Techno-economic analysis of torrefied fuel pellet production from agricultural residue via integrated torrefaction and pelletization process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Torrefied pellets have gained more commercial importance due to their excellent performance in combustion, co-firing and gasification. The present investigation provides a conceptual design for torrefied fuel pellets production via combined torrefaction and pelletization technologies with and without additives. The entire design contains torrefaction unit, grinding, preparation of pellet formulation, pelletizing, and finally cooling of pellets. Two scenarios, scenario 1 (pelletization of torrefied biomass with additives) and scenario 2 (pelletization of torrefied biomass without any external additives) were tested and compared. The economic analysis suggests that both scenarios are profitable. Both scenarios were simulated using Aspen plus™, and economic feasibility was estimated using a complete cash flow analysis for a base case plant with 40,080 tonne/y capacity. For both cases, a discounted cash flow is a useful tool for estimating the minimal selling price for torrefied pellets as well as the capital investment, production cost and operating costs. The cost of the reactor used for torrefaction was found to be the most important component of combined torrefaction and pelletization system. The lowest selling price of generated torrefied pellets was found to be $103.4 and $105.1 per tonne at the plant gate for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Sensitivity analysis shows that, among all variable costs, labor cost has the highest influence on both net present value (NPV) and minimum selling price (MSP) in making pellets for both the scenarios. Furthermore, the internal rate of return was found to be25% and 22% at 10% discounted cash flow rate for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The framework that was created was found to lessen over-dependence on wood or fossil fuels and facilitate the promotion of bioenergy in rural areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".