4.7 Article

Assessment of coal and biomass to liquid fuels in central Appalachia, USA

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 856-870

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/er.1838

关键词

biomass utilization; bioenergy; logistics; greenhouse gas emissions; carbon credit

资金

  1. West Virginia Department of Energy (WVDOE) [08-362]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid fuels from coal and biomass have the potential to reduce petroleum fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. A multi-equation model was developed to assess the economics of a potential coal/biomass-to-liquids (CBTL) fuel plant in the central Appalachian hardwood region, USA. The model minimizes the total annual production cost subject to a series of regional supply, demand, and other constraints. Model inputs include coal and biomass availability, biomass handling system, plant investment, production capacity, transportation logistics, and project financing. The outputs include the required selling price (RSP) and the optimal logistical decision-making associated with feedstock requirement, collection, delivery, and liquid fuel production. Results showed that the RSP of FischerTropsch (FT) diesel for a 40?000 barrel-per-day CBTL plant with coal/biomass ratio (by weight) of 85/15 was $86.4587.25?bbl-1 using different biomass handling systems. The RSP would vary between $86.45 and $89.81 per barrel according to different coal/biomass mix ratios. In consideration of the carbon offset credits due to the addition of biomass, the RSP was adjusted to $84.1986.74 with respect to four levels of carbon prices. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the RSP of FT diesel was mostly affected by plant capacity, capital cost, coal price, and liquid fuel yield. The crude-oil-equivalent price of FT fuels must be above $66?bbl-1 for a CBTL plant to be profitable in central Appalachia for the long run. These results can help investors/decision-makers evaluate future CBTL developments in the region. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据