IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i4p886-d1338833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Techno-Economic Analysis Comparing a Hammermill and a Rotary Shear System to Process Woody Biomass for Biofuel Production

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos O. Trejo-Pech

    (Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • T. Edward Yu

    (Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • David N. Lanning

    (Forest Concepts LLC, Auburn, WA 98001, USA)

  • James H. Dooley

    (Forest Concepts LLC, Auburn, WA 98001, USA)

  • James A. Larson

    (Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Burton C. English

    (Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

Abstract

Woody biomass feedstock processing, including sorting, drying, and size reduction of biomass to provide standardized reactor-ready biomass to the biorefinery, is crucial to biofuel conversion. This study compares two comminution technology systems applied to woody biomass processing at a depot before being utilized for biofuel production at a biorefinery. The conventional comminution technology, known as the hammermill system, is compared with a rotary shear system developed by Forest Concepts™. Potential economic savings of using the new technology are evaluated by applying a deterministic and a stochastic partial capital budgeting model based on results from an experiment that processed chipped hybrid poplar chips and forest residues with both systems. The stochastic partial capital model estimates that savings will vary between approximately USD 28 and USD 42 per ton of reactor-ready processed biomass, with mean and median values around USD 34 per ton. It is 90% likely that savings will be between USD 30 and USD 39 per ton of reactor-ready processed biomass. The estimated savings are mainly due to differences in input (feedstock) to output (reactor-ready biomass) yields between technologies, affecting feedstock and drying costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos O. Trejo-Pech & T. Edward Yu & David N. Lanning & James H. Dooley & James A. Larson & Burton C. English, 2024. "A Techno-Economic Analysis Comparing a Hammermill and a Rotary Shear System to Process Woody Biomass for Biofuel Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:4:p:886-:d:1338833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/4/886/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/4/886/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhao, Xin & Yao, Guolin & Tyner, Wallace E., 2016. "Quantifying breakeven price distributions in stochastic techno-economic analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 318-326.
    2. Dhoubhadel, Sunil P. & Stockton, Matthew, 2010. "Stochastic Partial Budgeting: A New Look at an Old Tool," Cornhusker Economics 306676, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeong, Dawoon & Tyner, Wallace E. & Meilan, Richard & Brown, Tristan R. & Doering, Otto C., 2020. "Stochastic techno-economic analysis of electricity produced from poplar plantations in Indiana," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 189-197.
    2. Omidkar, Ali & Alagumalai, Avinash & Li, Zhaofei & Song, Hua, 2024. "Machine learning assisted techno-economic and life cycle assessment of organic solid waste upgrading under natural gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    3. Mamun, Saleh & Hansen, Jason K. & Roni, Mohammad S., 2020. "Supply, operational, and market risk reduction opportunities: Managing risk at a cellulosic biorefinery," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    4. Jåstad, Eirik Ogner & Bolkesjø, Torjus Folsland & Rørstad, Per Kristian, 2020. "Modelling effects of policies for increased production of forest-based liquid biofuel in the Nordic countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. Arora, Amit & Singh, Vijay, 2020. "Biodiesel production from engineered sugarcane lipids under uncertain feedstock compositions: Process design and techno-economic analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    6. Stetter, Chris & Piel, Jan-Hendrik & Hamann, Julian F.H. & Breitner, Michael H., 2020. "Competitive and risk-adequate auction bids for onshore wind projects in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Li, Shuyun & Jiang, Yuan & Snowden-Swan, Lesley J. & Askander, Jalal A. & Schmidt, Andrew J. & Billing, Justin M., 2021. "Techno-economic uncertainty analysis of wet waste-to-biocrude via hydrothermal liquefaction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    8. Walsh, Michael J. & Gerber Van Doren, Léda & Shete, Nilam & Prakash, Akshay & Salim, Usama, 2018. "Financial tradeoffs of energy and food uses of algal biomass under stochastic conditions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 591-603.
    9. Cruce, Jesse R. & Quinn, Jason C., 2019. "Economic viability of multiple algal biorefining pathways and the impact of public policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 735-746.
    10. Robert M. Campbell & Nathaniel M. Anderson & Daren E. Daugaard & Helen T. Naughton, 2018. "Technoeconomic and Policy Drivers of Project Performance for Bioenergy Alternatives Using Biomass from Beetle-Killed Trees," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Campbell, Robert M. & Anderson, Nathaniel M. & Daugaard, Daren E. & Naughton, Helen T., 2018. "Financial viability of biofuel and biochar production from forest biomass in the face of market price volatility and uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 330-343.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:4:p:886-:d:1338833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.