LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chong, Katie Jane
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects:
The topic of bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts remains at the top of the current political and research agenda. Identification of the optimum processing routes for biomass, in terms of efficiency, cost, environment and socio-economics is vital as concern grows over the remaining fossil fuel resources, climate change and energy security. It is known that the only renewable way of producing conventional hydrocarbon fuels and organic chemicals is from biomass, but the problem remains of identifying the best product mix and the most efficient way of processing biomass to products. The aim is to move Europe towards a biobased economy and it is widely accepted that biorefineries are key to this development. A methodology was required for the generation and evaluation of biorefinery process chains for converting biomass into one or more valuable products that properly considers performance, cost, environment, socio-economics and other factors that influence the commercial viability of a process. In this thesis a methodology to achieve this objective is described. The completed methodology includes process chain generation, process modelling and subsequent analysis and comparison of results in order to evaluate alternative process routes. A modular structure was chosen to allow greater flexibility and allowing the user to generate a large number of different biorefinery configurations The significance of the approach is that the methodology is defined and is thus rigorous and consistent and may be readily re-examined if circumstances change. There was the requirement for consistency in structure and use, particularly for multiple analyses. It was important that analyses could be quickly and easily carried out to consider, for example, different scales, configurations and product portfolios and so that previous outcomes could be readily reconsidered. The result of the completed methodology is the identification of the most promising biorefinery chains from those considered as part of the European Biosynergy Project.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Appendix 1 - Lignin analysis results................................................................................. 249 Appendix 2 - Datasheet ..................................................................................................... 252 Appendix 3 - User manual ................................................................................................ 255 Appendix 4 - Summary Sheet from model ....................................................................... 260 Appendix 5 - (on CD) Biosynergy Process Synthesis Model ............................................CD Appendix 6 - (On CD) Hiview MCDA model, Germany..................................................CD Appendix 7 - (On CD) Hiview MCDA model, Netherlands .............................................CD Appendix 8 - (On CD) Hiview MCDA model, Poland......................................................CD Appendix 9 - (On CD) Hiview MCDA model, Spain........................................................CD Appendix 10 - (On CD) Hiview MCDA model, UK .........................................................CD
    • 125 Vázquez, M., et al., Hydrolysis of sorghum straw using phosphoric acid: Evaluation of furfural production. Bioresource Technology, 2007. 98(16): p. 3053-3060.
    • 126 Estrine, B., Biosynergy Milestone M4.5: Lab-scale glycosylation process (C5-sugars to surfactants) developed. 2009, ARD.
    • 127 Aymard, C., Biosynergy - ABE preliminary evaluation. 2009, IFP.
    • 128 Qureshi, N. and Blaschek, H.P., Butanol recovery from model solution/fermentation broth by pervaporation: evaluation of membrane performance. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1999. 17(2): p. 175-184.
    • 129 Pfromm, P.H., et al., Bio-butanol vs. bio-ethanol: A technical and economic assessment for corn and switchgrass fermented by yeast or Clostridium acetobutylicum. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010. 34(4): p. 515-524.
    • 130 Qureshi, N., et al., Production of butanol (a biofuel) from agricultural residues: Part I - Use of barley straw hydrolysate. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010. 34(4): p. 559-565.
    • 131 Qureshi, N., et al., Production of butanol (a biofuel) from agricultural residues: Part II - Use of corn stover and switchgrass hydrolysates. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010. 34(4): p. 566-571.
    • 132 Kamm, B., Biosynergy Deliverable 4.1.4 - Efficiency improvement activities cellulose to HMF. 2010, Bioref.
    • 133 Kamm, B., Biosynergy Deliverable 4.2.2 - PoC results (technical feasibility and economic input data for WP6 for FDCA production). 2010, Bioref.
    • 134 Bridgwater, A.V., Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2003. 91(2-3): p. 87-102.
    • 135 Leijenhorst, E.J. and Beld, L.v.d., Biosynergy deliverable D.2.1.5 - Procedure for the production of bio-oil fractions optimised for resin and wood preservatives. 2009, BTG.
    • 136 Drift, A.v.d., et al., Entrained flow gasification of biomass. Ash behaviour, feeding issues, and system analyses. 2004, ECN.
    • 137 Aden, A., Ruth, M., Ibsen, K., Jechura, J., Neeves, K., Sheehan, J., Wallace, B., Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. 2002, NREL.
    • 138 Balat, M., et al., Main routes for the thermo-conversion of biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 1: Pyrolysis systems. Energy Conversion and Management, 2009. 50(12): p. 3147-3157.
    • 139 Cherubini, F. and Jungmeier, G., LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2010. 15(1): p. 53-66.
    • 140 Cherubini, F., et al., Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2009. 53(8): p. 434-447.
    • 141 Hamelinck, C.N., et al., Production of FT transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and optimisation, and development potential. Energy, 2004. 29(11): p. 1743-1771.
    • 142 Huang, H.-J., et al., A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries. Separation and Purification Technology, 2008. 62(1): p. 1-21.
    • 143 Mu, D.Y., et al., Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production: Biochemical Versus Thermochemical Conversion. Environmental Management, 2010. 46(4): p. 565-578.
    • 144 Sanchez, O.J. and C.A. Cardona, Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresource Technology, 2008. 99(13): p. 5270-5295.
    • 145 Sassner, P., M. Galbe, and G. Zacchi, Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008. 32(5): p. 422- 430.
    • 146 Seiler, J.-M., et al., Technical and economical evaluation of enhanced biomass to liquid fuel processes. Energy, 2010. 35(9): p. 3587-3592.
    • 147 Sendich, E.D. and B.E. Dale, Environmental and economic analysis of the fully integrated biorefinery. GCB Bioenergy, 2009. 1(5): p. 331-345.
    • 148 van Vliet, O.P.R., A.P.C. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg, Fischer-Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 2009. 50(4): p. 855-876.
    • 149 Weiss, M., et al., Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2007. 50(3): p. 260-281.
    • 150 Wright, M.M. and R.C. Brown, Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the biochemical and thermochemical platforms. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2007. 1(1): p. 49-56.
    • 151 Catalyze Ltd, Hiview 3, Starter Guide, 2003
    • 152 Huang, J.P., K.L. Poh, and B.W. Ang, Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy, 1995. 20(9): p. 843-855.
    • 153 Dodgson, J., et al., DTLR Multi criteria analysis manual. 2000, National Economic Research Associates (NERA): London.
    • 154 Wang, J.J., et al., Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2009. 13(9): p. 2263-2278.
    • 155 Løken, E., Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007. 11(7): p. 1584-1595.
    • 156Georgopoulou, E., Lalas, D., and Papagiannakis, L., A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: The case of renewable energy option. European Journal of Operational Research, 1997. 103(1): p. 38-54.
    • 157 Diakoulaki, D. and Karangelis, F., Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007. 11(4): p. 716-727.
    • 158Linares, P. and Romero, C., A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach for Electricity Planning in Spain: Economic versus Environmental Objectives. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2000. 51(6): p. 736-743.
    • 159 Pohekar, S.D. and Ramachandran, M., Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning - A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2004. 8(4): p. 365-381.
    • 160 Cziner, K., M. Tuomaala, and M. Hurme, Multicriteria decision making in process integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005. 13(5): p. 475-483.
    • 161 Thornley, P., Biosynergy report: ocio-economic impacts of biorefinery facilities. 2010, Aston University.
    • 162 Boerrigter, H. and R.W.R. Zwart, High efficiency co-production of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels and Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) from biomass. 2004, ECN.
    • 163 Bird, D.N., et al., Biosynergy Deliverable 6.2.2 The environmental profile of different biorefinery concepts main benefits and impacts (note). 2010, Joanneum Research: Graz.
    • 164 Bird, D.N., et al., Biosynergy Deliverable 6.2.3 The most dominating factors influencing the environmental performance of different biorefinery concepts. Considerations for generating maximal environmental benefits (note). 2010, Joanneum Research: Graz.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article