4.8 Review

Impact of feedstock quality and variation on biochemical and thermochemical conversion

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages 525-536

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.063

Keywords

Feedstock quality; Ash; Alkali metals; Pyrolysis; Fermentation; Hydrothermal liquefaction

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office, under DOE Idaho Operations Office [DE-AC07-051D14517]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The production of biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstock is attracting considerable attention in the United States and globally as a strategy to diversify energy resources, spur regional economic development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the wide variation in feedstock types, compositions and content of convertible organics, there is a growing need to better understand correlations among feedstock quality attributes and conversion performance. Knowledge of the feedstock impact on conversion is essential to supply quality controlled, uniform and on-spec feedstocks to biorefineries. This review paper informs the development of meaningful feedstock quality specifications for different conversion processes. Discussions are focused on how compositional properties of feedstocks affect various unit operations in biochemical conversion processes, fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction. In addition, future perspectives are discussed that focus on the challenges and prospects of addressing compositionally intrinsic inhibitors through feedstock preprocessing at regionally distributed depots. Such preprocessing depots may allow for the commoditization of lignocellulosic feedstock and realization of stable, cost-effective and quality controlled biomass supply systems. (C) 2016 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available