Exergoeconomic Assessment of CHP-Integrated Biomass Upgrading

Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
Exergoeconomic assessment of CHP-integrated biomass upgrading

Thomas Kohl a,, Moises Teles b, Kristian Melin c, Timo Laukkanen a, Mika Jrvinen a, Song Won Park b,
Reinaldo Guidici b
a
Aalto University, School of Engineering, Dept. of Energy Technology, PO Box 14400, FI 00076 Aalto, Finland
University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
c
Aalto University, School of Chemical Technology, Dept. of Biotechnology and Chemical Technology, PO Box 16100, FI 00076 Aalto, Finland
b
h i g h l i g h t s
Process comparison of three CHP-integrated biomass upgrading processes.
Integration of biomass upgrading increases the exergetic efciency.
Integration of biomass upgrading decreases the plants fuel and product price dependency.
Fast pyrolysis integration is most protable followed by wood pellets.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 February 2015
Received in revised form 15 June 2015
Accepted 17 June 2015
Keywords:
Biomass
Combined heat and power (CHP)
Exergoeconomic analysis
Fast pyrolysis
Wood pellets
Wood torrefaction
a b s t r a c t
The objective of this work is to assess the exergoeconomic performance of three biomass upgrading
processes, namely wood pellets, torreed wood pellets and pyrolysis slurry (a mixture of pyrolysis char
and oil), integrated with a municipal combined heat and power plant. The work is a continuation of work
published earlier (Kohl et al., 2013) and the same simulation model results are used as input for the
calculation of the exergy ows within the system. Economic data of the assessed processes has been
obtained from the literature and has been combined with the exergy data following the specic exergy
costing approach in order to perform the exergoeconomic analysis. The highest exergy destruction is
caused in the combustion equipment, whereas the upgrading processes appear highly efcient. The systems exergetic efciency can be improved by 22%, 26% and 31% for the integration with pyrolysis slurry,
torreed wood pellets and wood pellets, respectively, making wood pellets the most efcient integration
option. However, the integration of pyrolysis slurry production yields the highest prot under the
projected price scenario. In addition it also reacts moderately on possible price uctuations as is shown
in a sensitivity analysis. Considering the generally acknowledged future technical potential of pyrolysis
products for replacing fossil oil-based products transport fuel production as well as the commonly
expected further price increase for fossil oil, pyrolysis slurry constitutes as the best option to be
integrated with the municipal combined heat and power plant.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It has been shown in our previous work [1] that integration of
wood- and torreed wood pellets as well as of fast pyrolysis slurry
has the potential to substantially improve the energetic and environmental performance of a municipal combined heat and power
(CHP) plant. The motivation for the accomplished study was to
point out potential pathways for municipal CHP plants to mitigate
the adjunct district heating (DH) networks CO2 emissions and, at
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 470 23628.

E-mail address: thomas.kohl@aalto. (T. Kohl).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.047
0306-2619/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the same time, also add a new product to the companys portfolio
allowing it to benet from the currently emerging bio-economy.
Recent research shows the growing interest in the mentioned
upgrading processes and their integration with CHP plants. The
torrefaction process and its economic feasibility have been discussed by Batidzirai et al. [2] and van der Stelt et al. [3]. Both
afrmed the improved fuel and transport properties of torreed
wood pellets (TWP) and stated good economic potential. Adams
et al. [4] compared wood pellets (WP) and TWP production when
produced in Norway and delivered to a power station in UK.
They concluded that the system based on TWP has a lower environmental impact but requires more harvesting area. Starfelt
et al. [5] studied the integration of TWP production, with a CHP
T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305
291
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
CELF
constant-escalation levelisation factor
CEPCI
chemical engineering plant cost index
CHP
combined heat and power
DH
district heating
DHEX
district heat exchanger
ECO
economiser
EVA
evaporator
FWT
feedwater treatment
HFO
heavy fuel oil
IC
installation cost
LHV
lower heating value
PEC
purchased equipment cost
PS
pyrolysis slurry
SH
superheater
SPECO
specic exergy cost
TOC
total onsite cost
TCI
total capital investment
TWP
torreed wood pellets
WP
wood pellets
Symbols
b
C
c
cp
E
e
e
EC
El.
f
h
i
j
price ination rate ()

cost stream (/h)
specic cost (/MW h)
heat capacity (kJ/kg K)
exergy (GW h)
exergy ux (kW)
specic exergy (kJ/kg)
equipment cost ()
electricity
exergoeconomic factor ()
specic enthalpy (kJ/kg)
interest rate ()
scaling factor ()
plant and found it economically feasible to replace the DH systems

coal demand by torrefaction char.
Fast pyrolysis, its energetic and exergetic efciency as well as
its economic feasibility is discussed in Refs. [69], among others.
Depending on feedstock and product denition, the exergetic
efciency of the biomass fast pyrolysis process was found to
vary widely between 52% and 94% [6,7]. Rogers and Brammer
[8] stated the production of bio-oil to be protable at the current
oil price level which is in line with the recent commissioning of
the CHP-integrated pyrolysis oil production plant in Joensuu,
Finland by Fortum [9]. For further upgrading of pyrolysis products Grling et al. suggested bio-methane synthesis [10]. More
general, Djuric Ilic et al. [11] found that when biofuel production
is integrated with DH generation, biofuels can be produced at
prices competitive with fossil transport fuels. However, Truong
and Gustavsson [12] pointed out feasibility challenges for CHP
generation in small- and medium-scale (below 100 MW hth) DH
networks. The importance of long operation hours for CHP plants
in order to be operated cost-effectively is mentioned in [13].
As shown in the previous work [1], the integration of the aforementioned upgrading processes has the potential to increase operation hours considerably and also revealed benets regarding
primary energy consumption and CO2 emissions. However, the
economic feasibility remained unproven and the gained results
k
l
n
m
p
q_
R
r
S
s
T
t
W
x
y
z
Z
b
process unit
factor used for calculation of the CELF
lifetime of the plant (y)
chemical component
pressure (Pa)
heat ux (kW)
gas constant (kJ/kg K)
relative cost difference (%)
characteristic dimension ()
specic entropy (J/kg K)
temperature (K)
operation time (h)
work (kW)
molar fraction ()
exergy destruction rate ()
mass fraction ()
z-factor, cost of unit operation (/h)
factor for biomass chemical exergy calculation
efciency ()
Subscripts
0
reference state (15 C, 1013 mbar)
D
destruction
E
evaporation
el
electrical
exe
exergetic
F
fuel according to the F and P rules
L
losses
P
product according to the F and P rules
ph
physical
rel
relative
S
sulphur
th
thermal
W
water
w
work
favoured integration of wood pellets regarding the energetic

efciency.
This work presents an exergoeconomic analysis based on the
very same simulation models as described previously [1]. By comparing the production costs with the potential income that can be
realised on the product market, the overall economic feasibility of
the integration concepts can be assessed. In addition the results of
the exergoeconomic analysis is compared to the results of the
energetic-environmental analysis. As a novelty in this paper the
exergetic analyses of the three biomass upgrading processes pelletising, torrefaction and fast pyrolysis are presented and compared to each other.
2. Methods and materials

All simulation data used in this study has been obtained from
the models as described in previous work [1]. The data was used
in order to compute the processes exergy balances and for equipment sizing prior to the estimation of the investment costs and
annuities. In the following sections the used simulation models
are briey described, the calculation of the exergy balances, the
investment cost estimation as well as the exergoeconomic analysis
are described.
292
Air blower and pre-heating
Boiler evaporator
Superheater 1
Superheater 2
14
Economiser
Turbine
District heat exchanger
Feedwater treatment
Flue gas
15
7
6 5
Power
8
Wet
Biomass
10
9
B
Wet Biomass
12
District
Heat
11
13
16
Water
Steam
Air
Air
17
Flue gas
23
1
2
3
4
5
Air Ambient
Air Boiler In
BM Boiler In
ECO Water Out
Steam EVA Out
6
7
8
9
Steam SH 2 In
Steam Turbine In
Turbine Exhaust
DH Return
10
11
12
13
DH Supply
DH Condensate
Turbine Bleed
ECO Water In
14
15
16
17
FG SH 1 In
FG SH 1 Out
FG Air pre-heater In
FG Air pre-heater Out
Fig. 1. Simplied process owsheet of the stand-alone CHP plant. The units as evaluated in the exergoeconomic analysis are highlighted in grey. Abbreviations:
ECO: Economiser, EVA: Evaporator, SH: Superheater, DH: District Heating, FG: Flue Gas.
Boiler evaporator
Superheater 1
Superheater 2
Economiser
Turbine
15
Flue gas
24
22
8
16
19
Power
6 5
Feedwater treatment
Dryer
Pelletising
23
3
WP
Wet Biomass
Steam
13
District
Heat
12
14
17
Wet
Biomass
Dried Biomass
Water
11
10
A
Air
1
18
Air
20
21
Flue gas
Wood Pellets
1
2
3
4
5
6
Air Ambient
Air Boiler In
BM Boiler In
ECO Water Out
Steam EVA Out
Steam SH 2 In
7
8
9
10
11
12
Live Steam
Steam Turbine In
Turbine Exhaust
DH Return
DH Supply
DH Condensate
13
14
15
16
17
18
Turbine Bleed
ECO Water In
FG SH 1 In
FG SH 1 Out
FG ECO Out
19
20
21
22
23
24
Steam Dryer In
Dryer Condensate Out
BM Dryer In
BM WP In
WP
FG Out
Fig. 2. Simplied process owsheet of the CHP plant integrated with WP production. The units as evaluated in the exergoeconomic analysis are highlighted in grey.
Abbreviations: ECO: Economiser, EVA: Evaporator, SH: Superheater, DH: District Heating, FG: Flue Gas, BM: Biomass, WP: Wood Pellets.
2.1. Description of the evaluated processes

