42 Dynamic Simulation of Woody Biomass Co-generation System …
635
Patel et al. (2016) reviewed relevant studies not only from a technological viewpoint but from a life cycle assessment viewpoint and concluded that environmental
studies of biomass gasification have proven the potential of reducing GHG emissions,
but that there is a need for more comprehensive life cycle assessments, taking into
account all environmental impact categories. Lu and Hanandeh (2017) conducted
a comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing analysis to evaluate six
options—woodchip gasification for power generation, wood pellet gasification in a
CHP plant, wood pellet combustion for domestic water and space heating, pyrolysis for power generation, pyrolysis with bio-oil upgrading to transportation fuels,
and ethanol production for a transportation fuel mix—and showed that all options
except for ethanol production are GHG emission negative and that woodchip gasification performed best in all environmental impact categories and had the lowest
life cycle cost. Yang et al. (2017) conducted a life cycle assessment to evaluate
the optimum scale of a combined cooling, heating, and power system based on
biomass gasification, and showed that biomass cost, the cost of the energy supply,
environmental impact, and energy consumption all first decrease as scale is gradually increased, then increase as scale continues to increase, and that comprehensive performance is optimal when the scale of the system is approximately 5 MW.
You et al. (2017) conducted a life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis to
compare the global warming impact and economic feasibility (net present value and
levelized cost of electricity) of an alternative oil-palm biomass gasification system
with the environmental impact and economic viability of current practices in rural
Indonesia (diesel generator for village use and biomass boiler combustion for mill
use). Sensitivity analysis showed that the capital cost of the gasification system and
its overall electrical efficiency had the most significant effects on net present value.
Li et al. (2018) carried out a life-cycle assessment using a multi-criteria optimization for a biomass gasification-integrated combined cooling, heating, and power
system. Primary energy savings, total cost savings, and the reduction in CO 2 emissions served as the criteria. The overall-performance criterion was determined by
applying TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions). Results showed that the overall-performance criterion was maximized when
the nominal electric output was 1572.8 kW, the biomass feedstock type was wood
pellet, and the operation strategy was to follow the electric load. Ogorure et al. (2018)
conducted an energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analysis of a proposed
agricultural waste-to-energy integrated multi-generation power plant. A combination of anaerobic digestion and gasification was used to convert the agro-wastes to
synthetic gas, which was subsequently converted to electrical energy and refrigeration in an integrated multi-generation plant composed of a solid oxide fuel cell stack,
gas turbine, steam turbine, organic Rankine, and absorption refrigeration cycles.
Results indicated a life cycle cost of $3.753 million, a breakeven point of 7.5 years, a
unit energy cost of $0.0109 per kWh, and specific CO 2 emissions of 141.2 kg/MWh.
Yang et al. (2018) conducted a hybrid life-cycle assessment of the energy consumption and GHG emissions of a typical biomass gasification power plant in China
and showed that the non-renewable energy cost and GHG emission intensity of the
635
Patel et al. (2016) reviewed relevant studies not only from a technological viewpoint but from a life cycle assessment viewpoint and concluded that environmental
studies of biomass gasification have proven the potential of reducing GHG emissions,
but that there is a need for more comprehensive life cycle assessments, taking into
account all environmental impact categories. Lu and Hanandeh (2017) conducted
a comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing analysis to evaluate six
options—woodchip gasification for power generation, wood pellet gasification in a
CHP plant, wood pellet combustion for domestic water and space heating, pyrolysis for power generation, pyrolysis with bio-oil upgrading to transportation fuels,
and ethanol production for a transportation fuel mix—and showed that all options
except for ethanol production are GHG emission negative and that woodchip gasification performed best in all environmental impact categories and had the lowest
life cycle cost. Yang et al. (2017) conducted a life cycle assessment to evaluate
the optimum scale of a combined cooling, heating, and power system based on
biomass gasification, and showed that biomass cost, the cost of the energy supply,
environmental impact, and energy consumption all first decrease as scale is gradually increased, then increase as scale continues to increase, and that comprehensive performance is optimal when the scale of the system is approximately 5 MW.
You et al. (2017) conducted a life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis to
compare the global warming impact and economic feasibility (net present value and
levelized cost of electricity) of an alternative oil-palm biomass gasification system
with the environmental impact and economic viability of current practices in rural
Indonesia (diesel generator for village use and biomass boiler combustion for mill
use). Sensitivity analysis showed that the capital cost of the gasification system and
its overall electrical efficiency had the most significant effects on net present value.
Li et al. (2018) carried out a life-cycle assessment using a multi-criteria optimization for a biomass gasification-integrated combined cooling, heating, and power
system. Primary energy savings, total cost savings, and the reduction in CO 2 emissions served as the criteria. The overall-performance criterion was determined by
applying TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions). Results showed that the overall-performance criterion was maximized when
the nominal electric output was 1572.8 kW, the biomass feedstock type was wood
pellet, and the operation strategy was to follow the electric load. Ogorure et al. (2018)
conducted an energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analysis of a proposed
agricultural waste-to-energy integrated multi-generation power plant. A combination of anaerobic digestion and gasification was used to convert the agro-wastes to
synthetic gas, which was subsequently converted to electrical energy and refrigeration in an integrated multi-generation plant composed of a solid oxide fuel cell stack,
gas turbine, steam turbine, organic Rankine, and absorption refrigeration cycles.
Results indicated a life cycle cost of $3.753 million, a breakeven point of 7.5 years, a
unit energy cost of $0.0109 per kWh, and specific CO 2 emissions of 141.2 kg/MWh.
Yang et al. (2018) conducted a hybrid life-cycle assessment of the energy consumption and GHG emissions of a typical biomass gasification power plant in China
and showed that the non-renewable energy cost and GHG emission intensity of the