4.7 Article

Carbon footprint and emergy combination for eco-environmental assessment of cleaner heat production

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 446-456

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.025

关键词

Natural gas; Biomass; Emergy; Carbon footprint; Environment; Criterion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this paper is to study via environmental indicators to which extent, replacing fossil fuel with biomass for heating is an environmentally friendly solution. The environmental impact of using biomass depends mostly on the transportation process. Authors define the notion of maximum supply distance, beyond which biomass transportation becomes too environmentally intensive compared to a fossil fuel fired heating system. In this work a carbon footprint analysis and an emergy evaluation, has been chosen to study the substitution of wood for natural gas. The comparative study seeks to examine, via the two approaches, two heating systems: one is fired with wood, transported by trucks and the other one is fired with natural gas transported by pipelines. The results are expressed in terms of maximum supply distance of wood. In the emergy evaluation it represents the maximum supply distance permitting wood to be more emergy saving than natural gas. In the carbon footprint analysis, it represents the maximum supply distance permitting wood to be a carbon saving alternative to natural gas. Furthermore, the unification of carbon footprint and emergy evaluation permits to define, for both approaches, the minimum theoretical wood burner first law efficiency that allows, CO2 or emergy to be saved, when there is no wood transport. In order to identify the impacts of the main parameters of the study a sensitivity analysis has been carried out. The case study investigated in this paper shows that there is a large gap between the results. The maximum supply distances calculated via carbon footprint and emergy evaluation are about 5000 km and 1000 km, respectively, anthe minimum theoretical wood burner efficiencies are about 5% and 54%, respectively. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据