Location of a biomass based methanol production plant: A dynamic problem in northern Sweden

Leduc, Sylvain; Lundgren, Joakim; Franklin, Oskar; Dotzauer, Erik

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.02.009

Cited by 119 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Former studies on a similar topic have extensively analysed the strong effect of the biomass price, heat demand or production characteristics (investment costs, production efficiency) on the biofuel cost and the location of the biofuel production plants [7,8,20,21]. For this analysis, those parameters are kept constant, and only the influence of three external factors to the supply chain is analysed: CO2 cost, Fossil fuel price and wood demand.…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change mitigation and security of energy supply are important targets of Austrian energy policy. Bioenergy production based on resources from agriculture and forestry is an important option to attain these targets. In order to increase the share of bioenergy, supporting policy instruments are necessary. The cost-effectiveness of these instruments in attaining policy targets depends on the availability of bioenergy technologies. Advanced technologies such as second generation biofuels, biomass gasification for power * Correspondence to: Johannes Schmidt, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, University of Natural Ressources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria. E-Mail: johannes.schmidt@boku.ac.at 2 production and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) will likely change the performance of policy instruments. This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of energy policy instruments with respect to greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction and fossil fuel substitution under consideration of new bioenergy technologies for the year 2030. Instruments that directly subsidize bioenergy are compared with instruments that aim at reducing GHG emissions. A spatially explicit modeling approach is used to account for biomass supply and energy distribution costs in Austria. Results indicate that a carbon tax performs cost effective with respect to both policy targets if BECCS is not available. However, the availability of BECCS creates a tradeoff between GHG emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution. Biofuel blending obligations are costly in attaining the policy targets.

show abstract

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also proposed a prototype to guide future research on site selection and cost analysis in the field of biomass. Leduc et al (2010a) proposed a dynamic MILP model to find the best place for methanol plant and minimize production costs. They studied three factories with capacities of 100, 200, and 400 MW.…”

Section: Lp Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review

Asadi¹,

Sadjadi²

2017

10.5267/j.uscm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These parameters should be considered when the capacity and the geographical positions of the biofuel production plants are determined. Leduc et al (2008;Leduc et al, 2010;Leduc et al, 2009) assessed advantageous locations for biomass based methanol production plants in the country of Austria, in Norrbotten in Sweden and in Baden-Württemberg in Germany. In the case studies of Austria (Leduc et al, 2008) and of Norrbotten (Leduc et al, 2010) the results showed that if a methanol production plant is located near a DH system (DHS), by selling the co-produced residual heat the methanol production costs may decrease by 12 % and 10 %, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leduc et al (2008;Leduc et al, 2010;Leduc et al, 2009) assessed advantageous locations for biomass based methanol production plants in the country of Austria, in Norrbotten in Sweden and in Baden-Württemberg in Germany. In the case studies of Austria (Leduc et al, 2008) and of Norrbotten (Leduc et al, 2010) the results showed that if a methanol production plant is located near a DH system (DHS), by selling the co-produced residual heat the methanol production costs may decrease by 12 % and 10 %, respectively. After conducting a transportation model, which minimises the methanol production costs with respect to the biomass transportation costs and the methanol transportation costs, Leduc et al (2009) concluded that the location of a methanol plant in Baden-Württemberg, Germany may influence those transportation costs by 60 %.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of biofuel production into district heating – part I: an evaluation of biofuel production costs using four types of biofuel production plants as case studies

Ilić

Dotzauer

Trygg

et al. 2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates the effects on profitability of biofuel production if biofuel producers would sell the waste heat from the production to a local district heating system. All analyses have been performed considering four different technology cases for biofuel production. Two technology cases include ethanol production which is followed by by-production of raw biogas.This biogas can be upgraded and sold as biofuel (the first technology case) or directly used for combined heat and power production (the second technology case 2 market scenarios were considered. The sensitivity analyses of the discount rate were performed as well.In the case of energy market conditions, the profitability depends above all on the price ratio between biomass (used as the feedstock for biofuel production) and crude oil (used as the feedstock for fossil diesel and gasoline production). The reason for this is that the gate biofuel prices (the prices on which the biofuel would be sold) were calculated assuming that the final prices at the filling stations are the same as the prices of the replaced fossil fuel. The price ratios between biomass and district heating, and between biomass and electricity, also have an influence on the profitability, since higher district heating and electricity prices lead to higher revenues from the heat/electricity by-produced.Due to high biofuel (ethanol + biogas) efficiency, the ethanol production plant which produces upgraded biogas has the lowest biofuel production costs. Those costs would be lower than the biofuel gate prices even if the support for transportation fuel produced from renewable energy sources were not included. If the raw biogas that is by-produced would instead be used directly for combined heat and power production, the revenues from the electricity and heat would increase, but at the same time the biofuel efficiency would be lower, which would lead to higher production costs. On the other hand, due to the fact that it has the highest heat efficiency compared to the other technologies, the ethanol production in this plant shows a high sensitivity to the district heating price level, and the economic benefit from introducing such a plant into a district heating system is most obvious. Assuming a low discount rate (6 %), the introduction of such a plant into a district heating system would lead to between 28 % and 52 % (depending on the district heating price level and energy market scenario) lower biofuel production costs. Due to the lower revenues from the heat and electricity co-produced, and higher capital investments compared to the ethanol production 3 plants, Fischer-Tropsch diesel and dimethyl ether productions are shown to be profitable only if high support for transportation fuel produced from renewable energy sources is included.The results also show that an increase of the discount rate from 6 % to 10 % does not have a significant influence on the biofuel production costs. Depending on the biofuel production plant, and on the energy market and district heating cond...

show abstract

Location of a biomass based methanol production plant: A dynamic problem in northern Sweden

Cited by 119 publications

References 4 publications

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review

Integration of biofuel production into district heating – part I: an evaluation of biofuel production costs using four types of biofuel production plants as case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About