In the following the assessed processes are described briey and
more detailed information can be obtained from previous work [1].
Simplied ow sheets of the processes are presented in Figs. 14
and also provide information (highlighted elds) on how the different components were grouped for the exergy analysis. In order to
consider the part-load behaviour of the power plant components
a multiperiod model is used in which the CHP plants total DH load
is described by two full load periods (differing in their DH temperature prole) and 5 isochronous part load periods. All integration
options allow for longer annual operation time and the time extension is represented by an additional subload period. For more
information on the multiperiod model please refer to Refs. [1,14].
2.1.1. Description of the stand-alone CHP plant (case CHP)
As can be observed from Fig. 1, the stand-alone CHP plant consists of a uidised bed boiler with evaporator (B) and superheater
293
Boiler evaporator
Superheater 1
Superheater 2
Economiser
Turbine
15
25
Feedwater treatment
Dryer
Torrefaction
16
22
Power
6 5
26
3
TWP
G
11
10
13
4
19
Wet
Biomass
17
18
Dried Biomass
Water
Steam
District
Heat
12
14
Wet Biomass
27
Flue gas
28
20
A
Air
1
21
Air
23
24
Flue gas
Torrefaction product
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Air Ambient
Air Boiler In
BM Boiler In
ECO Water Out
Steam EVA Out
Steam SH 2 In
Live Steam
Steam Turbine In
Turbine Exhaust
DH Return
DH Supply
DH Condensate
Turbine Bleed
ECO Water In
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
FG SH 1 In
FG SH 1 Out
FG TWP In
FG TWP Out
FG ECO Out
FG Air pre-heater In
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Steam Dryer In
BM Dryer In
BM TWP In
TWP
Torrefaction Gas
FG Out
Fig. 3. Simplied process owsheet of the CHP plant integrated with TWP production. The units as evaluated in the exergoeconomic analysis are highlighted in grey.
Abbreviations: ECO: Economiser, EVA: Evaporator, SH: Superheater, DH: District Heating, FG: Flue Gas, BM: Biomass, TWP: Torreed Wood Pellets.
Boiler evaporator
Superheater 1
Superheater 2
Economiser
Turbine
Feedwater treatment
25
C
17
Dryer and crusher
Pyrolysis
15
16
22
6 5
Power
19
26
27
Flue gas
28
18
Pyrolysis
Slurry
13
District
Heat
12
14
c
20
Wet
Biomass
A
1
Dried Biomass
11
10
B
2
Wet Biomass
21
Water
Air
Steam
23
24
Air
Flue gas
Pyrolysis Product
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Air Ambient
Air Boiler In
BM Boiler In
ECO Water Out
Steam EVA Out
Steam SH 2 In
Live Steam
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Steam Turbine In
Turbine Exhaust
DH Return
DH Supply
DH Condensate
Turbine Bleed
ECO Water In
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
FG SH 1 In
FG SH 1 Out
FG BFP In
FG BFP Out
FG ECO In
FG ECO Out
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Steam Dryer In
BM Dryer In
BM BFP In
Pyrolysis Slurry
Pyrolysis Gas
FG Out
Fig. 4. Simplied process owsheet of the CHP plant integrated with PS production. The units as evaluated in the exergoeconomic analysis are highlighted in grey.
Abbreviations: ECO: Economiser, EVA: Evaporator, SH: Superheater, DH: District Heating, FG: Flue Gas, BM: Biomass, BFP: Biomass Fast Pyrolysis.
(D) tubes in the boiler walls and in the freeboard, respectively.

Subsequently the hot ue gases leaving at 850 C exchange heat
within the rst superheater (C), the economiser (E) and the air
pre-heater (A) before they are emitted. For the CHP plant, design
data from literature has been used and all load points have been
calculated based on the simulation softwares implemented data

bases as explained in Ref. [14]. The live steam is expanded in a
steam turbine (F) with regulation stage and for feedwater
pre-heating - extraction to the feedwater tank (H) and enters the
DH exchanger (G) for condensation at load-dependent
294
temperatures. The fuel has been dened based on data obtained

