skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Spatial Analysis of Depots for Advanced Biomass Processing

Abstract

The objective of this work was to perform a spatial analysis of the total feedstock cost at the conversion reactor for biomass supplied by a conventional system and an advanced system with depots to densify biomass into pellets. From these cost estimates, the conditions (feedstock cost and availability) for which advanced processing depots make it possible to achieve cost and volume targets can be identified.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1393816
Report Number(s):
ORNL/TM-2014/503
52328
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-00OR22725
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
09 BIOMASS FUELS

Citation Formats

Hilliard, Michael R., Brandt, Craig C., Webb, Erin, Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine, Eaton, Laurence M., and Martinez Gonzalez, Maria I. Spatial Analysis of Depots for Advanced Biomass Processing. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.2172/1393816.
Hilliard, Michael R., Brandt, Craig C., Webb, Erin, Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine, Eaton, Laurence M., & Martinez Gonzalez, Maria I. Spatial Analysis of Depots for Advanced Biomass Processing. United States. doi:10.2172/1393816.
Hilliard, Michael R., Brandt, Craig C., Webb, Erin, Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine, Eaton, Laurence M., and Martinez Gonzalez, Maria I. Mon . "Spatial Analysis of Depots for Advanced Biomass Processing". United States. doi:10.2172/1393816. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1393816.
@article{osti_1393816,
title = {Spatial Analysis of Depots for Advanced Biomass Processing},
author = {Hilliard, Michael R. and Brandt, Craig C. and Webb, Erin and Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine and Eaton, Laurence M. and Martinez Gonzalez, Maria I.},
abstractNote = {The objective of this work was to perform a spatial analysis of the total feedstock cost at the conversion reactor for biomass supplied by a conventional system and an advanced system with depots to densify biomass into pellets. From these cost estimates, the conditions (feedstock cost and availability) for which advanced processing depots make it possible to achieve cost and volume targets can be identified.},
doi = {10.2172/1393816},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • Decentralized biomass processing facilities, known as biomass depots, may be necessary to achieve feedstock cost, quantity, and quality required to grow the future U.S. bioeconomy. In this paper, we assess three distinct depot configurations for technical difference and economic performance. The depot designs were chosen to compare and contrast a suite of capabilities that a depot could perform ranging from conventional pelleting to sophisticated pretreatment technologies. Our economic analyses indicate that depot processing costs are likely to range from ~US$30 to US$63 per dry metric tonne (Mg), depending upon the specific technology implemented and the energy consumption for processing equipmentmore » such as grinders and dryers. We conclude that the benefits of integrating depots into the overall biomass feedstock supply chain will outweigh depot processing costs and that incorporation of this technology should be aggressively pursued.« less
  • Decentralized biomass processing facilities, known as biomass depots, may be necessary to achieve feedstock cost, quantity, and quality required to grow the future U.S. bioeconomy. In this paper, we assess three distinct depot configurations for technical difference and economic performance. The depot designs were chosen to compare and contrast a suite of capabilities that a depot could perform ranging from conventional pelleting to sophisticated pretreatment technologies. Our economic analyses indicate that depot processing costs are likely to range from ~US$30 to US$63 per dry metric tonne (Mg), depending upon the specific technology implemented and the energy consumption for processing equipmentmore » such as grinders and dryers. We conclude that the benefits of integrating depots into the overall biomass feedstock supply chain will outweigh depot processing costs and that incorporation of this technology should be aggressively pursued.« less
  • The U.S. Army Depot System Command (DESCOM) has 16 maintenance depots located throughout the U.S. Several army depots generate paint wastes that must be disposed of. These depots are located in different parts of the country, and a comprehensive strategy is required to manage the disposal of the paint wastes generated at the individual depots. Incineration is a candidate technology for disposal of such wastes. This report presents an economic analysis of developing an incineration strategy. The economic analysis of paint waste incineration was limited to six major maintenance depots: Anniston, Corpus Christi, Letterkenny, Red River, Tobyhanna, and Tooele. Thesemore » particular depots are included in the analysis because they are responsible for the majority of all paint wastes generated annually be DESCOM. Three scenarios were evaluated: (1) locating an incinerator at each depot, (2) locating an incinerator at a single site and transporting waste from other depots to this location, and (3) using multiple units at two or more depots. The analysis considers the locations of the army depots, the types and quantities of the wastes they generate, and transportation of the wastes. It also assumes that the individual army depots are equally equipped for proper management of the paint waste by the incineration technology and that the waste can be transferred between the depots without any restrictions. It is further assumed that only incinerable paint wastes will be treated.« less
  • The receiving, handling, storing, and processing of woody biomass feedstocks is an overlooked component of biopower systems. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to identify and characterize all the receiving, handling, storing, and processing steps required to make woody biomass feedstocks suitable for use in direct combustion and gasification applications, including small modular biopower (SMB) systems, and (2) to estimate the capital and operating costs at each step. Since biopower applications can be varied, a number of conversion systems and feedstocks required evaluation. In addition to limiting this study to woody biomass feedstocks, the boundaries of this studymore » were from the power plant gate to the feedstock entry point into the conversion device. Although some power plants are sited at a source of wood waste fuel, it was assumed for this study that all wood waste would be brought to the power plant site. This study was also confined to the following three feedstocks (1) forest residues, (2) industrial mill residues, and (3) urban wood residues. Additionally, the study was confined to grate, suspension, and fluidized bed direct combustion systems; gasification systems; and SMB conversion systems. Since scale can play an important role in types of equipment, operational requirements, and capital and operational costs, this study examined these factors for the following direct combustion and gasification system size ranges: 50, 20, 5, and 1 MWe. The scope of the study also included: Specific operational issues associated with specific feedstocks (e.g., bark and problems with bridging); Opportunities for reducing handling, storage, and processing costs; How environmental restrictions can affect handling and processing costs (e.g., noise, commingling of treated wood or non-wood materials, emissions, and runoff); and Feedstock quality issues and/or requirements (e.g., moisture, particle size, presence of non-wood materials). The study found that over the years the industry has shown a good deal of ingenuity and, as a result, has developed several cost effective methods of processing and handling wood. SMB systems usually cannot afford to perform much onsite processing and therefore usually purchase fuels processed to specification. Owners of larger systems try to minimize onsite processing to minimize processing costs. Whole truck dumpers are expensive, but allow for faster and easier unloading, which reduces labor costs and charges by the haulers. Storage costs are a major factor in overall costs, thus the amount of fuel reserve is an important consideration. Silos and bins are relatively expensive compared to open piles used for larger facilities, but may be required depending on space available, wood characteristics, and amount of wood to be stored. For larger systems, a front-end loader has a lot of flexibility in use and is an essential piece of equipment for moving material. Few opportunities appear to exist for improving the cost effectiveness of these systems.« less