Life-cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis of a biomass-based biorefinery
- PDF / 1,247,752 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 18 Downloads / 193 Views
Life‑cycle assessment (LCA) and techno‑economic analysis of a biomass‑based biorefinery Hojat Ansarinasab1 · Mehdi Mehrpooya2 · Milad Sadeghzadeh2 Received: 24 June 2020 / Accepted: 30 September 2020 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2020
Abstract In this research, a biorefinery plant is proposed to generate biofuel through fast pyrolysis and gasification. The proposed biorefinery comprises hydrotreating, hydrocracking, and steam reforming sections. The whole plant, each section, and each designed component are analyzed and evaluated based on an exergy-based approach, i.e., exergy, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental analyses. The exergy cost and exergoenvironmental impact of each section and each component are calculated and compared to monitor the economic effect and environmental impact and also to prioritize the section and the component which are not obtained as acceptable values in the analyses. It is revealed that the hydrocracking unit is the most efficient sector in comparison with others with the exergy efficiency of 89.75%. The exergoeconomic analysis illustrates that the used compressor in the hydrotreating unit and pumps in hydrocracking and steam reforming units have the most exergy cost in comparison with other components in the whole process. Similarly, exergoenvironmental assessment declares that employed reactors of the biorefinery plant have the most destructive effect on the environment. Keywords Biorefinery · Bio-oil production · Exergy-based analyses · Life-cycle assessment List of symbols B Environmental impact per unit of exergy (mPts kJ−1) Ḃ Environmental impact rate associated with exergy (mPts h−1) C Unit exergy cost ($ GJ−1) Ċ Exergy cost rate ($ h−1) ̇ Exergy rate (kW) Ex fb Exergoenvironmental factor (%) fc Exergoeconomic factor (%) G Gibbs free energy (kJ kg−1 mol−1) h Specific enthalpy (kJ kg−1) ṁ Mass flow rate (kg s−1) N Plant lifetime (year) P Pressure (bar) PEC Purchase equipment cost ($) rb Relative environmental impacts difference * Mehdi Mehrpooya [email protected] 1
Faculty of Energy Systems Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Tehran, Iran
Department of Renewable Energies and Environment, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2
rc Relative cost difference rp Pressure ratio T Temperature TRR Total revenue requirement S Specific entropy (kJ kg−1 K−1) Ẏ Component-related environmental impacts (mPts h−1) Y Exergy destruction ratio Ż Capital investment cost rate ($ h−1) Greek letters Η Efficiency Ε Exergy efficiency Subscripts 0 Dead state A Ambient Ch Chemical F Fuel K Component k Min Minimum O Other P Product Ph Physical P Pump Tot Total
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Superscripts AC Air cooler C Compressor CO Construction CYC Cyclone DI Disposal F Flash drum FP Fast pyrolysis HX Heat exchanger Mix Mixer OM Operating and maintenance PF Environmental pollution factor PG Power generation P Pump R Reactor T Turbine V Valve
Introduction Concerning issues
Data Loading...
