• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Closed Access close
• Restricted close
• Open Source close
• 7. Clean energy close
• 1. No poverty close
• AU close
• EU close

Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel. Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed; however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions, energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae, in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further assessed.

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

Abstract With promising benefits such as traffic emission reduction, traffic congestion alleviation, and parking problem solving, Electric Vehicle (EV)-sharing systems have attracted large attentions in recent years. Different from other business modes, customers in sharing economy systems are usually price sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to shift the usage of shared EVs through a well-designed Dynamic Pricing Scheme (DPS), with the objective of maximizing the system operator's total profit. In this study, we propose a novel DPS for a large-scale EV-sharing network to address the EV unbalancing issue and satisfy the vehicle-grid-integration (VGI) service based on accurate station-level demand prediction. The proposed DPS is formulated as a complex optimization problem, which includes two Price Adjustment Level (PAL) decision variables for every origin-destination pair of stations. The two PALs are employed to affect the EV-sharing demand and travel time between each station pair, respectively. Physical and operational constraints from both EV demand and VGI service aspects are also included in the proposed model. Two case study are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

The energy considered as waste heat in industrial furnaces owing to inefficiencies represents a substantial opportunity for recovery by means of thermal energy storage (TES) implementation. Although conventional systems based on sensible heat are used extensively, these systems involve technical limitations. Latent heat storage based on phase change materials (PCMs) results in a promising alternative for storing and recovering waste heat. Within this scope, the proposed PCM-TES allows for demonstrating its implementation feasibility in energy-intensive industries at high temperature range. The stored energy is meant to preheat the air temperature entering the furnace by using a PCM whose melting point is 885 °C. In this sense, a heat transfer model simulation is established to determine an appropriate design based on mass and energy conservation equations. The thermal performance is analysed for the melting and solidification processes, the phase transition and its influence on heat transference. Moreover, the temperature profile is illustrated for the PCM and combustion air stream. The obtained results prove the achievability of very high temperature levels (from 700 to 865 °C) in the combustion air preheating in a ceramic furnace; so corroborating an energy and environmental efficiency enhancement, compared to the initial condition presenting an air outlet at 650 °C.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Abstract This paper aims to present a feasibility study of the innovative plant for methanol synthesis from carbon dioxide-sequestered by fossil fuel power plant and hydrogen, which is produced by water electrolyzer employing the over-production on the electrical grid. The thermo-economic analysis is performed in the framework of the MefCO2 H2020 EU project and it is referred to the German economic scenario, properly taking into account the real market costs and cost functions for different components of the plant. Three different plant capacities for methanol production (4000 10,000 and 50,000 ton/year) have been investigated, assuming an average cost for electrical energy to feed electrolysers and analyzing the influence of the most significant parameters (oxygen selling option, methanol selling price and electrolysers’ capital cost) on the profitability of the plant. The analysis has been performed in W-ECoMP, software for the thermo-economic analysis and plant optimization developed by the University of Genoa.

Biofuels have been identified as a mid-term GHG emission abatement solution for decarbonising the transport sector. This study examines the techno-economic analysis of biofuel production via biomass fast pyrolysis and subsequent bio-oil upgrading via zeolite cracking. The aim of this study is to compare the techno-economic feasibility of two conceptual catalyst regeneration configurations for the zeolite cracking process: (i) a two-stage regenerator operating sequentially in partial and complete combustion modes (P-2RG) and (ii) a single stage regenerator operating in complete combustion mode coupled with a catalyst cooler (P-1RGC). The designs were implemented in Aspen Plus® based on a hypothetical 72 t/day pine wood fast pyrolysis and zeolite cracking plant and compared in terms of energy efficiency and profitability. The energy efficiencies of P-2RG and P-1RGC were estimated at 54% and 52%, respectively with corresponding minimum fuel selling prices (MFSPs) of £7.48/GGE and £7.20/GGE. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the MFSPs of both designs are mainly sensitive to variations in fuel yield, operating cost and income tax. Furthermore, uncertainty analysis indicated that the likely range of the MFSPs of P-1RGC (£5.81/GGE  £11.63/GGE) at 95% probability was more economically favourable compared with P-2RG, along with a penalty of 2% reduction in energy efficiency. The results provide evidence to support the economic viability of biofuel production via zeolite cracking of pyrolysis-derived bio-oil.