Comparing pelletization and torrefaction depots: Optimization of depot capacity and biomass moisture to determine the minimum production cost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 15 Citations

Abstract

In the present study, the biomass upgrading depot capacity and biomass feedstock moisture were optimized to obtain the minimum production cost at the depot gate for the production of woody biofuels. Three technology scenarios are considered in this study: (1) conventional pellets (CP), (2) modestly torrefied pellets (TP1) and (3) severely torrefied pellets (TP2). TP1 has the lowest cost of $7.03/GJLHV at a moisture of 33wt.% and a depot size of 84MWLHV. The effects of climatic conditions and biomass field conditions were also studied for three scenarios. In humid regions of Michigan, TP2 is more economical than other scenarios because of the increased production of combustible gas. The three scenarios have similar sensitivities to biomass field conditions.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages387-395
Number of pages9
JournalApplied Energy
Volume163
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Profile

production cost
Biomass
Moisture
moisture
biomass
Costs
Biofuels
biofuel
Feedstocks
Gases
gas
cost

Keywords

  • Biomass moisture
  • Depot scale
  • Pelletization
  • Production cost
  • Torrefaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Energy(all)
  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

@article{052ca441e38f459a94ec265530841977,
title = "Comparing pelletization and torrefaction depots: Optimization of depot capacity and biomass moisture to determine the minimum production cost",
abstract = "In the present study, the biomass upgrading depot capacity and biomass feedstock moisture were optimized to obtain the minimum production cost at the depot gate for the production of woody biofuels. Three technology scenarios are considered in this study: (1) conventional pellets (CP), (2) modestly torrefied pellets (TP1) and (3) severely torrefied pellets (TP2). TP1 has the lowest cost of $7.03/GJLHV at a moisture of 33wt.{\%} and a depot size of 84MWLHV. The effects of climatic conditions and biomass field conditions were also studied for three scenarios. In humid regions of Michigan, TP2 is more economical than other scenarios because of the increased production of combustible gas. The three scenarios have similar sensitivities to biomass field conditions.",
keywords = "Biomass moisture, Depot scale, Pelletization, Production cost, Torrefaction",
author = "Li Chai and Saffron, {Christopher M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "163",
pages = "387--395",
journal = "Applied Energy",
issn = "0306-2619",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing pelletization and torrefaction depots

T2 - Applied Energy

AU - Chai,Li

AU - Saffron,Christopher M.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - In the present study, the biomass upgrading depot capacity and biomass feedstock moisture were optimized to obtain the minimum production cost at the depot gate for the production of woody biofuels. Three technology scenarios are considered in this study: (1) conventional pellets (CP), (2) modestly torrefied pellets (TP1) and (3) severely torrefied pellets (TP2). TP1 has the lowest cost of $7.03/GJLHV at a moisture of 33wt.% and a depot size of 84MWLHV. The effects of climatic conditions and biomass field conditions were also studied for three scenarios. In humid regions of Michigan, TP2 is more economical than other scenarios because of the increased production of combustible gas. The three scenarios have similar sensitivities to biomass field conditions.

AB - In the present study, the biomass upgrading depot capacity and biomass feedstock moisture were optimized to obtain the minimum production cost at the depot gate for the production of woody biofuels. Three technology scenarios are considered in this study: (1) conventional pellets (CP), (2) modestly torrefied pellets (TP1) and (3) severely torrefied pellets (TP2). TP1 has the lowest cost of $7.03/GJLHV at a moisture of 33wt.% and a depot size of 84MWLHV. The effects of climatic conditions and biomass field conditions were also studied for three scenarios. In humid regions of Michigan, TP2 is more economical than other scenarios because of the increased production of combustible gas. The three scenarios have similar sensitivities to biomass field conditions.

KW - Biomass moisture

KW - Depot scale

KW - Pelletization

KW - Production cost

KW - Torrefaction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947997952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947997952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.018

DO - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.018

M3 - Article

VL - 163

SP - 387

EP - 395

JO - Applied Energy

JF - Applied Energy

SN - 0306-2619

ER -