석탄화력발전은 온실가스와 대기오염물질의 대량 배출이 문제점으로 제기되어 왔고, 이에 대한 대안으로 바이오매스 혼소가 논의되어 왔다. 본 연구는 1GWe 미분탄 석탄화력발전소를 대상으로 바이오매스 혼소에 따른 지구온난화지수(Global Warming Potential, GWP)를 포함한 환경영향을 전과정평가(Life Cycle Assessment, LCA)를 진행하여 공급망에 따른 환경적 타당성을 비교·분석하였다. 단위 공정 분석에는 Ecoinvent 데이터베이스를 활용하였으며, IPCC 2021과 ReCiPe 2016 방법론을 적용하여 혼소율 0~30% 범위에서 전력 1kWh 생산당 배출되는 환경영향을 산정하였다. 2021년 이전에 건설된 국내 1GWe급 발전소 8기의 평균 가동률은 75%였으며, 이를 본 연구에 적용하였다. 혼소에는 바이오매스 펠릿을 사용하였고, 공급망은 국내(S1)와 해외(S2)로 한정하였다. 석탄은 혼소율에 따라 연간 최대 18,683,096톤, 바이오매스는 8,308,184톤을 사용하는 것으로 설정하였다. 운송은 연간 물량 기준 단일 거리로 계산하였으며, 8개의 플랜트 중 하나의 플랜트를 기준으로 운송거리를 산정하여 적용하였다. S1 시나리오는 혼소율 20% 이하에서 GWP가 감소하여 연간 최대 131,208톤이 저감되었고, S2 시나리오는 20%를 초과하는 구간에서 최대 85,527톤이 감소하였다. 따라서 실질적인 탄소 배출 저감을 위해서는 국내 공급망은 혼소율 20% 이하로 유지하고, 해외 공급망은 20%를 초과하는 고혼소율 운전과 공급망 최적화가 필요하다.

Coal-fired power generation has been criticized for its massive emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and biomass co-combustion has been discussed as an alternative. This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the environmental impacts, including the global warming potential (GWP), of biomass co-combustion at a 1GWe pulverized coal-fired power plant to compare and analyze the environmental feasibility based on the supply chain. Unit process analysis utilized the Ecoinvent database, and the IPCC 2021 and ReCiPe 2016 methodologies were applied to calculate the environmental impacts per 1 kWh of electricity produced within a co-combustion rate range of 0–30%. The average operating rate of eight domestic 1GWe-class power plants constructed prior to 2021 was 75%, which was applied in this study. Biomass pellets were used for co-combustion, and the supply chain was limited to domestic (S1) and overseas (S2). Coal was set at a maximum of 18,683,096 tons per year, and biomass at 8,308,184 tons per year, depending on the co-combustion rate. Transportation was calculated based on annual volume using a single distance, with the transportation

distance determined by selecting one of the eight plants as the reference point. In the S1 scenario, GWP decreased at cocombustion

rates of 20% or lower, resulting in a maximum reduction of 131,208 tons per year. In the S2 scenario, the maximum reduction was 85,527 tons in the range exceeding 20%. Therefore, to achieve substantial carbon emissions reductions, domestic supply chains must maintain a co-combustion rate of 20% or below, while overseas supply chains require optimization of high co-combustion rate operations exceeding 20% and supply chain optimization.

Life cycle assessment, Co-combustion, Environmental impact, Biomass, Coal

1. Ogunsola, N. O., Oh, S. S., Jeon, P. R., Ling, J. L. J., Park, H. J.,
Park, H. S., Lee, H. E., Sohn, J. M. and Lee, S. H., “Progresses
and Challenges of Machine Learning Approaches in Thermochemical
Processes for Bioenergy: A Review,” Korean J. Chem.
Eng., 41, 1923(2024).
2. Moon, J.-Y., Hong, J.-H., Jang, W.-I. and Kim, S.-H., “Korea’s
Response to Strengthen Energy Security and Achieve Carbon
Neutrality,” Korea Institute for International Economic Policy,
Sejong, South Korea(2023).
