Transportation

  • Tony E. Grift
  • Zewei Miao
  • Alan C. Hansen
  • K. C. Ting
Chapter

Abstract

Transportation of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock is an important task within a biomass-based energy provision system. The distributed availability of low-density feedstock makes this operation highly challenging. The proposed aim to replace a large percentage of fossil fuels with renewable lignocellulosic bioenergy sources by the year 2030 [1, 2] will require adaptation and possibly renovation of the existing transportation infrastructure. The complexity of the biomass provision system will be further increased as compared to the current system since the biomass feedstock portfolio will consist of a range of energy crops, grown in various locations with unique climates and transportation infrastructures.

Ideally, biomass would be preprocessed into a gravity-flowable particulate bulk form that allows utilization of and expanding upon the existing transportation infrastructure of agricultural bulk products such as corn and soybean. Such a form would require size reduction of feedstock, which is energetically expensive, followed by compression. To optimize long-distance transport, the bulk density of this feedstock would ideally be as high as that of coal in railcars. This would require very high “in-mold” particulate densities of the feedstock generated by machines with very high throughput. Even if this goal could be achieved, it is currently not clear what the effect of such a highly densified material form on the conversion efficiency would be.

Finally, apart from technical challenges in producing the ideal form of biomass from a provision and conversion perspective, there is a huge challenge in the mere scale of the proposition: If the goal set by the US government of replacing 30 % of current fossil fuels by 2030 is to be reached, the annual transported volume of biomass would be three times that of the 2011 US corn yield.

This chapter reviews the literature on research that addresses biomass feedstock provision including transportation and identifies challenges that must be addressed in the near future.

References

  1. 1.
    Perlack R, Wright L, Turhollow A, Graham R, Stokes B, Erbach D (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. p: 1–78Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program (2012) Feedstock supply and logistics: biomass as a commodity. DOE/EE-0766. Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/feedstocks_four_pager.pdf (verified on Dec. 13, 2013)
  3. 3.
    Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, Schoen P, Lukas J, Olthof B, Worley M, Sexton D, Dudgeon D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol: dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. p: 1–114Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miao Z, Grift T, Hansen A, Ting K (2013) Energy requirement for lignocellulosic feedstock densifications in relation to particle physical properties, pre-heating and binding agents. Energy Fuel 27:588–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2011) U.S. Billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. p: 1–227Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess J, Kenney K, Ovard L, Searcy E, Wright C (2009) Commodity-scale production of an infrastructure-compatible bulk solid from herbaceous lignocellulosic biomass. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, IDGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elande R, Lee Y, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alizadeh H, Teymouri F, Gilbert T, Dale B (2005) Pre-treatment of switchgrass by Ammonia Fiber Explosion. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 124(1–3):1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chundawat S, Ventakesh B, Dale B (2007) Effect of particle size based separation of milled corn stover on AFEX pre-treatment and enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol Bioeng 96(2):219–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lam P, Sokhansanj S, Bi X, Lim C, Naimi L, Hoque M, Mani S, Womac A, Ye X, Narayan S (2008) Bulk density of wet and dry wheat straw and switchgrass particles. Appl Eng Agric 24:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miao Z, Shastri Y, Grift T, Hansen A, Ting K (2012) Lignocellulosic biomass feedstock transportation alternatives, logistics, equipment configuration and modeling. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 6:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith J, Grisso R, VonBargen K, Anderson B (1988) Management tips for round bale hay harvesting, moving, and storage. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2306&context=extensionhist. Accessed 28 June 2013
  13. 13.
    Do Canto J, Klepac J, Rummer R, Savoie P, Seixas F (2011) Evaluation of two round baling systems for harvesting understory biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2163–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cundiff J, Grisso R (2008) Containerized handling to minimize hauling cost of herbaceous biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2008:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shinners K, Boettcher G, Hoffman D, Munk J, Muck R, Weimer P (2009) Single-pass harvest of corn grain and stover: performance of three harvester configurations. Trans ASABE 52(1):51–60Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Bassam N, Huisman W (2001) Harvesting and storage of Miscanthus. In: Walsh M, Jones M (eds) Miscanthus for energy and fibre. James & James, London, pp 86–108Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruglieri M, Liberti L (2008) Optimal running and planning of a biomass-based energy production process. Energy Policy 36(7):2430–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aggarwal A, Singh H, Kumar P, Singh M (2008) Optimizing power consumption for CNC turned parts using response surface methodology and Taguchi’s technique: a comparative analysis. J Mater Proc Technol 200:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhu J, Wang G, Pan X, Gleisner R (2009) Specific surface to evaluate the efficiencies of milling and pre-treatment of wood for enzymatic saccharification. Chem Eng Sci 64:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miao Z, Grift T, Hansen A, Ting K (2011) Energy requirement for comminution of biomass in relation to particle physical properties. Ind Crop Prod 33:504–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar P, Barrett D, Delwiche M, Stroeve P (2009) Methods of pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–3729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mani S, Tabil L, Sokhansanj S (2004) Grinding performance and physical properties of wheat and barley straws, corn stover and switch grass. Biomass Bioenergy 27:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alvo P, Belkacemi K (1997) Enzymatic saccharification of milled Timothy (Phleum Pratense L.) and alfalfa (Medicago Sativa L.). Bioresour Technol 61:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Badger P, Fransham P (2006) Use of mobile fast pyrolysis plants to densify biomass and reduce biomass handling costs-A preliminary assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 30:321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akunov F (1995) Generalized grinding law. Chem Pet Eng 31(3–4):208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cadoche L, López G (1989) Assessment of size reduction as a preliminary step in the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic wastes. Biol Wastes 30:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jannasch R, Quan Y, Samson R (2001) Final report: a process and energy analysis of pelletizing switch grass. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP), Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morrell S (2008) A method for predicting the specific energy requirement of comminution circuits and assessing their energy utilisation efficiency. Miner Eng 21:224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bitra V, Womac A, Chevanan N, Miu P, Igathinathane C, Sokhansanj S, Smith D (2009) Direct mechanical energy measures of hammermill comminution of switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn stover and analysis of their particle size distributions. Powder Technol 193:32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Igathinathane C, Womac A, Sokhansanj S, Narayan S (2008) Knife grid size reduction to pre-process packed beds of high- and low-moisture switchgrass. Bioresour Technol 99(7): 2254–2264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Igathinathane C, Womac A, Sokhansanj S, Narayan S (2009) Size reduction of high- and low-moisture corn stalks by linear knife grid system. Biomass Bioenergy 33(4):547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mani S, Tabilb L, Sokhansanj S (2006) Effects of compressive force, particle size and moisture content on mechanical properties of biomass pellets from grasses. Biomass Bioenergy 30(7):648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tumuluru T, Wright C, Hess J, Kenney K (2011) A review of biomass densification systems to develop uniform feedstock commodities for bioenergy application. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 5(6):683–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freightcar America Inc. (2012) http://www.johnstownamerica.com/Coke-Coal-Railcars.htm. Accessed 14 Aug 2012
  35. 35.
    Miao Z, Phillips J, Grift T, Mathanker S (2013) Energy and pressure requirement for compression of Miscanthus giganteus to an extreme density. Biosyst Eng 114:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaliyan N, Morey R (2009) Densification characteristics of corn stover and switchgrass. Trans ASABE 52(3):907–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zou R, Yu A (1996) Evaluation of the packing characteristics of mono-sized non-spherical particles. Powder Technol 88:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Richard T (2010) Challenges in scaling up biofuel infrastructure. Science 329(5993):793–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    International ICF (2009) Comparative evaluation of rail and truck fuel efficiency on competitive corridors. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mahmudi H, Flynn P (2006) Rail vs truck transport of biomass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129–132:88–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Searcy E, Flynn P, Ghafoori E, Kumar A (2007) The relative cost of biomass energy. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 136–140(1–12):639–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kumar A, Flynn P (2006) Uptake of fluids by boreal wood chips: implications for bioenergy. Fuel Process Technol 87:605–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rentizelas A, Tatsiopoulos I, Tolis A (2009) An optimization model for multi-biomass tri-generation energy supply. Biomass Bioenergy 33:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gunnarsson C, Vågström L, Hansson P (2008) Logistics for forage harvest to biogas production—timeliness, capacities and costs in a Swedish case study. Biomass Bioenergy 32(12):1263–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Le Gal P, Lyne P, Meyer E, Soler L (2008) Impact of sugarcane supply scheduling on mill sugar production: a South African case study. Agric Syst 96(1–3):64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Miao Z, Grift T, Hansen A, Ting K (2013) An overview of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock harvest, processing and supply for biofuel production. Biofuels 4(1):5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lyne P (2010) The latest in transport management and technologies. SAIAE News Lett 3–5Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sustainability Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Biomass conversion: emerging technologies, feedstock, and products. EPA/600/R-07/144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony E. Grift
    • 1
  • Zewei Miao
    • 2
  • Alan C. Hansen
    • 1
  • K. C. Ting
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Energy Biosciences InstituteUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations