Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Techno-economic evaluation of integrating torrefaction with anaerobic T

digestion
⁎
Tharaka Rama Krishna C. Doddapaneni , Ramasamy Praveenkumar, Henrik Tolvanen,
Jukka Rintala, Jukka Konttinen
Laboratory of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland

H I G H L I G H T S

• Integrating torrefaction with anaerobic digestion has better process economics.

• Selling price of torrefied pellets reduced with proposed process integration.
• Pellets selling price reduced by 15 €/t with proposed process integration.
• Torrefaction process economics are significantly influenced by feedstock price.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent days, the interest on torrefaction is increasing owing to its ability to improve biomass properties to a
Techno-economic analysis level of competing with coal. However, its techno-economic feasibility still need to be optimized. Integrating
Torrefaction – anaerobic digestion torrefaction with other thermochemical and biochemical processes could be a feasible option to improve the
Minimum selling price performance of the torrefaction process. In that regard, this study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of
Energy recovery
integrating the torrefaction with anaerobic digestion (AD). In addition, new process configurations were studied
Process integration
Torrefied pellets
to identify the possible heat energy recovery options. Technical feasibility was tested through mass and energy
balance at each process unit. The economic indicators such as net present value (€), minimum selling price and
internal rate on return (%) were used to evaluate the economic performance. At 10 t/h of torrefied biomass
pellets production capacity, the estimated bio-methane production from AD was 369 m3/h. The economic
evaluation shows that the minimum selling price of the torrefied biomass to reach the breakeven could be
reduced from 199 €/t for standalone torrefaction to 185 €/t in case of torrefaction integrated with AD. The
sensitivity analysis shows that feedstock and total capital investment were the most sensitive input parameters.
This study shows that integrating the torrefaction with AD has better technical and economic feasibility than
standalone torrefaction.

1. Introduction or reducing the coal with renewable materials in the industrial appli-
cations and electrical energy production could be one option to achieve
The main aim of the Paris climate change agreement was main- the above said environmental and energy targets.
taining the global average temperature 2 °C below the pre-industrial Biomass could be one such a renewable material, which can be
level and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared considered as an alternative to coal. However, biomass has several
with 1990 level by 2030 [1]. At the same time the European union challenges like high moisture content, fibrous, hydrophilic nature and
energy targets are, 20% of the primary energy consumption from re- low heating value [4]. To overcome these issues, biomass should be
newable resources by 2020 and 27% by 2030 [2]. By 2014, fossil fuels pretreated. Several pretreatment methods have been proposed, torre-
(i.e. coal, oil and natural gas) are accounted for 80% of world primary faction being one of them [2]. During torrefaction, the biomass is he-
energy supply [3]. Among the other fuels, coal combustion is the major ated slowly in the temperature range of 200–300 °C in an inert en-
source of CO2 emissions, and according to IEA statistics, 45% of the vironment. Torrefaction treatment allows biomass to compete with coal
global CO2 emissions are from coal combustion in 2014 [3]. Replacing by altering its physiochemical properties for example, energy density

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tharaka.doddapaneni@tut.fi (T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.045
Received 9 October 2017; Received in revised form 21 December 2017; Accepted 13 January 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

and hydrophobicity [5]. In the recent days the research interest and Fig. 1 are given below.
commercial demand on the torrefied biomass is increasing globally. The
market forecast shows that global demand for torrefied wood pellets Case 1: This case represents the standalone torrefaction process,
will be around 70 million tons a year by 2020 [6]. where the volatiles from the torrefaction process were combusted
However, the techno-economic optimization of the torrefaction along with wood chips to meet the heat energy demand.
process is required to remain competitive with conventional wood Case 2: In this case, the condensation of torrefaction volatiles to
pellets production. According Koppejan et al. [5], the two major tech- produce torrefaction condensate and later, the AD of torrefaction
nical challenges to the commercialization of torrefaction technology are condensate to produce biogas was considered. Finally, utilizing the
handling the volatile gases and energy integration within the process. biogas in a biogas engine to produce electrical energy was also
According to Batidzirai et al. [7], torrefaction process still need to be considered in this case.
optimized with respect to heat integration and waste heat utilization. Case 3: The difference between case 2 and case 3 was with the ap-
Thus, the integration of torrefaction process with other thermochemical plication of produced biogas. In contrast to case 2, the biogas up-
and/or biochemical processes could be useful for the improved tech- grading to bio-methane using high-pressure water scrubbing
nical and economic performance. Previously, Ekaterina et al. [8] stu- (HPWS) and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) was considered in case
died the integration of torrefaction with combined heat and power 3.
(CHP) plant and reported that higher utilization of CHP boiler was
achieved during part-load operations. In other study, Kumar et al. [9] The pellets production process was common for all the cases. In case
studied the integration of torrefaction as a downstream operation in a 2 and case 3, it was assumed that, the uncondensed gases are com-
conventional biomass pelletization process. The results show that ca- busted along with wood chips to produce the heat energy required for
pital investment can be reduced in an integrated approach in compar- drying and torrefaction units. For all the cases, the possibilities for heat
ison with standalone torrefaction process. Clausen [10] studied the energy recovery was also studied.
integration of torrefaction with gasification through thermodynamic
modeling and reported that the biomass to syngas conversion efficiency 2.2. Process parameters
increased from 63 to 86% in an integrated approach. Arpiainen et al.
[11] analyzed the feasibility of integrating the torrefaction with CHP, The mass and energy balances for torrefaction and AD were carried
saw mill and pulp and paper industry and concluded that integrating out based on the experimental results from our previous study [13]. A
the torrefaction with CHP does not reduced the costs significantly. plant capacity of 10 ton/h of torrefied biomass pellets production was
However, these studies were mainly focused on the integration of tor- considered for all the cases presented in Fig. 1.
refaction with thermochemical processes. Fagernas et al. [12] studied
the possibility of condensing the volatiles and selling the torrefaction 2.2.1. Drying and torrefaction process
condensate as a feedstock for pesticides production, and reported that Operating conditions of drying and torrefaction units are presented
the increased selling price of the torrefaction condensate reduces the in Table 1. The forestry wood chips with a moisture content of 40% and
selling price of the torrefied biomass. heating value of 10 MJ/kg were considered as feedstock material [8]. It
Previously, Doddapaneni et al. [13] and Liaw et al. [14] studied the was assumed that in the drying section, moisture content of the wood
integration of torrefaction process with anaerobic digestion (AD) for the chips is reduced from 40 to 10% and the products i.e. dried wood chips
effective utilization of torrefaction condensate. The results from these and water vapor leaves the dryer at its operating temperature (i.e.
studied [13,14] shows that torrefaction condensate can be effectively 150 °C). The energy required at drying unit was calculated from the
converted into biogas though AD. Although, the experimental results latent heat of evaporation of water (2260 kJ/kg) and the sensible heat
are promising, the techno-economic analysis and process modeling at of wood chips (kJ/kg) at dryer operating temperature.
an industrial scale operation, is required to better-understand the fea- The torrefaction temperature was selected as 300 °C. The product
sibility of such a process. flow information of the torrefaction unit was selected from our previous
This study focuses on analyzing the operational and economic fea- experimental data [13] which represents the mass yield of 0.55 and
sibility of integrating the torrefaction with AD. In addition, the possible 0.45 kg/kg of dry wood chips for torrefied biomass and torrefaction
heat energy recovery options from torrefaction process were also stu- volatiles, respectively. The energy required for torrefaction process was
died. The techno-economic performance of the standalone torrefaction calculated by using Eq. (1), which represents the overall energy balance
process was compared with two different integrated process config- between input and output energy flows [7].
urations. These two process configurations are using the biogas in a gas
engine to produce electrical and heat energy and biogas upgrading into [mDB × (LHVDB + (CpDB × TDB))] + Q in
bio-methane using high-pressure water scrubbing (HPWS) and pressure = [mTB × (LHVTB + (CpTB × TTB))] + [mTV × (LHVTV
swing adsorption (PSA). The technical feasibility of the process was
+ (CpTV × TTV))] + Q loss (1)
analyzed through energy and mass balance at each process step. The
comparative economic analysis between different process configura- where m, LHV, Cp and T are the mass, lower heating value, specific heat
tions was studied in terms of minimum selling price, net present value capacity and temperature and DB, TB and TV are the dried biomass,
(NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). A sensitivity analysis was torrefied biomass and torrefaction volatiles respectively. Qin is the heat
carried out in order to understand the influence of different input va- energy input to the torrefaction reactor and Qloss is the heat energy loss
lues of the operating parameters on the economics of the studied pro- from the torrefaction reactor. In this study, the radiative heat loss was
cess configurations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study considered as 3% on the LHV of the dried biomass [15]. The specific
on the techno-economic analysis of torrefaction process integrating heating values for dried biomass (CpTB ) and torrefied biomass (CpDB )
with AD. was selected as 1.2 and 1.4 kJ/kg·K respectively [16]. The thermal
properties of the torrefaction volatiles selected from [17] and National
2. Methods Institute of Standards and Technology’s web directory [18] was used in
Eq. (1).
2.1. Process description
2.2.2. Product properties
Fig. 1 shows three different process configurations considered in The heating value of the torrefied biomass varies between 19 and
this study. The major difference between different cases presented in 24 MJ/kg depending on the severity of torrefaction [8] and in this study

273
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

(a)
DB TB
WB Drying Torrefaction Pelletization TB pellets

TV

Combustion

(b) DB TB
WB Drying Torrefaction Pelletization TB pellets

TV

UCV TC biogas Electrical energy

WB Combustion Condensation Anaerobic Engine
digestion Heat energy

(c)
DB TB
WB Drying Torrefaction Pelletization TB pellets

TV

UCV TC biogas Biogas Biomethane as

WB Combustion Condensation Anaerobic
digestion upgrading vehicle fuel

WB = Wet biomass, DB = Dried biomass, TB = Torrefied biomass TC = Torrefaction condensate, TV = Torrefaction volatiles,
UCV = uncondensed volatiles.
Fig. 1. Process flow for different cases considered in this study, (a) Case 1 (standalone torrefaction), (b) Case 2 (Torrefaction –AD_Engine), (c) Case 3 (Torrefaction –AD_Biomethane).

Table 1 2.2.3. Process flow for pellets production

Properties and operating characteristics. The operational procedure for pellets production reported by Kumar
et al. [9] was considered in this study for pellets production from tor-
Feedstock properties Raw wood After After torrefaction
chips drying refied biomass. Initially, the torrefied biomass from the reactor is
cooled to a temperature of 95 °C and later cooled to a final temperature
Moisture content (%) 40 10 0 of 50 °C. The cooled torrefied biomass is then ground before pre-
Lower heating value (LHV) 10 16 22
conditioning. Because of the increased brittleness and the reduced
(MJ/kg)
water content, pelletizing the torrefied biomass is difficult and it re-
Operating characteristics quires more energy [20]. Thus, torrefied biomass pelletization requires
Dryer operating temperature 150
(°C)
external binders. In the literature researchers studied the feasibility of
Torrefaction temperature (°C) 300 different binders such as, steam, saw dust, vegetable oils and corn [21].
AD operating temperature (°C) 35 In this study, preconditioning the torrefied biomass with low-pressure
Engine exhaust gases 485 steam at 15 wt% (i.e. 0.15 kg of steam/kg of torrefied biomass) was
temperature (°C)
considered. The material loss during pelletization was considered as
negligible. The energy required for grinding, pelletizing, and screening
heating value of 22 MJ/kg of torrefied biomass was selected. Torre- unit of pelletizing section was selected as 22,137, and 101 MJ/t as
faction volatiles mainly contains water, acetic acid, furfural, methanol, suggested by Kumar et al. [9].
acetol, phenolic compounds, tar, CO2 and CO. In this study the com-
position of condensable volatile gases was selected from our previous
study [13]. The Heating value of the volatile gases was calculated by 2.2.4. Anaerobic digestion (AD)
adding LHV of major compounds as presented in Eq. (2). The un- The experimental data for batch assay of AD of torrefaction con-
condensed volatiles yield at 300 °C was 0.20 [13] which mainly con- densate presented in our previous study [13] was used for mass and
tains CO2 and CO. The yield of CO2 and CO was calculated using the energy balance at AD digester. The operating temperature of the di-
correlation that the ratio of CO2 to CO was 2.5 [19]. The condensate gester was considered as 35 °C. The volume of the digester was calcu-
yield and other properties such as volatile solid content (VS) and bio- lated considering the organic loading rate of 3 kg VS/m3·day and the
methane potential was selected as 0.25 kg/kg of dried wood, 17% and methodology presented by [22]. According to [22] the organic loading
83 mL/g of torrefaction condensate respectively [13]. rate varies 4–5 kg VS/m3·day for industrial scale reactors that are op-
erating at mesophilic conditions. However, in this study organic loading
n
rate of 3 kg VS/m3·day was selected because of the inhibitory effects
LHV = ∑ mi ·LHVi associated with the torrefaction condensate. A design factor of 1.25 was
i=1 (2)
used to accommodate the calculation errors and safety measures. The
where ‘i’ represents the major compounds present in the torrefaction heat energy required to maintain the digester temperature was calcu-
volatiles. lated using the Eq. (3) [23].

