Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants: A comparative life cycle assessment
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1662-9730
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Biomass and Bioenergy, ISSN 0961-9534, E-ISSN 1873-2909, Vol. 35, no 4, p. 1572-1581Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Biomass produced on farm land is a renewable fuel that can prove suitable for small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) plants in rural areas. However, it can still be questioned if biomass-based energy generation is a good environmental choice with regards to the impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and if there are negative consequences of using of agricultural land for other purposes than food production. In this study, a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted over four scenarios for supply of the entire demand of power and heat of a rural village. Three of the scenarios are based on utilization of biomass in 100 kW (e) combined heat and power (CHP) systems and the fourth is based on fossil fuel in a large-scale plant. The biomass systems analyzed were based on 1) biogas production with ley as substrate and the biogas combusted in a microturbine, 2) gasification of willow chips and the product gas combusted in an IC-engine and 3) combustion of willow chips for a Stirling engine. The two first scenarios also require a straw boiler. The results show that the biomass-based scenarios reduce greenhouse gas emissions considerably compared to the scenario based on fossil fuel, but have higher acidifying emissions. Scenario 1 has by far the best performance with respect to global warming potential and the advantage of utilizing a byproduct and thus not occupying extra land. Scenario 2 and 3 require less primary energy and less fossil energy input than 1, but set-aside land for willow production must be available. The low electric efficiency of scenario 3 makes it an unsuitable option. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 35, no 4, p. 1572-1581
National Category
Agricultural Science, Forestry and Fisheries
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-2437DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.027Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-79952533599OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-2437DiVA, id: diva2:960027
Available from: 2016-09-07 Created: 2016-09-07 Last updated: 2018-08-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Nordberg, Åke

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nordberg, Åke
By organisation
JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik
In the same journal
Biomass and Bioenergy
Agricultural Science, Forestry and Fisheries

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 20 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.35.7