Comparing alternative cellulosic biomass biorefining systems: Centralized versus distributed processing systems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 26 Citations

Abstract

This study explores how two different cellulosic ethanol production system configurations (distributed versus centralized processing) affect some aspects of the economic and environmental performance of cellulosic ethanol, measured as minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) and various environmental impact categories. The eco-efficiency indicator, which simultaneously accounts for economic and environmental features, is also calculated. The centralized configuration offers better economic performance for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration is economically superior for large-scale biorefineries. The MESP of the centralized configuration declines with increased biorefinery size up to a point and then rises due to the cost of trucking biomass to the biorefinery. In contrast, the MESP in the distributed configuration continuously declines with increasing biorefinery size due to the lower costs of railroad transportation and the greater economies of scale achieved at much larger biorefinery sizes, including biorefineries that reach the size of an average oil refinery-about 30,000 tons per day of feedstock. The centralized system yields lower environmental impacts for most impact categories than does the distributed system regardless of the biorefinery size. Eco-efficiency analysis shows that the centralized configuration is more sustainable for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration with railroad transport is more sustainable for large-scale biorefineries. Compared with gasoline from petroleum, cellulosic ethanol fuel offers sustainability advantages for the following environmental impact categories: fossil energy consumption, global warming, human health impacts by particulate matter, ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity, human health cancer, and human health non-cancer, depending somewhat on the biorefinery sizes and the system configurations.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages135-147
Number of pages13
JournalBiomass and Bioenergy
Volume74
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

Profile

Cellulosic ethanol
biorefining
Environmental impact
ethanol
Sales
Biomass
Ethanol
Health
Economics
biomass
Railroad transportation
Processing
Ozone layer
Ethanol fuels
environmental impact
Railroads
Global warming
bioethanol
Feedstocks
Gasoline

Keywords

  • ACID
  • AFEX
  • Cellulosic ethanol
  • Corn stover
  • DCFROR
  • Distributed biomass processing
  • ECOT
  • EISA
  • EUTR
  • FSE
  • GE
  • GHG
  • GREET
  • GWI
  • HHC
  • HHNC
  • HHP
  • IPCC
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Local biomass processing depot
  • MESP
  • Minimum ethanol selling price
  • NREL
  • OLD
  • PDF
  • SMG

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agronomy and Crop Science
  • Forestry
  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Waste Management and Disposal

Cite this

@article{a6205787b37d4c90bd4770ea0d4ff38d,
title = "Comparing alternative cellulosic biomass biorefining systems: Centralized versus distributed processing systems",
abstract = "This study explores how two different cellulosic ethanol production system configurations (distributed versus centralized processing) affect some aspects of the economic and environmental performance of cellulosic ethanol, measured as minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) and various environmental impact categories. The eco-efficiency indicator, which simultaneously accounts for economic and environmental features, is also calculated. The centralized configuration offers better economic performance for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration is economically superior for large-scale biorefineries. The MESP of the centralized configuration declines with increased biorefinery size up to a point and then rises due to the cost of trucking biomass to the biorefinery. In contrast, the MESP in the distributed configuration continuously declines with increasing biorefinery size due to the lower costs of railroad transportation and the greater economies of scale achieved at much larger biorefinery sizes, including biorefineries that reach the size of an average oil refinery-about 30,000 tons per day of feedstock. The centralized system yields lower environmental impacts for most impact categories than does the distributed system regardless of the biorefinery size. Eco-efficiency analysis shows that the centralized configuration is more sustainable for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration with railroad transport is more sustainable for large-scale biorefineries. Compared with gasoline from petroleum, cellulosic ethanol fuel offers sustainability advantages for the following environmental impact categories: fossil energy consumption, global warming, human health impacts by particulate matter, ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity, human health cancer, and human health non-cancer, depending somewhat on the biorefinery sizes and the system configurations.",
keywords = "ACID, AFEX, Cellulosic ethanol, Corn stover, DCFROR, Distributed biomass processing, ECOT, EISA, EUTR, FSE, GE, GHG, GREET, GWI, HHC, HHNC, HHP, IPCC, Life cycle assessment, Local biomass processing depot, MESP, Minimum ethanol selling price, NREL, OLD, PDF, SMG",
author = "Seungdo Kim and Dale, {Bruce E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "135--147",
journal = "Biomass and Bioenergy",
issn = "0961-9534",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing alternative cellulosic biomass biorefining systems

T2 - Biomass and Bioenergy

AU - Kim,Seungdo

AU - Dale,Bruce E.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - This study explores how two different cellulosic ethanol production system configurations (distributed versus centralized processing) affect some aspects of the economic and environmental performance of cellulosic ethanol, measured as minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) and various environmental impact categories. The eco-efficiency indicator, which simultaneously accounts for economic and environmental features, is also calculated. The centralized configuration offers better economic performance for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration is economically superior for large-scale biorefineries. The MESP of the centralized configuration declines with increased biorefinery size up to a point and then rises due to the cost of trucking biomass to the biorefinery. In contrast, the MESP in the distributed configuration continuously declines with increasing biorefinery size due to the lower costs of railroad transportation and the greater economies of scale achieved at much larger biorefinery sizes, including biorefineries that reach the size of an average oil refinery-about 30,000 tons per day of feedstock. The centralized system yields lower environmental impacts for most impact categories than does the distributed system regardless of the biorefinery size. Eco-efficiency analysis shows that the centralized configuration is more sustainable for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration with railroad transport is more sustainable for large-scale biorefineries. Compared with gasoline from petroleum, cellulosic ethanol fuel offers sustainability advantages for the following environmental impact categories: fossil energy consumption, global warming, human health impacts by particulate matter, ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity, human health cancer, and human health non-cancer, depending somewhat on the biorefinery sizes and the system configurations.

AB - This study explores how two different cellulosic ethanol production system configurations (distributed versus centralized processing) affect some aspects of the economic and environmental performance of cellulosic ethanol, measured as minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) and various environmental impact categories. The eco-efficiency indicator, which simultaneously accounts for economic and environmental features, is also calculated. The centralized configuration offers better economic performance for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration is economically superior for large-scale biorefineries. The MESP of the centralized configuration declines with increased biorefinery size up to a point and then rises due to the cost of trucking biomass to the biorefinery. In contrast, the MESP in the distributed configuration continuously declines with increasing biorefinery size due to the lower costs of railroad transportation and the greater economies of scale achieved at much larger biorefinery sizes, including biorefineries that reach the size of an average oil refinery-about 30,000 tons per day of feedstock. The centralized system yields lower environmental impacts for most impact categories than does the distributed system regardless of the biorefinery size. Eco-efficiency analysis shows that the centralized configuration is more sustainable for small-scale biorefineries, while the distributed configuration with railroad transport is more sustainable for large-scale biorefineries. Compared with gasoline from petroleum, cellulosic ethanol fuel offers sustainability advantages for the following environmental impact categories: fossil energy consumption, global warming, human health impacts by particulate matter, ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity, human health cancer, and human health non-cancer, depending somewhat on the biorefinery sizes and the system configurations.

KW - ACID

KW - AFEX

KW - Cellulosic ethanol

KW - Corn stover

KW - DCFROR

KW - Distributed biomass processing

KW - ECOT

KW - EISA

KW - EUTR

KW - FSE

KW - GE

KW - GHG

KW - GREET

KW - GWI

KW - HHC

KW - HHNC

KW - HHP

KW - IPCC

KW - Life cycle assessment

KW - Local biomass processing depot

KW - MESP

KW - Minimum ethanol selling price

KW - NREL

KW - OLD

KW - PDF

KW - SMG

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922243256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922243256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.018

DO - 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.018

M3 - Article

VL - 74

SP - 135

EP - 147

JO - Biomass and Bioenergy

JF - Biomass and Bioenergy

SN - 0961-9534

ER -