274
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Q AD = [mTC × Cp × (T2−T1)] + Q AD − loss (3) process), it was assumed that torrefaction volatiles enter boiler com-
bustion chamber at torrefaction reactor temperature. However, for case
where Q AD , is the heat energy demand for AD, mTC is the mass of the
2 and 3, the heat energy recovery from both torrefied biomass and
torrefaction condensate, Cp is the specific heat capacity of the torre-
volatiles cooling was considered. It was assumed that initially, both
faction condensate, T2 is AD operating temperature, and T1 is the tor-
torrefied biomass and volatiles are cooled to 95 °C and later cooled to a
refaction condensate inlet temperature. The Cp of the torrefaction
final temperature of 50 °C. The high-grade heat energy recovered
condensate was selected as 2.8 kJ/kg-K [24]. The inlet temperature of
during the initial stage of the torrefaction product cooling i.e. when
the torrefaction condensate was selected as 20 °C.
torrefaction products are cooled from 300 °C to 95 °C was considered for
The heat loss at digester was calculated following the methodology
district heating. The low-grade heat energy recovered from torrefaction
presented by [23] and the Eq. (4).
products cooling (when cooled from 95 °C to 50 °C) was considered for
Q AD − loss = kd × AD × ΔTD (4) AD digester heat energy requirement and wood chips preheating.
The possible heat energy recovery at engine was calculated based on
where Q AD − loss is the heat loss at digester. kd is the k-factor of the di-
the data reported by [32,33]. The heat energy recovery from engine
gester material, AD is the surface area of the digester, and ΔTD is the
exhaust gases, engine water jacket and lube oil cooling was considered.
average temperature difference between heating medium and the sub-
The engine exhaust gases temperature was selected as 485 °C [33] and
strate (torrefaction condensate). The k-factor of the digester material
these exhaust gases can be reduced to a stack temperature of 135 °C.
and the outside temperature was selected as 0.5 W/m2 °C and −10 °C
The water vapor from the dryer contains volatile organic compound
respectively [23]. The surface area of the digester was calculated con-
(VOC) and dust, thus it must be treated before releasing to the en-
sidering the height to diameter ratio of 0.5.
vironment. The water vapor leaves the dryer at 150 °C and contains
For case 2, using produced biogas in a gas engine to produce elec-
high amount of heat energy, thus heat energy recovery from water
trical and heat energy was considered. The amount of electrical energy
vapor coming out from dryer was also considered in this study. In the
produced was calculated using the Eq. (5). For that, it was considered
previous study Svoboda et al. [34] reported different approaches for the
that 1 m3 of bio-methane is equal to 10 kWh of energy potential
heat energy recovery from biomass drying exhaust gases. However, in
(heating value) [25].
this study using the heat energy recovered from drying exhaust gases
Eelc . = Vm × 10 × ηelc . (5) for air preheating and district heating was considered for all the cases
studied. It was considered that, the heat energy from water vapor is
where Vm is the volume of the methane produced, ηelc. is the electrical initially used for district heating and later for preheating the combus-
efficiency of the biogas engine that was considered as 45% in this study. tion air from 10 to 50 °C. Finally, the water vapor is released at 60 °C for
For case 3, the upgrading of biogas as bio-methane was considered. further treatment at wastewater treatment plant. It was also assumed
The CH4 and CO2 concentration was selected as 70 and 30 vol% re- that the inlet and outlet temperatures of water for district heating was
spectively, based on theoretical methane yield from fat containing 60 °C and 90 °C respectively. The energy recovery was simulated using
substrate [26]. The HPWS and PSA methods were considered for the Aspen hysys®.
biogas upgrading through CO2 removal. The previous studies [27] re-
ported that the total methane loss from biogas upgrading processes
2.3. Economic analysis
is < 2%. In this study, the methane yield of 96% was considered for
both HPWS and PSA [28]. Finally, the application of upgraded bio-
2.3.1. Total capital investment
methane as vehicle fuel was considered.
The economic analysis of all the cases presented in Fig. 1 were
At present, no research data is available on the properties of the
carried out to make a comparative analysis and to identify the economic
digestate produced from the AD of the torrefaction condensate. The
feasibility of integrating torrefaction with AD. The mass and energy
nutrients (nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) & potassium (K) in the di-
balances established through previous sections were used to scale up
gestate comes from the raw material used for the AD process [29]. The
the equipment to a level of selected plant capacity and thereby to es-
biomass derived oils, for example pyrolysis oil contain low amount of
tablish the capital investment. The cost of the equipment was selected
nitrogen (below 0.4 wt%) and ash (0.01–0.1 wt%) [24]. At the same
from previous literature [9,21]. However, the size of the equipment
time, according to [30,31] the release of P and K to the gas phase is very
varies with plant operating capacity, thus the final cost specific to this
low at torrefaction temperature of 300 °C. Thus, the feasibility of using
study were established through scaling factor as presented in Eq. (6)
the digestate as fertilizer could be limited. In this study, the digestate is
[8,35].
considered as an industrial wastewater that needs to be treated before
releasing to the environment. A
n
C = C0 × ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ A0 ⎠ (6)
2.2.5. Energy recovery
In this study, in addition to the integration of torrefaction and AD, where C and A are the cost and capacity of the present equipment and
the possibilities for heat energy recovery was also studied with an aim C0 and A0 are the cost and capacity of the base equipment respectively;
of improving the thermal efficiency of the torrefaction process. Three n represents the scaling factor. In general, the n values varies between
different possibilities as listed below were considered for heat energy 0.6 and 0.8 [7,35] and in this study an n value of 0.6 was considered.
recovery. The equipment cost varies year to year, thus the cost data available
in the literature must be converted to the present year. This was done
• From engine flue gases, water jacket and from lube oil cooler (only using chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI) [35] data using Eq.
(7). In this study, the cost index data of June-2017 was used for present
for case 2).
• From dryer exhaust gases, which contains water, dust and volatile year.
organic compounds (VOC). CEPCIY
• From torrefaction products cooling. Costyear X = CostYear Y ×
CEPCIX (7)

In this study, the application of recovered heat energy for district In the present study, the cost data of drying, torrefaction and pel-
heating (DH) was considered. For case 1, heat energy recovery from letizing units was selected from Kumar et al. [9]. The cost of heat ex-
torrefied biomass cooling only was considered. As the combustion of changers and volatiles condensation units were selected from [36]. The
torrefaction volatiles was considered for case 1 (standalone torrefaction cost data for boiler was taken from [21]. In case of AD digester, the

