Advertisement

Heat and Power Production from Stover for Corn Ethanol Plants

  • Shahab SokhansanjEmail author
  • Sudhagar Mani
  • Cannayen Igathinathane
  • Sam Tagore
Chapter
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 66)

Abstract

Supply of corn stover to produce heat and power for a typical 170 million L (45 million gallon) dry mill ethanol plant is proposed. The corn ethanol plant requires 5.6 MW electricity and 52.3 MW process heat, which creates an annual stover demand of as much as 150 million Mg (Mg = 1,000,000 g = 1 metric ton). The stover supply system consists of collection, pre-processing, transportation and on-site fuel storage and preparation to produce heat and power. Economics of the entire supply system was conducted using the Integrated Biomass Supply Analysis and Logistics (IBSAL) simulation model. Corn stover was delivered in three formats (square bales, dry chops and pellets) to the ethanol plant. Among the three formats of stover supply systems, cost of chopped biomass was highest due to the high transportation cost and low bulk density. The economics of the stover fired heat generation system was assessed using a discounted cash flow method and compared with coal- and natural gas-fired systems. Although the capital investment cost of natural gas-fired heat generation system was relatively low, annual operating costs were the highest compared to the stover and coal-fired heating system. The coal-fired heating system had the lowest annual operating cost due to the low fuel cost, but had the highest environmental and human toxicity impacts. Combined heat and power (CHP) generation systems have high thermal efficiency, onsite power utilization and lower environmental impacts than process heat generation systems. A corn-stover-fired CHP plant was proposed to supply both power and process heat for the corn ethanol plant. The proposed CHP system required 137,450 Mg stover to generate 9.5 MWe of power and 52.3 MWth of process heat with an overall CHP efficiency of 83.3%. Economic analysis of the stover-fired CHP system was compared with that of both coal and a combination of coal and stover fuel options along with an environmental impact analysis. Annual savings from the CHP plant were calculated by comparing the existing energy input conditions for the corn ethanol plant. The stover-fired CHP system would generate annual savings of US $3.61 million with a payback period of 6 years. The economics of the coal-fired CHP system were relatively attractive compared to the stover-fired CHP system. but greenhouse gas emissions for the coal-fired CHP system were 20 times greater than that of stover-fired CHP system. Co-firing of stover with coal may balance out the environmental impacts and economics of the CHP system. We envision that creating demand for biomass will build infrastructures to deliver biomass fuel, which will further reduce the cost of biomass

Keywords

Corn Stover Ground Biomass Ethanol Plant Annual Operating Cost Capital Investment Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Office of Biomass Program, US Department of Energy (DOE), for providing funding to conduct this research.

References

  1. American Coalition for Ethanol (2006) US Ethanol Production. Available via DIALOG. http://www.ethanol.org/production.html. Cited 15 June 2006
  2. Bhatt MS (2001) Mapping of general combined heat and power systems. Energy Convers Manage 42:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clayton M (2006) Carbon cloud over a green fuel. Available via DIALOG. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html. Cited 15 June 2006
  4. CSLF (2006) An energy summary of the United States of America. Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Available via DIALOG. http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm. Cited 15 June 2006
  5. Cundiff JS (1995) Delayed harvest of switchgrass. 1994–1995 Annual Report. Biological Systems Engineering Department. Virginia Tech. Blacksburg, VAGoogle Scholar
  6. Cundiff JS (1996) Simulation of five large round bale harvesting systems for biomass. Bioresour Technol 56:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cundiff JS, Marsh LS (1996) Harvest and storage costs for bales of switchgrass in the southern United States. Bioresour Technol 56:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CVRC&D (2002) Chariton Valley biomass project—design package. Prepared for USDOE under Contract #DE–FC36–96 G010148. Chariton Valley RC&D Centerville, IAGoogle Scholar
  9. CVRC&D (2004) Chariton Valley biomass project—Department of Energy project update. Available via DIALOG. http://biomass.ecria.com/technical∼engineering.html. Cited 15 March 2006
  10. EDUCOGEN (2001) A guide to cogeneration. Contract No. XV11/4. 1031/P/99-159. The European Association for the Promotion of Cogeneration, Brussels, Belgium. Available via DIALOG http://www.cogen.org. Cited 15 June 2006Google Scholar
  11. EPA-CHP (2002) Catalogue of CHP technologies. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher P, Dikerman M, Fritz J (2003) Biomass crop residues: cost and supply estimates. Report no. 819. USDA Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Mani S (2005) A systems analysis of biomass densification process. PhD Dissertation, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC:Google Scholar
  14. Mani S, Sokhansanj S, Bi X, Turhollow AF (2006a) Economics of producing fuel pellets from biomass. Appl Eng Agric 22(3):421–426Google Scholar
  15. Mani S, Tabil LG, Sokhansanj S (2006b) Effects of compressive force, particle size and moisture content on mechanical properties of biomass pellets from grasses. Biomass Bioenergy 30:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morey RV, Tiffany DG, Hatfield DL (2005) Biomass for electricity and process heat at ethanol plants. ASABE paper # 056131. ASABE, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  17. ONSITE SYCOM (1999) Review of CHP technologies. Grant no. 98R020974. US Department of Energy, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes B, Erbach DC (2006) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion ton annual supply. Report # ORNL/TM-2005/66. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN, 2005. Available via DIALOG. http://www.osti.gov/bridge. Cited 15 June 2006Google Scholar
  19. Savola T, Fogelholm CJ (2006) Increased power to heat ratio of small scale CHP system using biomass fuels and natural gas. Energy Convers Manage 47:3105–3118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shapouri H, Duffield JA, Wang M (1999) The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited. Trans ASAE 46(4):959–968Google Scholar
  21. Shapouri H, Duffield JA, Wang M (2002) The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update, Agricultural Economic Report No. 813, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Sokhansanj S, Mani S (2006) Modeling of biomass supply logistics. In: Bridgewater AV, Bobcock BDG (eds) Science in thermal and chemical biomass conversion, vol 1. CPL, Newbury Perks, UK, pp 387–403Google Scholar
  23. Sokhansanj S, Turhollow AF (2002) Baseline cost for corn stover collection. Appl Eng Agric 18(5):38–43Google Scholar
  24. Sokhansanj S, Turhollow AF (2004) Biomass densification—cubing operations and costs. Appl Eng Agric 20(4):495–499Google Scholar
  25. Sokhansanj S, Turhollow AF, Cushman J, Cundiff J (2002) Engineering aspects of collecting corn stover for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 23:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sokhansanj S, Kumar A, Turhollow AF (2006) Development and implementation of integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model. Biomass Bioenergy 30:838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. US EPA (2006) Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2004. USEPA report # 430-R-06-002. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Van den Broek R, Faaij A, van Wijk A (1995) Biomass combustion: power generation technologies. Background report 4.1. Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Wahlund B (2003) Regional bioenergy utilization in energy systems and impacts on CO2 emission. PhD Dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang M, Saricks C, Santini D (1999) Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions. Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ESD-38; 1999. Available via DIALOG. http://www.ipd.anl.gov, Cited 12 December 2004Google Scholar
  31. Wright CT, Pyrofogle PA, Stevens NA, Hess JA, Radtke CW (2006) Value of distributed preprocessing of biomass feedstock to a bioenergy industry. ASABE Paper No. 066151. ASABE, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahab Sokhansanj
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sudhagar Mani
    • 3
  • Cannayen Igathinathane
    • 2
  • Sam Tagore
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Driftmier Engineering CenterUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.Office of Biomass ProgramU.S. Department of EnergyWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations