Torrefaction of Conservation Reserve Program biomass: A techno-economic evaluation
Introduction
Cellulosic biomass from agricultural residues has become an important energy source because its use for biofuels production does not compete with food production; however, overuse of this biomass could cause a decrease in soil quality, and agricultural crop production could then be affected if the residue is not left for soil amendment (Lal, 2009). The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) began in 1985 as an effort to prevent soil erosion and enhance groundwater recharge from highly erodible lands. About 30 million acres of CRP land prevent 0.3 million tons of nitrogen and 50,000 tons of phosphorous annually from flowing into river or lakes (USDA, 2012). About 50 million tons of dry biomass could be harvested annually from CRP land, indicating great potential for bioenergy production (Perlack et al., 2005). A recent study suggested that CRP biomass is a potential bioenergy feedstock if appropriate management practices are applied (Lee et al., 2013). Compared with conversion of CRP land for starch-based agricultural production such as corn and soybean, direct use of the CRP land for cellulosic biomass production would avoid carbon debt according to a recent analysis (Gelfand et al., 2011). Therefore, CRP biomass, the mixed grass from the CRP land, becomes a competitive feedstock because it does not compete with food production and could minimize soil erosion. Assuming that 20% of the total amount of CRP biomass is harvested for bioenergy production and all other biomass is left for land conservation, more than 2 million tons of cellulosic ethanol (as a representative biofuel) could be produced annually, which is equal to 5% of the 2022 cellulosic biofuels objective (16 billion gallons) made by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140) (Schnepf, 2011).
Although recent biomass-processing techniques have proven effective in biomass conversion, the production cost of developing cellulosic biofuel remains high. Biomass upgrading through torrefaction shows great potential to benefit both the supply chain and downstream processing units (Batidzirai et al., 2013, Chin et al., 2013, Ciolkosz and Wallace, 2011). The torrefaction of biomass is basically a thermal process conducted in the temperature range of 200–300 °C under anaerobic conditions atmospheric conditions (Van der Stelt et al., 2011). Biomass moisture content (MC) is reduced in the initial drying process and biomass is partially degraded. Studies have shown that torrefaction enhanced the properties of different biomass materials (Couhert et al., 2009, Ren et al., 2012). Torrefaction is being applied to bioenergy production in thermal–chemical and biochemical platforms, and the enhanced properties after torrefaction were reported to improve the efficiency of biomass gasification and conserve chemical energy (Prins et al., 2006). Energy consumption was reported to be lower for torrefied biomass than for untorrefied biomass in the production of cellulosic ethanol (Chiaramonti et al., 2011). Torrefaction also improves biomass properties by increasing hydrophobicity. Most agricultural wastes, including grass biomass, show significant hydrophilicity, which results in problems during biomass storage, transportation, and processing; for example, biomass easily absorbs moisture, which results in decreased energy density. More importantly, hydrophilic biomass needs much more water to reduce viscosity of the slurry, resulting in increased energy consumption in the subsequent separation process. In addition, moisture absorption during storage causes fungi formation that could decrease the quality of feedstock (Rentizelas et al., 2009), whereas torrefaction provided microbial-resistant biomass, which reduces storage cost (Medic et al., 2012). Thus, torrefaction offers great potential for the biomass processing chain.
In this paper, we report the first study of CRP biomass enhancement through torrefaction. Changes in CRP biomass were investigated through different techniques. To integrate the torrefaction unit into the biomass processing system, an economic evaluation is critical for commercial application. We conducted our technical analysis including the results of mass and energy balances. Following the analysis of torrefaction unit, we analyzed how torrefaction affected related biomass processing units such as transportation, grinding, and pelletization.
Section snippets
Materials
The CRP biomass was harvested in 2012 from Valley Falls, Kansas, and field-dried to reduce the MC to about 20%. The biomass was then stored in plastic bag at 4 °C. All chemicals used in this study were from Sigma–Aldrich, Inc. (St. Louis, MO).
Torrefaction
The torrefaction experiments were conducted using a Parr 4570 pressure reactor with a Parr 4848 temperature controller (Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL). CRP biomass was cut to about 10 cm in length before loading. After biomass loading, the reactor was
Mass loss
The effects of torrefaction temperature and time on the dry mass loss of CRP biomass were investigated; results are shown in Fig. 2. Previous reports showed that biomass MC significantly affected the dry mass recovery after torrefaction and almost 50% (wet base) of biomass lost (Van der Stelt et al., 2011). In this study, the mass loss was up to 35% at 300 °C because the CRP biomass has a relatively low MC (about 20%) after a field dry. As shown in Fig. 2, the dry mass loss increased as
Conclusions
CRP biomass has potential to be sustainably used for bioenergy production. Biomass torrefaction upgrades biomass properties by increasing energy density, reducing MC, reducing particle size, increasing hydrophobicity, and increasing brittleness for easier grinding. The study on biomass composition, especially polymer composition, suggested that the polysaccharides in biomass were converted to other high-carbon-content materials. Preserving energy content (e.g., cellulose and lignin) and
Acknowledgment
This is contribution number 14-010-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.
