Technoeconomic analysis of co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal waste and food waste

Abstract

The aim of this research was to evaluate the technoeconomic prospect of hydrochar production through co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal waste (CW) and food waste (FW). A process flow diagram was developed that considered seven reactors, six pumps, and other necessary equipment for producing 49,192 kg/h hydrochar. Three different cases were considered for the economic analysis. Case II considered both CW and FW transportation cost while cases I and III considered only FW and only CW transportation, respectively. The economic analysis revealed the break-even costs to be $62.24 per ton for case I, $69.90 per ton for case II, and $60.26 per ton for case III. The fixed capital investment (FCI) was $11.4M for all the cases while total capital investment (TCI), working capital (WC), and manufacturing costs were higher for case II compared to cases I and III. A sensitivity analysis examined the effect of nine different variables on the break-even cost. The raw materials’ cost as well as their transportation costs significantly affected the corresponding break-even cost. Additionally, increasing the hydrochar production capacity has drastically decreased the break-even cost. However, the analysis also revealed that excessive increase of production capacity can have negative impact on the process economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Varol M, Atimtay AT, Bay B, Olgun H (2010) Investigation of co-combustion characteristics of low quality lignite coals and biomass with thermogravimetric analysis. Thermochim Acta 510:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    EIA. Annual Energy Review 2011. DOE/EIA-0384(2011)|. 2012 ed. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, 2012. 2012

  3. 3.

    D. Shaykheeva, M. Panasyuk, I. Malganova, I. Khairullin. World population estimates and projections: data and methods. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research. 17 (2016)

  4. 4.

    Saba A, Saha P, Reza MT (2017) Co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal-biomass blend: influence of temperature on solid fuel properties. Fuel Process Technol 167:711–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Chugh YP, Behum PT (2014) Coal waste management practices in the USA: an overview. International Journal of Coal Science & Technology 1:163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    U.D.o. Energy. Billion ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY2016

  7. 7.

    A. Saba, K. McGaughy, T.M. Reza. Techno-economic assessment of co-hydrothermal carbonization of a coal-miscanthus blend. Energies. 12 (2019)

  8. 8.

    Libra JA, Ro KS, Kammann C, Funke A, Berge ND, Neubauer Y, Titirici MM, Fühner C, Bens O, Kern J, Emmerich KH (2011) Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass residuals: a comparative review of the chemistry, processes and applications of wet and dry pyrolysis. Biofuels. 2:71–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Reza MT (2013) Upgrading biomass by hydrothermal and chemical conditioning. University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Chemical and Materials Engineering

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kruse A, Dahmen N (2015) Water—a magic solvent for biomass conversion. J Supercrit Fluids 96:36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mazumder S, Saha P (2020) M.T. Reza. Fuel Characteristics. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. in-press, Co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal waste and food waste

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    M. Lucian, L. Fiori. Hydrothermal carbonization of waste biomass: process design, modeling, energy efficiency and cost analysis. Energies. 10 (2017)

  13. 13.

    Gao L, Volpe M, Lucian M, Fiori L, Goldfarb JL (2019) Does hydrothermal carbonization as a biomass pretreatment reduce fuel segregation of coal-biomass blends during oxidation? Energy Convers Manag 181:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lucian M, Volpe M, Gao L, Piro G, Goldfarb JL, Fiori L (2018) Impact of hydrothermal carbonization conditions on the formation of hydrochars and secondary chars from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Fuel. 233:257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lynam J, Reza MT, Yan W, Vásquez V, Coronella C (2014) Hydrothermal carbonization of various lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.:1–9

  16. 16.

    Mursito AT, Hirajima T, Sasaki K (2010) Upgrading and dewatering of raw tropical peat by hydrothermal treatment. Fuel. 89:635–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mahmood R, Parshetti GK, Balasubramanian R (2016) Energy, exergy and techno-economic analyses of hydrothermal oxidation of food waste to produce hydro-char and bio-oil. Energy. 102:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McGaughy K, Toufiq Reza M (2017) Hydrothermal carbonization of food waste: simplified process simulation model based on experimental results. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

  19. 19.

    Zhao PT, Shen YF, Ge SF, Yoshikawa K (2014) Energy recycling from sewage sludge by producing solid biofuel with hydrothermal carbonization. Energy Convers Manag 78:815–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kempegowda RS, Tran K-Q, Skreiberg Ø (2017) Techno-economic assessment of integrated hydrochar and high-grade activated carbon production for electricity generation and storage. Energy Procedia 120:341–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Saari J, Sermyagina E, Kaikko J, Vakkilainen E, Sergeev V (2016) Integration of hydrothermal carbonization and a CHP plant: part 2—operational and economic analysis. Energy. 113:574–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Li X-g, Ma B-g, Xu L, Hu Z-w, Wang X-g (2006) Thermogravimetric analysis of the co-combustion of the blends with high ash coal and waste tyres. Thermochim Acta 441:79–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mazumder S, Saha P, Reza MT (2020) Co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal waste and food waste: fuel characteristics. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.

  24. 24.

    R. Turton. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. Prentice Hall2012

  25. 25.

    T. Fout, A.K. Zoelle, D.; , M.W. Turner, N. M.; Kuehn, V. Shah, V. Chou, et al. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants Volume 1a: bituminous coal (PC) and natural gas to electricity Revision 3. 2015

  26. 26.

    R.D. Davis, C. Kinchin, J. Markham, E.C.D. Tan, L.M. Laurens, D. Sexton, et al. Process design and economics for the conversion of algal biomass to biofuels: algal biomass fractionation to lipid- and carbohydrate-derived fuel products. National Renewable Energy Laboratory2014

  27. 27.

    EERE. Water and wastewater annual price escalation rates for selected cities across the United States. in: U.S.DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Rewnewable Energy 2017. 2017

  28. 28.

    Hu H, Westover TL, Cherry R, Aston JE, Lacey JA, Thompson DN (2017) Process simulation and cost analysis for removing inorganics from wood chips using combined mechanical and chemical preprocessing. Bioenergy Research 10:237–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Prieto D, Swinnen N, Blanco L, Hermosilla D, Cauwenberg P, Blanco A, Negro C (2016) Drivers and economic aspects for the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment and water reuse in a PVC plant. Water Resources and Industry 14:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lozowski D, Ondrey G, Jenkins S, Bailey M (2012) Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI). Chem Eng 119:84

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Funke A, Reebs F, Kruse A (2013) Experimental comparison of hydrothermal and vapothermal carbonization. Fuel Process Technol 115:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mäkelä M, Benavente V, Fullana A (2015) Hydrothermal carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass: effect of process conditions on hydrochar properties. Appl Energy 155:576–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Reza MT, Freitas A, Yang XK, Hiibel S, Lin HF, Coronella CJ (2016) Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of cow manure: carbon and nitrogen distributions in HTC products. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 35:1002–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    B. Wirth, G. Eberhardt, H. Lotze-Campen, B. Erlach, S. Rolinski, P. Rothe. Hydrothermal carbonization: influence of plant capacity, feedstock choice and location on product cost. Proceedings of 19th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition, 2011 Jun 6–10, Berlin, Germany2011. pp. 2001–10. 2011

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by the Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO R-17-05) and NSF INFEWS 1856058.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Toufiq Reza.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Technoeconomic prospect of co-HTC of coal waste and food waste were evaluated.

• Break-even cost varied within $62.24, $69.90, and $60.26 per ton for three separate cases.

• Sensitivity analysis considered nine parameters to analyze the effect on break-even cost.

• Raw material purchasing and transportation cost were key factors in economic analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazumder, S., Saha, P., McGaughy, K. et al. Technoeconomic analysis of co-hydrothermal carbonization of coal waste and food waste. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00817-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Food waste
  • Coal waste
  • Co-hydrothermal carbonization
  • Technoeconomic analysis
  • Sensitivity analysis