, A., Gallucci, F., Salerno, M., Silvestri, C., & Villarini, M. (2019b). Comparative energy and environmental analysis of agro-pellet production from Orchard Woody Biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 129,105334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105334.
Hamedani, S.R., Del Zotto, L., Bocci, E., Colantoni, A., & Villarini, M. (2019b). Eco-efficiency assessment of bioelectricity production from iranian vineyard biomass gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 127, 105271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105271.
Hamedani, S. R, Kuppens, T., Malina, R., Bocci, E., Colantoni, A., & Villarini, M.. (2019c). Life cycle assessment and environmental valuation of biochar production: Two case studies in Belgium. Energies, 12(11), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12112166.
IEA bioenergy. (2009). Bioenergy—A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source a Review of Status and Prospects. IEA bioenergy.
IRBEA. (2016). Study on Biomass Combustion Emissions.
ISO 14040. (2006a). Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework.
ISO 14044. (2006b). Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
Kalina, J. (2017). Techno-economic assessment of small-scale integrated biomass gasification dual fuel combined cycle power plant. Energy, 141, 2499–2507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.009.
Martín-Gamboa, M., Iribarren, D., Susmozas, A., & Dufour, J. (2016). Delving into sensible measures to enhance the environmental performance of biohydrogen: A quantitative approach based on process simulation, life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Bioresource Technology, 214, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.133.
Mazzola, S., Astolfi, M., & Macchi, E. (2016). The potential role of solid biomass for rural electrification: A techno economic analysis for a hybrid microgrid in India. Applied Energy, 169, 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.051.
Moreno, J., & Dufour, J. (2013). Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Evaluation of different Spanish feedstocks. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(18), 7616–7622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.11.076.
Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056.
Scott, K., Daly, H., Barrett, J., & Strachan, N. (2016). National climate policy implications of mitigating embodied energy system emissions. Climatic Change, 136(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1618-0.
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., & Yu, T. H. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 423.
Spöttle, M., Alberici, S., Toop, G., Peters, D., Gamba, L., Ping, S., van Steen, H., & Bellefleur, D. (2013). Low ILUC potential of wastes and residues for biofuels, 168.
Tagliaferri, C., Evangelisti, S., Clift, R., & Lettieri, P. (2018). Life cycle assessment of a biomass CHP plant in UK: The heathrow energy centre case. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 133, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.03.022.
Villarini, M., Bocci, E., Di Carlo, A., Savuto, E., & Pallozzi, V. (2015). The case study of an innovative small scale biomass waste gasification heat and power plant contextualized in a farm. Energy Procedia, 82, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.790.
Acknowledgements
The activity presented in the paper is part of the research grant by Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR) according to the Italian Law 232/2016 within the fund for the financing of university “Departments of Excellence”. This study was also partially supported by the HBF 2.0 Project, funded in the framework of the RDS Ricerca di Sistema Programme of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Villarini, M., Rajabi Hamedani, S., Marcantonio, V., Colantoni, A., Cecchini, M., Monarca, D. (2020). Comparison of Environmental Impact of Two Different Bioelectricity Conversion Technologies by Means of LCA. In: Coppola, A., Di Renzo, G., Altieri, G., D'Antonio, P. (eds) Innovative Biosystems Engineering for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Food Production. MID-TERM AIIA 2019. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 67. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39299-4_68
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39299-4_68
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39298-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39299-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)