References (33)
- et al.
Influence of torrefaction on the grindability and reactivity of woody biomass
Fuel Process. Technol.
(2008) - et al.
Biomass torrefaction technology: techno-economic status and future prospects
Energy
(2013) - et al.
An evaluation on improvement of pulverized biomass property for solid fuel through torrefaction
Appl. Energy
(2011) - et al.
Torrefaction and co-torrefaction characterization of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin as well as torrefaction of some basic constituents in biomass
Energy
(2011) - et al.
Optimization of torrefaction conditions for high energy density solid biofuel from oil palm biomass and fast growing species available in Malaysia
Ind. Crops Prod.
(2013) - et al.
Impact of torrefaction on syngas production from wood
Fuel
(2009) Soil quality impacts of residue removal for bioethanol production
Soil Tillage Res.
(2009)- et al.
Impact of torrefaction on the grindability and fuel characteristics of forest biomass
Bioresour. Technol.
(2011) - et al.
More efficient biomass gasification via torrefaction
Energy
(2006) - et al.
Logistics issues of biomass: the storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2009)
Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels from basic analysis data
Biomass Bioenergy
Wood pellet production costs under Austrian and in comparison to Swedish framework conditions
Biomass Bioenergy
Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation
Energy
Biomass upgrading by torrefaction for the production of biofuels: a review
Biomass Bioenergy
X-ray scattering studies of lignocellulosic biomass: a review
Carbohydr. Polym.
Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis
Fuel
Cited by (14)
Stochastic techno-economic evaluation model for biomass supply chain: A biomass gasification case study with supply chain uncertainties
2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Apart from performing simulation via software, scholars can also perform a technical evaluation through laboratory analysis. For instance, Xu et al. [30] combined laboratory experiments with Aspen Plus simulation to study the technical performance of the torrefaction process. The aim of performing experimental studies was to extract data regarding the biomass quality such as thermogravimetric analysis, compositional analysis, and higher heating value as the input data into the Aspen Plus model to perform energy and mass balance.
Techno-economic analysis for biomass supply chain: A state-of-the-art review
2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Three main aspects were tabulated in Table 3, i.e., “Technical Performance Estimation” (to show the method used to estimate the overall conversion performance, such as yield, energy consumption, etc.); “Economic Performance Estimation” (to outline the method used in the determination of the overall cost of the conversion process); and “Sensitivity Analysis” (to show whether the articles have considered uncertainty analysis in their works). For example, Xu et al. [69] integrated the use of experimental works and Aspen Plus simulation to determine the overall technical performance of the torrefaction process. The biomass quality (i.e., compositional analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, and higher heating value) obtained from experimental works served as the input for process simulation to further improve the reliability of simulation results.
Techno-economic assessment of wet and dry torrefaction of biomass feedstock
2020, EnergyCitation Excerpt :Akbari et al. [27] assessed the effect of capacity on unit capital cost and COP and developed the scale factor for an HTC plant. While there are a number of experimental studies on WT and DT, as reviewed by others [2,28–30], very few investigate the techno-economics of the processes, and, to the best of authors’ knowledge, there is no focus on their comparative cost assessments or on various feedstocks [31–35]. Unrean et al. compared the cost of HTC with pyrolysis and anaerobic co-digestion processes and concluded that HTC can be cost-competitive with conventional direct combustion technology but the other two technologies need improvement to be cost competitive [31].
Lignocellulosic biomass for bioenergy beyond intensive cropland and forests
2019, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Another advantage is that after decentralized thermochemical pretreatment, the resulting fuel can be transported and used centrally as feedstock for gasification or combustion, thereby lowering handling, transportation and storage cost. Torrefaction and pyrolysis have already been found to overcome logistic and quality constraints of energy generation of landscape biomass [103,107,108]. Bioenergy deployment of landscape biomass is especially promising in regions where the management is well organized, and where processing facilities are widespread [38].
A comparative study of thermal and combustion kinetics for raw and bio-chars of eucalyptus wood and bark
2022, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects