生物质经甲醇法和费托法制取汽油的生命周期评价  

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT COMPARISION OF BIOMASS TO GASOLINE THROUGH MTG AND STG METHODS

作　　者：郭金凤[1] 王树荣[1] 尹倩倩[1] 朱玲君[1] 骆仲泱 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学能源清洁利用国家重点实验室,杭州310027

出　　处：《太阳能学报》2015年第9期2052-2058,共7页Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica

基　　金："十二五"国家科技支撑计划(2011BAD22B06);国家自然科学基金(51276166);国际科技合作项目(2011DFR60190);新世纪优秀人才支持计划(NCET-10-0741);浙江省杰出青年科学基金(R1110089)

摘　　要：对生物质费托(BIO-STG)法制汽油和生物质甲醇(BIO-MTG)法制汽油进行清单分析和生命周期评估,并在选取相同边界的前提下,比较两种方法制汽油的生命周期排放和能耗。两种方法的全球变暖潜值在计入生长过程吸收CO2的前提下均为负值,相差不大。其他生命周期排放的评价指标由于设计流程的相似性相差较小。在生命周期排放水平相近的前提下,处理相同质量的生物质秸秆,BIO-MTG法的总能耗比BIO-STG法高,BIO-MTG法的产油率比BIO-STG法高约14%,最终前者的单位能耗比后者略低。The life cycle assessment and inventory analysis of biomass to gasoline through MTG and STG methods were conducted to evaluate whether the process would be environmentally friendly. Energy consumption and pollute emission evaluation of the two entire life cycles were compared under the same boundary definition. Global warming potential of BIO-MTG and BIO-STG are both negative and close when the CO2 absorbed during the biomass growth is considered. The other LCA potentials appear to be close for the similarity of process design. The energy consumption of BIO-MTG is higher than that of BIO-STG, and the gasoline yield of BIO-MTG is 14% higher than that of BIO-STG when the feedstock with same quality is given for the two methods. The unit energy consumption of BIO-MTG is less than that of BIO-MTG.

关 键 词：生物质 甲醇制汽油 费托合成 生命周期评价 

分 类 号：TK6[动力工程及工程热物理—生物能]