processes

Article
Effect of Moisture Content on Lignocellulosic
Power Generation: Energy, Economic and
Environmental Impacts
Karthik Rajendran 1,2 ID

1 Environmental Research Institute, MaREI Centre, University College Cork, Cork T23 E4PW, Ireland;
karthik.1988@gmail.com or k.rajendran@ucc.ie; Tel.: +353-83-034-4162
2 School of Engineering, University College Cork, Cork T12 HW58, Ireland

Received: 7 October 2017; Accepted: 4 December 2017; Published: 6 December 2017

Abstract: The moisture content of biomass affects its processing for applications such as electricity or
steam. In this study, the effects of variation in moisture content of banagrass and energycane was
evaluated using techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessments. A 25% loss of moisture was
assumed as a variation that was achieved by field drying the biomass. Techno-economic analysis
revealed that high moisture in the biomass was not economically feasible. Comparing banagrass with
energycane, the latter was more economically feasible; thanks to the low moisture and ash content in
energycane. About 32 GWh/year of electricity was produced by field drying 60,000 dry MT/year
energycane. The investment for different scenarios ranged between $17 million and $22 million.
Field-dried energycane was the only economically viable option that recovered the investment after
11 years of operation. This scenario was also more environmentally friendly, releasing 16-gCO2
equivalent/MJ of electricity produced.

Keywords: techno-economic analysis; life-cycle assessments; power generation; lignocellulose;

energy analysis

1. Introduction
Climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have predicted
that the global surface temperature will increase between 0.3 ◦ C and 4.8 ◦ C in the 21st century [1].
Between 1880 and 2012, the mean surface temperature increased by 0.85 ◦ C, which is alarming and
needs to be controlled. Human interventions such as using fossil fuels for energy and transportation,
emissions from agricultural practices, and industrial developments are reported to be the major
contributors to climate change [1]. More than 40% of the emissions could be reduced if the demands
of energy supply and transportation sectors are met through clean energy sources [1]. The quest for
alternative energy sources have resulted in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric and bioenergy
sources. However, wind and solar have problems including storage and transmission losses.
Islands like Hawaii are deprived of resources for power generation. In Hawaii, more than
70% of electricity is produced from imported oil and 13% from coal [2]. By contrast, the mainland
United States generated only 1% of its electricity from oil, which shows the dependency on fossil-fuel
resources in these islands. At present, 3% of the electricity produced in Hawaii comes from biomass [3].
Lignocelluloses are plentiful organics accessible today, accounting for up to 50 billion tons in dry
weight [4].
Different technology routes are available for processing biomass to energy. Lignocellulosic ethanol
is one of the possible alternatives for producing clean energy, which requires a pre-treatment process [5].
This pre-treatment step increases the production cost, in addition to technical hindrances such as
effective sugar release and inhibitor formation. Some attempts have been made to integrate first-

Processes 2017, 5, 78; doi:10.3390/pr5040078 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2017, 5, 78 2 of 15

and second-generation ethanol production to reduce production costs [6]. However, the economic
feasibility and the need for electricity cannot be satisfied with liquid fuels. Unlike biochemical
processes, thermochemical processes offer access to clean energy with fewer technical hindrances.
In addition, thermochemical processes satisfy the needs of electricity production for a state like
Hawaii that is devoid of resources. Thermochemical processing routes for producing energy include
gasification, combustion, pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization, and hydrothermal liquefaction [7].
In combustion, an exothermic reaction happens between the fuel and an oxidant, which produces
steam and other gases. Using these hot gases in a turbine or combined cycle results in potential
applications such as heat and power [8]. The state of Hawaii owns 1.3 million acres of land, of which
only 8% is used for cultivation [9,10]. Utilizing the unused land for the cultivation of energy crops
helps produce green electricity. This green electricity reduces the economic burden, dependence on oil,
and environmental impacts.
Thermochemical processes yield higher efficiencies when the moisture content of the biomass
is lower. Failing to do so consumes energy to vaporize the moisture, thus reducing the efficiency
of the process. For the same reason, dried biomass such as wood chips are usually preferred in
thermochemical processes. When energy crops are used, field drying them reduces the moisture
content of the biomass [11]. Previous studies have investigated the effect of varying moisture content in
the biomass for alternative fuel production [12–14]. Striugas et al. used an indirect method to calculate
the heat balance that controls the reciprocating grate using wet woody biomass [15]. The variation in
the moisture content affects the overall viability of the process and needs further investigation.
No previous research has considered the variation of moisture content on trifold sustainability
metrics including techno-economic and environmental impact analysis. These tri-fold sustainability
metrics check the feasibility of a process from a multi-disciplinary angle, ensuring the process is
environmentally friendly, technically feasible, and economically viable.
The objectives of this study include:

• analyzing the effect of varying moisture content of two lignocelluloses (banagrass and energycane)
for electricity production;
• evaluating the techno-economic potential of power production in Maui (Hawaii);
• carrying out an energy analysis to understand the energy flow;
• conducting a life-cycle assessment to identify the environmental impacts of the
thermochemical process.

2. Methods

2.1. Description
The processing plant is foreseen to be built on Maui, one of the islands in Hawaii that uses diesel as
a primary source for electricity production. The use of diesel as an electricity source, in contrast to the
mainland USA, indicates that the emissions will be different. This change in emissions will affect the
global warming potential (GWP) and other environmental impacts. The processing plant was designed
to process 60,000 dry MT/year of lignocelluloses. The processing capacity was calculated based on the
land available on Maui Island. A pilot field trial was conducted, estimating different aspects of growing
crops including crop yield, crop rotation, and nutrient requirements. The agricultural emissions data
used in this study were based on the field trials [16,17]. One could argue that 60,000 dry MT/year
is a small capacity in comparison with the mainland USA. However, the limitation here is the land
availability, which determines the sizes of the processing plant.
In this study, four scenarios were considered that used two biomasses (banagrass and energycane).
For banagrass “BG” was used as the acronym, while for energycane it was “EC”. When the biomass
had high moisture content, the acronym “HM” was used. For field-dried biomass that had low
moisture content, “LM” was used. For example, BGLM refers to the scenario that used banagrass with
low moisture. The loss of moisture by field drying the biomass was assumed as 25% (Table 1).
Processes 2017, 5, 78 3 of 14

banagrass with low moisture. The loss of moisture by field drying the biomass was assumed as 25%
(Table 1).
Processes 2017, 5, 78 3 of 15

