4.5 Article

Life Cycle Analysis of Decentralized Preprocessing Systems for Fast Pyrolysis Biorefineries with Blended Feedstocks in the Southeastern United States

期刊

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ente.201900850

关键词

biorefineries; blended feedstocks; depots; fast pyrolysis; life cycle assessments; preprocessing sites

资金

  1. North Carolina State University
  2. US Department of Energy
  3. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) [DE-EE0006639]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blending biomass feedstock is a promising approach to mitigate supply chain risks that are common challenges for large-scale biomass utilization. Understanding the potential environmental benefits of biofuels produced from blended biomass and identifying driving parameters are critical for the supply chain design. Herein, a cradle-to-gate life cycle analysis model for fast pyrolysis biorefineries converting blended feedstocks (pine residues and switchgrass) with traditional centralized and alternative decentralized preprocessing sites, so-called depots, is explained. Different scenarios are developed to investigate the impacts of parameters such as feedstock blending ratios, biorefinery and depot capacities, preprocessing technologies, and allocation methods. The life-cycle energy consumption and global warming potential (GWP) of biofuel production with depots vary between 0.7-1.1 MJ MJ(-1) and 43.2-76.6 g CO2 eq. MJ(-1), respectively. The results are driven by biorefinery processes and depot preprocesses. A decentralized design reduces the energy consumption of the biorefinery but increases the overall life-cycle energy and GWP. Such increases can be significantly mitigated by increasing switchgrass content as the energy consumption at the depot is driven largely by the higher moisture content of pine feedstocks. Allocation methods also have a large impact on the results but do not change the major trends and overall conclusions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据