A biobjective chance constrained optimization model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of biopower supply chains
- 59 Downloads
Generating electricity by co-combusting biomass and coal, known as biomass cofiring, is shown to be an economically attractive option for coal-fired power plants to comply with emission regulations. However, the total carbon footprint of the associated supply chain still needs to be carefully investigated. In this study we propose a stochastic biobjective optimization model to analyze the economic and environmental impacts of biopower supply chains. We use a life cycle assessment approach to derive the emission factors used in the environmental objective function. We use chance constraints to capture the uncertain nature of energy content of biomass feedstocks. We propose a cutting plane algorithm which uses the sample average approximation method to model the chance constraints and finds high confidence feasible solutions. In order to find Pareto optimal solutions we propose a heuristic approach which integrates the \(\epsilon \)-constraint method with the cutting plane algorithm. We show that the developed approach provides a set of local Pareto optimal solutions with high confidence and reasonable computational time. We develop a case study using data about biomass and coal plants in North and South Carolina. The results indicate that, cofiring of biomass in these states can reduce emissions by up to 8%. Increasing the amount of biomass cofired will not result in lower emissions due to biomass delivery.
KeywordsStochastic multiobjective optimization Chance constraints Sample average approximation Biopower supply chain Biomass cofiring Life cycle assessment
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant CMMI 1462420; this support is gratefully acknowledged. Clemson University is acknowledged for generous allotment of compute time on Palmetto cluster.
- Ahmed, S., & Shapiro, A. (2008). Solving chance-constrained stochastic programs via sampling and integer programming. Tutorials in Operations Research, 10, 261–269.Google Scholar
- Boardman, R. D., Cafferty, K. G., Nichol, C., Searcy, E. M., Westover, T., Wood, R., Bearden, M. D., Cabe, J. E., Drennan, C., Jones, S. B., et al. (2014). Logistics, costs, and GHG impacts of utility scale cofiring with 20% biomass. Technical report, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US).Google Scholar
- Boekhoudt, A., & Behrendt, L. (2015). Taxes and incentives for renewable energy. Amstelveen: International Cooperative KPMG.Google Scholar
- Bowyer, J. L., Shmulsky, R., & Haygreen, J. G. (2007). Forest products and wood science: An introduction (5th ed.). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- California. (2017). Unofficial electronic version of the regulation for the California cap on greenhouse gas emissions and market-based compliance mechanisms. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade/unofficial_ct_100217.pdf. Accessed Aug 2018.
- Change, I. C. (2014). Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group third to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Cinar, D., Pardalos, P. M., & Rebennack, S. (2015). Evaluating supply chain design models for the integration of biomass co-firing in existing coal plants under uncertainty. In Handbook of bioenergy, Springer, pp. 191–217.Google Scholar
- COP21. (2015). United Nations climate change conference. Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Čuček, L., Klemeš, J. J., Varbanov, P., & Kravanja, Z. (2011). Life cycle assessment and multi-criteria optimization of regional biomass and bioenergy supply chains. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 25, 575–580.Google Scholar
- Cuellar, A. D. (2012). Plant power: The cost of using biomass for power generation and potential for decreased greenhouse gas emissions. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Dias, L. C., Passeira, C., Malça, J., & Freire, F. (2016). Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis to compare alternative biodiesel chains. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2329-7.
- Ehrgott, M. (2013). Multicriteria optimization (Vol. 491). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Gebreslassie, B. H., Yao, Y., & You, F. (2012). Multiobjective optimization of hydrocarbon biorefinery supply chain designs under uncertainty. In IEEE 51st annual conference on decision and control (CDC), IEEE, pp. 5560–5565.Google Scholar
- GHG Protocol. (2011). The greenhouse gas protocol: A corporate accounting and reporting standard. Standard, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI).Google Scholar
- Gutjahr, W. J. (2005). Two metaheuristics for multiobjective stochastic combinatorial optimization. In International symposium on stochastic algorithms, Springer, pp. 116–125.Google Scholar
- Heijungs, R., Guinée, J. B., Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R. M., Udo de Haes, H. A., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., et al. (1992). Environmental life cycle assessment of products: Guide and backgrounds (part 1). Leiden, The Netherlands: Center of Environmental Science.Google Scholar
- Hunter, S. R., Applegate, E. A., Arora, V., Chong, B., Cooper, K., Rincón-Guevara, O., & Vivas-Valencia, C. (2017). An introduction to multi-objective simulation optimization. Optimization.Google Scholar
- IEA-ETSAP and IRENA. (2013). Technology brief E21: Biomass cofiring. https://www.irena.org. Accessed May 2015.
- ISO14040 I. (2006). 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. London: British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
- Kalinina, M., Olsson, L., & Larsson, A. (2013). A multi objective chance constrained programming model for intermodal logistics with uncertain time. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 10(6), 35–44.Google Scholar
- Kutateladze, S. (1979). Convex e-programming. Soviet Mathematics: Doklady, 20, 391–393.Google Scholar
- Norkin, B. (2014). Sample approximations of multiobjective stochastic optimization problems. www.optimization-onlineorg. Accessed Nov 2018.
- NREL. (2012). U.s. life cycle inventory database. https://www.nrel.gov/lci/. Accessed Dec 2017.
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2013). Knowledge discovery framework (KDF) database. https://bioenergykdf.net. Accesssed December 2013.
- Ruszczynski, A., & Shapiro, A. (2003). Stochastic programming, handbooks in operations research and management science, Vol. 10.Google Scholar
- Santibanez-Aguilar, J. E., González-Campos, J. B., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Serna-González, M., & El-Halwagi, M. M. (2011). Optimal planning of a biomass conversion system considering economic and environmental aspects. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50(14), 8558–8570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Skone, T. J., & Gerdes, K. (2008). Development of baseline data and analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels, National Energy Technology Laboratory 310.Google Scholar
- Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M., & Miller, H. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Spath, P., Mann, M., & Kerr, D. (1999). Life cycle assessment of coal-fired power production. Technical report, National Renewable Energy Lab. (No. NREL/TP-570-25119), Golden, CO (US).Google Scholar
- Tillman, D., Conn, R., & Duong, D. (2010). Coal characteristics and biomass cofiring in pulverized coal boilers. Technical report, Foster Wheeler North America Corp.Google Scholar
- Wang, M. (2008). The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation (GREET) model: Version 1.5, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar