Comparison of integration options for gasification-based biofuel production systems – Economic and greenhouse gas emission implications

Energy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 272-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M. Holmgren ◽  
Thore S. Berntsson ◽  
Eva Andersson ◽  
Tomas Rydberg
2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (suppl_5) ◽  
pp. 578-578
Author(s):  
A. W. Alemu ◽  
H. Janzen ◽  
S. Little ◽  
X. Hao ◽  
D. Thompson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 239 ◽  
pp. 104091
Author(s):  
Stine Samsonstuen ◽  
Bente A. Åby ◽  
Paul Crosson ◽  
Karen A. Beauchemin ◽  
Marit S. Wetlesen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 104646
Author(s):  
Erick Escobar Dallantonia ◽  
Marcia Helena Machado da Rocha Fernandes ◽  
Abmael da Silva Cardoso ◽  
Rhaony Gonçalves Leite ◽  
Adriana Ferrari ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng-Shiuh Chang ◽  
Chih-Chun Kung

Greenhouse gas emission induced global climate shift is an immediate threat to the world because of increased likelihood of the occurrence of extreme events. Expanding bioenergy production on currently set-aside land is an attractive option being considered by Taiwanese policymakers to reduce potential damages. This study investigates the impact of pyrolysis-based bioelectricity and ethanol on the greenhouse gas emission using a two-stage dynamic semi-parametric model. The results show that the bioelectricity generation has a significantly positive impact on the emission reduction. It encourages Taiwan to place more public resource on bioelectricity generation. This study is extended to forecast the emission reduction for 2015 to 2017. The quarterly emission reduction forecasts vary between 214,806 and 239,497 tons, which is less than 3% out of total emissions. It implies that the Taiwanese government could move the policy supports from biofuel production to bioelectricity production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Author(s):  
Nahid Aghili Nategh ◽  
Narges Banaeian ◽  
Alireza Gholamshahi ◽  
Mohammad Nosrati

Abstract This study examined energy, greenhouse gas emission and ecological footprint analysis (EFA) of chickpea and lentil cultivation with different mechanization production systems. In lentil production, except for tillage operations, other operations are performed manually and the remaining straw is burned in the field; while in chickpea production, most of the agricultural operations are mechanized and residues are collected, baled and transferred to the warehouse for animal feed. In this paper, for the first time, some of the sustainability indicators are investigated and compared in two different legume production systems. Energy productivity and net energy for chickpea and lentil production were calculated at 0.036, 0.161 and 2373 and 5900 MJ per hectare, respectively. The CO2 emission and ecological carbon footprint were 173 kg CO2−eq and 0.15 global hectare for lentil and 484 and 0.87 for chickpea production. Totally, due to excessive consumption of diesel fuel and lack of proper management, the social cost of emission from straw baling in chickpea production (27.65 dollars per hectare) was higher than burning straw in lentil production (8.77). Multi-objective genetic algorithm results showed the potential of minimizing diesel fuel and fertilizer consumption and no chemical for chickpea production. Overall audition results of two different production systems revealed that traditional lentil production is more sustainable. Therefore, implementations of modern agricultural practices alone are not enough to achieve sustainability in agricultural production systems.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77
Author(s):  
James W Lewis ◽  
Morton A Barlaz ◽  
Akhtar Tayebali ◽  
S Ranji Ranjithan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document