Table 1. The composition of banagrass and energycane on a wet and dry basis.
Table 1. The composition of banagrass and energycane on a wet and dry basis.
Banagrass Energycane
Composition
Wet Basis Dry Basis Wet Basis
Banagrass
Dry Basis
Energycane
Composition 10.22%
Cellulose 37.48% 10.05% 33.44%
Wet Basis Dry Basis Wet Basis Dry Basis
Hemicellulose 6.39% 23.43% 6.36% 21.16%
Cellulose 10.22% 37.48% 10.05% 33.44%
Lignin 4.49% 16.46% 3.78% 12.58%
Hemicellulose 6.39% 23.43% 6.36% 21.16%
Extractives
Lignin 3.56%
4.49% 13.05%
16.46% 7.92%
3.78% 26.36%
12.58%
Ash
Extractives 2.61%
3.56% 9.57%
13.05% 1.94%
7.92% 6.46%
26.36%
Ash
Moisture 2.61%
72.73% 9.57%
- 1.94%
69.95% 6.46%
-
Moisture 72.73% - 69.95% -
2.2. Feedstock
2.2. Feedstock
Two different feedstocks were considered in this study, including banagrass and energycane.
TwoRenewable
National different feedstocks were considered
Energy Laboratory in this study,
(NREL) procedures including
were followed banagrass
to find the andcomposition
energycane.
ofNational Renewable
banagrass, while the Energy Laboratory
composition (NREL) procedures
of energycane was based were onfollowed
Kim andtoDale find [18].
the composition
The biomassof
banagrass,
yield, whilenutrient
emissions, the composition of energycane
requirements, water, and was based on Kim
agricultural and Dale
machinery [18]. The biomass
requirements yield,
etc. for both
emissions,
the biomassesnutrient requirements,
was obtained from the water,
field and
trialsagricultural
conducted machinery
on Maui. Table requirements
1 shows the etc.composition
for both the
ofbiomasses was obtained
both the biomasses from
in wet andthe
dryfield trials
basis. Theconducted
harvest rate on of
Maui. Table 1 shows
the biomasses was 15theMT/year
composition
with aof
both the biomasses
collection efficiency of in90%.
wet and dry basis. The harvest rate of the biomasses was 15 MT/year with a
collection efficiency of 90%.
2.3. Model Development
2.3. Model Development
Intelligen SuperPro Designer (V-10.0) was used to simulate the process that calculates the mass
Intelligen
and energy SuperPro
balance. BasedDesigner (V-10.0)
on the mass andwas used
energy to simulate
balance, the process
economic analysis that calculates
was performed.the mass
The
and energy balance. Based on the mass and energy balance, economic
biomass harvested was transported using trucks to the processing plant site. When the biomass analysis was performed.
The biomass
reached harvested
the site, was transported
it was unloaded and stored using
in atrucks to thea processing
silo using plant site.
conveyor, before When
it was the biomass
processed. The
silo had a storage capacity to hold biomass for 10 days. The stored biomass was shredded usingsilo
reached the site, it was unloaded and stored in a silo using a conveyor, before it was processed. The a
had amill
knife storage capacity
that used to hold
energy biomass
at the rate of for
0.0910kW/(kg/h).
days. TheFor stored biomassbiomass
field-dried was shredded
with low using a knife
moisture,
millkW/(kg/h)
0.15 that usedenergy
energywasat the
used rate ofThis
[19]. 0.09was
kW/(kg/h).
due to the For fact field-dried biomass
that wet biomass with low
consumes lessmoisture,
energy
0.15 kW/(kg/h) energy was used [19]. This was due to the fact that
to shred, while dry biomass requires high energy. The shredded biomass was then conveyed to thewet biomass consumes less
energy to shred, while dry biomass requires high energy. The shredded
boiler for steam generation. Figure 1 shows the process schematics from SuperPro Designer. The biomass was then conveyed
to the boiler
developed for steam
models generation.
were attached Figure 1 shows the process
as supplementary materialschematics from transparency
to facilitate SuperPro Designer. and
The developed models were attached
reproducibility (Supplementary materials 1-4). as Supplementary Materials to facilitate transparency and
reproducibility (Supplementary Materials Files 1–4).

Feed Water Recycled Water

Biomass
Flue Gas
Wastewater
P-10 S-101 S-102
S-105
Conveyors P-2
P-31 P-4 S-103 Flow Splitting
S-104
Storage Shredding

P-5
P-3 Ash
Gas Expansion
Steam generation
Air

Figure 1. Schematics of the flowsheet developed in SuperPro Designer.

Figure 1. Schematics of the flowsheet developed in SuperPro Designer.

Theboiler
boilerwas
wasoperated
operatedatat257 ◦ C and 4.5 MPa, which used 10% excess oxygen from air based
257°C
The and 4.5 MPa, which used 10% excess oxygen from air based
on the biomass selected [20]. The excess oxygenwas
on the biomass selected [20]. The excess oxygen wasadjusted
adjustedwith
withthe
theflow
flowtotoprovide
providecomplete
complete
◦
combustion of the material. The flu gas exited the boiler at 200 C, with the overall heat loss assumed
to be 5% [21]. The elemental composition of individual components determined the steam production
Processes 2017, 5, 78 4 of 15

rate in the boiler. The available heat in the boiler varied, depending on the moisture content of the
biomass. Ash exists in the boiler at 450 ◦ C. The steam from the boiler was sent to a turbine, where the
steam was expanded to produce electricity. The cooled steam after the gas expansion was condensed
and reused in the process, and about 5% of the water was considered as losses or waste that was not
recycled. The amount of feed water was auto adjusted, depending on the throughput of the biomass
in each scenario. The excess electricity after utilization by the plant was sold. To avoid confusion in
economic calculations, input credits were given to utilization.

2.4. Economic Analysis

2.4.1. Assumptions
It is assumed that the plant had a lifetime of 15 years with a construction period of 2.5 years
and startup period of 4 months. The construction period was higher, as most of the construction
materials needed to be barged from the mainland. The annual operation time of the plant was 330 days,
with the remaining 35 days used for plant maintenance and other purposes. The sizing and costing of
the different equipment were based on SuperPro Designer. The interest rate was assumed to be 7%,
while annual inflation was presumed to be 4%. Table 2 shows the detailed assumptions that were used
to carry out this study. Biomass was purchased at a cost of $80/dry MT [17]. Electricity was sold at a
cost of $0.27/kWh, based on data obtained from Hawaiian Electric [22]. The straight-line depreciation
method was used, and the depreciation period was assumed to be for 10 years.

Table 2. List of assumptions used in this study.

Type Assumption
Annual processing capacity 60,000 dry MT/year
Biomass cost $80/dry MT
Electricity cost $0.27/kWh
Discount rate 7%
Annual operational hours 7920 h
Start-up time 4 months
Construction period 30 months
Income tax 40%
Inflation 4%
Project lifetime 15 years
Depreciation method Straight line
Salvage value 5%
Depreciation years 10 years

2.4.2. Uncertainty Analysis

Uncertainty analysis depicts the vulnerability of a process, making it essential to understand its
robustness. For this reason, different uncertainty analyses were carried, out including the fluctuation
in capacity and the minimum electricity-selling price (MESP) for a zero net present value (NPV).
In the base scenarios, the capacity of the plant was assumed as 60,000 dry MT/year; while for the
uncertainty analysis, the capacity varied between 30,000 dry MT/year and 360,000 dry MT/year.
Similarly, the selling price of electricity was altered to find the MESP, at which the process yields no
profit or loss.

2.5. Life-Cycle Assessments

2.5.1. Goal, Scope and Boundary Definition

One of the goals of this work was to carry out the life-cycle assessment (LCA) using a well-to-pump
life-cycle inventory and assess the environmental impacts of electricity production from two biomasses
Processes 2017, 5, 78 5 of 14
Processes 2017, 5, 78 5 of 15
One of the goals of this work was to carry out the life-cycle assessment (LCA) using a well-to-
pump life-cycle inventory and assess the environmental impacts of electricity production from two
in Hawaii region.
biomasses The scope
in Hawaii included
region. comparing
The scope environmental
included comparing impacts of electricity
environmental production
impacts from
of electricity
lignocelluloses, to replace conventional electricity production in Hawaii, under
production from lignocelluloses, to replace conventional electricity production in Hawaii, under high-moisture and
low-moisture
high-moisturecontent. 1-MJ was used
and low-moisture as a functional
content. 1-MJ was unitused
to carry
as aout the assessment.
functional unit toFigure
carry 2out
shows
the
the system boundaries, representing the techno-economic and LCA boundaries.
assessment. Figure 2 shows the system boundaries, representing the techno-economic and LCA Agricultural inputs
such as machinery,
boundaries. irrigationinputs
Agricultural water, such
nutrientas requirement,
machinery, harvesting, transportation
irrigation water, nutrientof requirement,
the biomass
etc. were included
harvesting, in the system
transportation boundary
of the biomass etc.when
were calculating
included in the
the life-cycle assessments.
system boundary when Open LCA
calculating
(V 1.6.3) software was used to estimate the environmental impact, while the
the life-cycle assessments. Open LCA (V 1.6.3) software was used to estimate the environmental eco-invent database
(V 3.1) was
impact, usedthe
while to eco-invent
run background connected
database (V 3.1)processes
was usedintegrating the inventory.
to run background TRACIprocesses
connected 2.1 was
used as an impact-assessment method, as this is the ISO-preferred method to
integrating the inventory. TRACI 2.1 was used as an impact-assessment method, as this is the carry out the LCA in
ISO-
the USA [23,24].
preferred method to carry out the LCA in the USA [23,24].

Figure 2. System boundary showing the techno-economic (TEA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA)
Figure 2. System boundary showing the techno-economic (TEA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA)
boundary for the lignocellulosic power production. Grey color represents the TEA boundary, while
boundary for the lignocellulosic power production. Grey color represents the TEA boundary, while the
the yellow color represents the LCA boundary.
yellow color represents the LCA boundary.

2.5.2. Life-Cycle Inventory

2.5.2. Life-Cycle Inventory
The mass and energy balance from the techno-economic analysis was used as the life-cycle
The mass
inventory (LCI).and
The energy
process balance from the
model yielded techno-economic
inputs analysis
and outputs such wasmaterial,
as raw used aswaterthe
life-cycle inventory (LCI). The process model yielded inputs and outputs such
consumption, energy consumption, and electricity production. The electricity from the plant was as raw material,
water
assumedconsumption,
to replace energy consumption,
the electricity producedandfrom
electricity production.
the Hawaii Thegrid.
electricity electricity from
The data forthe plant
biomass
was assumed to replace the electricity produced from the Hawaii electricity grid. The data
production including crop yields, irrigation and field emissions were gathered based on the pilot for biomass
production including crop
field trials conducted yields,
in Maui, irrigation
Hawaii. Theand field emissions
eco-invent databasewere
and gathered baseddata
the imported on the
frompilot
the
field trials conducted in Maui, Hawaii. The
techno-economic analyses was used to conduct the LCA.eco-invent database and the imported data from the
techno-economic analyses was used to conduct the LCA.
2.5.3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessments
2.5.3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessments
The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts
The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts
(TRACI 2.1) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was used as
(TRACI 2.1) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was used as
the life-cycle impact assessment method [25]. TRACI contains 10 different impact categories
the life-cycle impact assessment method [25]. TRACI contains 10 different impact categories including
including acidification, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical
Processes 2017, 5, 78 6 of 15

Processes 2017, 5, 78 6 of 14
acidification, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone
ozone formation
formation (POF), resource
(POF), resource depletion–fossil
depletion–fossil fuels, carcinogenics,
fuels, carcinogenics, non-carcinogenics,
non-carcinogenics, and
and respiratory
respiratory
effects [23]. effects [23].

3. Results

3.1. Techno-Economic Analysis

3.1. Techno-Economic Analysis
Techno-economic
Techno-economic analysis
analysis (TEA)
(TEA) waswas carried
carried out
out using
using SuperPro
SuperPro Designer
Designer (V
(V 10.0).
10.0). The
The change
change
in
in moisture
moisture content
content byby field
field drying
drying thethe biomasses
biomasses and and their
their subsequent
subsequent effect
effect on
on the
the electricity
electricity
production
production waswas assessed
assessed from
from aa techno-economic
techno-economic perspective. The plant
perspective. The plant had
had anan annual
annual processing
processing
capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year in the base case. Figure 3 shows the block flow
capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year in the base case. Figure 3 shows the block flow diagram of diagram of the
the overall
overall
mass
mass balance
balance of
of different
different scenarios. The moisture
scenarios. The moisture contents
contents inin BGHM
BGHM and and ECHM
ECHM werewere 72.73%
72.73% and
and
69.95%,
69.95%, respectively. The moisture content in the BGLM and ECLM scenarios was reduced to
respectively. The moisture content in the BGLM and ECLM scenarios was reduced to 25%
25% in
in
both
both the
the scenarios. Banagrass and
scenarios. Banagrass and energycane
energycane as as aa feedstock
feedstock released
released 94,700
94,700 and
and 98,000
98,000 MT
MT carbon
carbon
dioxide/year. ECLM had
dioxide/year. ECLM had the
the highest
highest netnet electricity
electricity production
production (32.6
(32.6 GWh/year), while, BGHM
GWh/year), while, BGHM had had
the lowest electricity production (15.6 GWh/year) due to high moisture and low-ash
the lowest electricity production (15.6 GWh/year) due to high moisture and low-ash content content (Figure 3).
(Figure
The electricity
3). The reported
electricity here
reported represents
here represents the
thenet
netelectricity
electricityafter
afterconsumption
consumptionby by various
various elements
elements
of equipment.
of equipment.

Figure 3. Block flow diagram showing the mass balance for different scenarios. BG and EC refer to
HM and
banagrass and energycane; HM and LM
LM refer
refer to
to high
high moisture
moisture and
and low
low moisture
moisturerespectively.
respectively.

Table 3 shows the cost of different equipment used in the four scenarios with their processing
throughputs. The shredder load decreased with the decrease in moisture content of the field-dried
biomass. The cost of the turbines ranged between $590,000 and $1,092,000 for capacities of 2591 kW
Processes 2017, 5, 78 7 of 15

Table 3 shows the cost of different equipment used in the four scenarios with their processing
Processes 2017, 5, 78 7 of 14
throughputs. The shredder load decreased with the decrease in moisture content of the field-dried
biomass. The cost of the turbines ranged between $590,000 and $1,092,000 for capacities of 2591 kW
and 5922 kW. The boiler had a throughput of between 30,000 kg/h and 54,000 kg/h that cost $372,000
and 5922 kW. The boiler had a throughput of between 30,000 kg/h and 54,000 kg/h that cost
(BGHM) and $583,000 (ECLM). The total cost of the equipment for different scenarios ranged between
$372,000 (BGHM) and $583,000 (ECLM). The total cost of the equipment for different scenarios
$2.3 and $3.0 million. The equipment costs represents a part of the total capital investment, while the
ranged between $2.3 and $3.0 million. The equipment costs represents a part of the total capital
other costs include installation, piping, instrumentation, insulation, electrical, building, auxiliary
investment, while the other costs include installation, piping, instrumentation, insulation, electrical,
facilities, indirect costs, contractor fees, and contingencies. Figure 4 shows the different economic
building, auxiliary facilities, indirect costs, contractor fees, and contingencies. Figure 4 shows the
indices including capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX) and revenues
different economic indices including capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX)
generated from different scenarios. The capital investment ranged between $17 million and $22
and revenues generated from different scenarios. The capital investment ranged between $17 million
million for different scenarios. In general, low-moisture content scenarios by field drying the biomass
and $22 million for different scenarios. In general, low-moisture content scenarios by field drying the
increased the CAPEX. This was due to the use of a higher capacity boiler and turbines.
biomass increased the CAPEX. This was due to the use of a higher capacity boiler and turbines.

CAPEX OPEX Revenues

$25
Millions

$22
$20
$17
$15 $10
$9
$5 $7
$10

$5

$-
BGHM ECHM BGLM ECLM

High Moisture Low Moisture

Figure 4. Economic indices including capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX)
Figure 4. Economic indices including capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX) and
and revenues generated from different scenarios (million USD).
revenues generated from different scenarios (million USD).

Table 3. The purchase cost of different equipment with their sizing data under different scenarios.
Table 3. The purchase cost of different equipment with their sizing data under different scenarios.
High Moisture Low Moisture
BGHM High MoistureECHM BGLM Low Moisture ECLM
Banagrass Energycane Banagrass Energycane
BGHM Banagrass ECHM Energycane BGLM Banagrass ECLM Energycane
Unit Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($)
Conveyor Unit Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($) Amount Cost ($)
feet 400 458,000 400 458,000 400 458,000 400 458,000
belt
Conveyor
Shredder feet
kg/h 400
27,780 458,000
459,000 400
25,210 458,000
433,000 400
15,872 458,000
328,000 400
13,773 458,000
302,000
belt
Steam
Shredder kg/h
kg/h 29,635
27,780 372,000
459,000 42,048
25,210 485,000
433,000 41,585
15,872 481,000
328,000 53,607
13,773 583,000
302,000
generator
Steam
Expansion 1,092,00
kg/h
kW 29,635
2591 372,000
590,000 42,048
3791 485,000
900,000 41,585
3747 481,000
892,000 53,607
4922 583,000
generator
turbine 0
Unlisted
Expansion
kW 2591 470,000
590,000 3791 569,000
900,000 3747 540,000
892,000 4922 610,000
1,092,000
equipment
turbine
Total cost 2,699,00 3,045,00
Unlisted 2,349,000 2,845,000
($) 470,000 569,000 540,000
0 610,000
0
equipment
Total
The OPEX varied between 2,349,000
cost ($)
$8.7 million and $9.5 million for all the
2,845,000 scenarios. Recovering
2,699,000 the
3,045,000
OPEX through revenues was only possible from the ECLM scenario (Figure 4). For all scenarios, the
cost of the feedstock at $80/dry MT accounted for ca. 50% of the OPEX (Figure 5). Raw material was
The significant
the most OPEX varied between $8.7
contributor million
to OPEX and $9.5by
followed million for all the scenarios.
facility-dependent Recovering
costs that ranged the OPEX
between
through revenues was only possible from the ECLM scenario (Figure 4). For all scenarios,
32% and 39%. This shows that the cost of producing biomass needs to be controlled for any biomass- the cost of
the feedstock
based at $80/dryfailing
energy/chemicals; MT accounted
to do so for ca. 50%the
questions of the OPEX (Figure
economic viability5).ofRaw materialUtilities
the project. was the
consumption corresponds to 7–9%, while the wages for the labour was 3% of OPEX.
Processes 2017, 5, 78 8 of 15

most significant contributor to OPEX followed by facility-dependent costs that ranged between 32%
and 39%. This shows that the cost of producing biomass needs to be controlled for any biomass-based
Processes 2017, 5, 78
energy/chemicals; 8 of 14
failing to do so questions the economic viability of the project. Utilities consumption
Processes 2017, 5, 78
corresponds to 7–9%, while the wages for the labour was 3% of OPEX. 8 of 14
BGHM
BGHM

ECHM Raw Materials

ECHM Raw Materials
Labor
Labor
Facility
Facility
Laboratory
Laboratory
Utilities
ECLM
Utilities
ECLM
BGLM
BGLM

Figure 5. Fragmentation of operational costs for different scenarios.

Figure 5. Fragmentation of operational costs for different scenarios.
Every kWh
Every kWh ofof electricity
electricity sold
sold generated
generated aa unit
unit revenue
revenue ofof $0.27.
$0.27. The
The production
production costs
costs for the
for the
Every
different kWh of
scenarios electricity
including sold
BGHM, generated
ECHM, a unit
BGLM revenue
and ECLMof $0.27.
were The
$0.47,
different scenarios including BGHM, ECHM, BGLM and ECLM were $0.47, $0.34, $0.34 and $0.27, production
$0.34, $0.34costs
and for the
$0.27,
different scenarios
respectively (Figureincluding
6). The BGHM,
production ECHM,
cost BGLM
was and
recovered ECLM
only were
in the$0.47,
ECLM $0.34,
respectively (Figure 6). The production cost was recovered only in the ECLM scenario. Return on $0.34
scenario. and
Return$0.27,
on
respectively(ROI)
investment
investment (Figure
(ROI) 6). The production
corresponds
corresponds to
to the ratecost
the rate at was recovered
at which
which investments
investments only in the
yields
yields ECLMECLM
profits.
profits. scenario.
ECLM had Return
had aa positive
positiveon
investment
ROI at 9%, (ROI)
while corresponds
the rest of the to the
scenariosrate at which
yielded lessinvestments
than 0%. Out yields
of profits.
four ECLM
scenarios
ROI at 9%, while the rest of the scenarios yielded less than 0%. Out of four scenarios considered, had a
considered,positive
field-
ROI at 9%,
drying while
energycane
field-drying thewas
restthe
energycane of
wasthe
onlyscenarios
the yielded
economically less than
feasible
only economically 0%. option.
option.
feasible Out of four
However, scenarios
theconsidered,
drying drying
However, biomass field-
results
the biomass
drying
in a energycane
land-use change was
and the only
those economically
effects need to feasible
be option.
evaluated in However,
the future.
results in a land-use change and those effects need to be evaluated in the future. drying the biomass results
in a land-use change and those effects need to be evaluated in the future.
$0.50 10%
$0.50 10%
9%
$0.40 $0.47 5%
9%
$0.40 $0.47 5%
($/kWh)

$0.27
(%)(%)

$0.30 0%
($/kWh)

$0.30 $0.27 0%
ROI

$0.20 -5%
Cost

ROI

$0.20 -5%
Cost

$0.10 -10%
$0.10 -14% -10%
$- -14% -15%
$- BGHM ECHM BGLM ECLM -15%
BGHM ECHM BGLM ECLM
Production cost Unit Revenue ROI
Production cost Unit Revenue ROI
Figure 6. Profitability indexes including production cost ($/kWh), unit revenue ($/kWh) and return
Figure 6. Profitability indexes including production cost ($/kWh), unit revenue ($/kWh) and return
on investment (%) for the four different scenarios exploited in this study.
on investment
Figure (%) for the
6. Profitability four different
indexes includingscenarios exploited
production in this study.
cost ($/kWh), unit revenue ($/kWh) and return
on investment (%) for the four different scenarios exploited in this study.
3.2. Energy Analysis
3.2. Energy Analysis
Figure 7 shows the energy analysis via a Sankey diagram based on the breakdown of
Figure 7and
consumption shows the energy
production analysis
patterns. via a Sankey
For scenario BGHM,diagram
about 15%based onproduced
of the the breakdown of
electricity
consumption and production patterns. For scenario BGHM, about 15% of the
was consumed in different forms including a shredder, conveyors, general load and unlisted produced electricity
was consumed
equipment. in different
Similarly, for otherforms including
scenarios, a shredder,
i.e., BGLM, ECHM conveyors,
and ECLM the general load andwas
consumption unlisted
9.5%,
equipment.
10.1% Similarly,
and 6.8%, for otherThe
respectively. scenarios,
shredderi.e., BGLM, ECHM
dominated and
ca. 70% ofECLM the consumption
the electricity consumed. was
The9.5%,
net
10.1% andproduction
electricity 6.8%, respectively. Thescenarios
for different shredder wasdominated ca. 70% of
15,653 (BGHM), the electricity
24,433 consumed.
(BGLM), 24,005 (ECHM)Theandnet
electricity
32,696 production
(ECLM) for different
MWh/year. It is scenarios was 15,653 (BGHM),
worth mentioning that LM24,433 (BGLM),
scenarios had24,005 (ECHM)
higher and
electricity
32,696 (ECLM) MWh/year. It is worth mentioning that LM scenarios had higher electricity
Processes 2017, 5, 78 9 of 15

3.2. Energy Analysis

Figure 7 shows the energy analysis via a Sankey diagram based on the breakdown of
consumption and production patterns. For scenario BGHM, about 15% of the produced electricity was
consumed in different forms including a shredder, conveyors, general load and unlisted equipment.
Similarly, for other scenarios, i.e., BGLM, ECHM and ECLM the consumption was 9.5%, 10.1%
and 6.8%, respectively. The shredder dominated ca. 70% of the electricity consumed. The net
electricity production for different scenarios was 15,653 (BGHM), 24,433 (BGLM), 24,005 (ECHM)
Processes 2017, 5, 78 9 of 14
and 32,696 (ECLM) MWh/year. It is worth mentioning that LM scenarios had higher electricity
consumption for
consumption for shredder
shredder (0.15
(0.15 kW/(kg/h)) than HM
kW/(kg/h)) than HM scenarios
scenarios (0.09
(0.09 kW/(kg/h). However, the
kW/(kg/h). However, the LM
LM
scenarios produced
scenarios produced moremore electricity
electricity in
in comparison
comparison with
with HM
HM scenarios.
scenarios.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7. Energy analyses of different scenarios including consumption and production of electricity:
Figure 7. Energy analyses of different scenarios including consumption and production of electricity:
(a) BGHM; (b) BGLM; (c) ECHM; (d) ECLM. All the numbers here are presented as MWh.
(a) BGHM; (b) BGLM; (c) ECHM; (d) ECLM. All the numbers here are presented as MWh.

3.3. Life-Cycle Assessments

The data from techno-economic assessments and field data from pilot trials were used for LCI,
while LCA was conducted using Open LCA. TRACI 2.1 was used as an impact-assessment method
to evaluate environmental impacts [26]. 1-MJ was used as a functional unit for all the scenarios. Seven
environment-related and three health-related impacts were tabulated in Table 4 for different
scenarios. For both the substrates, low-moisture scenarios resulted in lower environmental impacts
in comparison with high-moisture scenarios. This shows that field drying the biomass has a positive
Processes 2017, 5, 78 10 of 15

3.3. Life-Cycle Assessments

The data from techno-economic assessments and field data from pilot trials were used for LCI,
while LCA was conducted using Open LCA. TRACI 2.1 was used as an impact-assessment method
to evaluate environmental impacts [26]. 1-MJ was used as a functional unit for all the scenarios.
Seven environment-related and three health-related impacts were tabulated in Table 4 for different
scenarios. For both the substrates, low-moisture scenarios resulted in lower environmental impacts
in comparison with high-moisture scenarios. This shows that field drying the biomass has a positive
effect on the environmental impacts; however, the effect of land-use change needs to be assessed,
as the biomass will be on the field for a longer period.

Table 4. Environmental impacts of different scenarios.

High Moisture Low Moisture

Impact Category Unit Banagrass Energycane Banagrass Energycane
BGHM ECHM BGLM ECLM
Acidification kg SO2 equivalent 3.0 ×10−3 1.2 × 10−3 1.9 × 10−3 9.3 × 10−4
Eco-toxicity CTUe 1.2 × 10+0 5.5 × 10−1 8.4 × 10−1 4.1 × 10−1
Eutrophication kg N equivalent 8.1 × 10−4 4.1 × 10−4 5.3 × 10−4 3.0 × 10−4
Global warming kg CO2 equivalent 2.9 × 10−2 2.2 × 10−2 1.9 × 10−2 1.6 × 10−2
Carcinogenics 1.3 × 10−8 9.7 × 10−9 8.8 × 10−9 7.2 × 10−9
Non-carcinogenics 5.6 × 10−8 2.2 × 10−8 3.6 × 10−8 1.6 × 10−8
Ozone depletion Kg CFC-11 equivalent 7.1 × 10−8 2.6 × 10−8 4.6 × 10−8 1.9 × 10−8
Photochemical ozone
kg O3 equivalent 2.6 × 10−2 2.8 × 10−2 1.7 × 10−2 2.1 × 10−2
formation
Resource depletion MJ surplus 8.8 ×10−1 2.3 × 10−1 5.7 × 10−1 1.7 × 10−1
Respiratory effects kg PM 2.5 equivalent 4.1 × 10−4 1.8 × 10−4 2.7 × 10−4 1.4 × 10−4

Acidification refers to the increase in hydrogen ions i.e., a number of acids entering into the
environment by carrying out this process. The acidification potential was measured in kg SO2
equivalent. The banagrass with high-moisture content scenario had the highest acidification potential
of 3.0 × 10−3 , while the lowest was for ECLM (9.3 × 10−4 ). Global warming potential was measured
in kg CO2 equivalent. Every 1-MJ of electricity produced in Maui using the thermochemical process
resulted in GWP between 1.6 × 10−1 and 2.9 × 10−2 kg CO2 equivalent. The same trend was observed
in other environmental impacts, where BG had higher environmental impacts in comparison with EC.
Similarly, HM scenarios had higher impacts in comparison with LM scenarios.

4. Discussion

4.1. Uncertainty Analysis

The base scenarios considered an annual processing capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year, which is
relatively small considering the plant sizes in the mainland US. For this reason, an uncertainty analysis
was carried out identifying the CAPEX of the process under different capacities. The capacities
considered were between 30,000 dry MT/year and 360,000 dry MT/year. Figure 8 shows the
uncertainty analysis on the CAPEX for different scenarios evaluated in the base case. As a rule
of thumb by economies of scale, when the capacity increases the CAPEX goes down. To process 1-MT
of biomass (BGLM) with a plant capacity of 30,000 dry MT/year, it costs $390/MT; while the same
scenario operating at 360,000 dry MT/year costs $200/MT following the economies of scale principle.
Increasing the capacity of the processing plant by 12 times from 30,000 dry MT/year, decreased the
CAPEX by 95% on a functional unit level i.e., $/MT. It is worth mentioning that the base scenario had
a processing capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year that costs $320/MT (BGLM).
 thumb by economies of scale, when the capacity increases the CAPEX goes down. To process 1-MT
of biomass (BGLM) with a plant capacity of 30,000 dry MT/year, it costs $390/MT; while the same
scenario operating at 360,000 dry MT/year costs $200/MT following the economies of scale principle.
Increasing the capacity of the processing plant by 12 times from 30,000 dry MT/year, decreased the
CAPEX by 95% on a functional unit level i.e., $/MT. It is worth mentioning that the base scenario had
Processes 2017, 5, 78 11 of 15
a processing capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year that costs $320/MT (BGLM).

$100

Millions
ECLM
$80 ECHM

Cost ($)
$60

$40
BGHM
$20 BGLM
$0
0 100 200 300 400
Thousands

Capacity (dry MT/year)

Figure 8. Uncertainty analyses of various scenarios under different capacities between 30,000 dry MT/year
Figure 8. Uncertainty analyses of various scenarios under different capacities between 30,000 dry
Processesand 360,000
2017, 5, 78 dry MT/year. 11 of 14
MT/year and 360,000 dry MT/year.

4.2.Minimum
4.2. Minimum ElectricitySelling
Electricity SellingPrice
Price

TheTheminimum
minimumelectricity-selling
electricity-sellingprice
pricerefers
referstotothetheminimum
minimumcosts costsatatwhich
whichthe
theelectricity
electricityneeds
needs
totobebesold
soldfor fora azero
zeroNPV.
NPV.MESP
MESPalso alsorefers
referstotothe
thelevelized
levelizedcost
costofofelectricity
electricity(LCOE)
(LCOE)thatthatmeans
meansthethe
costthat
cost thatisis incurredover
incurred overthe
theprocessing
processingplant’s
plant’slife
lifetotoproduce
producethethetotal
total amountofofenergy
amount energyduring
duringthe
the
same period. Figure 9 shows the MESP along with the production
same period. Figure 9 shows the MESP along with the production cost and unit revenue generated cost and unit revenue generated
foreach
for eachofofthe thefour
fourscenarios.
scenarios.UnderUnderthe thescenarios
scenariosincluding
includingBGLM,
BGLM,ECHM, ECHM,electricity
electricityneeds
needstotobebe
soldatat$0.42/kWh
sold $0.42/kWh toto meet
meet a zero
a zero NPV
NPV whilefor
while forBGHM,
BGHM,it itshould
shouldbebe$0.60/kWh.
$0.60/kWh. The
The most
most profitable
profitable
scenario,ECLM,
scenario, ECLM,needs needstotosell
sellatat 6 cents
6 cents higher
higher than
than the
the current
current unit
unit revenue
revenue generatedtotohave
generated havea zero
a zero
NPVi.e.,
NPV i.e.,$0.27/kWh.
$0.27/kWh. ECLM
ECLM could
could recover
recover thethe investments
investments after
after 1111 years
years (payback
(payback period).The
period). The LCOE
LCOE
ofofusing
usingdifferent
differenttechnologies
technologiesincluding
includingphotovoltaics,
photovoltaics,wind, wind,geothermal
geothermaland andnuclear
nuclearthatthatprovide
provide
electricityininthe
electricity theHawaiian
HawaiianIslands
Islandsranged
rangedbetween
between$0.1–0.5/kWh
$0.1–0.5/kWh [22].
[22]. TheThe ECLM
ECLM (this
(this study)
study) would
would
bebeononaamedian
median in in comparison with with the
thedata
datareported;
reported;showing
showing that
thatfurther reduction
further reductionin biomass costs
in biomass
could
costs favor
could the commercialization
favor the commercialization of biomass-based
of biomass-based power production.
power production.

$0.70
MESP
$0.60 Production
cost
Unit revenue,
$0.50
$0.27
Cost ($/kWh)

$0.40

$0.30

$0.20

$0.10

$-
BGHM ECHM BGLM ECLM

Figure
Figure 9. 9. Minimum
Minimum electricity
electricity selling
selling price
price estimation
estimation inin relation
relation toto production
production cost
cost and
and selling
selling price
price
forfor differentscenarios
different scenariosinin$/kWh.
$/kWh.

4.3. Interrelationship with Other Commodities

Relating the electricity with other commodities/energy would offer interesting insights into how
the electricity would influence other energy types. For this reason, a correlation was built between
the historical energy/commodity and crude oil prices from 2007 to 2016 (Figure 10). This decade-long
comparison shows that the electricity prices were not fluctuating with crude oil prices, whereas other
fuels including ethanol, and jet fuel were fluctuating. Ethylene was the most volatile commodity
Processes 2017, 5, 78 12 of 15

4.3. Interrelationship with Other Commodities

Relating the electricity with other commodities/energy would offer interesting insights into how
the electricity would influence other energy types. For this reason, a correlation was built between the
historical energy/commodity and crude oil prices from 2007 to 2016 (Figure 10). This decade-long
comparison shows that the electricity prices were not fluctuating with crude oil prices, whereas other
fuels including ethanol, and jet fuel were fluctuating. Ethylene was the most volatile commodity
fluctuating with crude oil prices. It is worth mentioning that crude oil prices fluctuated in two regions:
(1) <$63/Barrel
Processes 2017, 5, 78 and (2) >$95/Barrel. 12 of 14

Crude oil ($/Barrel)

31.8 63.6 95.3 127.1
1.60

Ethylene
1.20
Cost ($/Unit)

0.80
Ethanol

0.40 Electricity
Jet Fuel
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Crude oil ($/L)
Figure 10. A historical comparison of the unit cost of electricity, jet fuel, ethanol and ethylene in
Figure 10. A historical comparison of the unit cost of electricity, jet fuel, ethanol and ethylene in relation
relation to crude oil from 2007 to 2016. The primary horizontal axis shows crude oil as $/L, while the
to crude oil from 2007 to 2016. The primary horizontal axis shows crude oil as $/L, while the secondary
secondary horizontal axis shows the crude oil as $/Barrel to ease understanding.
horizontal axis shows the crude oil as $/Barrel to ease understanding.

4.4. Comparison with Literature

4.4. Comparison with Literature
This study has reported the production cost of energy (LCOE) between $270 and 470/MWh.
This study has reported the production cost of energy (LCOE) between $270/MWh and
Patel, et al. [27] compared different thermochemical technologies and reported that the production
$470/MWh. Patel, et al. [27] compared different thermochemical technologies and reported that
costs varied between $80/MWh and $600/MWh depending on the feedstock and technologies
the production costs varied between $80/MWh and $600/MWh depending on the feedstock and
employed. It is worth mentioning that this study fits within this range. In addition, the study used
technologies employed. It is worth mentioning that this study fits within this range. In addition,
biomass at $80/dry MT, which needs to be noted for a fair comparison with the literature. The LCA
the study used biomass at $80/dry MT, which needs to be noted for a fair comparison with the
of power generation from forest biomass had GHG emissions between 7 gCO2/MJ and 15 gCO2/MJ,
literature. The LCA of power generation from forest biomass had GHG emissions between 7 gCO2 /MJ
while this study reported between 16 gCO2/MJ and 29 gCO2/MJ [28]. The variation in GHG emissions
and 15 gCO2 /MJ, while this study reported between 16 gCO2 /MJ and 29 gCO2 /MJ [28]. The variation
could be based on the difference in feedstock used, which sequesters different amounts of carbon
in GHG emissions could be based on the difference in feedstock used, which sequesters different
from the atmosphere.
amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.
A study reported between 2% and 4% of the produced energy [29] was consumed for internal
A study reported between 2% and 4% of the produced energy [29] was consumed for internal
purposes, whereas in our work the consumption of produced energy ranged between 7% and 15%.
purposes, whereas in our work the consumption of produced energy ranged between 7% and 15%.
This is higher than other studies have reported, however, considering the small plant size, higher
This is higher than other studies have reported, however, considering the small plant size, higher losses
losses and greater energy utilization could be justified. This work earlier mentioned that a higher
and greater energy utilization could be justified. This work earlier mentioned that a higher moisture
moisture content of biomass results in higher emissions, which were also confirmed by other work
content of biomass results in higher emissions, which were also confirmed by other work [30,31].
[30,31]. The use of a smaller plant size increased the overall emissions, as a higher plant size would
The use of a smaller plant size increased the overall emissions, as a higher plant size would be more
be more energy efficient, thus reducing GHG emissions.
energy efficient, thus reducing GHG emissions.
5. Conclusions
Lignocellulosic electricity production was evaluated through a holistic approach, including
techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessments, under varying moisture contents. The results
suggest that drying energycane on the field was the most sustainable scenario in terms of technology,
economics and environmental impacts. The most profitable scenario (ECLM) could yield investments
after 11 years with a capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year. Biomass cost ($80/dry MT) was identified as the
main factor affecting the profitability of the plant, followed by electricity-selling prices. The GHG
emissions from different scenarios ranged between 16 gCO2/MJ and 29 gCO2/MJ. For an island like
Processes 2017, 5, 78 13 of 15

5. Conclusions
Lignocellulosic electricity production was evaluated through a holistic approach, including
techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessments, under varying moisture contents. The results
suggest that drying energycane on the field was the most sustainable scenario in terms of technology,
economics and environmental impacts. The most profitable scenario (ECLM) could yield investments
after 11 years with a capacity of 60,000 dry MT/year. Biomass cost ($80/dry MT) was identified as
the main factor affecting the profitability of the plant, followed by electricity-selling prices. The GHG
emissions from different scenarios ranged between 16 gCO2 /MJ and 29 gCO2 /MJ. For an island like
Hawaii, electricity generation from biomass could be sustainable in terms of technology, economics
and environmental impact in comparison with fossil-fuel sources.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/5/4/78/s1,

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1069479, Files 1–4: SuperPro files can be accessed using the demo version of the
software from http://www.intelligen.com/.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the pilot facility in Hawaii that helped with field trial
agricultural data to carry out the life-cycle assessments. Thanks go also to the Science Foundation Ireland
(SFI) funded research center MaREI (Center for Marine and Renewable Energy), for providing facilities and
research support.
Author Contributions: K.R. was responsible for the idea, model development, critical analysis, manuscript
preparation, and editing.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interests.

Acronyms
BG banagrass
CAPEX capital costs
EC energycane
GWP global warming potential
HM high moisture
LCA life-cycle assessments
LCI life-cycle inventory
LCOE levelized cost of electricity
LM low moisture
MESP minimum electricity selling price
NPV net present value
OPEX operational costs
PBP payback period
ROI return on investment
TEA techno-economic analysis

References
1. Stocker, T. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
2. Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. Monthly Energy Trends. Available online:
http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/data_reports/energy-trends/ (accessed on 7 October 2017).
3. US Energy Information Administration. Short-Term Energy Outlook. Available online: https://www.eia.
gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.cfm (accessed on 7 April 2017).
4. Rajendran, K.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials. In Bioprocessing of Renewable
Resources to Commodity Bioproducts; Bisaria, V.S., Kondo, A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2014; pp. 43–75.
5. Rajendran, K.; Drielak, E.; Varma, V.S.; Muthusamy, S.; Kumar, G. Updates on the pretreatment of
lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy production—A review. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2017. [CrossRef]
Processes 2017, 5, 78 14 of 15

6. Rajendran, K.; Rajoli, S.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Techno-economic analysis of integrating first and
second-generation ethanol production using filamentous fungi: An industrial case study. Energies 2016,
9, 359. [CrossRef]
7. Shen, Y.; Jarboe, L.; Brown, R.; Wen, Z. A thermochemical-biochemical hybrid processing of lignocellulosic
biomass for producing fuels and chemicals. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 1799–1813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Schmidt-Rohr, K. Why combustions are always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ per mole of O2 .
J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 2094–2099. [CrossRef]
9. Surles, T.; Foley, M.; Turn, S.; Staackmann, M. A Scenario for Accelerated Use of Renewable Resources for
Transportation Fuels in Hawaii; University of Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean and
Earth Science and Technology: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2009.
10. Phillips, V.D.; Singh, D.; Merriam, R.A.; Khan, M.A. Land available for biomass crop production in Hawaii.
Agric. Syst. 1993, 43, 1–17. [CrossRef]
11. Khanchi, A.; Birrell, S. Drying models to estimate moisture change in switchgrass and corn stover based on
weather conditions and swath density. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 237–238, 1–8. [CrossRef]
12. Fortier, J.; Truax, B.; Gagnon, D.; Lambert, F. Allometric equations for estimating compartment biomass and
stem volume in mature hybrid poplars: General or site-specific? Forests 2017, 8, 309. [CrossRef]
13. Manzone, M.; Gioelli, F.; Balsari, P. Kiwi clear-cut: First evaluation of recovered biomass for energy
production. Energies 2017, 10, 1837. [CrossRef]
14. Uson, A.A.; López-Sabirón, A.M.; Ferreira, G.; Sastresa, E.L. Uses of alternative fuels and raw materials in
the cement industry as sustainable waste management options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 242–260.
[CrossRef]
15. Striūgas, N.; Vorotinskienė, L.; Paulauskas, R.; Navakas, R.; Džiugys, A.; Narbutas, L. Estimating the fuel
moisture content to control the reciprocating grate furnace firing wet woody biomass. Energy Convers. Manag.
2017, 149, 937–949. [CrossRef]
16. Rajendran, K.; Murthy, G.S. How does technology pathway choice influence economic viability and
environmental impacts of lignocellulosic biorefineries? Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kadhum, H.J.; Rajendran, K.; Murthy, G.S. Effect of solids loading on ethanol production: Experimental,
economic and environmental analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 244, 108–116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Kim, M.; Day, D.F. Composition of sugar cane, energy cane, and sweet sorghum suitable for ethanol
production at louisiana sugar mills. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 803–807. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Lee, J.H.; Kwon, J.H.; Kim, T.H.; Choi, W.I. Impact of planetary ball mills on corn stover characteristics
and enzymatic digestibility depending on grinding ball properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 241, 1094–1100.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Ali Mandegari, M.; Farzad, S.; Görgens, J.F. Economic and environmental assessment of cellulosic ethanol
production scenarios annexed to a typical sugar mill. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 314–326. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
21. Ali Mandegari, M.; Farzad, S. Görgens jf. In Biofuels: Production and Future Perspectives; Singh, R.S., Panday, A.,
Gnansounou, E., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
22. Hawaii State Energy Office. Hawaii Energy Facts & Figures; Hawaii State Energy Office: Honolulu, HI, USA,
2014; pp. 1–27.
23. Bare, J.; Young, D.; Qam, S.; Hopton, M.; Chief, S. Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI); US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
24. ISO Technical Committee. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines;
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
25. Bare, J.C. Traci. J. Ind. Ecol. 2002, 6, 49–78. [CrossRef]
26. Bare, J. Traci 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0.
Clean Technol. Environ. 2011, 13, 687–696. [CrossRef]
27. Patel, M.; Zhang, X.; Kumar, A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass
thermochemical conversion technologies: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1486–1499.
[CrossRef]
28. Thakur, A.; Canter, C.E.; Kumar, A. Life-cycle energy and emission analysis of power generation from forest
biomass. Appl. Energy 2014, 128, 246–253. [CrossRef]
Processes 2017, 5, 78 15 of 15

29. Wihersaari, M. Greenhouse gas emissions from final harvest fuel chip production in Finland.
Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28, 435–443. [CrossRef]
30. Whittaker, C.; Mortimer, N.; Murphy, R.; Matthews, R. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of
forest residues for bioenergy production in the UK. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4581–4594. [CrossRef]
31. Angus-Hankin, C.; Stokes, B.; Twaddle, A. The transportation of fuelwood from forest to facility.
Biomass Bioenergy 1995, 9, 191–203. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).