Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Boateng
1
e-mail: akwasi.boateng@ars.usda.gov
Charles A. Mullen
Eastern Regional Research Center,
Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
600 E. Mermaid Lane,
Wyndmoor, PA 19038
Logan Osgood-Jacobs
Peregrine Carlson
Nelson Macken
Department of Engineering,
Swarthmore College,
Swarthmore, PA 19081
Mass Balance, Energy, and
Exergy Analysis of Bio-Oil
Production by Fast Pyrolysis
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose
of providing specic information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer. Mass, energy, and exergy balances are analyzed for bio-oil production in a
bench-scale fast pyrolysis system developed by the USDAs Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) for the processing of commodity crops to fuel intermediates. Because mass balance
closure is difcult to achieve due, in part, to the systems small size and complexity a linear
programming optimization model is developed to improve closure of elemental balances
without losing the overall representation of the pyrolysis products. The model results pro-
vide an opportunity to analyze true energy and exergy balances for the system. While
energy comparisons are based on heating values, exergy ows are computed using statisti-
cal relationships and other standard techniques. Comparisons were made for a variety of
biomass feedstocks including energy crops and various byproducts of agriculture and bio-
energy industry. The mass model allows for proper accounting of sources of mass loss and
suggestions for improved system performance. Energy recovery and exergetic efciency
are compared for a variety of pyrolysis product utilization scenarios including use of bio-
char and noncondensable gases as heat sources. Exergetic efciencies show high potential
for energy utilization when all the pyrolysis product streams can be recycled to recuperate
their internal energy. The exergy analysis can be benecial to developing exergetic life
cycle assessments (ELCA) for the fast pyrolysis process as sustainable technology for
advanced biofuels production. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4007659]
Keywords: fast pyrolysis, mass balance, energy, exergy analysis
Introduction
The U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture are commit-
ted to achieving the countrys energy security through the devel-
opment of domestic renewable energy and advanced biofuels
which will at the same time create opportunities for the farm
industry. Of the various biomass conversion technologies being
studied, fast pyrolysis has received the farmers attention due to
its small footprint and potential ease of deployment on-farm. A
pilot uidized-bed fast pyrolyzer (maximum input rate is 5 kg/h
biomass, typical rates are 2.5 kg/h) has been developed at the
USDAs ARS and tested for the conversion of a wide variety of
biomass generating useful data such as energy requirements and
product yields that can be used for larger scale design. Details of
system operation and production results for some selected agricul-
tural biomass feedstocks (e.g., switchgrass, alfalfa stems, and bar-
ley) can be found in Refs. [13].
However, like all pilot scale systems, the reactors small size
lead to system uctuations, high heat losses, gas leaks, etc. These,
in turn, contribute to premature condensation of the viscous bio-
oils in the tracks and with the systems shorter run times makes
full recovery of the liquid and solid products problematic. Overall
mass closures typically result in an imbalance of 1540% which
makes true evaluation of system performance difcult. It is imper-
ative to improve mass closure through the use of optimization
modeling.
Optimization models have been used extensively to understand
and improve the performance of engineering systems [4]. A typical
optimization problem was addressed by Szargut and Stanek [5] in
the design of a solar collector. For this application, the objective
was to minimize the depletion of nonrenewable natural exergy
resources in such systems. In another application, Ansari and Tade
[6] developed a nonlinear constrained optimization model which
they applied to control a uid catalytic cracking system. A nonlin-
ear multivariable dynamic control algorithm was developed and
applied to the model. Although these applications involve thermo-
chemical processes and in some instances involving renewable
energy production, to our knowledge, an analytical process model
for fast pyrolysis does not exist. One approach to achieving mass
closure and employed herein, is to adapt a commercially available
linear optimization tool formulated in Excel using the SIMPLEX
Solver. This model has previously been used extensively for a wide
variety of applications [4] similar to the pyrolysis system in this
study including, for example, that described by Papadatos et al. [7],
who used Solver to optimize net revenue in cheese manufacture.
The model developed herein utilizes fundamental relationships and
experimental data to achieve improved elemental balances without
losing the overall representation of the pyrolysis products providing
a unique framework for a fast pyrolysis system and in its applica-
tion to biomass conversion systems. Accurate determination of
mass ows is essential for several applications including improving
system performance in areas such as energy and exergy accounting,
locating components for design improvement, and providing infor-
mation for life cycle analysis (LCA).
Since biomass is heterogeneous in nature, the quality of pro-
duced energy carriers is susceptible to changes hence biomass
conversion technologies are best described by exergy analysis.
Exergy is an expression of the maximum theoretical available
work from a substance if it were to achieve equilibrium with the
environment. The fundamentals of exergy are based on the rst
and second laws of thermodynamics that have been used in
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 25,
2011; nal manuscript received July 12, 2012; published online October 19, 2012.
Assoc. Editor: Gunnar Tamm.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 042001-1 Copyright VC
2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
process analysis since the middle of the last century. Most recently,
however, it has been a useful tool in life cycle analysis in estimating
depletion of renewable resources. Many energy and exergy analy-
ses have been developed for biomass conversion systems including
Nilsson [8], for example, who compared energy and exergy losses
in the use of straw as fuel to power district heating plants. Exergy
analysis for bioenergy applications has also been performed for bio-
diesel [9], biomass gasication [1013], and bioethanol production
[14]. Most recently, exergy analysis has provided a useful tool in
LCA studies of renewable energy [1520].
In the present study, we report on details of a mass closure
model and apply the results to the conversion of several biomass
commodity crops. Energy and exergy calculations are made and
results discussed. Energy comparisons of input and output mate-
rial ows are based on heating values. Exergy ow relations are
developed and evaluated. The chemical exergy for the biomass,
bio-oil and biochar are computed from statistical regression equa-
tions found in the literature [21]. Chemical exergy of nonconden-
sable gases are computed using standard methods [22]. Energy
recovery and exergetic efciency is computed and compared for
various input and output scenarios.
Methods
Fast Pyrolysis System. The fast pyrolysis process system
modeled comprises a bubbling uidized bed of quartz sand oper-
ated at temperatures in the 400550
C for 6 h.
Mass Closure Theory. The mass models developed are based
on the linear programming model approach, a mathematical mod-
eling method that searches for the best solution to the pertinent
equation (objective function) when given a set of linear con-
straints. The models developed herein use a multigoal weighted
method in which any deviations from the given constraints are
assigned specic weights that reect their importance in the prob-
lem. The sum of these deviations that make up the objective func-
tion and which must always be minimized were run through Excel
Solver. The Excel program employs the SIMPLEX algorithm a
standard method for solving linear programming models for the
optimal solution to the optimization model [4].
In our pyrolysis system application, the model uses eleven deci-
sion variables, which correspond to the eleven different outputs of
the pyrolysis process listed in Table 1. Each of these variables rep-
resents a fraction of the corresponding product in the total output
Fig. 1 USDA-ARS bench-scale fast pyrolysis system. (a) Gas preheater, (b) feed hopper,
(c) injection screw, (d) uidized-bed reactor, (e) cyclone, (f) condenser train, (g) electrostatic
preceptor (ESP), and (h) exhaust (NCG to GC).
042001-2 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
between (0 and 1). The total amount of each product can be calcu-
lated by multiplying the decision variable by the total ash-free
input mass. All of elemental fractions to be discussed later are cal-
culated on an ash-free basis. Two types of constraints are estab-
lished, i.e., hard constraints that cannot be broken and loose
constraints that can be broken.
The rst two constraints employed in the pyrolysis model are
considered hard constraints, and these can be written as follows:
(1) Equality of molar input and output of each element (C, H,
O, N)
e C; H; O; N :
11
i1
f
i;e
M
e
x
i
f
in;e
M
e
(1)
(2) There must be at least as much of each product as was
measured, i.e.,
i 1; 2; ; 11 : x
i
m
i
m
in
(2)
The next three constraints applied were loose constraints.
