The Influence of Allocation on the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Production from Waste Gas, a Case Study for Blast Furnace Gas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
- Avoid allocation by dividing the multi-output processes in individual sub-processes and collect data for the sub-processes.
- Avoid allocation with an expansion of the system and attribute to the product-system a credit equivalent to the production of co-products elsewhere.
- However, when the allocation cannot be avoided, the inputs and outputs should be partitioned between the different co-products with respect to the physical and quantitative relationship between inputs/outputs and co-products.
- Sometimes, physical relationship could not be established between inputs/outputs and the co-products. In such a case, other relationship, e.g., the unit price might be used as a basis for allocation.
3. The Blast Furnace Gas Case
3.1. System Expansion
3.2. Industry Split up
3.3. Economic Allocation
3.4. Energetic Allocation
3.5. Exergetic Allocation
4. Life Cycle Inventory
4.1. Conversion
4.2. Impacts of the Construction of the Power Plants
Name | EcoInvent process | Amount/kWh | CO2/kWh |
---|---|---|---|
Blast furnace gas plant | Gas power plant, 100 MWe/RER/I U | 7.28 × 10−11 | 3.50 × 10−4 |
Natural gas plant | Gas power plant, 100 MWe/RER/I U | 5.95 × 10−4 | 2.86 × 10−4 |
4.3. Feedstock Production
4.3.1. Blast Furnace Gas Production
4.3.2. Natural Gas Supply Mix
Country of origin | % | EcoInvent processes | kg CO2eq/MJ |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | 35 | Natural gas, production NL, at long-distance pipeline/RER U | 1.88 × 10−3 |
Norway | 35 | Natural gas, production NO, at long-distance pipeline/RER U | 3.64 × 10−3 |
UK | 4 | Natural gas, production GB, at long-distance pipeline/RER U | 1.20 × 10−3 |
Qatar | 17 | see LNG model | 2.09 × 10−2 |
Russia | 3 | Natural gas, production RU, at long-distance pipeline/RER U | 2.17 × 10−2 |
Other | 6 | Natural gas, at long-distance pipeline/RER U | 1.03 × 10−2 |
EcoInvent processes | Amount | Units |
---|---|---|
Production | ||
Natural gas, at production onshore/DZ U | 2.70 × 10−2 | m3 |
Liquefaction | ||
Natural gas, burned in gas motor, for storage/DZ U | 1.56 × 10−1 | MJ |
Production plant, natural gas/GLO/I U | 2.13 × 10−14 | P |
Transport | ||
Transport, liquefied natural gas, freight ship/OCE U | 2.44 × 10−1 | tkm |
Evaporation | ||
Water, salt, ocean | 1.73 × 10−5 | m3 |
Natural gas, burned in gas turbine, for compressor station/DZ U | 1.51 × 10−2 | MJ |
Production plant, natural gas/GLO/I U | 2.13 × 10−14 | P |
Distribution | ||
Natural gas, burned in industrial furnace >100kW/RER U | 1.67 × 10−3 | MJ |
Electricity, medium voltage, at grid/BE U | 7.14 × 10−5 | kWh |
Pipeline, natural gas, high pressure distribution network/CH/I U | 7.95 × 10−10 | km |
Transport, natural gas, pipeline, long distance/RER U | 7.67 × 10−3 | tkm |
5. Result: Carbon Footprint of Electricity from Blast Furnace Gas
In kg CO2eq/kWh | BFG | Natural Gas |
---|---|---|
Plant infrastructure (GWPplant) | 0.0004 | 0.0003 |
Feedstock (GWPfeedstock) | 0.112 | 0.050 |
Conversion (GWPconversion) | 1.102 | 0.358 |
Total (GWPelec) | 1.215 | 0.408 |
5.1. System Expansion
5.2. Industry Split up
5.3. Energetic Allocation
5.4. Economic Allocation
5.5. Exergetic Allocation
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ekvall, T.; Tillman, A.-M. Open-loop recycling: Criteria for allocation procedures. Int. J. LCA 1997, 2, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azapagic, A.; Clift, R. Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-function systems. J. Clean. Prod. 1999, 7, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mierlo, J.; Maggetto, G.; van de Burgwal, E. Driving style and traffic measures—Influence on vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. J. Automob. Eng. 2004, 218, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
- Huppes, G. A general method for allocation in LCA. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA, Leiden, The Netherlands, 24–25 February 1994; pp. 74–90.
- Boguski, T.K.; Hunt, R.G.; Franklin, W.E. General mathematical models for LCI recycling. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 1994, 12, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mierlo, J.; Timmermans, J.M.; Maggetto, G. Environmental rating of vehicles with different alternative fuels and drive trains: A comparison of two approaches. Transp. Res. Part. D Transport. Environ. 2004, 9, 387–399. [Google Scholar]
- Klöpffer, W. Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment—A review. Int. J. LCA 1996, 1, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mierlo, J.; Vereecken, L.; Maggetto, G. How to define clean vehicles? Environmental impact rating of vehicles. Int. J. Autom. Technol. 2003, 4, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Hwang, T.; Lee, K.M. Allocation for cascade recycling system. Int. J. LCA 1997, 2, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, S.A.; Field, R.F. Explicit accounting methods for recycling in LCI. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 22, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rydberg, T. Cascade accounting in life cycle assessment applied to polymer recycling. Polym. Recycl. 1995, 1, 233–241. [Google Scholar]
- Van Mierlo, J.; Maggetto, G. Innovative iteration algorithm for a vehicle simulation program. Ieee. Trans. Veh. Technol. 2004, 53, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernesson, S.; Nilsson, D.; Hansson, P.-A. A limited LCA comparing large- and small-scale production of ethanol for heavy engines under Swedish conditions. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, H.; Wang, M.; Bloyd, C.; Putsche, V. Life-Cycle assessment of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of soybean-derived biodiesel and renewable fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 43, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balat, H. Prospects of biofuels for a sustainable energy future: A critical assessment. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part. A. 2010, 24, 85–111. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, L.; van der Voet, E.; Huppes, G.; Udo de Haes, H. Allocation issues in LCA methodology: A case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bossch, P.; Vergels, F.; van Mierlo, J. SUBAT: An assessment of sustainable battery technology. J. Power Sources 2006, 162, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, S.S.; Chase, H.A. A review on waste to energy processes using microwave pyrolysis. Energies 2012, 5, 4209–4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, Y. Environmental impacts of biofuels. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part A 2011, 26, 129–142. [Google Scholar]
- Malca, J.; Freire, F. Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): Assessing the implications of allocation. Energy 2006, 31, 3362–3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messineo, A.; Freni, G.; Volpe, R. Collection of thermal energy available from a biogas plant for leachate treatment in an urban landfill: A sicilian case study. Energies 2012, 5, 3753–3767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapouri, H.; Duffield, J.A.; Wang, M. The energy balance of corn ethanol: An update. In Agricultural Economic Report 813; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Matheys, J.; van Autenboer, W.; Timmermans, J.M.; van Mierlo, J. Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12–13, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirbas, A. Social, economic, environmental and policy aspects of biofuels. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part B 2010, 2, 75–109. [Google Scholar]
- Tsai, W.-T. An analysis of the use of biosludge as an energy source and its environmental benefits in Taiwan. Energies 2012, 5, 3064–3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Modeling optimal investments with portfolio analysis in electricity markets. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part A 2012, 30, 673–692. [Google Scholar]
- Barrero, R.; van Mierlo, J.; Tackoen, X. Energy savings in public transport. IEEE Vehicular Technol. Mag. 2008, 3, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherubini, F.; Strømman, A.H.; Ulgiati, S. Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—A case study. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 1070–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO 14040:2006; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G. Allocation in ISO 14041—A critical review. J. Cleaner Prod. 2001, 9, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnveden, G.; Ekvall, T. Life-Cycle assessment as a decision-support tool-the case of recycling versus incineration of paper. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 24, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, W.-P.; Beyer, H.-M. Environmental considerations on battery-housing recovery. Int. J. LCA 1999, 4, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekvall, T.; Person, L.; Ryberg, A.; Widheden, J.; Frees, N.; Nielsen, P.H.; Weidema, B.P.; Wesnæs, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems for Beer and Soft Drinks—Main Report; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Waste Gases and Process Emissions Sub-Installation. Guidance Document n° 8 on the Harmonized Free Allocation Methodology for the EU-ETS Post 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/benchmarking/docs/gd8_waste_gases_en.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2013).
- Classen, M.; Althaus, H.-G.; Blaser, S.; Scharnhorst, W.; Tuchschmid, M.; Jungbluth, N.; Faist Emmenegger, M. Life Cycle Inventories of Metals, Ecoinvent V2.1; Report No. 10; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Barrington, C. Ore-Based Metallics: Overview of Global Trends; International Iron Metallics Association: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gasparatos, A.; El-Haram, M.; Hroner, M. Assessing the sustainability of the UK society using thermodynamic concepts: Part 2. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 956–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dones, R.; Bauer, C.; Bolliger, R.; Burger, B.; Roder, A.; Faist-Emmenegger, M.; Frischnecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Tuchschmid, M. Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other UCTE Countries, Villigen and Uster; Ecoinvent Report No 5; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- FOD Economy. Energy Market 2009. Available online: http://economie.fgov.be (accessed on 26 February 2013).
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Messagie, M.; Boureima, F.; Mertens, J.; Sanfelix, J.; Macharis, C.; Mierlo, J.V. The Influence of Allocation on the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Production from Waste Gas, a Case Study for Blast Furnace Gas. Energies 2013, 6, 1217-1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031217
Messagie M, Boureima F, Mertens J, Sanfelix J, Macharis C, Mierlo JV. The Influence of Allocation on the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Production from Waste Gas, a Case Study for Blast Furnace Gas. Energies. 2013; 6(3):1217-1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031217
Chicago/Turabian StyleMessagie, Maarten, Fayçal Boureima, Jan Mertens, Javier Sanfelix, Cathy Macharis, and Joeri Van Mierlo. 2013. "The Influence of Allocation on the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Production from Waste Gas, a Case Study for Blast Furnace Gas" Energies 6, no. 3: 1217-1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031217