10.1186/2251-6832-4-8

Life cycle assessment of producer gas derived from coconut shell and its comparison with coal gas: an Indian perspective

HTML PDF
  • Chenicheri Chandroth Sreejith*1,
  • Chandrasekharan Muraleedharan1,
  • Palatel Arun1,
  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kozhikode, 673601, IN
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2013-02-11

How to Cite

Sreejith, C. C., Muraleedharan, C., & Arun, P. (2013). Life cycle assessment of producer gas derived from coconut shell and its comparison with coal gas: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 4(1 (December 2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-4-8
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 83

PDF views: 256

Abstract

Abstract Oil dependency and global warming have stimulated R&D activities on the utilization of secondary biofuels. This article investigates the suitability of coconut shell-derived producer gas (a secondary gaseous biofuel) as a substitute for coal gas from an environmental perspective using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Thermochemical gasification in an air-fluidized bed with steam injection is the gaseous fuel production process. LCA is carried out with respect to Indian conditions based on primary and modified Ecoinvent 2.0 data using IMPACT 2002+ environmental impact assessment methodology. The study indicates that coconut shell-derived producer gas life cycle is capable of saving 18.3% of emissions causing global warming potential, 64.1% of emissions causing ozone depletion potential, and 71.5% of nonrenewable energy consumption. The analysis of energy and exergy consumptions of the two life cycles reveal that the renewable fraction in the total energy demand is 62.9% for producer gas life cycle, while it is only 2.8% for coal gas life cycle. Allocation of the by-product, coconut palm residues, is the major responsible factor for this reduction in environmental burden. Based on the existing fertilization practice and the utilization of electricity from the Indian electric grid, substantial green house gas (GHG) emission savings cannot be achieved for producer gas life cycle over coal gas life cycle. However, the green electricity-aided catalytic gasification of coconut shell produced by organic farming can result in 43.4% reduction in GHG emissions, meeting European Union renewable energy directive.

Keywords

  • Life cycle assessment,
  • Coconut shell,
  • Gasification,
  • Coal gas,
  • Environmental impact
HTML PDF

References

  1. Siegl et al. (2011) Green electricity from biomass, Part 1: environmental impacts of direct life cycle emissions (pp. 267-284) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9077-3
  2. Koroneos et al. (2008) Hydrogen production via biomass gasification—a life cycle assessment approach (pp. 1261-1268) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2007.04.003
  3. Varun et al. (2009) LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—a review (pp. 1067-1073) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.004
  4. Merola et al. (2012) Experimental investigations of butanol-gasoline blends effects on the combustion process in a SI engine https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-6
  5. Self et al. (2012) Review of underground coal gasification technologies and carbon capture https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-16
  6. Singh et al. (2010) Key issues in life cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and perspectives (pp. 5003-5012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.062
  7. Unknown (2006) ISO
  8. Manish et al. (2006) Sustainability analysis of renewables for climate change mitigation 10(4) (pp. 25-36) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60553-0
  9. Nigam and Singh (2011) Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources (pp. 52-68) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003
  10. Shie et al. (2011) Energy life cycle assessment of rice straw bio-energy derived from potential gasification technologies (pp. 6735-6741) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.116
  11. Corti and Lombardi (2004) Biomass gasification integrated combined cycle with reduced CO2 emissions: performance analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA) (pp. 2109-2212) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.015
  12. Carpentieri et al. (2005) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) with CO2 removal (pp. 1790-1808) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.08.010
  13. Rafaschieri et al. (1999) Life cycle assessment of electricity production from poplar energy crops compared with conventional fossil fuels (pp. 1477-1493) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00076-X
  14. Roedl (2010) Production and energetic utilization of wood from short rotation coppice—a life cycle assessment (pp. 567-578) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0195-0
  15. Kimming et al. (2011) Biomass from agriculture in small scale combine heat and power plants – a comparative life cycle assessment (pp. 1572-1581) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.027
  16. Guest et al. (2011) Life cycle assessment of biomass-based combined heat and power plants (pp. 908-921) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00375.x
  17. Pa et al. (2006) A life cycle evaluation wood pellet gasification for district heating in British Columbia (pp. 6167-6177) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.009
  18. Pa et al. (2012) Environmental footprints of British Columbia wood pellets from a simplified life cycle analysis (pp. 220-231) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0358-7
  19. Puy et al. (2010) Environmental assessment of post-consumer wood and forest residues gasification: the case study of Barcelona metropolitan area (pp. 1457-1465) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.04.009
  20. Khoo et al. (2008) Utilization of woody biomass in Singapore: technological options for carbonization and economic comparison with incineration (pp. 312-318) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0013-0
  21. Zaman (2010) Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment technologies using life cycle assessment method (pp. 225-234) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326132
  22. Zhong et al. (2010) Life-cycle assessment of flash pyrolysis of wood waste (pp. 1177-1183) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.017
  23. Iribarren et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of transportation fuels from biomass pyrolysis (pp. 812-821) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.02.053
  24. Bartolozzi et al. (2012) Comparison between hydrogen and electric vehicles by life cycle assessment: a case study in Tuscany (pp. 103-111) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.021
  25. Wulf and Kaltschmitt (2012) Life cycle assessment of hydrogen supply chain with special attention on hydrogen refuelling stations 37(21) (pp. 16711-16721) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.028
  26. Hawkins et al. (2012) Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review
  27. Balat and Kirtay (2010) Hydrogen from biomass–present scenario and future prospects (pp. 7416-7426) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.137
  28. Pollex et al. (2011) Thermo-chemical conversion of solid biofuels (pp. 21-39)
  29. PRO Kerala:
  30. Kerala Climate
  31. . (2012). Accessed 4 March 2012
  32. http://www.prokerala.com/kerala/climate.htm
  33. (2012). Accessed 4 March 2012
  34. Coconut Development Board (2012). Accessed 2 March 2012
  35. http://www.coconutboard.nic.in/package1.htm
  36. (2012). Accessed 2 March 2012
  37. Kerala Agricultural University (2012). Accessed 9 March 2012
  38. http://www.kau.edu
  39. (2012). Accessed 9 March 2012
  40. Coal India Limited:
  41. Coal import export data
  42. . (2012). Accessed 17 March 2012
  43. http://www.coalindia.in/default.aspx
  44. (2012). Accessed 17 March 2012
  45. Central Power Research Institute:
  46. Govt. of India
  47. . . Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  48. http://www.cpri.in
  49. . Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  50. Gnansounou et al. (2009) Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse balances 100(21) (pp. 4919-4930) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.067
  51. Thottackkad and Perikinalil (2012) Kumarapillai, PN: Experimental evaluation on the tribological properties of coconut oil by the addition of CuO nanoparticles 13(1) (pp. 111-116) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-012-0015-5
  52. Product Ecology Consultants:
  53. Simapro Software
  54. . (2012). Accessed 24 March 2012
  55. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-lca-software
  56. (2012). Accessed 24 March 2012
  57. United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Changes:
  58. Estimation of direct nitrous oxide emission from nitrogen fertilization
  59. . (2007). Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  60. http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/tools/ar-am-tool-07-v1.pdf
  61. (2007). Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  62. Korres et al. (2010) Is grass biomethane a sustainable transport biofuel? (pp. 310-325) https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.228
  63. Singh et al. (2011) The effect of reactor design on the sustainability of grass biomethane (pp. 1567-1574) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.038
  64. Pandyaswargo et al. (2012) Energy recovery potential and life cycle impact assessment of municipal solid waste technologies in Asian countries using ELP model https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-28
  65. Loha et al. (2011) Performance of fluidized bed steam gasification of biomass – modeling and experiment (pp. 1583-1588) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.11.003
  66. Sutton et al. (2001) Review of literature on catalysts for biomass gasification (pp. 155-173) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00208-9
  67. Unknown (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (pp. 16-62)
  68. Schmer et al. (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass (pp. 464-469) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704767105
  69. Gurgel et al. (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuel industry 5(2) (pp. 1-36)
  70. Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India:
  71. All India region-wise generating installed capacity of power
  72. . (2012). Accessed 6 Oct 2012
  73. http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/executive_rep/jun12/8.pdf
  74. (2012). Accessed 6 Oct 2012
  75. Ministry of Power, Government of India:
  76. Power sector at a glance “ALL INDIA”
  77. . (2012). Accessed 6 Oct 2012
  78. http://www.powermin.nic.in/indian_electricity_scenario/introduction.htm
  79. (2012). Accessed 6 Oct 2012
  80. World Coal Institute:
  81. The coal resource, a comprehensive overview of coal
  82. . (2011). 6 Oct 2012
  83. http://www.worldcoal.org
  84. (2011). 6 Oct 2012
  85. Product Ecology Consultants, Washington:
  86. SimaPro Database Manual
  87. . (2012).Accessed 1 Oct 2012
  88. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-lca-software
  89. (2012).Accessed 1 Oct 2012
  90. IPCC:
  91. Fourth assessment report
  92. . (2007). Accessed 3 Oct 2012
  93. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
  94. (2007). Accessed 3 Oct 2012