The amount that each of these constraints breaks or devi-
ates from the given constraint is what makes up the objec-
tive function. These three loose constraints may be invoked
as follows:
(3) The calculated mass fraction of each NCG must equal
measured mass fraction of each NCG
i 7; 8; ; 10 :
x
i
10
j7
x
j
m
i
10
j7
m
j
(3)
For this to be a linear constraint and to include the devia-
tion term, it must be expressed mathematically as
i 7; 8; ; 10 : x
i
m
i
10
j7
m
j
10
j7
x
j
_ _
s
3;i
s
3;i
0 (4)
(4) The calculated water fraction of bio-oil and biochar must
equal measured water fraction in the bio-oil and biochar, i.e.,
i 2; 4; 6 :
x
i
x
i
x
i1
m
i
m
i
m
i1
(5)
Again, for this to be a linear constraint and to include the
deviation term it must be rewritten as
i 2; 4; 6 : x
i
m
i
m
i
m
i1
x
i
x
i1
s
4;i
s
4;i
0 (6)
The last constraint concerns the biochar. The only possible
deviation is above the expected value because of constraint
2 described above, dening the measured value as the mini-
mum possible solution for all products.
(5) Fraction of calculated biochar out must equal fraction of
measured biochar output
x
5
x
6
s
5
m
5
m
6
m
in
(7)
The objective function for the model may be written as follows:
Y a
3
10
i7
s
3;i
s
3;i
_ _
a
4
4;6
j2
s
4;j
s
4;j
_ _
a
5
s
5
(8)
The objective is to minimize Eq. (8) above. To do so each of the
deviation terms is multiplied by a weight, a. These weights can be
used to indicate an assumed accuracy of measurement. For exam-
ple, a higher assigned weight would be used if the system is
thought to have very little error in the corresponding constraint. In
the current pyrolysis system model, little is known about which
measurements are more accurate; therefore a range of weights is
tested.
The Excel solver is used to solve the system of optimization
equations with the following conditions for convergence: (i)
assume a linear model, (ii) apply a precision of 0.01 (precision of
measurement), a tolerance of 5% (default value, not used in the
analysis), and (iii) a convergence criterion of 0.001 (chosen as one
order less than precision). These results are then transferred into a
table that shows the percent of each product in the total output,
the percent each product contributes to each of the elements, and
the difference between the measured and calculated biochar,
water, and NCG fraction.
Energy Balance Model. For energy computation, energy
streams in and out of the pyrolysis system are considered in the
control volume illustrated in Fig. 2. Energy inputs considered are
the electrical energy for the reactor and the energy of the biomass.
Energy outputs are the energy in the bio-oil, the biochar and the
NCG. As Fig. 2 indicates the system boundary is dened at ambi-
ent conditions. This eliminates heat transfer as an energy contribu-
tor. Other energy sources and outputs are small and considered
negligible. These include the electricity used in the electrostatic
precipitator, the energy of ash produced, the energy given up by
cooling water in the condensers, the input energy of the nitrogen
used as a uidizing medium and the energy of the water produced.
All material streams are evaluated by their heat of combustion
or higher heating value (HHV). Hence, the energy per unit mass is
simply assigned the HHV, i.e.,
E HHV (9)
From here, we dene energy recovery as
Energy recovery Useful energy output = Energy input (10)
Both energy input and output were evaluated using appropriate
heating values. These represent the energy content for the starting
Table 1 Denition of decision variables used in the mass
model
Decision variable Corresponding product
x
1
Pyrolysis oil from ESP
x
2
Water from ESP
x
3
Pyrolysis oil from condenser
x
4
Water from condenser
x
5
Char from cyclones
x
6
Water from char in cyclones
x
7
CO from NCG
x
8
CO
2
from NCG
x
9
H
2
from NCG
x
10
CH
4
from NCG
x
11
NH
3
from NCG
Fig. 2 Energy and exergy ows for the system
Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 042001-3
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
materials and products. Per this denition, energy recovery will
depend on the utilization of energy input and output streams.
Because there are several possible ways that the internal energy of
the pyrolysis-oil byproducts can be recuperated, energy recovery
can be based on several scenarios of product utilization. These
include (i) the target product bio-oil for use as the only energy car-
rier, e.g., for say vehicular application, (ii) if bio-oil and biochar
are both useful energy carriers, and (iii) if bio-oil, biochar, and
NCG are all useful energy carriers which can be recycled as
potential heat source for the endothermic pyrolysis reactions.
These scenarios will be applied to energy recovery results.
Exergy Balance Model. Exergy is an expression of the maxi-
mum theoretical work available from a substance if it were to
achieve equilibrium with the environment. It is used in evaluating
the potential use of energy resources. The reference (environmen-
tal) values used for this study are the generally accepted values of
temperature at 298 K and pressure at 1 atm. For a uid stream per
unit mass, exergy is expressed by invoking the laws of thermody-
namics as
E
x
h h
o
T
o
s s
o
v
2
2
gz E
xch
(11)
where the rst four terms are the thermomechanical exergy and
the last term is the chemical exergy. In the pyrolysis system, (see
Fig. 2), we consider all entering and exiting uid streams as well
as our boundary for heat transfer to be at reference conditions.
Hence the rst four terms of Eq. (11) are zero and therefore the
chemical exergy is the only contribution to uid exergy streams.
In several applications like ours, the concept of exergy is fre-
quently applied to a system as illustrated in Fig. 2. Input exergy
consists of the biomass (including its water content) and the elec-
trical exergy required to heat the reactor. The latter is normally
equivalent to the electrical energy. Like the energy, the exergy
associated with the electrostatic precipitator, the exergy of ash
produced, the input exergy of the nitrogen used as a uidizing me-
dium and the exergy of the water produced are small and ignored.
Our preliminary calculations indicate that they each contribute
less than 1% to the total exergy input or output. Again, since our
system boundary is at the reference environment, exergy associ-
ated with heat transfer and the thermomechanical exergy of the
cooling condenser water is neglected.
Chemical exergy is usually found by formulating the reactions
of a given chemical with the elements in the environment and
nding the maximum theoretical work that could come from this
reaction [22]. However, the chemical exergy of the biomass, bio-
char, and bio-oil are all not as well dened. Therefore, to evaluate
this, statistical methods are applied and regression equations
reported for a large number of organic compounds and fuels [21]
are employed. These expressions (dened by b) show a relation
between the atomic ratios or mass fractions of H/C, O/C, N/C, and
S/C and the chemical exergy. The general form of these exergy
equations (for dry substances with negligible ash and sulfur) is
expressed as
E
xch
b LHV (12)
where LHV is the lower heating value. The equations below
dene b with z indicating mass fraction [19]
b
biomass
1:0412 0:2160
z
H
z
C
0:2499
z
O
z
C
1 0:7884
z
H
z
C
_ _
0:0450
z
N
z
C
1 0:3035
z
O
z
C
(13)
b
biochar
1:0437 0:1896
z
H
z
C
0:0617
z
O
z
C
0:0428
z
N
z
C
(14)
b
bio-oil
1:0401 0:1728
z
H
z
C
0:0432
z
O
z
C
0:2169
z
S
z
C
1 2:0628
z
H
z
C
_ _
(15)
These specic relationships have been used in previous publica-
tions [810]. The chemical exergies of the NCG are found by
standard relationships [22]
E
xch
e
ch
RT
o
lny (16)
The exergy associated with electrical power (considered work) is
equivalent to the electrical energy [22].
From these expressions, the exergetic efciency can be dened
as follows:
W Exergy output = Exergy input (17)
By expanding on Eq. (17), the exergetic efciency may be com-
puted as
W
E
xbio-oil
E
xbiochar
E
xNCG
E
xbiomass
E
electricity
(18)
The exergetic efciency is useful for evaluating environmental
performance and the comprehensive energy efciency of a sys-
tem. In the best system, exergy would be conserved and the
exergetic efciency would be one. Reduced forms of Eq. (18) can
be computed if, for example, the exergy of the biochar and NCG
are considered unimportant.
Results and Discussion
Mass Model. We present results for the biomass commodities
used and described in the methods section, including switchgrass,
pennycress presscake, barley straw, rye grass, and alfalfa stems.
Before we do so, it is important to caution that our results are spe-
cic to the biomass used and it is to evaluate the model in the py-
rolysis system. We do not hypothesize that our results are
consistent with all varieties of the biomass discussed as that will
require use of a larger pool of feedstocks which is impossible in
the current evaluation. Our purpose in this study is only to demon-
strate the usefulness of our mass model, energy, and exergy analy-
sis and not to draw specic conclusions about biomass inputs or
values computed. Since the mass model allows for deviations
from expected values, several solutions are theoretically possible,
i.e., there are different solutions for different weighting factors
assigned in the constraint Eqs. (4), (6), and (7). We selected
results that would give us the maximum predicted bio-oil output.
A comparison with measured values can provide a range of out-
puts for different biomass inputs.
042001-4 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Table 2 and Fig. 3 compare measured and mass model results.
The percentages shown are the mass fraction of output compared
to input on an ash-free basis. The rst three rows of Table 2
(Overall Products) represent the total output. The bio-oil and bio-
char are as is, i.e., as collected with water (but not ash)
included. The lost calculation is the percent of unaccounted mass.
The remaining entries in the table are details for products that cor-
respond to the decision variables in Table 1.
The model results show that the difference between predicted
and measured bio-oil ranges from 10% to 45%. This is not unex-
pected, since the bio-oil may remain in the system and not appear
in the output. For switchgrass and pennycress presscake used
here, the differences between measured and predicted are about
10%. An examination of the detailed outputs allows for predicting
possible locations where the bio-oil unaccounted for is held up,
i.e., either in the condensers or electrostatic precipitators. As
Table 2 shows we predict that the missing bio-oil is situated in the
electrostatic precipitator for switchgrass, barley straw, and alfalfa
stems and in the condenser for rye grass. The results also show
considerable losses in the NCG and, for switchgrass, loss of bio-
char. In a practical application of the model, this could suggest
that improvements need to be made in gas outlet measurement
and to reduce leakages. Also, we note that these particular com-
parisons are made for the model parameters that predict maximum
bio-oil output. A more exhaustive analysis over a range of solu-
tion parameters would yield more denitive results. The discus-
sion here is presented to demonstrate the usefulness of the model
in identifying losses in bio-oil.
The mass model results also provide useful information on how
the elements (C, H, N, and O) that make up the organic portion of
the biomass feedstock are distributed into the products, therefore
allowing for the estimation of the true carbon conversion. Since
carbon from biomass is considered renewable, it is desirable to
retain as much carbon as possible and as low oxygen as possible
in the bio-oil. Bio-oil with less oxygen has a higher energy con-
tent. Hydrogen retention is equally important since it reduces the
hydrogen necessary for post-production upgrading of the bio-oil.
Table 3 provides the distribution of the carbon, oxygen, hydro-
gen and nitrogen from the biomass to the pyrolytic products (pyrol-
ysis oil, biochar, and noncondensable gases) using the predicted
results of the mass balance model. The mass balance model results
revealed that 5360% of the biomass carbon ended up in the bio-oil
while oxygen conversion to bio-oil ranged from 26% for pennycr-
ess presscake up to 57% for switchgrass. Oxygen rejection as water
accounted for between 23% of the biomass oxygen in switchgrass
up to 39% of the oxygen for pennycress presscake. Carbon con-
verted from biomass to biochar has potential to be sequestered, and
therefore, make the fast pyrolysis process overall carbon negative
[24,25]. The mass balance model reveals that between 17% and
28% of the biomass carbon is converted to biochar. Nitrogen distri-
bution was also measured. Only the pennycress presscake and
alfalfa stems had signicant nitrogen content in the feedstocks, and
the distribution of the nitrogen to bio-oil varied from 51% for pen-
nycress presscake to 85% for alfalfa. In each case the biochar con-
tained between 12% and 17% of the biomass nitrogen. Organic
nitrogen in protein can also be converted into the gaseous fraction
during pyrolysis, with NH
3
being the dominant gaseous nitrogen
containing product produced at <600
deviation below the expected value, Eqs. (4), (6), and (8)
T temperature, K
v velocity, m/s
x calculated mass fraction of product in Table 1
Y objective function, Eq. (8)
y partial pressure ratio
z height in exergy, Eq. (11)
z mass fraction in exergy regression relations
a weights in objective function, Eq. (8)
b regression equation for exergy
W exergetic efciency
Subscripts
i,j summation indices
ch chemical
o environmental condition
e element
in input
References
[1] Boateng, A. A., Daugaard, D. E., Goldberg, N., and Hicks, K. B., 2007,
Bench-Scale Fluidized-Bed Fast Pyrolysis of Switchgrass for Bio-Oil
Production, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 46, pp. 18911897.
[2] Boateng, A. A., Mullen, C. A., Goldberg, N., and Hicks, K. B., 2008,
Production of Bio-Oil From Alfalfa Stems by Fluidized-Bed Fast Pyrolysis,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 47(12), pp. 41154122.
[3] Mullen, C. A., Boateng, A. A., Hicks, K. B., Goldberg, N., and Moreau, R. A.,
2010, Analysis and Comparsion of Bio-Oil Produced by Fast Pyrolysis From
Three Barley Biomass/Byproduct Streams, Energy Fuels, 24, pp. 699706.
[4] Hamdy, T. A., 2007, Operations Research: An Introduction, Pearson Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey.
[5] Szargut, J., and Stanek, W., 2007, Thermo-Ecological Optimization of a Solar
Collector, Energy, 32, pp. 584590.
[6] Ansari, R. M., and Tade, M. O., 2000, Constrained Nonlinear Multivariable Con-
trol of a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process, J. Process Control, 10, pp. 539555.
[7] Papadatos, A., Berger, A. M., Pratt, J. E., and Barbano, D. M., 2002, A Nonlin-
ear Programming Optimization Model to Maximize Net Revenue in Cheese
Manufacture, J. Dairy Sci., 85, pp. 27682785.
[8] Nilsson, D., 1997, Energy, Exergy and Emergy Analysis of Using Straw as
Fuel in District Heating Plants, Biomass Bioenergy, 13(12), pp. 6373.
Fig. 4 Comparison of exegetic efciency for fast pyrolysis of var-
ious biomass. In this case, all pyrolysis products (bio-oil, biochar,
noncondensable gases are considered useful products).
Table 6 Exergy analysis
Exergy input (MJ/HR) Switchgrass Pennycress presscake Barley straw Rye grass Alfalfa stems
Biomass 41.7 32.2 21.4 27.0 19.3
Reactor power 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66
Total input 49.3 39.9 29.2 34.6 26.9
Exergy output (MJ/HR) Measured Model Measured Model Measured Model Measured Model Measured Model
Bio-oil 25.8 29.6 16.2 18.6 10.7 17.5 10.6 10.8 6.6 13.3
Char 5.66 9.05 9.20 9.20 5.21 5.19 6.97 6.93 7.28 7.00
NCG 1.34 4.92 0.99 5.15 0.39 4.62 0.56 3.45 1.14 1.79
Total output 32.8 43.5 26.4 33.0 16.3 27.4 18.1 21.1 15.0 22.1
Exergetic efciency
All products useful (%) 66.5 88.3 66.2 82.6 56.0 93.8 52.3 61.0 55.7 82.0
Bio-oil useful (%) 52.4 59.9 40.7 46.6 36.9 60.2 30.6 31.1 24.5 49.4
Recycle (%) 62.0 71.0 50.3 57.7 82.1 39.9 34.2 69.0
042001-8 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
[9] Hovelius, K., and Hansson, P., 1999, Energy- and Exergy Analysis of Rape
Seed Oil Methyl Ester (RME) Production Under Swedish Conditions, Biomass
Bioenergy, 17, pp. 279290.
[10] Ptasinski, K. J., Prins, M. J., and Pierik, A., 2007, Exergetic Evaluation of Bio-
mass Gasication, Energy, 32, pp. 568574.
