Mikołaj Owsianiak , Daniel Fozer , Łukasz Chrzanowski , Michael Renz , Bartosz Nowacki , Morten Ryberg
{"title":"生物质残渣水热碳化用于生物能源的评估:与现有技术进行基于生命周期的比较","authors":"Mikołaj Owsianiak , Daniel Fozer , Łukasz Chrzanowski , Michael Renz , Bartosz Nowacki , Morten Ryberg","doi":"10.1016/j.bioeco.2024.100069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste with energy recovery was evaluated as a biowaste treatment technology using attributional life cycle assessment carried out in line with ISO 14044. Results show that important differences were observed for individual impact categories. Hydrothermal carbonization outperformed all other incumbent technologies in three impact categories and performed on par with anaerobic digestion and composting in the climate change category, where impact scores across three different wet biowaste streams ranged from -0.014 to -0.032 kg CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents per kg of wet biowaste treated. However, it performed the worst in those environmental impacts which address resource depletion, including mineral, fossil and renewable resource depletion. This stresses the need to include all impact categories when evaluating environmental performance of biowaste treatment technologies. Differences in the ranking between different midpoint categories corroborate earlier studies suggesting that the general waste hierarchy might not necessarily apply to hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100394,"journal":{"name":"EFB Bioeconomy Journal","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100069"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667041024000077/pdfft?md5=8052a10f87873514a0af05dc7e36f2b6&pid=1-s2.0-S2667041024000077-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of hydrothermal carbonization of biomass residues for bioenergy: A life-cycle based comparison against incumbent technologies\",\"authors\":\"Mikołaj Owsianiak , Daniel Fozer , Łukasz Chrzanowski , Michael Renz , Bartosz Nowacki , Morten Ryberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bioeco.2024.100069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste with energy recovery was evaluated as a biowaste treatment technology using attributional life cycle assessment carried out in line with ISO 14044. Results show that important differences were observed for individual impact categories. Hydrothermal carbonization outperformed all other incumbent technologies in three impact categories and performed on par with anaerobic digestion and composting in the climate change category, where impact scores across three different wet biowaste streams ranged from -0.014 to -0.032 kg CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents per kg of wet biowaste treated. However, it performed the worst in those environmental impacts which address resource depletion, including mineral, fossil and renewable resource depletion. This stresses the need to include all impact categories when evaluating environmental performance of biowaste treatment technologies. Differences in the ranking between different midpoint categories corroborate earlier studies suggesting that the general waste hierarchy might not necessarily apply to hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EFB Bioeconomy Journal\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100069\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667041024000077/pdfft?md5=8052a10f87873514a0af05dc7e36f2b6&pid=1-s2.0-S2667041024000077-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EFB Bioeconomy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667041024000077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFB Bioeconomy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667041024000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
根据 ISO 14044 标准,采用归因式生命周期评估方法,对生物废物水热碳化与能源回收作为一种生物废物处理技术进行了评估。结果表明,各个影响类别之间存在重大差异。在三个影响类别中,水热碳化技术的表现优于所有其他现有技术,在气候变化类别中,水热碳化技术的表现与厌氧消化和堆肥技术相当,在三个不同的湿生物废物流中,每处理一千克湿生物废物的影响得分从-0.014 到-0.032 千克二氧化碳当量不等。然而,在涉及资源损耗(包括矿物、化石和可再生资源损耗)的环境影响方面,它的表现最差。这就强调了在评估生物废物处理技术的环境绩效时,需要包括所有影响类别。不同中点类别之间的排名差异证实了之前的研究,即一般废物等级制度不一定适用于生物废物的热液碳化。
Evaluation of hydrothermal carbonization of biomass residues for bioenergy: A life-cycle based comparison against incumbent technologies
Hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste with energy recovery was evaluated as a biowaste treatment technology using attributional life cycle assessment carried out in line with ISO 14044. Results show that important differences were observed for individual impact categories. Hydrothermal carbonization outperformed all other incumbent technologies in three impact categories and performed on par with anaerobic digestion and composting in the climate change category, where impact scores across three different wet biowaste streams ranged from -0.014 to -0.032 kg CO2 equivalents per kg of wet biowaste treated. However, it performed the worst in those environmental impacts which address resource depletion, including mineral, fossil and renewable resource depletion. This stresses the need to include all impact categories when evaluating environmental performance of biowaste treatment technologies. Differences in the ranking between different midpoint categories corroborate earlier studies suggesting that the general waste hierarchy might not necessarily apply to hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste.