Search Menu
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Search Scholarly Publications

Title: Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion

Abstract

Abstract This research develops an optimization model to describe the tradeoff among blend components in the least‐cost biomass blend, based on resource availability, quality requirements, and logistics cost for a biochemical conversion. A mixed‐integer linear programming model is developed to determine the least‐cost blend from a set of candidate feedstocks. A case study – based on a biorefinery located in western Kansas that uses three‐pass corn stover, two‐pass corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, and municipal solid waste fractions to meet biochemical conversion specifications and feedstock demand – shows that the delivered cost of an optimal blend that meets carbohydrate and ash specifications is 12.12% higher than the delivered cost of optimal blend that meets a carbohydrate specification only. The results indicate that a least‐cost blend that meets both carbohydrate and ash specifications consists of miscanthus (48.2%) and switchgrass (29.4%) whereas the least‐cost blend meeting carbohydrate specification only comprises three‐pass corn stover (55.4%) and two‐pass corn stover (20.4%). An optimal blend uses a low‐cost municipal solid waste fraction in all cases, implying that blending could be a potential strategy to reduce delivered feedstock cost. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.more » Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Industrial Chemistry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1]
+ Show Author Affiliations
  1. Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Sustainable Transportation Office. Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO)
OSTI Identifier:
1476911
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1432135
Report Number(s):
INL/JOU-17-42765-Rev000
Journal ID: ISSN 1932-104X
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC07-05ID14517; DE‐AC07‐05ID14517
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 12; Journal Issue: 4; Journal ID: ISSN 1932-104X
Publisher:
Wiley
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
09 BIOMASS FUELS; blending; feedstock; optimization; biochemical conversion; biomass; mixed-integer linear programming

Citation Formats

Roni, Mohammad S., Thompson, David N., Hartley, Damon S., Searcy, Erin M., and Nguyen, Quang A. Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion. United States: N. p., 2018. Web. doi:10.1002/bbb.1877.
Copy to clipboard
Roni, Mohammad S., Thompson, David N., Hartley, Damon S., Searcy, Erin M., & Nguyen, Quang A. Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1877
Copy to clipboard
Roni, Mohammad S., Thompson, David N., Hartley, Damon S., Searcy, Erin M., and Nguyen, Quang A. Fri . "Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1877. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1476911.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_1476911,
title = {Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion},
author = {Roni, Mohammad S. and Thompson, David N. and Hartley, Damon S. and Searcy, Erin M. and Nguyen, Quang A.},
abstractNote = {Abstract This research develops an optimization model to describe the tradeoff among blend components in the least‐cost biomass blend, based on resource availability, quality requirements, and logistics cost for a biochemical conversion. A mixed‐integer linear programming model is developed to determine the least‐cost blend from a set of candidate feedstocks. A case study – based on a biorefinery located in western Kansas that uses three‐pass corn stover, two‐pass corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, and municipal solid waste fractions to meet biochemical conversion specifications and feedstock demand – shows that the delivered cost of an optimal blend that meets carbohydrate and ash specifications is 12.12% higher than the delivered cost of optimal blend that meets a carbohydrate specification only. The results indicate that a least‐cost blend that meets both carbohydrate and ash specifications consists of miscanthus (48.2%) and switchgrass (29.4%) whereas the least‐cost blend meeting carbohydrate specification only comprises three‐pass corn stover (55.4%) and two‐pass corn stover (20.4%). An optimal blend uses a low‐cost municipal solid waste fraction in all cases, implying that blending could be a potential strategy to reduce delivered feedstock cost. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Industrial Chemistry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.},
doi = {10.1002/bbb.1877},
journal = {Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining},
number = 4,
volume = 12,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Apr 06 00:00:00 EDT 2018},
month = {Fri Apr 06 00:00:00 EDT 2018}
}
Copy to clipboard
Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1877
Copyright Statement
Other availability
Search WorldCat Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal
Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 12 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Figures / Tables:

Figure 1 Figure 1: Corn stover projected supply as a function of a farm gate price of $66, $ 77, $88, $99, and $100/Mg for the year 2030, based on a baseline yield with a 1% increase in energy crops and baseline tillage practices20 from Pratt and Wallace Counties, Kansas. Note thatmore » the supply of Pratt County is monotonically increasing with farm gate price, whereas the supply of Wallace County is non-monotonic.« less
All figures and tables (27 total)
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

Works referenced in this record:

Blending municipal solid waste with corn stover for sugar production using ionic liquid process
journal, June 2015

Switchgrass as an energy crop for biofuel production: A review of its ligno-cellulosic chemical properties
journal, January 2010

  • David, Kasi; Ragauskas, Arthur J.
  • Energy & Environmental Science, Vol. 3, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1039/b926617h

Impact of Harvest Equipment on Ash Variability of Baled Corn Stover Biomass for Bioenergy
journal, March 2014

Development of Sustainable Corn Stover Harvest Strategies for Cellulosic Ethanol Production
journal, February 2014

Miscanthus : a fast-growing crop for biofuels and chemicals production : A fast-growing crop for biofuels and chemicals production
journal, July 2012

  • Brosse, Nicolas; Dufour, Anthony; Meng, Xianzhi
  • Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, Vol. 6, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1353

Optimizing hammer mill performance through screen selection and hammer design
journal, January 2013

  • Yancey, Neal; Wright, Christopher T.; Westover, Tyler L.
  • Biofuels, Vol. 4, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.4155/bfs.12.77

Managing variability in algal biomass production through drying and stabilization of feedstock blends
journal, June 2017

Nitrogen fertility and harvest management of switchgrass for sustainable bioenergy feedstock production in Illinois
journal, July 2013

Single- and Two-Pass Corn Grain and Stover Harvesting
journal, January 2012

Coal blending optimization under uncertainty
journal, June 1995

Analyzing and Comparing Biomass Feedstock Supply Systems in China: Corn Stover and Sweet Sorghum Case Studies
journal, June 2015

  • Ren, Lantian; Cafferty, Kara; Roni, Mohammad
  • Energies, Vol. 8, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.3390/en8065577

Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends
journal, January 2001

Biomass Harvesting of High-Yield Low-Moisture Switchgrass: Equipment Performance and Moisture Relations
journal, January 2012

A multi-objective, hub-and-spoke model to design and manage biofuel supply chains
journal, January 2016

  • Roni, Mohammad S.; Eksioglu, Sandra D.; Cafferty, Kara G.
  • Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 249, Issue 1-2
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-2102-3

Monitoring switchgrass composition to optimize harvesting periods for bioenergy and value-added products
journal, September 2013

Optimal design of a multi-product biorefinery system
journal, September 2011

Impact of mixed feedstocks and feedstock densification on ionic liquid pretreatment efficiency
journal, January 2013

  • Shi, Jian; Thompson, Vicki S.; Yancey, Neal A.
  • Biofuels, Vol. 4, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.4155/bfs.12.82

Techno-economic analysis of decentralized biomass processing depots
journal, October 2015

Impact of Pretreatment Technologies on Saccharification and Isopentenol Fermentation of Mixed Lignocellulosic Feedstocks
journal, February 2015

Biomass yield from an urban landscape
journal, February 2012

Biomass co-firing technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: A global review
journal, October 2017

  • Roni, Mohammad S.; Chowdhury, Sudipta; Mamun, Saleh
  • Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 78
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.023

Recipe determination and scheduling of gasoline blending operations
journal, January 2009

  • Li, Jie; Karimi, I. A.; Srinivasan, Rajagopalan
  • AIChE Journal
  • DOI: 10.1002/aic.11970
    Sort by:
    [ × clear filter / sort ]

    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Predictive Modelling of Sugar Release from Blended Garden Wastes in a Microwave-Assisted Hot Water Process
    journal, January 2020

      Sort by:
      [ × clear filter / sort ]

      Figures / Tables found in this record:

      Figure 1 (p. 5)figure
      Table 1 (p. 7)table
      Table 2 (p. 8)table
      Figure 2 (p. 9)figure
      Figure 3 (p. 10)figure
      Table 3 (p. 11)table
      Figure 4 (p. 13)figure
      Table 4 (p. 15)table
      Table 5 (p. 16)table
      Figure 5 (p. 18)figure
      Figure 6 (p. 20)figure
      Table 6 (p. 20)table
      Table 7 (p. 20)table
      Table 8 (p. 21)table
      Table 9 (p. 22)table
      Table 10 (p. 23)table
      Table 11 (p. 23)table
      Figure 7 (p. 24)figure
      Table 12 (p. 25)table
      Table 13 (p. 26)table
      Figure 8 (p. 27)figure
      Figure 10 (p. 28)figure
      Figure 9 (p. 28)figure
      Figure 10 (2) (p. 29)figure
      Figure 11 (p. 29)figure
      Figure 12 (p. 30)figure
      Figure 13 (p. 31)figure
        [ × clear filter / sort ]
        Figures/Tables have been extracted from DOE-funded journal article accepted manuscripts.

        Similar Records in DOE PAGES and OSTI.GOV collections: