4.7 Article

Techno-economic assessment of wet and dry torrefaction of biomass feedstock

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 207, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118287

Keywords

Wet torrefaction; Dry torrefaction; Hydrochar; Biochar; Techno-economic model

Funding

  1. Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  2. NSERC/Cenovus/Alberta Innovates Associate Industrial Research Chair Program in Energy and Environmental Systems Engineering
  3. Cenovus Energy Endowed Chair in Environmental Engineering at the University of Alberta

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biomass can be converted to coal-like products known as hydrochar or biochar. Raw biomass generally has high moisture content. Wet torrefaction has gained considerable interest recently because of the unique characteristics of processing high-moisture content to a solid coal-like product. Five biomass feedstocks - wheat straw, pine, grape pomace, animal manure, and algae - were analyzed. The characteristics, as well as mass and energy yields of hydrochars and biochars from these feedstocks, were compared. Process simulation models were developed for both processes for each feedstock and technoeconomic assessments conducted. The results indicate that hydrochars have superior characteristics, more coal-like properties, lower yields, and a higher cost of production (COP) than biochars for all cases except the pathways using manure as feedstock, where hydrochar COP is lower. The lowest production costs (without carbon credit) can be achieved through dry and wet torrefaction of grape pomace at 2.29 $/GJ and 4.14 $/GJ, respectively. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were also conducted for all pathways to understand the effects on production cost of varying different technical and economic factors. The results of this study will provide valuable insights into coal alternative products, especially in jurisdictions (like Alberta, Canada) planning to phase out coal plants. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available