Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste
This study evaluated the techno‐economic aspects of empty cotton boll valorization to liquid fuel (moisture free bio‐oil), potash fertilizer, and activated carbon. Three different plant capacities, in terms of feedstock handling capacities were considered: 50, 100, and 200 t day−1. For each plant ca...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining bioproducts and biorefining, 2022-01, Vol.16 (1), p.155-171 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 171 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 155 |
| container_title | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Patel, Himanshu Maiti, Pratyush Maiti, Subarna |
| description | This study evaluated the techno‐economic aspects of empty cotton boll valorization to liquid fuel (moisture free bio‐oil), potash fertilizer, and activated carbon. Three different plant capacities, in terms of feedstock handling capacities were considered: 50, 100, and 200 t day−1. For each plant capacity, three plant variants were considered: only fuel, fuel + potash fertilizer, and fuel + potash fertilizer + activated carbon. The net present value ranged from 7.73 M$ for a 50 t day−1 plant to 47.38 M$ for a 200 t day−1 plant, producing liquid fuel along with fertilizer and activated carbon. The overall profitability of the plant was improved by higher plant capacity. For a 200 t day−1 plant, equipment purchase cost related to the synthesis of fuel, potash fertilizer and activated carbon contributed 32.87, 25.77, and 41.36%, respectively to the total purchase equipment cost of the entire plant. Among the three products, activated carbon contributed 81.03% to the total revenue generated by the entire plant. The sensitivity of plant economics towards feedstock price, selling price of activated carbon, potassium hydroxide recovery, annual interest rates, and total capital investment was examined. The economic competitiveness for this kind of thermo‐chemical conversion was assessed in comparison with the solar gasification route. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bbb.2296 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2618036813</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2618036813</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2936-3e670835e9dfa209389e2726d5facbfe9d0dea06c0abd927674df4662efb1ccf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUhgdRsFbBRxhw4yZ1LsmkWdriDQpuKrgLczmDKUkmzqSUgAsfwWf0SZy04s7VOZz_O7cfoUtKZpQQdqOUmjFWiCM0oQVnCSWcHv_l6espOgthQ0gmsjSboI816LfWfX9-gXatayqNZQgQQgNtj53FqhpFD7ZqwQ-4cQZqrGQAg12L9Sh2g3f1EKow8tr1fRSUq2usvev2zaEyW8CyNbirZejjkl0McI5OrKwDXPzGKXq5v1svH5PV88PT8naVaFZwkXAQOZnzDApjJSMFnxfAciZMZqVWNpaJAUmEJlKZguUiT41NhWBgFdXa8im6OsztvHvfQujLjdv6Nq4smaBzwsWc8khdH6h4dgjx47LzVSP9UFJSjt6W0dty9DaiyQHdVTUM_3LlYrHY8z_wLIEX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2618036813</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Patel, Himanshu ; Maiti, Pratyush ; Maiti, Subarna</creator><creatorcontrib>Patel, Himanshu ; Maiti, Pratyush ; Maiti, Subarna</creatorcontrib><description>This study evaluated the techno‐economic aspects of empty cotton boll valorization to liquid fuel (moisture free bio‐oil), potash fertilizer, and activated carbon. Three different plant capacities, in terms of feedstock handling capacities were considered: 50, 100, and 200 t day−1. For each plant capacity, three plant variants were considered: only fuel, fuel + potash fertilizer, and fuel + potash fertilizer + activated carbon. The net present value ranged from 7.73 M$ for a 50 t day−1 plant to 47.38 M$ for a 200 t day−1 plant, producing liquid fuel along with fertilizer and activated carbon. The overall profitability of the plant was improved by higher plant capacity. For a 200 t day−1 plant, equipment purchase cost related to the synthesis of fuel, potash fertilizer and activated carbon contributed 32.87, 25.77, and 41.36%, respectively to the total purchase equipment cost of the entire plant. Among the three products, activated carbon contributed 81.03% to the total revenue generated by the entire plant. The sensitivity of plant economics towards feedstock price, selling price of activated carbon, potassium hydroxide recovery, annual interest rates, and total capital investment was examined. The economic competitiveness for this kind of thermo‐chemical conversion was assessed in comparison with the solar gasification route. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-104X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-1031</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2296</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Activated carbon ; Agricultural economics ; Agricultural wastes ; bio‐refinery ; Carbon ; Competitiveness ; Cotton ; co‐pyrolysis ; Crop residues ; Economic models ; Economics ; empty cotton boll ; Equipment costs ; Fertilizers ; Gasification ; Hydroxides ; Interest rates ; Liquid fuels ; Plastic debris ; Potash ; potash fertilizer ; Potassium ; Potassium carbonate ; Potassium hydroxide ; Potassium hydroxides ; Profitability ; Pyrolysis ; Raw materials ; Refineries ; techno‐economic analysis</subject><ispartof>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2022-01, Vol.16 (1), p.155-171</ispartof><rights>2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</rights><rights>2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2936-3e670835e9dfa209389e2726d5facbfe9d0dea06c0abd927674df4662efb1ccf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2936-3e670835e9dfa209389e2726d5facbfe9d0dea06c0abd927674df4662efb1ccf3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9041-3439</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbbb.2296$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbbb.2296$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Patel, Himanshu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maiti, Pratyush</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maiti, Subarna</creatorcontrib><title>Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste</title><title>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</title><description>This study evaluated the techno‐economic aspects of empty cotton boll valorization to liquid fuel (moisture free bio‐oil), potash fertilizer, and activated carbon. Three different plant capacities, in terms of feedstock handling capacities were considered: 50, 100, and 200 t day−1. For each plant capacity, three plant variants were considered: only fuel, fuel + potash fertilizer, and fuel + potash fertilizer + activated carbon. The net present value ranged from 7.73 M$ for a 50 t day−1 plant to 47.38 M$ for a 200 t day−1 plant, producing liquid fuel along with fertilizer and activated carbon. The overall profitability of the plant was improved by higher plant capacity. For a 200 t day−1 plant, equipment purchase cost related to the synthesis of fuel, potash fertilizer and activated carbon contributed 32.87, 25.77, and 41.36%, respectively to the total purchase equipment cost of the entire plant. Among the three products, activated carbon contributed 81.03% to the total revenue generated by the entire plant. The sensitivity of plant economics towards feedstock price, selling price of activated carbon, potassium hydroxide recovery, annual interest rates, and total capital investment was examined. The economic competitiveness for this kind of thermo‐chemical conversion was assessed in comparison with the solar gasification route. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</description><subject>Activated carbon</subject><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agricultural wastes</subject><subject>bio‐refinery</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Competitiveness</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>co‐pyrolysis</subject><subject>Crop residues</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>empty cotton boll</subject><subject>Equipment costs</subject><subject>Fertilizers</subject><subject>Gasification</subject><subject>Hydroxides</subject><subject>Interest rates</subject><subject>Liquid fuels</subject><subject>Plastic debris</subject><subject>Potash</subject><subject>potash fertilizer</subject><subject>Potassium</subject><subject>Potassium carbonate</subject><subject>Potassium hydroxide</subject><subject>Potassium hydroxides</subject><subject>Profitability</subject><subject>Pyrolysis</subject><subject>Raw materials</subject><subject>Refineries</subject><subject>techno‐economic analysis</subject><issn>1932-104X</issn><issn>1932-1031</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUhgdRsFbBRxhw4yZ1LsmkWdriDQpuKrgLczmDKUkmzqSUgAsfwWf0SZy04s7VOZz_O7cfoUtKZpQQdqOUmjFWiCM0oQVnCSWcHv_l6espOgthQ0gmsjSboI816LfWfX9-gXatayqNZQgQQgNtj53FqhpFD7ZqwQ-4cQZqrGQAg12L9Sh2g3f1EKow8tr1fRSUq2usvev2zaEyW8CyNbirZejjkl0McI5OrKwDXPzGKXq5v1svH5PV88PT8naVaFZwkXAQOZnzDApjJSMFnxfAciZMZqVWNpaJAUmEJlKZguUiT41NhWBgFdXa8im6OsztvHvfQujLjdv6Nq4smaBzwsWc8khdH6h4dgjx47LzVSP9UFJSjt6W0dty9DaiyQHdVTUM_3LlYrHY8z_wLIEX</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Patel, Himanshu</creator><creator>Maiti, Pratyush</creator><creator>Maiti, Subarna</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9041-3439</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste</title><author>Patel, Himanshu ; Maiti, Pratyush ; Maiti, Subarna</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2936-3e670835e9dfa209389e2726d5facbfe9d0dea06c0abd927674df4662efb1ccf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Activated carbon</topic><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agricultural wastes</topic><topic>bio‐refinery</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Competitiveness</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>co‐pyrolysis</topic><topic>Crop residues</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>empty cotton boll</topic><topic>Equipment costs</topic><topic>Fertilizers</topic><topic>Gasification</topic><topic>Hydroxides</topic><topic>Interest rates</topic><topic>Liquid fuels</topic><topic>Plastic debris</topic><topic>Potash</topic><topic>potash fertilizer</topic><topic>Potassium</topic><topic>Potassium carbonate</topic><topic>Potassium hydroxide</topic><topic>Potassium hydroxides</topic><topic>Profitability</topic><topic>Pyrolysis</topic><topic>Raw materials</topic><topic>Refineries</topic><topic>techno‐economic analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Patel, Himanshu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maiti, Pratyush</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maiti, Subarna</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Patel, Himanshu</au><au>Maiti, Pratyush</au><au>Maiti, Subarna</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste</atitle><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>155</spage><epage>171</epage><pages>155-171</pages><issn>1932-104X</issn><eissn>1932-1031</eissn><abstract>This study evaluated the techno‐economic aspects of empty cotton boll valorization to liquid fuel (moisture free bio‐oil), potash fertilizer, and activated carbon. Three different plant capacities, in terms of feedstock handling capacities were considered: 50, 100, and 200 t day−1. For each plant capacity, three plant variants were considered: only fuel, fuel + potash fertilizer, and fuel + potash fertilizer + activated carbon. The net present value ranged from 7.73 M$ for a 50 t day−1 plant to 47.38 M$ for a 200 t day−1 plant, producing liquid fuel along with fertilizer and activated carbon. The overall profitability of the plant was improved by higher plant capacity. For a 200 t day−1 plant, equipment purchase cost related to the synthesis of fuel, potash fertilizer and activated carbon contributed 32.87, 25.77, and 41.36%, respectively to the total purchase equipment cost of the entire plant. Among the three products, activated carbon contributed 81.03% to the total revenue generated by the entire plant. The sensitivity of plant economics towards feedstock price, selling price of activated carbon, potassium hydroxide recovery, annual interest rates, and total capital investment was examined. The economic competitiveness for this kind of thermo‐chemical conversion was assessed in comparison with the solar gasification route. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/bbb.2296</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9041-3439</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-104X |
| ispartof | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2022-01, Vol.16 (1), p.155-171 |
| issn | 1932-104X 1932-1031 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2618036813 |
| source | Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Activated carbon Agricultural economics Agricultural wastes bio‐refinery Carbon Competitiveness Cotton co‐pyrolysis Crop residues Economic models Economics empty cotton boll Equipment costs Fertilizers Gasification Hydroxides Interest rates Liquid fuels Plastic debris Potash potash fertilizer Potassium Potassium carbonate Potassium hydroxide Potassium hydroxides Profitability Pyrolysis Raw materials Refineries techno‐economic analysis |
| title | Techno‐economic assessment of bio‐refinery model based on co‐pyrolysis of cotton boll crop‐residue and plastic waste |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T07%3A10%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Techno%E2%80%90economic%20assessment%20of%20bio%E2%80%90refinery%20model%20based%20on%20co%E2%80%90pyrolysis%20of%20cotton%20boll%20crop%E2%80%90residue%20and%20plastic%20waste&rft.jtitle=Biofuels,%20bioproducts%20and%20biorefining&rft.au=Patel,%20Himanshu&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=171&rft.pages=155-171&rft.issn=1932-104X&rft.eissn=1932-1031&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bbb.2296&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2618036813%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2618036813&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |