4.6 Article

Energy Consumption at Size Reduction of Lignocellulose Biomass for Bioenergy

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11092477

Keywords

biomass; size reduction; hammers mill; energy consumption; Miscanthus

Funding

  1. Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013 of the Ministry of European Funds [POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132395]
  2. National Grants GNaC 2018 ARUT, Internal Research Grant [06/15.10.2018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to obtain bioenergy (biogas, biofuel) or pellets, different types of lignocellulosic biomass are subjected to a mechanical pretreatment, first by size reduction, then by separating, and ultimately by fracturing or bio-refining. Biomass processing mainly refers to a grinding process that occurs until reaching certain limits. The size reduction process, such as grinding, is an operation that is executed with different levels of energy consumption, considering biomass mechanical characteristics and the necessary grinding level. This paper, illustrates a comparative analysis of experimental results obtained by grinding multiple types of vegetal biomass (Miscanthus, corn stalks, alfalfa, willow) used in the process of bio-refining and bio-fracturing. Experiments were realized using both a laboratory knife mill Grindomix GM200 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany), and a 22 kW articulated hammer mill, using different grinding system speeds and different hammer mill sieves. Results have shown that biomass mechanical pre-processing grinding leads to supplementary costs in the overall process through bio-refining or bio-fracturing in order to obtain bio-products or bio-energy. So, specific energy consumption for grinding using a hammer mill can reach 50-65 kJ/kg for harvested Miscanthus biomass, and 35-50 kJ/kg for dried energetic willow, using a 10 mm orifice sieve, values which increase processing costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available