Advertisement

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 139–150 | Cite as

Biomass District Energy Trigeneration Systems: Emissions Reduction and Financial Impact

  • A. RentizelasEmail author
  • A. Tolis
  • I. Tatsiopoulos
Article

Abstract

Biomass cogeneration is widely used for district heating applications in central and northern Europe. Biomass trigeneration on the other hand, constitutes an innovative renewable energy application. In this work, an approved United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change baseline methodology has been extended to allow the examination of biomass trigeneration applications. The methodology is applied to a case study in Greece to investigate various environmental and financial aspects of this type of applications. The results suggest that trigeneration may lead to significant emissions reduction compared to using fossil fuels or even biomass cogeneration and electricity generation. The emissions reduction achieved may be materialized into a considerable revenue stream for the project, if traded through a trading mechanism such as the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to compensate for the high volatility of the emission allowances’ value and the immaturity of the EU Trading Scheme, which prevent a reliable estimation of the related revenue. The work concludes that emission allowances trading may develop into one of the major revenue streams of biomass trigeneration projects, significantly increasing their financial yield and attractiveness. The impact on the yield is significant even for low future values of emission allowances and could become the main income revenue source of such projects, if emission allowances increase their value substantially. The application of trigeneration for district energy proves to lead to increased environmental and financial benefits compared to the cogeneration or electricity generation cases.

Keywords

Trigeneration Emissions trading Greenhouse gases Biomass District energy Economic analysis 

References

  1. Brannlund, R., & Lundgren, T. (2007). Swedish industry and Kyoto—an assessment of the effects of the European CO2 emission trading system. Energy Policy, 35, 4749–4762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chladna, Z. (2007). Determination of optimal rotation period under stochastic wood and carbon prices. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 1031–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cundiff, J. S., Dias, N., & Sherali, H. D. (1997). A linear programming approach for designing a herbaceous biomass delivery system. Bioresource Technology, 59, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forsberg, G. (2000). Biomass energy transport: analysis of bioenergy transport chains using life cycle inventory method. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hidalgo, I., Szabo, L., Ciscar, J. C., & Soria, A. (2005). Technological prospects and CO2 emission trading analyses in the iron and steel industry: a global model. Energy, 30, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holmgren, K., & Sternhufvud, C. (2008). CO2-emission reduction costs for petroleum refineries in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes, E. (2000). Biomass cofiring: economics, policy and opportunities. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19, 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huisman, W., Venturi, P., & Molenaar, J. (1997). Costs of supply chains of Miscanthus giganteus. Industrial Crops and Products, 6, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC. (1996). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: reference manual, table 1–32: estimated emission factors for US heavy duty diesel vehicles (p. 1.75). Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch1ref4.pdf.
  10. IPCC/TEAP. (2005). IPCC/TEAP special report: safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system—summary for policymakers (p. 194). Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/docs/full-reports/SROC-FullVolumev2.pdf.
  11. Mahlman, J. (2005). The long timescales of human-caused climate warming: further challenges for the global policy process. Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources, 5, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rathmann, M. (2007). Do support systems for RES-E reduce EU-ETS-driven electricity prices? Energy Policy, 35, 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rentizelas, A. (2007) Supply chain optimization models: application in the case of energy exploitation of multiple biomass sources. Ph.D. Thesis, National Technical University of Athens.Google Scholar
  14. Rentizelas, A., Tolis, A. & Tatsiopoulos, I. P. (2006). Effect of greenhouse gas emissions trading on investment decisions for biomass-to-energy production. Paper presented at the Environmental Economics 2006 Conference, Mykonos, Greece.Google Scholar
  15. Ribbenhed, M., Thoren, M., & Sternhufvud, C. (2008). CO2 emission reduction costs for iron ore-based steelmaking in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shrestha, R. M., & Shrestha, R. (2004). Economics of clean development mechanism power projects under alternative approaches for setting baseline emissions. Energy Policy, 32, 1363–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Springer, U. (2003). The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto protocol: a survey of model studies. Energy Economics, 25, 527–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Springer, U., & Varilek, M. (2004). Estimating the price of tradable permits for greenhouse gas emissions in 2008–12. Energy Policy, 32, 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Trygg, L., & Amiri, S. (2007). European perspective on absorption cooling in a combined heat and power system—a case study of energy utility and industries in Sweden. Applied Energy, 84, 1319–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. UNFCCC. (2006). Revision to the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0006: consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from biomass residues. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—CDM executive board, version 2 03, March 2006.Google Scholar
  21. Woerdman, E. (2000). Implementing the Kyoto protocol: why JI and CDM show more promise than international emissions trading. Energy Policy, 28, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wuebbles, D., & Jain, A. (2001). Concerns about climate change and the role of fossil fuel use. Fuel Processing Technology, 71, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang, Z. (2000). Estimating the size of the potential market for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. Review of World Economics, 136, 491–521.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sector of Industrial Management and Operational Research, School of Mechanical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations