Abstract
This study details multicriteria assessment methodology that integrates economic, social, environmental, and technical factors in order to rank alternatives for biomass collection and transportation systems. Ranking of biomass collection systems is based on cost of delivered biomass, quality of biomass supplied, emissions during collection, energy input to the chain operations, and maturity of supply system technologies. The assessment methodology is used to evaluate alternatives for collecting 1.8 × 106 dry t/yr based on assumptions made on performance of various assemblies of biomass collection systems. A proposed collection option using loafer/stacker was shown to be the best option followed by ensiling and baling. Ranking of biomass transport systems is based on cost of biomass transport, emissions during transport, traffic congestion, and maturity of different technologies. At a capacity of 4 × 106 dry t/yr, rail transport was shown to be the best option, followed by truck transport and pipeline transport, respectively. These rankings depend highly on assumed maturity of technologies and scale of utilization. These may change if technologies such as loafing or ensiling (wet storage) methods are proved to be infeasible for large-scale collection systems.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Index Entries
References
Noon, C. E., Zhan, F. B., and Graham, R. L. (2002), Netw. Spatial Eco. 2(1), 79–93.
Aden, A., Ruth, M., Ibsen, K., et al. (2002), Report No. NREL/TP-510-32438, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32438.pdf.
Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., and Flynn, P. C. (2003), Biomass Bioener. 24(6), 445–464.
Jenkins, B. M., Dhaliwal, R. B., Summers, M. D., et al. (2000), Presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), July 9–12, Paper No. 006035, ASAE, 2650 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-8659.
Glassner, D., Hettenhaus, J., and Schechinger, T. (1998), In: Bioenergy’98—Expanding Bioenergy Partnerships: Proceedings, Vol. 2, Madison, WI, pp. 1100–1110, http://www.ceassist.com/bio98paper.pdf.
Atchison, J. E. and Hettenhaus, J. R. (2003), Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, Report No. ACO-1-31042-01, http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/7241.pdf.
Sokhansanj, S. and Turhollow, A. F. (2002), Appl. Eng. Agri. 18(5), 525–530.
Kumar, A., Cameron, J., and Flynn, P. (2005), Bioresour. Technol. 96(7), 819–829.
Brans, J. P. and Vincke, Ph. (1985), Manage. Sci. 31(6), 647–656.
Brans, J. P., Vincke, Ph., and Mareschal, B. (1986), Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24, 228–238.
Brans, J. P. and Mareschal, B. (2004), http://www.visualdecision.com.
Visual Decision Inc. (2004), http://www.visualdecision.com.
Sokhansanj, S., Turhollow, A. F., Cushman, J., and Cundiff, J. (2002), Biomass Bioener. 23(5), 347–355.
Sokhansanj, S. and Turhollow, A. F. (2005), Simulation of Biomass Collection and Supply Systems—Model Development, internal report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (unpublished).
Sokhansanj, S. and Turhollow, A. F. (2005), Identifying Competitive Technologies for Stover and Straw Supply Systems, internal report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (unpublished).
Imagine That, Inc., San Jose, CA, http://www.imaginethatinc.com.
Perlack, R. D. and Turhollow, A. F. (2002), Report No. ORNL/TM-2002/44, //bioenergy.ornl.gov/pdfs/ornltm-200244.pdf.
Perlack, R. D. and Turhollow, A. F. (2003), Energy 28(14), 1395–1403.
Novem (1996), BTG Biomass Technology Group BV, Enschede, Report No. 9525.
Borjesson, P. I. I. (1996), Energy Convers. Manage., 37(6–8), 1235–1240.
Boman, U. R. and Turnbull, J. H. (1997), Biomass Bioener. 13(6), 333–343.
Ney, R. A. and Schnoor, J. L. (2002), Biomass Bioener. 22(4), 257–269.
Turhollow, A. F. and Perlack, R. D. (1991), Biomass Bioener. 1(3), 129–135.
Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., and Flynn, P. C. (2005), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 121(1–3), 0047–0058.
Suurs, R. (2002), University of Utrecht, Copernicus, Department of Science, Technology and Society, The Netherlands, Report No. NWS-E-2002-01, ISBN 90-73958-83-0.
Kumar, A., Cameron, J. B., and Flynn, P. C. (2004), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 113(1–3), 27–40.
Kumar, A. and Flynn, P. C. (2005), Fuel Process. Technol. (in press).
Environmental Manual database (1995), developed by German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) with scientific support from Institute for Applied Ecology (Oko—Institute).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Humana Press Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kumar, A., Sokhansanj, S., Flynn, P.C. (2006). Development of a Multicriteria Assessment Model for Ranking Biomass Feedstock Collection and Transportation Systems. In: McMillan, J.D., Adney, W.S., Mielenz, J.R., Klasson, K.T. (eds) Twenty-Seventh Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals. ABAB Symposium. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-268-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-268-7_6
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-866-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-268-7
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)