4.6 Review

Tools for Optimization of Biomass-to-Energy Conversion Processes

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11030854

关键词

biomass supply chain; optimization models; mathematical programming; energy processes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides a qualitative review of the main aspects and global trends in optimizing the biomass supply chain (BSC) using geographic information systems (GISs), linear programming (LP), and neural networks. It reviews the modeling objectives and factors considered in studies published in the last 25 years, highlighting the use of combined techniques for spatial analyses, higher heating value correlations, and achieving various objectives such as cost and emissions reduction.
Biomasses are renewable sources used in energy conversion processes to obtain diverse products through different technologies. The production chain, which involves delivery, logistics, pre-treatment, storage and conversion as general components, can be costly and uncertain due to inherent variability. Optimization methods are widely applied for modeling the biomass supply chain (BSC) for energy processes. In this qualitative review, the main aspects and global trends of using geographic information systems (GISs), linear programming (LP) and neural networks to optimize the BSC are presented. Modeling objectives and factors considered in studies published in the last 25 years are reviewed, enabling a broad overview of the BSC to support decisions at strategic, tactical and operational levels. Combined techniques have been used for different purposes: GISs for spatial analyses of biomass; neural networks for higher heating value (HHV) correlations; and linear programming and its variations for achieving objectives in general, such as costs and emissions reduction. This study reinforces the progress evidenced in the literature and envisions the increasing inclusion of socio-environmental criteria as a challenge in future modeling efforts.

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

4.6
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