[11] Prins, M. J., Ptasinski, K. J., and Janssen, F. J. J. G., 2007, From Coal to Bio-
mass Gasication: Comparison of Thermodynamic Efciency, Energy, 32, pp.
12481259.
[12] Braun, R. J., Hanzon, L. G., and Dean, J. H., 2011, System Analysis of
Thermochemical-Based Bioreneries for Coproduction of Hydrogen and Elec-
tricity, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 133(1), p. 012601.
[13] Srinivas, T., Gupta, A. V. S. S. K. S., and Reddy, B. V., 2009, Thermodynamic
Equilibrium Model and Exergy Analysis of a Biomass Gasier, ASME J.
Energy Resour. Technol., 131(3), p. 031801.
[14] Ojeda, K. A., Sanchez, E. L., Suarez, J., Avila, O., Quintero, V., El-Halwagi,
M., and Kafarov, V., 2011, Application of Computer-Aided Process Engineer-
ing and Exergy Analysis to Evaluate Different Routes of Biofuels Production
From Lignocellulosic Biomass, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50, pp. 27682772.
[15] Szargut, J., Ziebik, A., and Stanek, W., 2002, Depletion of the Non-
Renewable Natural Energy Resources as a Measure of Ecological Cost,
Energy Convers. Manage., 43, pp. 11491163.
[16] Cornelissen, R. L., and Hirs, G. G., 2002, The Value of Exergetic Life Cycle
Assessment Besides the LCA, Energy Convers. Manage., 43, pp. 14171424.
[17] Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., Muys, B., Bruers, S., Bakshi, B. R., Grubb, G. F.,
Paulus, D. M., and Sciubba, E., 2008, Exergy: Its Potential and Limitations in Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42(7), pp. 22212232.
[18] Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., and Van De Velde, B., 2005, Exergy-Based
Efciency and Renewable Assessment of Biofuel Production, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 39(10), pp. 38783882.
[19] Rubio Rodriguez, M. A., De Ruyck, J., Roque Diaz, P., Verma, V. K., and
Bram, S., 2011, An LCA Based Indicator for Evaluation of Alternative Energy
Routes, Appl. Energy, 88, pp. 630635.
[20] Talens Peiro, L., Lombardi, L., Villalba Mendez, G., and Gabarrell i Durany,
X., 2010, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Exergetic Life Cycle Assessment
(ELCA) of the Production of Biodiesel From Used Cooking Oil (UCO),
Energy, 35, pp. 889893.
[21] Szargut, J., Morris, D. R., and Steward, F. R., 1988, Exergy Analysis of
Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical Processes, Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, New York.
[22] Moran, M. J., and Shapiro, H. N., 2000, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermo-
dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
[23] Boateng, A. A., Mullen, C. A., and Goldberg, N. M., 2010, Producing Stable
Pyrolysis Liquids From the Oil-Seed Presscakes of Mustard Family Plants: Pen-
nycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) and Camelina (Camelina sativa), Energy Fuels,
24, pp. 66246632.
[24] Laird, D. A., 2008, The Charcoal Vision: A Win-Win-Win Scenario for Simul-
taneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, While
Improving Soil and Water Quality, Agron. J., 100, pp. 178181.
[25] Boateng, A. A., Mullen, C. A., Goldberg, N. M., Devine, T. E., Lima, I. M., and
McMurtrey, J. E., 2010, Sustainable Production of Bioenergy and Biochar
From the Straw of High Biomass Soybean Lines via Fast Pyrolysis, Environ.
Prog. Sustainable Energy, 29, pp. 175183.
[26] Yan, S., Chen, X., Li, W., Liu, H., and Wang, F., 2011, Nitrogen Conversion
Under Rapid Pyrolysis of Two Types of Aquatic Biomass and Corresponding
Blends With Coal, Bioresour. Technol., 102, pp. 1012410130.
[27] Yaun, S., Zhou, Z., Li, J., Chen, X., and Wang, F., 2010, HCN and NH
3
Released From Biomass and Soybean Cake Under Rapid Pyrolysis, Energy
Fuels, 24, pp. 61666171.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 042001-9
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/07/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms