22
G. Jha et al.
resulting in solid biomass fuels. These fuels are presently being utilized in small-scale
industries but they deserve rather better utilization considering their low emissive
characteristic.
Objective: Carbon footprint assessment for biomass substitution.
Goal and Scope: The goal is to assess the reduction in the carbon footprint with or
without biomass utilization. The context is fuel attributes. Fuel attributes are basically
the fuel characteristics in terms of carbon footprint, carbon contents, energy, energy
density, and cost of fuels.
Inventory generation: The next step is to generate the inventory for all the attributes
that have been highlighted in the previous step. These data are from the experimental
studies and standard industry practices. Table 4 displays a comparative scheme for
biomass and coke that highlights the discourses.
Impact assessment: Higher carbon values present in the coke will be seen imposing
a bigger carbon footprint than that of biomass. These high carbon values are likewise
an indication of the high calorific values. Additionally, the energy densities are higher
in coke than in biomass. The cost of production is higher for coke than biomass due
to the nature of the fuel where coke is the processed product and biomass is raw in
nature.
Interpretation and recommendation: High energy values provide better processing
and thus desired for the industry but when comprehending the emission values,
fails considerably. An opposite response is observed that signifies the potential of
Table 4 Comparative characteristics of coke and biomass [6]
Properties
Coke breeze
Charcoal
Saw dust
Moisture wt%
0.64
5.20
5.41
Ash wt%
20.30
9.63
8.81
Volatile matter wt%
2.88
20.78
69.79
Fixed carbon wt%
76.18
64.39
15.99
Carbon wt%
82.44
76.59
43.42
Hydrogen wt%
0.73
3.11
5.58
Nitrogen wt%
1.13
0.80
0.36
Sulfur wt%
0.78
0.61
0.09
Oxygen wt%
14.92
18.89
50.56
Al 2 O 3 wt%
4.20
0.30
0.08
SiO 2 wt%
11.18
0.67
2.72
GCV (kcal/kg)
6024.10
5980.02
4421.67
Specific gravity (g/cm 3 )
1.96
0.47
0.67
Cost (INR/tonne)
30000
12000
4000
Carbon footprint (kg CO 2 equivalent)
220.11
203.92
115.60
G. Jha et al.
resulting in solid biomass fuels. These fuels are presently being utilized in small-scale
industries but they deserve rather better utilization considering their low emissive
characteristic.
Objective: Carbon footprint assessment for biomass substitution.
Goal and Scope: The goal is to assess the reduction in the carbon footprint with or
without biomass utilization. The context is fuel attributes. Fuel attributes are basically
the fuel characteristics in terms of carbon footprint, carbon contents, energy, energy
density, and cost of fuels.
Inventory generation: The next step is to generate the inventory for all the attributes
that have been highlighted in the previous step. These data are from the experimental
studies and standard industry practices. Table 4 displays a comparative scheme for
biomass and coke that highlights the discourses.
Impact assessment: Higher carbon values present in the coke will be seen imposing
a bigger carbon footprint than that of biomass. These high carbon values are likewise
an indication of the high calorific values. Additionally, the energy densities are higher
in coke than in biomass. The cost of production is higher for coke than biomass due
to the nature of the fuel where coke is the processed product and biomass is raw in
nature.
Interpretation and recommendation: High energy values provide better processing
and thus desired for the industry but when comprehending the emission values,
fails considerably. An opposite response is observed that signifies the potential of
Table 4 Comparative characteristics of coke and biomass [6]
Properties
Coke breeze
Charcoal
Saw dust
Moisture wt%
0.64
5.20
5.41
Ash wt%
20.30
9.63
8.81
Volatile matter wt%
2.88
20.78
69.79
Fixed carbon wt%
76.18
64.39
15.99
Carbon wt%
82.44
76.59
43.42
Hydrogen wt%
0.73
3.11
5.58
Nitrogen wt%
1.13
0.80
0.36
Sulfur wt%
0.78
0.61
0.09
Oxygen wt%
14.92
18.89
50.56
Al 2 O 3 wt%
4.20
0.30
0.08
SiO 2 wt%
11.18
0.67
2.72
GCV (kcal/kg)
6024.10
5980.02
4421.67
Specific gravity (g/cm 3 )
1.96
0.47
0.67
Cost (INR/tonne)
30000
12000
4000
Carbon footprint (kg CO 2 equivalent)
220.11
203.92
115.60