4.7 Article

Environmental impacts of forest biomass-to-energy conversion technologies: Grate furnace vs. fluidised bed furnace

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 153-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.287

关键词

Bioenergy policies; Residual forest biomass; Combustion; Fluidised bed; Grate

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPQ - Brazil) [203483/2014-6]
  2. FCT [IF/ 00587/2013]
  3. FCT (Science and Technology Foundation - Portugal)
  4. FEDER [UID/AMB/50017]
  5. project SABIOS [PTDC/AAG-MAA/6234/2014, 3599-PPCDT]
  6. project SustainFor [3599-PPCDT, PTDC/AGR-FOR/1510/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electricity production from biomass has the potential to significantly contribute to the power mix in Portugal with lesser environmental impact than non-renewable resources. This study focuses on electricity production from the combustion of residual forest biomass from eucalypt logging activities in Portugal using life cycle assessment. In Portugal, several power plants fuelled by residual forest biomass have been commissioned in the last few years. Most of the installations use fluidised bed furnaces, and the others use grate furnaces. This study aims to compare the environmental impacts associated with these two alternative combustion technologies. System boundaries include the stages of forest management, collection processing and transportation and energy conversion. The default impact assessment method used is that suggested in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System. In a sensitivity analysis, calculations are performed using the ReCiPe method. For all of the impact categories analysed, the fluidised bed presents the smallest environmental impact. Even when the grate furnace efficiency increases and the fluidised bed efficiency decreases in the sensitivity analysis, the fluidised bed has lower impacts than the grate technology and can be the best alternative in the implementation of new power plants. (C) 2017 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