3. Park, J.-h., Lee, J., Binns, M. and Kim, J.-K., “Process Design
and Economic Assessment of Biomass-based Hydrogen Production
Processes,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., 41, 2239(2024).
4. https://www.eia.gov/opendata/browser/international.
5. Institute, K. E. E., “Monthly Energy Statistics, August 2024,”
Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, South Korea(2024).
6. Lee, S.-Y., “The Domestic Impact of Prolonged Global Energy
Supply Crisis and Response Strategies,” Korea Energy Economics
Institute, Ulsan, South Korea(2022).
7. Park, H. S., An, J. W., Lee, H. E., Park, H. J., Oh, S. S., Ling, J.
L. J. and Lee, S. H., “Scenario Analysis, Technology Assessment,
and Policy Review for Achieving Carbon Neutrality in the Energy
Sector,” Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 61, 496(2023).
8. Park, H. S., Park, H. J., Lee, H. E., Oh, S. S., Ling, J. L. J., Solanki,
B. S., Ahn, H. and Lee, S. H., “Process Simulation of a Dual Fluidized
Bed Ca-looping Biomass Gasifier With Cuo/cao for Enhanced
Hydrogen Production,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., 1(2025).
9. Kim, T.-H., “Study on Financing and Management Measures for
Decarbonisation of the Power Industry to Promote Carbon Neutrality,”
Korea Energy Economics Institute, Ulsan, South Korea(2022).
10. Kook, J. W. and Lee, S. H., “Analysis of Biomass Energy Potential
Around Major Cities in South Korea,” Appl. Chem. Eng., 26, 178
(2015).
11. Gwak, Y. R., Kim, Y. B., Gwak, I. S. and Lee, S. H., “Economic
Evaluation of Synthetic Ethanol Production by Using Domestic
Biowastes and Coal Mixture,” Fuel, 213, 115(2018).
12. Lee, S. H., Lee, T. H., Jeong, S. M. and Lee, J. M., “Economic
Analysis of a 600 mwe Ultra Supercritical Circulating Fluidized
Bed Power Plant Based on Coal Tax and Biomass Co-combustion
Plans,” Renew. Energy, 138, 121(2019).
13. Agbor, E., Zhang, X. and Kumar, A., “A Review of Biomass
Co-firing in North America,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 40,
930(2014).
14. Bioenergy, I., “Co-utilisation of Biomass with Fossil Fuels –
summary and Conclusions,” IEA Bioenergy, Paris, France(2006).
15. Oh, S. S., Ling, J. L. J., Park, H. J., Park, H. S., Lee, H. E. and Lee,
S. H., “Technical Feasibility of a 1000 mwe Pulverized Coal Power
Plant Under Ammonia Co-combustion Conditions,” Case Stud.
Therm. Eng., 55, 104118(2024).
16. Grag, A., Kazunari, K., and Pulles, T., “Volume 2: Energy. Chapter
1: Introduction,” 2006 Ipcc Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), Hayama, Japan, pp. 1.1–1.19 (2006).
17. Ministry of Trade, I. a. E., “Guidelines for the Administration
and Operation of the Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff and Fuel
Blend Tariff,” (2025).
18. Yoon, M. H., “Fuelwood use in Republic of Korea’s Forests:
Issues and Improvement Measures for Forest Biomass Energy
Policy,” Office of Rep. Yoon, Mee-Hyang, Republic of Korea
(2023).
19. Lee, S.-r., Han, N. and Han, G.-S., “Strategies for Institutionalizing
Sustainability Certification of Forest Biomass Energy: Focusing
on the Iea Perspective and the Policies of the Eu, the Uk, and
Japan,” New & Renewable Energy, 21, 15(2025).
20. Lee, J. H. and Ryu, J. H., “Life Cycle Assessment (lca) of the
Wind Turbine: A Case Study of Korea Yeongdeok Wind Farm,”
Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 61, 142(2023).
21. Lee, H. E., Ling, J. L. J., Pae, K. P., Solanki, B. S., Park, H. S., Ahn,
H. J., Seo, H. W. and Lee, S. H., “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment
of Carbon-free Ammonia as Fuel for Power Generation Based
on the Perspective of Supply Chains,” Energy, 312, 133557(2024).
22. Rasheed, R., Javed, H., Rizwan, A., Sharif, F., Yasar, A., Tabinda,
A. B., Ahmad, S. R., Wang, Y. and Su, Y., “Life Cycle Assessment
of a Cleaner Supercritical Coal-fired Power Plant,” J. Clean. Prod.,
279, 123869(2021).
23. Masson-Delmotte V, Z. P., Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger
S, et al., ed. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis.
Contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK(2021).
24. Huijbregts, M. A., Steinmann, Z. J., Elshout, P. M., Stam, G.,
Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A. and Van Zelm, R.,
“Recipe 2016: A Harmonised Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.,
22, 138(2017).
25. Jungbluth, N., “Description of Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Methods,” ESU-Services, Schaffhausen, Switzerland, ESU-services
Ltd., Schaffhausen, Switzerland(2025).
26. Pun, V. C., Kazemiparkouhi, F., Manjourides, J. and Suh, H. H.,
“Long-term pm2. 5 exposure and Respiratory, Cancer, and Cardiovascular
Mortality in Older us Adults,” Am. J. Epidemiol.,
186, 961(2017).
27. Wei, Y., Jing, X., Su, F., Li, Z., Wang, F. and Guo, H., “Does ph
Matter for Ecosystem Multifunctionality? An Empirical Test in a
Semi‐arid Grassland on the Loess Plateau,” Funct. Ecol., 36,
1739(2022).
28. Kim, J., Lee, J.-S., Lim, Y.-J. and Oh, S.-J., “Analysis of the Current
State of Bioenergy Life Cycle Assessment Methodologies,”
Green Technology Center Korea, Seoul, South Korea(2022).
29. (KPX), K. P. E., “2023 Power Generation Facilities Status,”
Korea Power Exchange, Naju, Jeollanam-do(2024).
30. https://www.data.go.kr/data/15084753/openapi.do
31. An, N.-H., Lee, S.-m., Cho, J.-R. and Lee, C.-R., “Estimation of
Agricultural by-products and Investigation on Nutrient Contents
for Alternatives of Imported Oil-cakes,” J. Korea Org. Resour.
Recycling Assoc., 27, 71(2019).
32. Yoon, S.-H., Beak, G.-U., Moon, J.-H., Jo, S.-H., Park, S.-J., Kim,
J.-Y., Seo, M.-W., Yoon, S.-J., Yoon, S.-M. and Lee, J.-G., “Airstaging
Effect for no x Reduction in Circulating Fluidized Bed
Combustion of Domestic Unused Biomass,” Korean Chem. Eng.
Res., 59, 127(2021).
33. Yoon, S. J., Son, Y.-I., Kim, Y.-K. and Lee, J.-G., “Gasification
and Power Generation Characteristics of Rice Husk and Rice
Husk Pellet Using a Downdraft Fixed-bed Gasifier,” Renewable
Energy, 42, 163(2012).
34. Bajo Jr, P. O. and Acda, M. N., “Fuel Pellets From a Mixture of
Rice Husk and Wood Particles,” BioResources, 12, 6618(2017).
35. Kim, S.-H., Jeong, H.-M. and Han, G.-S., “Fuel Characteristics
of Wood Pellets Fabricated with Tropical Acacia Wood,” Journal
of Korea TAPPI, 52, 103(2020).
36. Margawadi, K. A., Widayat, W. and Suedy, S. W. A., “Co-firing
Simulations with Blending of Low Range Coal and Medium Range
Coal on the Performance of 615 mw Capacity Steam Power Plant
and Indonesia Carbon Trading Review,” E3S Web of Conferences,
EDP Sciences, p. 01005(2025).
37. Wang, X., Rahman, Z. U., Lv, Z., Zhu, Y., Ruan, R., Deng, S.,
Zhang, L. and Tan, H., “Experimental Study and Design of Biomass
Co-firing in a Full-scale Coal-fired Furnace with Storage Pulverizing
System,” Agronomy, 11, 810(2021).
