4.7 Article

Energy and economic assessment of soda and organosolv biorefinery processes

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 516-525

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.10.002

关键词

Biorefinery; Organosolv; Soda process; Energy; Economic analysis; Pinch analysis

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CTQ2007-65074-C02-02]
  2. Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Food of the Basque Country Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignocellulosic biomass, particularly agricultural and forestry residues, is becoming a potential renewable energy and products source. Lignocellulosic biomass processing technologies include a primary separation of its main constituents, cellulose, hemi-celluloses and lignin, as well as further treatment and processing to obtain different platform chemicals to design consistently structured compounds as chemical building blocks. The economic competitiveness of the obtained products is highly dependent on the separation and purification technologies used and the process energetic efficiency. For this proposal, process simulation tools are very useful to design a competitive and effective biorefinery scheme. In the present work, the energetic and economical efficiencies of two biorefinery processes, soda and organosolv-ethanol systems, were analyzed using the simulation software Aspen Plus (R). The process design consisted of several units (reaction, solid fraction washing, products recovery and liquid fraction processing). Mass and energy balances were established and both systems were compared in terms of yield, solvents/reactants recovery and energy consumption. Aspen HX-Net software was used to analyze the process heat exchange network in order to improve energy consumptions. The development of rigorous simulations allowed to determine the economical feasibility of both biorefinery schemes, and to establish the most appropriate operation conditions for both processes. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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