Cost optimization of biofuel production – The impact of scale, integration, transport and supply chain configurations

Jong, Sierk de; Hoefnagels, Ric; Wetterlund, Elisabeth; Pettersson, Karin; Faaij, André; Junginger, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.109

Cited by 160 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Transport cost as a function of traveled distance (see Supporting Information). Fixed costs include loading and unloading, set to 0.31 €/Mg DM (5 €/GJ) for each, for Swedish conditions (de Jong, Hoefnagels, et al., ). The variable costs are defined for different surfaces in Supporting Information Table S3 (see also Supporting Information Figure S1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass co-firing with coal is a near-term option to displace fossil fuels and can facilitate the development of biomass conversion and the build-out of biomass supply infrastructure. A GIS-based modeling framework (EU-28, Norway, and Switzerland) is used to quantify and localize biomass demand for co-firing in coal power plants and agricultural and forest residue supply potentials; supply and demand are then matched based on minimizing the total biomass transport costs (field to gate). Key datasets (e.g., land cover, land use, and wood production) are available at 1,000 m or higher resolution, while some data (e.g., simulated yields) and assumptions (e.g., crop harvest index) have lower resolution and were resampled to allow modeling at 1,000 m resolution. Biomass demand for co-firing is estimated at 184 PJ in 2020, corresponding to an emission reduction of 18 Mt CO 2 . In all countries except Italy and Spain, the sum of the forest and agricultural residues available at less than 300 km from a co-firing plant exceeds the assessed biomass demand. The total cost of transporting residues to these plants is reduced if agricultural residues can be used, as transport distances are shorter. The total volume of forest residues less than 300 km from a co-firing plant corresponds to about half of the assessed biomass demand. Almost 70% of the total biomass demand for co-firing is found in Germany and Poland. The volumes of domestic forest residues in Germany (Poland) available within the cost range 2-5 (1.5-3.5) €/GJ biomass correspond to about 30% (70%) of the biomass demand. The volumes of domestic forest and agricultural residues in Germany (Poland) within the cost range 2-4 (below 2) €/GJ biomass exceed the biomass demand for co-firing.Half of the biomass demand is located within 50 km from ports, indicating that long-distance biomass transport by sea is in many instances an option. K E Y W O R D Sagriculture, bioenergy, CO 2 emissions, co-firing, European Union, forestry, geographic information system, residues

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forest transport cost on paved roads in Sweden is set to 0.16 €/km Mg DM, based on de Jong, Hoefnagels, et al. () (see Supporting Information for costs on other surfaces). The same cost in other countries is calculated based on the cost in Sweden and the correction factors described above.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To overcome these challenges, in the past ten years, multiple authors have studied an approach to enhance logistics effectiveness and reduce the risks of the supply chain . It is based on a network of decentralized, relatively small, pretreatment plants, known as the regional biomass processing depot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GIS method to design and assess the transportation performance of a decentralized biorefinery supply system and comparison with a centralized system: case study in southern Quebec, Canada

Lemire

Delcroix

Audy

et al. 2019

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A decentralized supply chain that integrates biomass depots as an intermediate pre‐processing hub may be an efficient way to obtain stable and dense non‐food carbohydrate commodities that are economically transportable over long distances. This paper presents an integrated geographic information systems (GIS) method based on transport optimization to design and compare the performance of a decentralized versus a centralized biorefinery supply system. The method determines the suitable locations, allocations, sizing, and number of depots according to different demand location scenarios. The method is exemplified by a real case study in southern Quebec. In the design, the biomass depot generates raw sugar, shipped to the biorefinery, and co‐products that are used on site without transportation as animal feed and bioenergy. This diversification strategy provided by a joint production permits savings amounting to two‐thirds of the tonnage on the second transportation arc. The results present the average travel time performance in minutes in different scenarios. In the centralized configuration, the optimized stand‐alone biorefinery location scenario is 45% (59 min) and 58% (100 min) more efficient in terms of transportation than the two biorefineries located in existing industrial parks. However, the latter have a decentralized configuration that is more efficient than their centralized equivalents. In the decentralized configuration, depending on farmer participation, the biorefineries located in the existing industrial park have a transportation performance 16–42% (27–55 min) that is more efficient than their respective centralized configuration. Smaller depots and the use of numerous depots tend to reduce the average impedance as biomass availability increases. This is due to the economies of transportation related to a denser and more meshed network. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

“…However, the large-scale uptake of RJF has been impeded by the high cost differential between RJF and fossil jet fuel, limited number of commercialized conversion technologies, highly competitive and international character of the aviation industry, and current lack of adequate (policy) incentives (de Jong et al, 2015;Hamelinck et al, 2012;Kousoulidou & Lonza, 2016; Mawhood, Gazis, de Jong, Hoefnagels, & Slade, 2016). The future role of RJF depends on contextual factors, of which the most important ones comprise the regulatory context, the availability of (low-cost) sustainable feedstocks, the commercialization of conversion technologies, and future oil price development (de Jong, Hoefnagels, van Stralen, et al, 2017;Gegg, Ison, & Budd, 2015;IRENA, 2017;Mawhood et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewable jet fuel supply scenarios in the European Union in 2021–2030 in the context of proposed biofuel policy and competing biomass demand

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents supply scenarios of nonfood renewable jet fuel (RJF) in the European Union (EU) toward 2030, based on the anticipated regulatory context, availability of biomass and conversion technologies, and competing biomass demand from other sectors (i.e., transport, heat, power, and chemicals). A cost optimization model was used to identify preconditions for increased RJF production and the associated emission reductions, costs, and impact on competing sectors. Model scenarios show nonfood RJF supply could increase from 1 PJ in 2021 to 165–261 PJ/year (3.8–6.1 million tonne (Mt)/year) by 2030, provided advanced biofuel technologies are developed and adequate (policy) incentives are present. This supply corresponds to 6%–9% of jet fuel consumption and 28%–41% of total nonfood biofuel consumption in the EU. These results are driven by proposed policy incentives and a relatively high fossil jet fuel price compared to other fossil fuels. RJF reduces aviation‐related combustion emission by 12–19 Mt/year CO2‐eq by 2030, offsetting 53%–84% of projected emission growth of the sector in the EU relative to 2020. Increased RJF supply mainly affects nonfood biofuel use in road transport, which remained relatively constant during 2021–2030. The cost differential of RJF relative to fossil jet fuel declines from 40 €/GJ (1,740 €/t) in 2021 to 7–13 €/GJ (280–540 €/t) in 2030, because of the introduction of advanced biofuel technologies, technological learning, increased fossil jet fuel prices, and reduced feedstock costs. The cumulative additional costs of RJF equal €7.7–11 billion over 2021–2030 or €1.0–1.4 per departing passenger (intra‐EU) when allocated to the aviation sector. By 2030, 109–213 PJ/year (2.5–4.9 Mt/year) RJF is produced from lignocellulosic biomass using technologies which are currently not yet commercialized. Hence, (policy) mechanisms that expedite technology development are cardinal to the feasibility and affordability of increasing RJF production.

show abstract

Cost optimization of biofuel production – The impact of scale, integration, transport and supply chain configurations

Cited by 160 publications

References 50 publications

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

GIS method to design and assess the transportation performance of a decentralized biorefinery supply system and comparison with a centralized system: case study in southern Quebec, Canada

Renewable jet fuel supply scenarios in the European Union in 2021–2030 in the context of proposed biofuel policy and competing biomass demand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About