38. Althaus, H., Chudacoff, M., Hischier, R., Jungbluth, N., Osses, M.,
Primas, A. and Hellweg, S., “Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals,”
Ecoinvent report(2007).
39. https://www.forest.go.kr/kfsweb/kfi/kfs/cms/cmsView.do?cmsId=
FC_003565
40. https://www.re.or.kr/info/listRecyclableResourcesPageNew.do
41. Pulles, T., Gillenwater, M. and Radunsky, K., “Co2 Emissions
From Biomass Combustion Accounting of co2 Emissions From
Biomass Under the Unfccc,” Carbon Manag., 13, 181(2022).
42. Beagle, E. and Belmont, E., “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment
of Biomass Utilization for Electricity Generation in the European
Union and the United States,” Energy Policy, 128, 267(2019).
43. Nguyen, L., Cafferty, K. G., Searcy, E. M. and Spatari, S., “Uncertainties
in Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Advanced
Biomass Feedstock Logistics Supply Chains in Kansas,” Energies,
7, 7125(2014).
44. Topić Božič, J., Fric, U., Čikić, A. and Muhič, S., “Life Cycle
Assessment of Using Firewood and Wood Pellets in Slovenia as
Two Primary Wood-based Heating Systems and Their Environmental
Impact,” Sustainability, 16, 1687(2024).
45. Goh, D.-H., “A Comparative Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Internal Combustion Engine Versus Electric Vehicles:
Focusing on the Use Phase in Life Cycle Assessment,” Chung-
Ang University, Seoul, South Korea(2025).
46. Weihs, G. F., Jones, J., Ho, M., Malik, R., Abbas, A., Meka, W.,
Fennell, P. and Wiley, D., “Life Cycle Assessment of Co-firing
Coal and Wood Waste for Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and
Storage–new South Wales Study,” Energy Conv. Manag., 273,
116406(2022).
47. Kommalapati, R. R., Hossan, I., Botlaguduru, V. S. V., Du, H.
and Huque, Z., “Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Biomass
Co-firing with Coal at a Power Plant in the Greater Houston Area,”
Sustainability, 10, 2193(2018).
48. Magelli, F., Boucher, K., Bi, H. T., Melin, S. and Bonoli, A.,
“An Environmental Impact Assessment of Exported Wood Pellets
From Canada to Europe,” Biomass Bioenerg., 33, 434(2009).
49. Ruiz, D., San Miguel, G., Corona, B. and López, F., “Lca of a
Multifunctional Bioenergy Chain Based on Pellet Production,”
Fuel, 215, 601(2018).
50. Sadaghiani, S., Mafakheri, F. and Chen, Z., “Life Cycle Assessment
of Bioenergy Production Using Wood Pellets: A Case Study
of Remote Communities in Canada,” Energies, 16, 5697(2023).
51. Lee, M.-w. and Lee, H.-s., “Estimation of Ship Emissions and
Environmental Costs: Focusing on Port of Busan,” Journal of
Korea Port Economic Association, 32, 15(2016).
52. Badour, C., Gilbert, A., Xu, C., Li, H., Shao, Y., Tourigny, G.
and Preto, F., “Combustion and Air Emissions From Co‐firing a
Wood Biomass, a Canadian Peat and a Canadian Lignite Coal in
a Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustor,” The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 90, 1170(2012).
53. Oviedo, M. D., Mendoza, J. M., German, S. S. and Rhenals-Julio,
J. D., “Effect of Biomass Addition on Sox, Nox, and CO2 Emissions
During Cofiring of Pulverized Coal,” Journal of Southwest
Jiaotong University, 59, 88(2024).
54. Fei, L., Zhao, B., Liu, J. and Su, Y., “Emission Characteristics
and Formation Mechanisms of pm2. 5 From Co-firing of Algal
Biomass and Coal,” J. Energy Inst., 98, 354(2021).
55. Wang, B., Xu, S., Wang, Z., Shan, Y., Zhang, B., Li, H., Deng,
N. and Shi, H., “Retrofitting Coal Power Units with Biomass
and Coal Cofiring Intensifies Air Pollution and Health Risks,”
Environ. Sci. Technol., 58, 21523(2024).