石炭火力の低炭素代替としての籾殻ガス化発電の統合ライフサイクル・技術経済評価
Integrated Life Cycle and Techno‐Economic Assessment of Rice Husk Gasification as a Low‐Carbon Alternative to Coal Power (原題)
Saadia Bashir, Shamaila Noureen, Shafaqat Ali, Abdul‐Sattar Nizami, Mohammad Rehan
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
籾殻ガス化発電と石炭火力発電を1kWhあたりで比較したLCA・ライフサイクルコスト分析。籾殻発電はGWPで約76%、化石資源枯渇で約79%削減。経済性も優れ、NPV 865万ドル、IRR43%、回収期間2年と試算され、石炭は負のNPVと14年の回収期間。SDGs7・12・13への貢献も示す。
English
A cradle-to-gate LCA and life-cycle costing comparing rice husk gasification power with coal power per kWh. Rice husk electricity cuts GWP by ~76% and fossil depletion by ~79%. Economically it outperforms coal with NPV of USD 8.65M, 43% IRR and a 2-year payback, versus negative NPV and 14-year payback for coal, supporting SDGs 7, 12 and 13.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では燃料調達制約から籾殻専焼は限定的だが、未利用バイオマスの発電利用と回収期間の短さは、再エネ調達や脱炭素投資判断を迫られる事業者にとって参考になる。
In the global GX context
Adds empirical LCA and techno-economic evidence on agricultural-residue biomass as a coal substitute, relevant to transition finance and renewable procurement debates under ISSB/CSRD disclosure of avoided emissions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:農業残渣バイオマスのLCA手法とホットスポット分析の比較事例として参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:未利用バイオマス発電の投資回収期間と経済性の目安として活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:石炭代替のバイオマス政策インセンティブ設計の根拠として参考になる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
ABSTRACT As energy demand grows, sustainable solutions are required to mitigate climate consequences and improve energy security. This study includes the comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of electricity production from rice husk gasification and traditional coal power electricity, based on a cradle‐to‐gate system boundary and a functional unit of 1 kWh. The results show that rice husk‐based electricity significantly reduces the environmental impacts compared to coal‐based electricity. The global warming potential (GWP) and fossil depletion (FDP) of coal‐based electricity were estimated at 0.0325 kg CO 2 eq and 3.08 kg oil eq, respectively, while rice husk was 0.00767 kg CO 2 eq and 0.644 kg oil eq, respectively. This represents reductions of around 76% in GWP and 79% in FDP. According to the contribution analysis, the most important hotspot in both rice husk‐based electricity and coal‐based electricity was the power plant operating phase, as it causes major environmental impacts. The economic assessment showed that rice husk gasification is more financially viable than coal‐based power, with a net present value (NPV) of USD 8.65 million, an IRR of 43%, and a 2‐year payback period, whereas coal electricity has a negative NPV (‐USD 1.15 million), a low IRR (5.8%), and a 14‐year payback period. Rice husk‐based power helps achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 7, 12, and 13) by promoting clean energy, ethical consumption, and climate action.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.70694first seen 2026-11-12 04:55:54 · last seen 2026-11-13 05:09:08
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。