GIS‐enabled biomass‐ethanol supply chain optimization: model development and Miscanthus application

Abstract

To ensure effective biomass feedstock provision for large‐scale ethanol production, a three‐stage supply chain was proposed to include biomass supply sites, centralized storage and pre‐processing (CSP) sites, and biorefinery sites. A GIS‐enabled biomass supply chain optimization model (BioScope) was developed to minimize annual biomass‐ethanol production costs by selecting the optimal numbers, locations, and capacities of farms, CSPs, and biorefineries as well as identifying the optimal biomass flow pattern from farms to biorefineries. The model was implemented to study the Miscanthus‐ethanol supply chain in Illinois. The results of the baseline case, assuming 2% of cropland is allocated for Miscanthus production, showed that unit Miscanthus‐ethanol production costs were $220.6 Mg–1, or $0.74 L–1. Biorefinery‐related costs are the largest cost component, accounting for 48% of the total costs, followed by biomass procurement, transportation, and CSP related costs. The unit Miscanthus‐ethanol production costs could be reduced to $198 Mg–1 using 20% of cropland, primarily due to savings in transportation costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the optimal supply chain configurations, including the numbers and locations of supply sites, CSP facilities, and biorefineries, changed significantly for different cropland usage rates, biomass demands, transportation means, and pre‐processing technologies. A supply chain composed of large biorefineries with the support of distributed CSP facilities was recommended to reduce biofuels production costs. Rail outperformed truck transportation to ship pre‐processed biomass. Ground biomass with tapping is the suggested biomass format for the case study in Illinois, while high‐density biomass formats are suggested for long distance transportation. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

A Spatially Explicit Optimization Model for Agricultural Straw-Based Power Plant Site Selection: A Case Study in Hubei Province, China

“…It is assumed that each SPP collects straw within a radius of 30 km, and 65 SPPs are required to completely cover the study area under ideal circumstances. Because it is difficult to reasonably determine N in advance, N was set to 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60, and 65 for experimentation. Moreover, the straw-based electricity price also affects the economic revenue generated by running SPPs.…”

Biomass feedstock preprocessing and long‐distance transportation logistics

“…The optimization of a large‐scale biomass–biofuel supply chain system was conducted using a modified BioScope model. It was developed based on the initial version of the BioScope model (Lin et al ., ) that focused on a three‐stage supply chain system including biomass supply, CSP, and biorefinery. The analysis scope of the modified BioScope model developed in this study extends to ethanol distribution to consider a complete biomass–biofuel supply chain from biomass provision to ethanol end uses (Fig.…”

BVCM: A comprehensive and flexible toolkit for whole system biomass value chain analysis and optimisation – Mathematical formulation

“…In Tittmann et al [14], the pre-processing echelon is ignored, yielding a simpler model but one that is unable to explore the trade-off 120 between densifying the biomass at source and saving on transport costs, transporting biomass as-received and saving on investments into densification technologies or even converting the biomass on site. Lin et al [15] focused only on bio-ethanol production using a similar echelon structure and model formulation as Zhang et al but with only one form of raw biomass. As with Zhang et al, the available biomass is a given input and no account of land use is made.…”

“…It supports decision-making around optimal use of biomass resources and bioenergy technologies with respect to different 15 objectives such as minimum cost, maximum profit, minimum GHG emissions, maximum energy/exergy production or a combination of these objectives. The model accounts for the economic and environmental impacts associated with the end-to-end elements of a pathway: crop production, conversion technologies, transport, storage, local purchase, import (from abroad), sale and disposal of resources, as well as CO 2 sequestration by CCS technologies and forestry.…”