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

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    • 6 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.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)387-395
    Number of pages9
    JournalApplied Energy
    Volume163
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

    Profile

    Biomass
    biomass
    Moisture
    Costs
    moisture
    production cost
    Biofuels
    Feedstocks
    Gases
    biofuel
    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",
    doi = "10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.018",
    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 -