Utilising biomass for renewable energy production: optimal profitability evaluation from different processing routes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilisation of biomass such as wheat straws for the renewable energy production is an attractive option for agricultural diversifications and sustainability targets. One of the possible energy products from wheat straws is bioethanol. Since bioethanol could be produced from different ways, the issue arises on how to select the most economical one. In this paper, four processing routes to convert the wheat straws into bioethanol were screened; i) pelletisation and gasification, ii) torrefied pelletisation and gasification, iii) dilute acidic hydrolysis and fermentation, and iv) concentrated acidic hydrolysis and fermentation. The objective was to develop optimisation models to evaluate these routes as find the one that would produce the highest annual profitability by considering the whole supply chain. A mathematical model for optimisation, classified as linear programming, was then formulated to consider the biomass blending requirements and profitability equation. Optimisation results showed that the conversion of wheat straws into bioethanol could be potentially exploited via the torrefied pelletisation and gasification route as they gave the highest profitability of $489,330 per year, in the view of the whole supply chain. This was followed by concentrate acidic hydrolysis and fermentation route of $ 472,500 per year, dilute acidic hydrolysis and fermentation route of $402,750 per year, and pelletisation with gasification route of $388,530 per year. The developed optimisation models have been successfully screened and selected the best processing route to produce bioethanol from the evaluated profitability. Since this was at the conceptual stage, further refinement of the model parameters will be needed to provide a more practical basis for comparison.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".