275
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Table 2 value the NPV becomes zero in the Eq. (8) [8].
Cost parameters considered for the calculation of production costs and revenue. The influence of integrating the torrefaction with AD on the selling
price of torrefied biomass was evaluated using minimum selling price
Utility Cost (€) Reference
information. The minimum selling price of the torrefied biomass was
Wet wood chips (forest) (€/kWh) 17.5 [40] calculated using the methodology presented by [45]. To reach the
Electrical energy purchasing price (€/MWh) 100 [8] breakeven point, the total costs must be equal to the total revenue as
Steam as binding agent (€/t) 22 [35]
presented in Eq. (10).
Wages (€/h) 14
Electrical energy selling price (€/MWh) 83.5 [41] TR = PC + ROI + IT (10)
District heat selling price (€/MWh) 60 [8]
Biomethane selling price (€/m3) 1.18 [42] ROI = CRF × TCI (11)
Biometahne upgrading costs for HPWS (€/m3 of biogas) 0.13 [38]
Biometahne upgrading costs for PSA (€/m3 of biogas) 0.17 [43] IT = taxation rate × (TR−PC−D) (12)
where TR is the total revenue (€), PC is the total production cost (€),
literature shows that, the digester cost varies from 300 to 500 USD/m 3 ROI is the return on investment (€), IT is the income tax (€), CRF is the
[37] and in this study a value of 400 USD/m3 was considered. The cost capital recovery factor calculated using Eq. (13) and TCI is the total
information of the biogas engine was selected based on internal com- capital investment and D is the depreciation amount (€).
munication. The capital investment required for biogas upgrading was i × (1 + i)n
CRF =
selected from de Hullu et al. [38]. The fixed capital investment on the (1 + i)n−1 (13)
equipment (CIE) was calculated by the summation of all the major
equipment present in respective cases presented in Fig. 1. The total Sensitivity analysis was carried out to understand the influence of
fixed capital (FCI) was calculated by adding capital investment on different cost parameters on the economic performance of all the cases
equipment and other capital costs such as startup expenses (10% of presented in Fig. 1. For this, the input parameters such as TCI, working
CIE), engineering and supervision (12% of CIE) and contingency (10% capital, cost of wood chips, selling price of the products were varied in
of CIE) [8,9]. the range of ± 25% to the base values.
In addition to FCI, working capital is required in order to start the
plant and operate it until the time the first income received. According 3. Results and discussion
to the previous studies [35] the working capital for chemical plants
varies from 15 to 20% of FCI and in this study 15% was selected. Fi- 3.1. Mass and energy balance
nally, the total capital investment (TCI) was calculated by adding FCI
and working capital. Fig. 2 shows the mass and energy flows for different cases studied.
In the torrefaction process, drying and torrefaction are major energy
consuming units. The calculated energy requirement for drying was
2.3.2. Production costs
1372 kJ/kg of wet wood chips. Ghiasi et al. [46] reported the energy
The utility and other specific costs were presented in Table 2. The
requirement for drying as 1328 kJ/kg of wood, when reduced moisture
manpower required to operate the plant was calculated using the
content from 45 to 15%. For torrefaction, a wide range of heat of re-
methodology presented in the literature [35]. It was considered that the
action values have been reported in the literature. Bates et al. [17]
factory operates for 330 days, 24 h a day, i.e. 7920 working hours.
predicted that the heat of reaction varies from 350 kJ/kg of dry biomass
Three 8 h working shifts per day was considered. The expenses on the
at 200 °C to −630 kJ/kg of dry biomass at 300 °C. Prins et al. [47]
supervising staff was calculated as 15% on the operating labor expenses
reported a value of 124 ± 400 kJ/kg of wood, for torrefaction at
[35]. The maintenance and repair costs were selected as 3% of FCI. The
300 °C for 10 min. In this study, the calculated heat energy required for
other operating costs such as factory overheads, administration costs
torrefaction was −419 kJ/kg of dry wood (10% moisture). This shows
and distribution and selling cots, were calculated based on correlations
that the overall torrefaction reactions are exothermic and no external
presented by [35]. The factory overheads includes payroll overheads,
heat is required for the torrefaction reaction however, the energy re-
employ benefits, medical, accounting and safety services. The waste-
quired at torrefaction depends on the type of reactor considered. Thus,
water treatment cost i.e. 1.2 €/m3, reported for pulp and paper industry
it is optimistic to consider the energy required for the remaining
effluents [39] was used to calculate waste water treatment costs [35].
moisture removal (in this study 10%) and to raise the wood chips
The depreciation amount was calculated using straight line method for
temperature to the operating temperature (300 °C) [9]. The calculated
a period of 10 years.
energy requirement for torrefaction was 789 kJ/kg of dried wood. The
heat loss at torrefaction reactor was considered as 10% of total heat
2.3.3. Profitability and sensitivity analysis exchanged as suggested by [48]. Kohl et al. [49] reported the energy
The economic performance of the standalone torrefaction unit and requirement of 714 kJ/kg of dry biomass at torrefaction operating
the considered integration approaches were evaluated based on internal temperature of 280 °C. The calculated total energy required for both
rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV). The net present value was drying and torrefaction was around 2162 kJ/kg of wood. In an another
calculated using the Eq. (8) [8,44]. study, Ranta et al. [50] reported a value of 2277 kJ/kg for a pilot plant
(1 + i)n−1 operation at a torrefaction temperature of 260 °C. The energy required
NPV = ⎛ ⎜
n
× net cash flow ⎞−TCI ⎟
for grinding, sieving and pelletizing was selected as 260 MJ/t of tor-
⎝ × (1 + i)
i ⎠ (8)
refied pellets [9].
where i is the interest rate (8%), n is the lifetime of the plant (20 years) The calculated lower heating value of torrefaction volatiles was
and TCI is the total capital investment. The net cash flow can be cal- 4.3 MJ/kg of torrefaction volatiles (i.e. 1.9 MJ/kg of dried biomass).
culated by Eq. (9). The earlier studies [17] reported higher heating value of torrefaction
volatiles in the range of 4.43–10.6 MJ/kg. Prins et al. [47] reported a
net cash flow = ((TR−PC ) ∗ (1−tax rate )) + D (9)
heating value of 3.5 MJ/kg of dry willow biomass. In an another study
where TR is the total revenue (€), which includes the revenue from all Arpiainen et al. [11] reported a heating value of 6.3 MJ/kg of torre-
the sources in the process. PC is the total production cost (€) and D is faction volatiles. The combustion of these volatiles for heat energy re-
the depreciation. The income tax rate was selected as 30% in this study. quirement at drying and torrefaction was considered for case 1. How-
The IRR (%) value was calculated by solving iteratively, at such i ever, they can only fulfill partial energy requirement and additional

276
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Fig. 2. Mass and energy balance for different cases, (a) Case 1 (standalone torrefaction), (b) Case 2 (Torrefaction –AD_Engine), (c) Case 3 (Torrefaction –AD_Biomethane). WB = Wet
biomass, TB = Torrefied biomass, TV = Torrefaction volatiles, MC = Moisture content, HPWS = High-pressure water scrubbing, PSA = Pressure swing adsorption.

utility fuel is required to meet the total energy demand. For this pur- 3 kg VS/m3·day was 7826 m3. The total methane production was
pose, the combustion of wet wood chips was considered in this study; 9241 m3/day. The total amount of digestate produced was 101 t/day.
the extra amount of wet wood required to produce torrefied pellets at The amount of heat energy required to maintain digester temperature
10 t/h was 0.83 t/h for case 1 and 3.1 t/h for case 2 and case 3. The was 120 kW. The electricity produced through engine (case 2) was
calculated heating value of uncondensed volatiles was around 0.7 MJ/ 1.73 MW. However, it was assumed that 5% of energy produced would
kg of uncondensed volatiles. be consumed for pumps, compressors and other controlling equipment.
The amount of torrefaction condensate produced was 4.54 t/h. The Thus, the net energy produced was 1.64 MW (i.e. 13,016 MWh/year). In
total volume of anaerobic digester required at an organic loading rate of case of biogas upgrading (case 3), the total bio-methane produced

277
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Fig. 3. Energy recovery possibilities for integrated torrefaction process. (a) Case 2 (Torrefaction –AD_Engine), (b) Case 3 (Torrefaction –AD_Biomethane) DH = District heating.

278
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

through HPWS and PSA was 8871 m3/day, respectively. The amount of Table 3
wastewater produced was around 320 t/day (which includes saturated List of major equipment costs and the total capital investment (TCI) for different cases.
water vapor from drying and digestate from AD) with a volatile solid
Equipment Operating Number of Cost (€)
content flow of around 12 t/day (volatile solids content 37.5 kg/m3). capacity units
The operating details of two commercial scale biogas plants are
provided here to visualize the scale of the AD process considered in this Torrefaction
Front end loader 260,304
study. The Kristianstad biogas plant in Sweden has a biogas production
Wood chips hopper 214,232
capacity of around 2.9 million m3/year with a digester volume of Conveyor 353,599
8500 m3 and with a capacity of treating 75,000 tons of different kinds of Blowers 180,359
wastes (i.e. organic fraction of municipal solid waste, industrial organic Dryer 5 t/h 6 1,981,075
waste and manure). The electrical energy production is 1.8–2 MW [51]. Torrefaction unit 18 t/h 1 14,627,703
Hammer mill 8 t/h 3 307,527
The another plant located at Werlte, Germany, has an installed elec-
Pellet mill 5 t/h 2 1,619,413
trical energy production capacity of 2.6 MW with a digester volume of Pellet cooler 460,715
6400 m3 [52]. In the present study, the AD process can handle 35,640 t/ Pellets screening 125,545
year of torrefaction condensate with a digester volume of 7826 m3 and Pellets storage warehouse 89,839
Boiler 2100 kW 1 562,986
with a production capacity of 3.04 million m3/year biomethane and
1.73 MW electrical energy. Condensate production
Volatiles condenser 120 t/d 169,047
Torrefaction Vapor Cyclones and 120 t/d 213,615
3.2. Energy recovery filters
Volatiles and condensate 36,460
Fig. 3 presents heat energy recovery from case 2 and 3. The same for separation vessel
case 1 was presented in Fig. S1 (supplementary information). The heat Anaerobic digestion (AD)
energy recovered from product cooling at selected plant capacity was AD-digesters 7900 m3 1 2,708,428
797 and 723 kW for torrefied biomass cooling and torrefaction volatiles Digestate closed storage tank 11 t/d 1 77,583
Other installations (digester 783,426
cooling. The total heat energy recovery from engine was 1829 kW. The
heating, water, control
total heat energy recovered from dryer exhaust gases for district heating equipment, pump)
was 5245 kW for case 1 and 5217 for case 2 and 3 respectively. The Biogas engine 2 MW 560,000
total heat energy available for DH from case 1, 2 and case 3 was 6042, Biogas upgrading
8566 and 6737 kW, respectively. High pressure water scrubbing 369 m3/h 422,725
Pressure Swing Adsorption 369 m3/h 1,084,729
3.3. Economic analysis Heat energy recovery
Heat exchangers 538,500
3.3.1. Capital investment Site and building
Table 3 shows the summarized capital expenditure on various Paving, receiving station and load 58,503
equipment and the total capital investment for different process in- area
tegration approaches. For all the cases studied, the maximum share of Building and office space 994,554

total capital expenditure goes for torrefaction reactor. For standalone Total capital investment on equipment, land and buildings (CIE)
torrefaction process, 50% of the total capital investment goes to the Case 1 22,156,067
Case 2 26,959,025
torrefaction reactor and the same for case 2 was 38%. Pirraglia et al.
Case 3-HPWS 26,821,751
[21] reported that torrefaction unit represents 43% of total installed Case 3-PSA 27,483,754
costs for a plant capacity of 100,000 t/year. In this study, the total cost
Other capital expenses
of the torrefaction reactor at considered plant capacity (79,200 t/year) Startup expenses 10% on CIE
was 14.62 M€, i.e. 1.46 M€/t-h. This is in the range of commercial es- Engineering and supervision cost 12% on CIE
timate i.e. 1.2–1.8 M€/t-h reported by Batidzirai et al. [7]. The capital Contingency 10% on CIE
investment (on equipment) for anaerobic digestion at selected plant Working capital 15% on FCI

capacity (i.e. 369 m3/h of bio-methane production) was 4.1 M€ (which Total capital investment (TCI)
includes investment on biogas engine) for case 2. The same for case 3- Case 1 33,632,910
Case 2 41,543,858
HPWS and case 3-PSA was 3.9 and 4.6 M€ respectively. In the literature
Case 3-HPWS 41,332,318
[53] reported an investment of 1.89 M€ for a plant capacity of 100 m3/ Case 3-PSA 42,352,465
h and in another study [54] reported an invest of 1.3 M€ for a plant
capacity of 75 m3/h. According to [55], the industrial reference for the HPWS = High pressure water scrubbing, PSA = pressure swing adsorption, FCI = Fixed
investment on anaerobic digestion is 4 M€ for a plant capacity of capital investment (CIE + startup expenses + Engineering and supervision
costs + Contingency).
999 kW of electrical energy production. In this study, the total invest-
ment on anaerobic digestion alone was 6.2 M€ (for case 2) at an elec-
trical energy production capacity of 1730 kW. CHP-DH at 40,000 t/year of torrefied pellets production capacity.
The total investment for case 1 (standalone torrefaction process)
and case 2 (AD-Engine) was 33.63 M€ and 41.54 M€, respectively. For 3.3.2. Production costs
case 3, 41.33 M€ and 42.35 M€ for HPWS and PSA operations, re- Table 4 shows the summary of various production costs for both
spectively. These TCI values shows that, the integration of torrefaction standalone and integrated processes. In the total production costs
with AD significantly increases the capital investment. However, this (17.88 M€/year), the feedstock cost (wood chips cost) accounts for 60%
could be compensated through the additional revenue from electrical in case of standalone torrefaction process. Excluding the feedstock
energy or bio-methane. In the earlier studies, [7] reported a capital costs, the other operating costs were around 7 M€/year, which includes
investment of 49.46 M€ for 100,000 t/year of torrefied pellets produc- utilities, manpower and factory overheads. Fig. 4a shows the total
tion capacity. Kumar et al. [9] reported 28.2 M€ for 60,000 t/year of production costs for different cases studied. The total production costs
torrefied pellets production capacity. Sermyagina et al. [8], reported a were 189, 206, 213 and 221 € per ton of torrefied biomass pellets for
total capital investment of 47.7 M€ for torrefaction integrated with case 1, case 2, case 3-HPWS and case 3-PSA, respectively. As expected,

279
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

Table 4
List of production costs for different cases.

Cost item Production costs (€)

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3-HPWS Case 3-PSA

Feedstock 10,818,500 11,688,600 11,688,600 11,688,600

Utilities 1,120,409 1,120,409 1,120,409 1,120,409
Maintenance and repair 877,380 1,083,753 1,078,234 1,473,129
Manpower (operating labor + supervisors) 410,997 410,997 410,997 410,997
Factory overheads 1,130,411 1,336,784 1,331,266 1,357,878
Administration Costs 326,472 388,384 386,728 394,712
Waste treatment 86,391 126,593 126,593 126,593
Biogas upgrading 566,366 740,632
Distribution and selling 148,107 161,555 167,091 173,129
Total 14,958,870 16,317,074 16,876,284 17,486,080
Depreciation 2,924,600 3,612,509 3,594,114 3,682,823

following the capital investments, the operating costs for integrated

(a) process increased. In the integrated approaches, PSA has the highest
production costs. In the earlier studies [21] reported a production costs
of 160 €/t for 100,000 t/year capacity. Pirraglia et al. [56] reported a
production cost of 177 €/t for torrefied wood pellets production from
southern yellow pine at 80,000 t/year capacity. Arpiainen et al. [11]
studied the influence of integrating with different industries and re-
ported the production costs in the range of 175–265 €/t. The variation
in the operating cost mainly comes from the feedstock source and
moisture content of the feedstock.

