与传统途径相比,通过化学循环对生物质制液体燃料生产的技术经济评估

IF 7.7 2区 工程技术 Q1 CHEMISTRY, APPLIED
Krutarth Pandit, Ishani Karki Kudva, Shekhar G. Shinde, Christian Boose, Liang-Shih Fan
{"title":"与传统途径相比,通过化学循环对生物质制液体燃料生产的技术经济评估","authors":"Krutarth Pandit,&nbsp;Ishani Karki Kudva,&nbsp;Shekhar G. Shinde,&nbsp;Christian Boose,&nbsp;Liang-Shih Fan","doi":"10.1016/j.fuproc.2025.108341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rising liquid fuel demand is increasing CO₂ emissions, making renewable biomass technologies vital for a low-carbon future. This study presents a chemical looping-based biomass conversion process integrated with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (CLFT) for liquid fuel production and evaluates its techno-economic performance against two established biomass-based pathways: biomass gasification to liquid fuels (GFT) and biomass pyrolysis to liquid fuels (PHP). A minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) analysis, conducted using a discounted cash flow approach, estimates MFSP values of $3.59/GGE for CLFT, $5.26/GGE for GFT, and $4.54/GGE for PHP. The energy efficiencies of CLFT, GFT, and PHP are at 37.7 %, 37.3 %, and 46.4 %, respectively, while their carbon conversion efficiencies are 32.3 %, 30.5 %, and 40.4 %. Sensitivity analyses reveal that feedstock cost exerts the greatest influence on MFSP, followed by the internal rate of return and capital expenditures. Additionally, a 50 % increase in plant capacity (from the baseline 2000 dry tons/day of biomass) results in only an 11 % reduction in MFSP, whereas a 50 % decrease in plant size leads to a 17 % increase in MFSP. These findings highlight CLFT's economic and technical advantages, reinforcing its promise as a cost-effective, sustainable fuel generation alternative.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":326,"journal":{"name":"Fuel Processing Technology","volume":"278 ","pages":"Article 108341"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-liquid fuel production via chemical looping in comparison to conventional pathways\",\"authors\":\"Krutarth Pandit,&nbsp;Ishani Karki Kudva,&nbsp;Shekhar G. Shinde,&nbsp;Christian Boose,&nbsp;Liang-Shih Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fuproc.2025.108341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Rising liquid fuel demand is increasing CO₂ emissions, making renewable biomass technologies vital for a low-carbon future. This study presents a chemical looping-based biomass conversion process integrated with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (CLFT) for liquid fuel production and evaluates its techno-economic performance against two established biomass-based pathways: biomass gasification to liquid fuels (GFT) and biomass pyrolysis to liquid fuels (PHP). A minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) analysis, conducted using a discounted cash flow approach, estimates MFSP values of $3.59/GGE for CLFT, $5.26/GGE for GFT, and $4.54/GGE for PHP. The energy efficiencies of CLFT, GFT, and PHP are at 37.7 %, 37.3 %, and 46.4 %, respectively, while their carbon conversion efficiencies are 32.3 %, 30.5 %, and 40.4 %. Sensitivity analyses reveal that feedstock cost exerts the greatest influence on MFSP, followed by the internal rate of return and capital expenditures. Additionally, a 50 % increase in plant capacity (from the baseline 2000 dry tons/day of biomass) results in only an 11 % reduction in MFSP, whereas a 50 % decrease in plant size leads to a 17 % increase in MFSP. These findings highlight CLFT's economic and technical advantages, reinforcing its promise as a cost-effective, sustainable fuel generation alternative.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fuel Processing Technology\",\"volume\":\"278 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fuel Processing Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382025001651\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fuel Processing Technology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382025001651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不断增长的液体燃料需求增加了二氧化碳排放量,使可再生生物质技术对低碳未来至关重要。本研究提出了一种基于化学环的生物质转化过程,结合费托合成(CLFT)用于液体燃料的生产,并针对两种已建立的生物质转化途径:生物质气化制液体燃料(GFT)和生物质热解制液体燃料(PHP),评估了其技术经济性能。使用贴现现金流方法进行的最低燃料销售价格(MFSP)分析估计,CLFT的MFSP值为3.59美元/GGE, GFT为5.26美元/GGE, PHP为4.54美元/GGE。CLFT、GFT和PHP的能源效率分别为37.7%、37.3%和46.4%,而它们的碳转换效率分别为32.3%、30.5%和40.4%。敏感性分析表明,原料成本对MFSP的影响最大,其次是内部收益率和资本支出。此外,植物容量增加50%(以2000干吨/天生物量为基准)只会导致MFSP减少11%,而植物规模减少50%则会导致MFSP增加17%。这些发现突出了CLFT的经济和技术优势,加强了其作为具有成本效益的可持续燃料发电替代品的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-liquid fuel production via chemical looping in comparison to conventional pathways

Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-liquid fuel production via chemical looping in comparison to conventional pathways
Rising liquid fuel demand is increasing CO₂ emissions, making renewable biomass technologies vital for a low-carbon future. This study presents a chemical looping-based biomass conversion process integrated with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (CLFT) for liquid fuel production and evaluates its techno-economic performance against two established biomass-based pathways: biomass gasification to liquid fuels (GFT) and biomass pyrolysis to liquid fuels (PHP). A minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) analysis, conducted using a discounted cash flow approach, estimates MFSP values of $3.59/GGE for CLFT, $5.26/GGE for GFT, and $4.54/GGE for PHP. The energy efficiencies of CLFT, GFT, and PHP are at 37.7 %, 37.3 %, and 46.4 %, respectively, while their carbon conversion efficiencies are 32.3 %, 30.5 %, and 40.4 %. Sensitivity analyses reveal that feedstock cost exerts the greatest influence on MFSP, followed by the internal rate of return and capital expenditures. Additionally, a 50 % increase in plant capacity (from the baseline 2000 dry tons/day of biomass) results in only an 11 % reduction in MFSP, whereas a 50 % decrease in plant size leads to a 17 % increase in MFSP. These findings highlight CLFT's economic and technical advantages, reinforcing its promise as a cost-effective, sustainable fuel generation alternative.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fuel Processing Technology
Fuel Processing Technology 工程技术-工程:化工
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
398
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Fuel Processing Technology (FPT) deals with the scientific and technological aspects of converting fossil and renewable resources to clean fuels, value-added chemicals, fuel-related advanced carbon materials and by-products. In addition to the traditional non-nuclear fossil fuels, biomass and wastes, papers on the integration of renewables such as solar and wind energy and energy storage into the fuel processing processes, as well as papers on the production and conversion of non-carbon-containing fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia, are also welcome. While chemical conversion is emphasized, papers on advanced physical conversion processes are also considered for publication in FPT. Papers on the fundamental aspects of fuel structure and properties will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信