1 2 A
se se WS PS 3.3.3. Profitability analysis
Ca Ca _ HP e 3_
e3 as In the profitability analysis, the selling price of electricity, heat and
Cas C
bio-methane were kept constant at a value presented in Table 2. Fig. 4b
shows the net revenue at a price of 200 €/ton of torrefied pellets. The
(b) net revenue was higher for integrated approaches (case 2 and case 3)
than the standalone torrefaction process (case 1) and in the integrated
approaches, case 3-HPWS, has the highest revenue i.e. 5 M€/year.
Fig. 4c shows the minimum selling price of torrefied biomass to
reach the breakeven at CRF of 10% (at i = 8%, n = 20 year). From
Fig. 4c it can be observed that, integrating the torrefaction with AD has
the significant influence on the minimum selling price of torrefied
biomass pellets. For example, the minimum selling price for case 1
(standalone torrefaction) and case 3 (AD-HPWS) were 199 and 185 €/
ton. The same for case 2 and case 3-PSA was 197 and 194 €/ton re-
spectively. The variation in the minimum selling price is mainly be-
1 2 cause of the additional revenue from the side products in the integrated
se se WS SA
Ca Ca _ HP 3_P approaches.
e3 se
Ca
s Ca Fig. 5a shows the, NPV for different cases at varied torrefied bio-
mass pellets selling price. The NPV is a measure of the economic via-
bility of the project, which is a cumulative cash flow in a project over its
(c) life period. From, Fig. 5a it can be observed that for standalone torre-
faction process the NPV values were negative when the selling price
is < 200 €/t. In the literature, Pirraglia et al. [21] also observed ne-
gative NPV values for standalone torrefaction process when torrefied
pellets selling price is less than 241 €/t. The negative NPV values re-
presents that the process is not economically viable at selected para-
meters and the higher NPV values represents the high economic via-
bility of the process at selected operating parameters. In this study, case
3_HPWS has the highest NPV values than case 2 at studied torrefied
biomass selling prices and this is because of the higher revenue from
bio-methane than the electrical energy. For example, at 210 €/t selling
1 2 S SA
se se PW _P price of torrefied biomass, the NPV for case 3-HPWS was 2.1, 2 and 1.6
Ca Ca H 3
3_ se times higher than case 1, case 2 and case 3-PSA, respectively.
se Ca
Ca In addition to NPV, IRR is also widely used to understand the eco-
Fig. 4. Production costs and profitability analysis for different cases, (a) production costs, nomics of the project. IRR (%) represents, the rate of return on the total
(b) net revenue at torrefied biomass selling price 200 €/t and (c) minimum selling price to capital invest. Fig. 5b shows the IRR (%) for different cases at varied
reach breakeven point at capital recovery of 10%. torrefied biomass pellets selling price. Following the NPV values, case
3-HPWS has higher rate on investment. At 210 €/ton, the case 1 has

280
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

economics in comparison with feedstock cost. As expected, the case 3-

HPWS has showed better process economics for variation ( ± 25%) of
(a) all the input parameters.

4. Summary

In this study, for the first time, the techno-economic feasibility of

integrating torrefaction with AD was presented. Condensing the torre-
190 faction volatiles to produce torrefaction condensate instead of com-
200 210 220 230 240 busting them to produce heat energy increased the total capital in-
Torrefied biomass pellets selling price (€/t) vestment by ∼8 M€ and raw material cost by 0.87 M€. However, it is
compensated through additional revenue from other products such as
bio-methane, electricity and heat energy. The major advantage of in-
tegrating the torrefaction with AD is that, the selling price of the tor-
refied biomass pellets could be reduced because of the relatively high
net revenue for integrated approaches compared to a standalone tor-
(b) refaction process. For example, the minimum selling price for standa-
lone torrefaction to reach the breakeven at CRF of 10% was 199 €/t,
which was reduced to 185 €/t for case 3-HPWS.
In the total fixed capital, the major portion comes from the torre-
faction reactor. Batidzirai et al. [7] predicted the capital expenditure
required for torrefaction reactor by 2030 considering the technological
learning rate concept. The author reported that at a learning rate of 2%,
the capital and operating costs of the torrefaction reactor could be re-
duced significantly in future. In addition to TCI, the biomass cost is also
significantly influenced the process economics. On the other hand,
sensitivity analysis shows that reducing the feedstock price by 25%, can
Fig. 5. Net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return for different cases at varied
reduce the minimum selling price of the torrefied pellets to 148 €/t for
torrefied biomass selling price, (a) NPV (€) and (b) IRR (%).
case 3-HPWS and 160 €/t for case 2. Thus sourcing the wood from low
cost resources such as sawdust, agricultural wastes, forest residues, and
only 2% return on investment and at the same price of torrefied bio- wood waste from wood processing industries could be useful to reduce
mass pellets, case 3-HPWS has 12% of IRR. the price of the TB pellets. At this price torrefied pellets can compete
The profitability analysis showed that torrefaction process in- with wood pellets, at their current price of 166 €/t (FOEX indexes Ltd)
tegrated with AD was economically more viable than a standalone [40]. The carbon credits could be the other source of income for tor-
torrefaction process. In the integrated approaches, the biogas upgrading refaction industry. According to [21], torrefaction industry can get the
and selling as vehicle fuel has a higher economic viability, than elec- carbon credits in the range of € 25 to € 72 per ton of torrefied pellets
trical energy production using a biogas engine. Again, the comparative (based on the US market). The combination of low cost feedstock
analysis between the biogas upgrading technologies, HPWS has the (around 13 €/kWh), integrating torrefaction with AD, heat energy re-
higher economic feasibility than PSA. However, it should be noted that covery options and carbon credits (40 €/t) can reduce the minimum
for case 2 the side revenue mainly comes from the heat energy thus the selling price of the torrefied pellets to 108 €/t. In addition to carbon
economic feasibility of case 2 depends highly on heat energy demand credits, the benefits from anaerobic digestion process such as invest-
and the additional subsidies. ment subsidy and/or feed-in-tariff can further reduce the selling price of
torrefied biomass pellets. The reduction in the capital costs on the
3.3.4. Sensitivity analysis torrefaction reactor can further reduce the minimum selling price of the
The influence of varied cost parameters on NPV and minimum torrefied wood pellets. In addition to bio-methane and/or electricity,
selling price of the torrefied biomass pellets was presented in Fig. 6 and utilizing the digestate as a fertilizer may also generates additional in-
Fig. 7 respectively. The purchasing price of the wood chips followed by come. For that co-digestion of torrefaction condensate with other sub-
FCI were found to be the most sensitive parameters for all the cases. For strates could be useful, however, further research activities are required
example, increasing the wood chips price by 25%, decreased the NPV to better understand the digestate properties.
from 6.2 to −12.5 M€ for case 1 and from 13.4 to −6.8 M€ for case 3- The results from this study shows that integrating the torrefaction
HPWS respectively at 210 €/t of torrefied biomass pellets selling price. with AD has better technical and economic feasibility than standalone
At the same time, reducing the wood chips price by 25% increased the torrefaction process. However, there is limited research data available
NPV to 25 and 33 M€ for case 1 and case 3-HPWS respectively. Earlier on the anaerobic digestion of torrefaction condensate. Thus, further
studies [21,8] have also reported that the economics of the torrefaction research is required to better understand the advantages and issues that
process was more sensitive to the feedstock cost. In this study, FCI was may arise during the process scale up.
also showing significant influence on the process economics. For ex-
ample, reducing the FCI by 25% increased the NPV by 47% for Case 3- 5. Conclusion
HPWS.
In case of minimum selling price, increasing the wood chips cost by This study gives measures on improving the techno-economic fea-
25% resulted in increasing the minimum selling price of the torrefied sibility of the torrefaction process in order to improve its competitive
biomass pellets by 14, 16, 17 and 16% for case 1, case 2, case 3-HPWS advantage over coal and wood pellets in energy markets. The opera-
and case 3-PSA, respectively (Fig. 7). As expected reducing the wood tional and economic feasibility of integrating torrefaction with anae-
chips price, reduced the minimum selling price of torrefied pellets by, robic digestion including heat energy recovery possibilities was pre-
21, 23, 25 and 23% for case 1, case 2, case 3-HPWS and case 3-PSA sented. Based on net present value (€) and internal rate on return (%), it
respectively. The other parameters such as selling price of electricity, can be concluded that torrefaction process integrated with AD was
heat energy and bio-methane shows little effect on the process economically more viable than a standalone torrefaction process. When

281
 (c)
(a)

(a)

(c)
Base case Base case
Base case Ba s e c a s e
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al.

Wood chips price Wood chips price

Wood chips price Wood chips price

Fixed capital investment Fixed capital investment Fixed capital investment Fixed capital investment

Working capital Working capital

Working capital Working capital

Biomethane selling price

Biomethane
selling price

Heat energy selling price

Heat energy Heat energy selling price

selling price

282
(d)
(b)

(d)
(b)
Base case Base case Base case
Ba s e c a s e

Wood chips price Wood chips price Wood chips price Wood chips price

Fixed capital investment Fixed capital investment Fixed capital

Fixed capital investment investment

Working capital Working capital

Working capital Working capital

Biomethane selling price

Biomethane selling price

Electricity selling price

Electricity selling

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis of minimum selling price for different input parameters (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, (c) Case 3-HPWS and (d) Case 3-PSA.
Heat energy selling price price
Heat energy selling price
Heat energy Heat energy selling
selling price price
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis of net present value (at torrefied biomass selling price of 210 €/t) for different input parameters (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, (c) Case 3-HPWS and (d) Case 3-PSA.
Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

it comes to the application of biogas, upgrading and selling it as a ve- [19] Nocquet T, Dupont C, Commandre JM, Grateau M, Thiery S, Salvador S. Volatile
hicle fuel has significantly influenced the minimum selling price of the species release during torrefaction of wood and its macromolecular constituents:
part 1 – experimental study. Energy 2014;72:180–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
torrefied biomass pellets in comparison with using it in a biogas engine energy.2014.02.061.
to produce electrical and heat energy. A sensitivity analysis revealed [20] Peng J, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Peng H, Kim CS, Jia D, et al. Sawdust as an effective binder
that wood chips purchasing price could significantly influence the for making torrefied pellets. Appl Energy 2014;157:491–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.024.
economics of the torrefaction process. Further, the possibilities for re- [21] Pirraglia A, Gonzalez R, Saloni D, Denig J. Technical and economic assessment for
ducing the selling price of torrefied biomass was discussed. the production of torrefied ligno-cellulosic biomass pellets in the US. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;66:153–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.
09.024.
Acknowledgement [22] Jansen Jes la Cour. Anaerobic digestion: technology. In: Christensen Thomas,
editor. Solid waste technol manag, 2nd ed. West Sussex: Jhon Wiley & Sons Ltd;
Ramasamy Praveenkumar acknowledges Tampere University of 2010. p. 1052.
[23] Deublein D, Steinhauser A. Typical design calculation for an agricultural biogas
Technology for the Postdoc. funding provided through University
plant. Biogas Waste Renew Resour 2010:357–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
Internal Projects (83289). 9783527632794.ch35.
[24] Lehto J, Oasmaa A, Solantausta Y, Kytö M, Chiaramonti D. Fuel oil quality and
Appendix A. Supplementary material combustion of fast pyrolysis bio-oils. VTT Technol n.d.;87:79.
[25] Akbulut A. Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from ı case
study farm-scale biogas plant: Çiçekdagi case study. Energy 2012;44:381–90.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the [26] Drosg B, Braun R, Bochmann G, Al Saedi T. Analysis and characterisation of biogas
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.045. feedstocks. In: Arthur Wellinger, Murphy J, David Baxter, editors. The biogas
handbook: science, production and applications. Elsevier; 2013. p. 52–84.
[27] Petersson A, Holm-nielsen JB, Baxter D. Biogas upgrading technologies – develop-
References ments and innovations. IEA Bioenergy 2009.
[28] TUV. Biogas to biomethane technology review. Vienna Univ Technol; 2012. p.
1–15.
[1] Liobikienė G, Butkus M. The European Union possibilities to achieve targets of
[29] Drosg B, Linke B, Fuchs W, Madsen M. Nutrient recovery by biogas digestate pro-
Europe 2020 and Paris agreement climate policy. Renew Energy
cessing; 2015.
2017;106:298–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.036.
[30] Chen H, Chen X, Qiao Z, Liu H. Release and transformation characteristics of K and
[2] Thrän D, Witt J, Schaubach K, Kiel J, Carbo M, Maier J, et al. Moving torrefaction
Cl during straw torrefaction and mild pyrolysis. Fuel 2016;167:31–9. http://dx.doi.
towards market introduction – technical improvements and economic-environ-
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.059.
mental assessment along the overall torrefaction supply chain through the SECTOR
[31] Azuara M, Kersten SRA, Kootstra AMJ. Recycling phosphorus by fast pyrolysis of
project. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;89:184–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
pig manure: concentration and extraction of phosphorus combined with formation
biombioe.2016.03.004.
of value-added pyrolysis products. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;49:171–80. http://dx.
[3] Eurostat. Energy statistics; 2016.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.010.
[4] Doddapaneni TRKC, Konttinen J, Hukka TI, Moilanen A. Influence of torrefaction
[32] Rutz D. Sustainable heat use of biogas plants. A handbook; 2012.
pretreatment on the pyrolysis of Eucalyptus clone: a study on kinetics, reaction
[33] Firdaus N, Prasetyo BT, Sofyan Y, Siregar F. Part II of II: palm oil mill effluent
mechanism and heat flow. Ind Crops Prod 2016;92:244–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.
(POME): biogas power plant. Distrib Gener Altern Energy J 2017;32:6–18. http://
1016/j.indcrop.2016.08.013.
dx.doi.org/10.1080/21563306.2017.11878943.
[5] Koppejan J, Sokhansanj S, Melin S, Madrali S. Status overview of torrefaction
[34] Svoboda K, Martinec J, Pohořelý M, Baxter D. Integration of biomass drying with
technologies (IEA Bioenergy Task 32); 2012.
combustion/gasification technologies and minimization of emissions of organic
[6] Hawkins Wright. Global demand for torrefied biomass; 2012. <http://www.
compounds. Chem Pap 2009;63:15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/s11696-008-
forestbusinessnetwork.com/13392/global-demand-for-torrefied-biomass-could-
0080-5.
exceed-70-million-tonnes-a-year-by-the-end-of-the-decade/> [accessed July 22,
[35] Turton R. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. Prentice Hall; 2012.
2017].
[36] Wright MM, Satrio Ja, Brown RC, Daugaard DE, Hsu DD. Techno-economic analysis
[7] Batidzirai B, Mignot APR, Schakel WB, Junginger HM, Faaij APC. Biomass torre-
of biomass fast pyrolysis to transportation fuels. Natl Renew Energy Lab
faction technology: techno-economic status and future prospects. Energy
2010;89:S2–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.07.029.
2013;62:196–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.035.
[37] Deublein D, Steinhauser A. Attachment II: economy of biogas plants for the year
[8] Sermyagina E, Saari J, Kaikko J, Vakkilainen E. Integration of torrefaction and CHP
2007 (calculation on the basis of the example of attachment I). Biogas from Waste
plant: operational and economic analysis. Appl Energy 2016;183:88–99. http://dx.
Renew Resour 2008;2007:415–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527621705.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.151.
app2.
[9] Kumar L, Koukoulas AA, Mani S, Satyavolu J. Integrating torrefaction in the wood
[38] de Hullu J, Maassen JIW, van Meel PA, Shazad S, Vaessen JMP, Bini L, et al.
pellet industry: a critical review. Energy Fuels 2017;31:37–54. http://dx.doi.org/
Comparing different biogas upgrading techniques; 2008.
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02803.
[39] Buyukkamaci N, Koken E. Economic evaluation of alternative wastewater treatment
[10] Clausen LR. Integrated torrefaction vs. external torrefaction – a thermodynamic
plant options for pulp and paper industry. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:6070–8.
analysis for the case of a thermochemical biorefinery. Energy 2014;77:597–607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.045.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.042.
[40] FOEX Indexes Ltd. Bioenergy and wood indices; n.d. <http://www.foex.fi/
[11] Arpiainen V, Wilen C. Production of solid sustainable energy carriers from biomass
biomass/> [accessed July 15, 2017].
by means of torrefaction report on requirements of end users on densified and
[41] Uusitalo V, Soukka R, Horttanainen M, Niskanen A, Havukainen J. Economics and
torrefied materials. VTT 2014:1–18.
greenhouse gas balance of biogas use systems in the Finnish transportation sector.
[12] Fagernas L, Kuoppala E, Arpiainen V. Composition, utilization and economic as-
Renew Energy 2013;51:132–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.09.002.
sessment of torrefaction condensates. Energy Fuels 2015;29:3134–42. http://dx.
[42] Biogas price; n.d. <https://www.gasum.com/en/About-gasum/for-the-media/
doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00004.
News/2016/Natural-gas-price-reduced-at-Gasum-filling-stations-as-from-July-1-
[13] Doddapaneni TRKC, Praveenkumar R, Tolvanen H, Palmroth MRT, Konttinen J,
2016/> [accessed August 20, 2017].
Rintala J. Anaerobic batch conversion of pine wood torrefaction condensate.
[43] Beil M, Beyrich W. Biogas upgrading to biomethane. In: Wellinger Arthur, Murphy
Bioresour Technol 2017;225:299–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.
J, Baxter David, editors. The biogas handbook: science production and applications.
11.073.
Elsevier; 2013. p. 342–77.
[14] Liaw SS, Frear C, Lei W, Zhang S, Garcia-Perez M. Anaerobic digestion of C1–C4
[44] Allen DH. Economic evaluation of projects: a guide. Institution of Chemical
light oxygenated organic compounds derived from the torrefaction of lig-
Engineers; 1991.
nocellulosic materials. Fuel Process Technol 2015;131:150–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.
[45] Sen SM, Gürbüz EI, Wettstein SG, Alonso DM, Dumesic JA, Maravelias CT.
1016/j.fuproc.2014.11.012.
Production of butene oligomers as transportation fuels using butene for esterifica-
[15] Agar D, Gil J, Sanchez D, Echeverria I, Wihersaari M. Torrefied versus conventional
tion of levulinic acid from lignocellulosic biomass: process synthesis and technoe-
pellet production – a comparative study on energy and emission balance based on
conomic evaluation. Green Chem 2012;7:3289–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/
pilot-plant data and EU sustainability criteria. Appl Energy 2015;138:621–30.
c2gc35881f.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.017.
[46] Ghiasi B, Kumar L, Furubayashi T, Lim CJ, Bi X, Kim CS, et al. Densified biocoal
[16] Sermyagina E, Saari J, Zakeri B, Kaikko J, Vakkilainen E. Effect of heat integration
from woodchips: is it better to do torrefaction before or after densification? Appl
method and torrefaction temperature on the performance of an integrated CHP-
Energy 2014;134:133–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.076.
torrefaction plant. Appl Energy 2015;149:24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[47] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. More efficient biomass gasification via tor-
apenergy.2015.03.102.
refaction. Energy 2006;31:3458–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.03.
[17] Bates RB, Ghoniem AF. Biomass torrefaction: modeling of reaction thermo-
008.
chemistry. Bioresour Technol 2013;134:331–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[48] Bach QV, Skreiberg Ø, Lee CJ. Process modeling and optimization for torrefaction of
biortech.2013.01.158.
forest residues. Energy 2017;138:348–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
[18] National Institute Of Standards and Technology. Chemical formula search n.d.
2017.07.040.
National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2011 [accessed August 14, 2017].
[49] Kohl T, Laukkanen T, Järvinen M, Fogelholm CJ. Energetic and environmental

283
T.R.K.C. Doddapaneni et al. Applied Energy 213 (2018) 272–284

performance of three biomass upgrading processes integrated with a CHP plant. configurations. Energy 2015;88:658–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.
Appl Energy 2013;107:124–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02. 05.104.
021. [54] Lantz M. The economic performance of combined heat and power from biogas
[50] Ranta T, Föhr J, Soininen H. Evaluation of a pilot-scale wood torrefcaction plant produced from manure in Sweden – a comparison of different CHP technologies.
based on pellet properties and Finnish market economics. Int J Energy Environ Appl Energy 2012;98:502–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.015.
2016;7:159–68. [55] Sgroi F, Foderà M, Di Trapani AM, Tudisca S, Testa R. Economic evaluation of
[51] Mata-Alvarez J. Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. biogas plant size utilizing giant reed. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:403–9.
IWA Publishing; 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.142.
[52] Werlte Biogas Plant; n.d. <https://www.kriegfischer.de/en/biogas-plants/ [56] Pirraglia A, Gonzalez R, Denig J, Saloni D, Wright J. Assessment of the most ade-
references/europa/germany/werlte/>. quate pre-treatments and woody biomass sources intended for direct co-firing in the
[53] Budzianowski WM, Budzianowska DA. Economic analysis of biomethane and U.S. BioResources 2012;7:4817–42.
bioelectricity generation from biogas using different support schemes and plant

284