from the Phyllis data base1. All input data used for the simulation
is given in Table 1 [1].
2.1.2. Description of the CHP plant integrated with wood pellets
production (case WP)
The integration of WP production is presented in Fig. 2. WP production requires drying to approximately 10% moisture content.
Therefore live steam is supplied to an indirect steam dryer (I, the
heat consumption was set to 3000 kJ/kg water evaporated). The
amount of steam available for drying is dened by the required
DH load. The boiler operates on higher loads than required by
the stand-alone CHP plant and the heat generated in excess is
shifted to the steam dryer. The ue gases leaving the air
pre-heater (A) are used as carrying medium in the dryer. If available, the latent heat of the ue gases is also used for drying. In continuation the dried biomass is milled, pressed and cooled (section
K). The power consumption of the added equipment has been estimated to 119 Wel/kWch of the chemical energy contained in the
wet wood (based on the LHV) that enters the process. This power
consumption is subtracted from the net power generation as calculated by the simulation software [1].
2.1.3. Description of the CHP plant integrated with torreed wood
pellets production (case TWP)
The integration of TWP production is presented in Fig. 3. In
addition to feedstock drying (nal moisture 15 wt.%) the production of TWP also requires a torrefaction reactor operating at
approximately 300 C which has been assumed to be of the
auger/screw type (section K). Residence time in the reactor has
been assumed to be 20 min. The heat required for the torrefaction
reaction has been estimated to 714 kJ/kg dried biomass based on
[15]. During the torrefaction the biomass is decomposed forming
char and gas. The gas is thought to be combusted in the biomass
boiler and thus its energy content is subtracted from the boiler
input. The reaction heat is extracted from the hot ue gases after
the economiser (E, temperature range 400460 C, outlet temperature: 265 C). Subsequent to the reactor the biomass is milled, pelletized and cooled to nally form TWPs (section K). The power
consumption of the added equipment has been estimated to
155 Wel/kWch of the chemical energy contained in the wet wood
(based on the LHV) that enters the process. This power consumption is subtracted from the net power generation as calculated by
the simulation software. The DH load is controlled in the same
way as described for the WP case, with the addition that heat for
drying is also extracted from the hot ue gases. The steam extraction and heat extraction from the ue gas have been iterated in a
way that there is just enough heat available for both, the drying
and the torrefaction reaction of the dried biomass [1].
2.1.4. Description of the CHP plant integrated with pyrolysis slurry
production (case PS)
The integration of pyrolysis slurry (PS, the mixture of pyrolysis
liquid and char) production is presented in Fig. 4. For PS production
the biomass is dried to a moisture content of 10 wt.%, milled (section I) and fed to the fast pyrolysis reactor where it is decomposed
at approximately 500 C in an inert atmosphere to form liquid, char
and gas. Heat is supplied by hot ue gases leaving the boiler at
850 C which are cooled down to 480 C. The heat for the pyrolysis
reaction was estimated as 1830 kJ/kg dried wood. For more details
on the BFP process and its technical implementation please refer to
Ref. [14]. The gas is thought to be co-combusted in the biomass
1
Phyllis is a service provided by the Energy Reseacrh Centre of the Netherlands
URL: http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis, accessed 17.9.2009 [selected subgroups: untreated
wood ? birch and r/pine/spruce].
boiler and thus its energy content is subtracted from the boiler
input. The power consumption of the added equipment has been
estimated to 123 Wel/kWch of the chemical energy contained in
the wet wood (based on the LHV) that enters the process. This
power consumption is subtracted from the net power generation
as calculated by the simulation software. In continuation, char
and gas are separated with a hot cyclone and the liquid fraction
is condensed with a spray cooler applying cooled pyrolysis oil (section K). In order to avoid ageing, liquid and char are stored separately and are only mixed prior to transport, forming PS [1,14].
2.2. Exergy analysis
Although energy is always conserved in any process, its useful
part (exergy) is not conserved due to the existence of irreversible
phenomena, such as heat transfer with nite temperature gradient,
mixing, chemical reactions and expansion. These irreversibilities
can be identied and quantied by exergy analysis, which takes
into account the entropy generated. Exergy analysis can reveal
the margin available to design more efcient energy conversion
systems. Although the maximum efciency in energy conversion
systems corresponds to an ideal process (no entropy generation
and reversibility), all real processes are, to some extent, entropy
generators. Exergy analysis can point out how far from ideality a
process is, and thus, indicate the potential for improvements.
2.2.1. Exergy balance calculations
For material streams, there are two main components of
exergy: physical and chemical (neglecting kinetic and gravitational
portion). The former takes into account the departure of the system
from environmental temperature and pressure (T0, p0), while the
chemical exergy takes into account the differences between the
systems chemical composition and the standard chemical composition of the environment. For each process stream, the specic
physical and chemical exergy values (kJ/kg) were calculated as
follows:
Steam and water
Physical exergy:
eph hp; T hp0 ; T 0 T 0 sp; T sp0 ; T 0 ;
where h and s are the specic enthalpy and entropy, respectively,

evaluated at present (p, T) and at reference (p0, T0) state. The reference state was set as 15 C and 1.013 bar respectively.
Chemical exergy: The standard chemical exergy of water is taken
from literature: 9.5 kJ/mol and 0.9 kJ/mol for gas and liquid state,
respectively [16].
Flue gases, air, torrefaction and pyrolysis gas mixtures
Physical exergy:
eph cp T T 0 T 0 cp lnT=T 0 Rlnp=p0 ;
where the heat capacity of the mixture (cp) is estimated using:
cp
X
xm cp;m T
and the heat capacity of each component in the gas mixture

(cp,m(T)) is calculated using the conventional polynomial correlations with temperature. The term xm describes the molar fraction
of the component m in the gas mixture.
Chemical exergy: For a mixture of gases, the chemical exergy is
computed from the chemical exergy of each component in the mixture minus the exergy destroyed due to the mixing process:
ech
X
m
xm ech;m RT 0
X
xm lnxm
m
295

Table 1
Wood fuel properties and CHP plant design data (M: moisture).
Wood fuel properties
Ultimate analysis: dry basis (wt.%)
CHP plant design data

C
H
O
N
S
50.64
6.1
42.22
0.16
0.08
Ash
M
0.8
50
LHV (MJ/kg)
7.89
The standard chemical exergy of each gaseous component (ech,m) is

obtained from Ref. [17].
Biomass
Physical exergy: If the biomass is at a temperature higher than
the environment, also its physical exergy must be computed. The
heat capacity of biomass was calculated with a constant value of
1.4 kJ/kg K and the physical exergy can then be estimated according to Eq. (1).
Chemical exergy: According to Szargut et al. [16], the chemical
exergy of biomass can be computed from its lower heating value
(LHV) according to Eq. (5):
ech LHV hE zW b eS LHV zs eash zash eW

zW
Power output
Condenser pressure
5.21 MWel
1.55 bar
DH return temp.
83 C
EC new EC old Snew =Sold j ;
where ECnew is the cost of the scaled equipment, ECold is the known
cost, j is the scaling factor and Snew/Sold is the ratio of two characteristic equipment dimensions. In the case of power plants either
power output or fuel input is used as characteristic dimension
and the scaling factor was set to 0.6. Applying Eq. (8) on both characteristic dimensions the cost can estimated to be between 25.6 M
and 28.9 M at 2008 prices. With the CEPCI (Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index) known prices of a reference year 1 can be adjusted
to prices of reference year 2 according to Eq. (10):
EC year1 EC year2 CEPCIyear1 =CEPCIyear2
1:0412 0:216zH2 =zC 0:2499zO2 =zC 1 0:7884zH2 =zC 0:045zN2 =zC

1 0:3035zO2 =zC
6
This correlation is suitable for cases where the oxygen/carbon ratio

is lower or equal to 2.67 and has an average error of 1.5%. In the
present study, the chemical exergy of ashes (eash) was neglected.
Heat and power
The exergy associated to the non-material streams leaving and
entering the processes (heat and power) are also computed in the
exergy balance.
Heat: The maximum amount of exergy/work that can be
obtained by a heat ux q_ is computed from the Carnot factor,
according to Eq. (7), where T represents the average temperature
in which the heat transfer occurs:
_ T 0 =T
e_ heat q1
24.7 MWch
16.5 MWth
60 bar/510 C
110 C
where hE represents the enthalpy of vaporization of water, zW is the

moisture of biomass, eS, eash and eW are the chemical exergy of
sulphur, ashes and water, respectively. The factor b is the ratio of
the chemical exergy to the LHV of the organic fraction of biomass
and it can be computed from the ultimate analysis according to
the following correlation [16]:
b
Fuel input
DH output
Live steam
DH supply temp.
Power: Work is equivalent to exergy. Thus, the power consumption

in blowers and pumps, the auxiliary power consumption in the dryers, reactors, milling, pelletizing, cooler, cyclone and mixers and the
work performed in the turbine stages are included in the exergy
balances.
2.3. Investment cost
Investment cost for the CHP plant
The total capital investment (TCI) costs of the power plant have
been estimated based on a power plant recently built in the city of
Kerava, Finland. The plant in question has a thermal capacity of
81 MWch and generates 21 MWth, 10 MWth and 48 MWel of power,
process steam and DH, respectively. The TCI of the Kerava plant
was approximately 65 M [18].
Applying the so-called six-tenth rule the cost of the smaller unit
describing the base case can be calculated as follows:
Under consideration of the CEPCI the TCI in 2013 prices was set to
26 M. Therefore the calculated equipment cost considers the inuence of ination and price escalation. In order to determine the
detailed equipment cost, the single equipment units cost contributions have been adapted from AC Caputo et al. [19]. The boiler cost
has been broken down to costs for the evaporator, the superheaters,
the economizer and the air pre-heater by rating them with the
transferred heat in the specic unit. The cost for efuent treatment
has been distributed to the other equipment based on the weighted
average of their cost contribution. By that the purchased equipment
cost (PEC) were calculated to represent 39% of the TCI. All costs as
used in the following are given in Table 2.
Investment cost for WP, TWP and PS
TCI costs calculations for production of WP, TWP and PS were
carried out by rst sizing the equipment. The equipment was
designed for the maximum ow rate, typically reached at 70%
DH-load. The owrate through the upgrading equipment increases
at constant boiler load since more heat needs to be utilised in the
upgrading equipment in order to match the DH load. The condensate leaving the steam tube dryer is rejected to the feedwater tank
and for high dryer loads this would drive the feedwater beyond the
saturation point. Thus, at loads below 70%, the boiler load must be
decreased in order to avoid the saturation state in the feedwater
tank (please see [1] for more details). For the sizing, no overdesign
was included in the equipment design. After sizing the equipment,
the PEC for a specic unit was extracted from references. If needed,
an exchange rate of 1.35 US $/ was used. All costing details including the used references can be found in Tables 3ac. If the PEC for
the required capacity was not directly available from the literature
source the PEC was scaled applying Eq. (8). The scaling factors are
given in Tables 3a3c. In order to determine the total onsite costs
(TOC), installation cost factors have been estimated to range from
10% to 25% based on the purchased equipment cost. All prices and
costs have been adjusted to 2013 values by applying the CEPCI (see
Eq. (9)). The CEPCI of the reference year 2013 is 567.6.
As no detailed cost data for the processes described is available,
it has been assumed that the TOC represent 35% of the TCI costs
which is a typical value for chemical plant design [20]. In order
to consider start-up cost and the costs for connecting the CHP plant
with the upgrading equipment 10% of the TCI costs was added as
contingency.
296
Table 2
Investment cost calculation for CHP plantb.
Cost position
Investment cost (k)
Biomass pre-treatment
Evaporator
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Economiser
Air pre-heater
Turbine and alternator
DH exchanger
Feedwater system
% of PEC
677.0
2649.5
644.6
433.7
1060.8
1236.1
2116.0
912.0
481.7
6.6
25.9
6.3
4.2
10.4
12.1
20.7
8.9
4.7
PEC
Installation
Piping
Instrumentation
Electrical
Civil works
Land
Service facilities
Engineering
Start up
10211.4
3063.4
919.9
1021.1
2432.2
3552.6
1021.1
1531.7
1225.4
1021.1
30.0
9.0
10.0
23.8
34.8
10.0
15.0
12.0
10.0
TCI
26000.0
CELF 1 l =1 l 1 i =1 i 1;
11
with
l 1 b=1 i
2.4. Exergoeconomic analysis

Exergoeconomic analysis allows the calculation of production
cost for multi-product processes. The so-called specic exergy
costing (SPECO) approach as described in Ref. [24] was applied. It
allows the allocation of cost and exergy destruction once the fuel
and product of each considered process component is dened.
More detailed information on exergy costing in general can be
obtained from the literature, e.g. [25]. In general, exergoeconomic
analysis divides process total cost in costs of the process material
stream and equipment cost (so-called Z-factors). The exergy cost
balance of one process unit on an hourly basis can be written as:
destruction will be charged to the products. In turn, this means that

the specic costs of all fuel ows remains unchanged. The denition
of fuel and product for all process units as presented in Figs. 14
and marked with capital letters are given in Table A1 in Appendix
A. Exergy loss costs that are accounted at the system boundaries
will be allocated to the products weighted with their exergy
content.
The SPECO analysis is calculated based on the annual levelised
cost approach. Therefore all cost positions as mentioned in
Tables 3a3c have been multiplied with the annuity factor in order
to determine the annual levelised cost . Fixed cost annuties have
been calculated by multiplication with the constant-escalation
levelisation factor (CELF), thus considering price ination as well
as price escalation. The lifetime of the investment is 20 years.
The CELF is calculated according to Eq. (11):
cout e_ out k cw Wk cheat e_ heat k
cin e_ in k Z_ k :
10
Comparable to the energy balance, it describes that the sum of all

(exergy-) cost streams entering the unit k and the appropriate cost
for unit operation Zk (i.e. capital invest, operation and maintenance)
equals the sum of all cost streams (material and work) leaving unit
k. Following the F and P rules as dened by Lazzaretto and
Tsataronis [24], it is clearly dened that for every exergy stream
that undergoes some change/conversion in a specic equipment
unit the specic equipment cost is charged to the product ow.
This means that for all equipment units, so-called fuel and product
streams need to be dened; in the case of multiple products, all product ows will be charged with the same specic cost. In total, all
additional costs required for unit operation and/or caused by exergy
12
where i is the interest rate and b the general ination. Based on

recent statistic data for Finland [26], i and b were set conservatively
to 6% and 2%, respectively. With this data the CELF was calculated to
1.19. With the CELF, the annuities for the CHP and the upgrading
equipment can be calculated by multiplying the TCI with the CELF
and dividing by the lifetime of the plant (20 years). In addition,
for plant operation, the yearly maintenance cost was assumed to
be 1.5% of the xed capital invest. The personnel cost for the CHP
plant has been estimated at 3 shifts per day with each of them
requiring 6 persons (3 for fuel handling and 3 for plant operation).
The yearly man salary was estimated at 30,000 /year and a salary
overhead and administration overhead was added at 1.5 and 1.3,
respectively [24]. For the operation of the upgrading equipment,
the personnel cost has been estimated at 3 shifts per day at with
each of them requiring 5 person for TWP and PS and requiring 2
persons for WP. In all cases 2 persons would be needed for fuel handling and 2 or 3 for operating the equipment. The yearly man salary,
the personnel and administration overhead was estimated with the
same assumptions as given above.
With this information the annual equipment cost (Z-value) that
is required for the exergoeconomic assessment was calculated by
multiplying the annual operation cost of the plant (annuity,
maintenance- and personnel cost) with the equipment cost share
of each process unit. For the upgrading equipment, the drying process consist of the biomass silo, the conveyor and the steam tube
dryer, whereas all other cost positions have been allocated to pelletising, torrefaction and fast pyrolysis, respectively. The calculated
Z values are given in Tables A2A5 in the Appendix B.
Table 3a
Investment cost calculation for WP.
Equipment
Silo
Belt conveyor
Crusher
Steam tube dryer
Mill
Belt conveyor
Pelletiser
Blower
Belt conveyor
Silo
Capacity
3
2100 m
15.73 t/h
15.73 t/h
15.73 t/h
8.75 t/h
8.75 t/h
8.75 t/h
8.75 t/h
1050 m3
Scaling factor s
Reference year
PEC (k)
IC (% PEC)
CEPCI
TOCa (k)
Ref.
NA
NA
0.65
0.58
NA
NA
0.61
NA
NA
NA
2006
1991
2013
2011
2013
1991
2013
1991
1991
2006
1573.2
59.3
109.2
1134.8
76.7
37.0
1521.5
22.2
37.0
194.4
10
25
10
10
10
25
10
10
25
10
499.6
361.3
567.6
585.7
567.6
361.3
567.6
361.3
361.3
499.6
1966.1
116.4
120.2
1209.7
84.4
72.7
1673.7
38.4
72.7
243.0
[21]
[20]
[2]
[22]
[2]
[20]
[2]
[20]
[20]
[21]
Sum TOC
TCI
a
TOC = PEC * (1 + IC) * CEPCI2013/CEPCIRef.year.
5597.2
17591.1
297

Table 3b
Investment cost calculation for TWP.
Equipment
Silo
Belt conveyor
Crusher
Steam tube dryer
Belt conveyor
Torrecation reactor
Mill
Pelletiser
Blower
Belt conveyor
Silo
Capacity
3
2070 m
15.52 t/h
15.52 t/h
15.52 t/h
9.11 t/h
9.11 t/h
8.07 t/h
8.07 t/h
8.07 t/h3
830 m3
Scaling factor s
Reference Year
PEC [k]
IC (% PEC)
CEPCI
TOCa (k)
Ref.
NA
NA
0.65
0.58
NA
NA
0.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
2006
1991
2013
2011
1991
2013
2013
2013
1991
1991
2006
1551.6
58.4
108.3
1076.9
59.3
5931.9
72.5
1448.1
22.2
37.0
207.5
10
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
10
499.6
361.3
567.6
585.7
361.3
567.6
567.6
567.6
361.3
361.3
499.6
1939.1
114.8
119.1
1148.0
102.4
6525.1
79.7
1592.9
38.4
72.7
259.3
[21]
[20]
[2]
[22]
[20]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[20]
[20]
[21]
Sum TOC
TCI
a
11991.5
37687.5
Table 3c
Investment cost calculation for PS.
Equipment
Silo
Belt conveyor
Crusher
Steam tube dryer
Belt conveyor
Mill
Pyrolysis reactor
Quench
Colloid mixer
Tank and silo
Capacity
3
1800 m
13.72 t/h
13.72 t/h
13.72 t/h
7.63 t/h
7.63 t/h
7.63 t/h
6.58 t/h
5.5 m3/h
430 m3
Scaling factor f
Reference year
PEC (k)
IC (% PEC)
CEPCI
TOCa (k)
Ref.
NA
NA
0.65
0.58
NA
0.65
0.7
0.7
NA
NA
2006
1991
2013
2011
1991
2013
2003
2003
1990
2006
1371.6
51.7
99.9
1048.0
37.0
68.3
1244.0
506.1
711.5
1148.0
10
25
10
10
499.6
361.3
567.6
585.7
10
10
10
15
10
567.6
402
402
357.6
499.6
1714.1
101.5
109.9
1117.2
72.7
75.1
2718.3
1105.1
27.0
370.2
[21]
[20]
[2]
[22]
[20]
[2]
[23]
[23]
[20]
[21]
Sum TOC
TCI
a
7411.1
23292.1
Different prices and escalation rates can be expected for the different products power, DH, WP, TWP and PS, respectively, and also
for the wood fuel. It is assumed that TWP and PS can be sold at the
same price per thermal unit as coal and heavy fuel oil (HFO),
respectively. In order to estimate the price development of wood,
WP, coal and HFO over the investment period, the historical price
development in Finland based on data available from Statistics
Finland [26] and the Finnish Customs [27] has been used.
Likewise common practise in the energy business, the price
increase rate of the different fuels has been recorded and has been
averaged over the available data history. This average price
increase rate has been used for future price projection for the years
20142032 applying a linear correlation. Based on that, the average price over the whole investment period (comparable to the
annuity) was used in the economic assessment. All input data used,
as well as the estimated time-averaged future commodities unit
price is presented in Table 4 and further information is given in
the following:
Power: It is assumed that the power produced can be sold
locally and hence the Finnish yearly average net prices
(obtained from Ref. [26], excluding all taxes and charges) for
private users (provided in 4 different categories based on the
users total annual consumption) were averaged for the years
20042013. Based on this data the average price increase over
this 10 years period was calculated and used for price
projection.
DH: It is assumed that all heat produced can be sold to small
private consumers and hence the Finnish yearly average net
prices (obtained from Ref. [26], excluding all taxes and charges)
for private users (provided in 5 different categories after 2010
Table 4
Price projection for energy commodities.
Price in 2013
(/MW hch)
Data availability (y)
Average annual price
increase (%)
Projected average price
during investment
period (/MW hch)
Power
DH
Wood
chips
WP
TWP/Coal
PS/HFO
92.3
61.3
20.7
57.0
40.4
60.5
10
1.47
10
1.65
7
1.78
6
1.09
10
1.74
10
1.84
137.0
89.3
32.6
72.3
62.4
95.7
in three based on the users total annual consumption) were

averaged for the years 20042013. Based on this data the average price increase over this 10 years period was calculated and
used for price projection.
Wood chips/fuel: Statistical data of wood chips net price development in Finland is available for the years 20072013 [26] and
was used in order to calculate the average annual price increase
rate. This rate has been used for future price projection.
WP: Statistical data of the WP net price development in Finland
is available for the years 20082013 [26] and was used in order
to calculate the average annual price increase rate. The rate has
been used for future price projection. Please note that the average price increase for WP was found to be considerably smaller
than the one for wood chips which needs to be carefully considered in the discussion of the results.
TWP: It is assumed that TWP is sold as a replacement for hard
coal and that it can be sold at the same price per thermal unit.
Data can be obtained from Ref. [26] for the years 20042013. It
298
is further assumed that no CO2 tax (84.43 /tonne in 2013)

needs to be paid for TWP and the price has been adjusted
accordingly with this tax rate.
PS: It is assumed that PS is sold as a replacement for HFO and
that it could be sold at the same price per thermal unit.
Statistical data on the HFO price history for the years 2004
2013 has been obtained from Ref. [27]. The prices have been
adjusted to be free of CO2 taxes (113.4 /tonne).
Fig. 5 presents the recorded and projected price development
for the commodities considered.
After the determination of the annual fuel and operating cost,
the actual exergoeconomic analysis is carried out based on the
yearly averaged operation data. Therefore the operation data for
the different load periods (see [1]) have been summed up and
hourly average values have been calculated. It is important to
understand that the units analysed differ in their operation time.
The power plant equipment is in operation during the whole operation time, whereas the dryer and upgrading equipment is only in
operation when the CHP plant does not supply the full DH load of
16.5 MWth. Depending on the equipments operation time the
denominator for the cost ux operation varies and thus the nominal values. For instance, in all integrated cases the ue gas leaving
the air-preheater during full load operation is by-passed to the
stack, whereas in part load operation those are led through the
dryer as carrying and heating medium. In order to formulate the
cost balances the time domain needs to be considered accordingly.
All data used for such calculation is summarised in Tables A2A5 in
the appendix. With the data the following gures of merit were
calculated and used for process assessment according to [25].
The exergetic efciency of each process (combustion, drying,
turbine stages, etc.) and the overall exergetic efciency of the
plant has been calculated according.
gexe EP =EF
13
The denition of products and fuels was obtained from Lazzaretto

and Tsatsaronis [24] and is presented in Table A1.
The annual exergy destruction for a process unit can be
expressed as:
ED Ein Eout EL
180
160
140
120
/MWh
100
80
60
40
20
0
2004
2008
2012
Wood Chips
Wood Pellets
15
yD is calculated with the data given in Tables A2A5 and by applying the F and P rule as dened in Table A1.
Accordingly, using the same data as for the exergy destruction
rate, the relative rate of exergy destruction is calculated according to Eq. (16). It describes the exergy destruction in process
unit relative to the total exergy destruction of the process.
16
The specic fuel costs are calculated with the data in

Tables A1A5 according to
cfuel C fuel t=EF
2024
2028
2032
Power
Torrefied Wood Pellets
District Heat
Pyrolysis Slurry
Fig. 5. Price history and projection of applicable energy commodities. Continuous

line: statistical price data; dotted line: projected prices.
The specic product costs, cproduct, are calculated in the same manner according to Eq. (17).
In order to estimate the cost of exergy destruction the values of
annual exergy destruction are multiplied with the fuel cost as
presented in Eq. (18).
C D;k ED;k cfuel
18
In the same manner the cost for exergy losses, CL, can be determined. In here, losses have been accounted only for the ue gas
leaving the stack.
The so-called r-factor describes the relative cost difference
between fuel and product according to:
r cproduct cfuel =cproduct
19
Thus, it reects the equipment cost factor Z as well as the exergetic

efciency or destruction, respectively. By applying the F and P rules
according to [24] all cost resulting from required equipment and
exergy destruction are allocated to the product which increases
its price.
Finally, the factor f is called the exergoeconomic factor and
describes the ratio of the equipment cost to the cost of exergy
destruction and loss according to
f Z=Z C D C L
Based on the value for the annual exergy destruction, the exergy
destruction per unit and for the whole process can be calculated
according to Eq. (15).
yD;rel;k ED;k =ED;total
2020
Year
14
The main characteristic of Eq. (14) is its non-conservative nature.

In other words, in a real process, although mass and energy are
conserved, their usefulness (exergy) is not.
yD;k ED;k =EF;k
2016
17
20
The factor f has to be understood as a relative gure that describes

whether it is worth to optimise the unit for higher efciency at the
detriment of higher cost. High values indicate that a cheaper less
efcient component could be used in order to achieve lower total
processing costs. Vice versa for low values the equipments efciency should be improved at higher unit costs.
3. Results and discussion

The following Tables 5a5d show the results of the exergoeconomic analysis based on the annually accumulated data. Regarding
the electricity generation (El.) it can be clearly seen that the integrated processes increase the turbines output considerably by
1013% due to the increased annual operation time. On the other
hand it decreases the net electricity output by 2.68.7% due to
the electricity demand of the additionally installed equipment.
299

Table 5a
CHP plant exergoeconomic analysis.
A: Pre-heat
B: EVA
C: SH 1
D: SH 2
E: ECO
F: Turbine
G: DHEX
H: FWT
Overall
El. (GW hel)
CEl. (/h)
Z (/h)
gE (%)
ED (GW h)
yD (%)
yDrel (%)
cfuel (/MW h)
cproduct (/MW h)
CD (/h)
CD + Z (/h)
r (%)
f (%)
0.19
23.3
0.25
22.9
6.0
781
8.4
767
67
144
24
35
57
115
49
26
517
72.8
28.6
60.8
37.0
46.9
82.0
84.5
89.5
24.2
3.7
60.2
4.4
8.7
8.9
5.1
2.4
0.1
93.6
27.2
71.4
39.2
63.0
53.1
18.0
15.5
5.5
62.7
4.0
64.4
4.7
9.4
9.5
5.5
2.6
0.1
100.0
32
30
30
30
30
117
118
171
25
81
134
66
115
137
173
287
914
174
23
352
26
51
52
117
57
2
461
90
496
49
86
109
232
106
28
1197
156
352
123
286
361
48
142
436
595
53
58
66
63
68
66
65
93
72
Z (/h)
gE (%)
ED (GW h)
yD (%)
yDrel (%)
cfuel (/MW h)
cproduct (/MW h)
CD (/h)
CD + Z (/h)
r (%)
f (%)
57
122
20
30
49
97
42
22
314
201
954
73.7
28.6
61.3
36.7
47.6
81.1
83.1
86.7
93.6
98.0
54.9
4.7
78.1
5.6
11.4
11.2
6.0
2.9
0.2
7.1
2.9
130.1
26.7
71.4
38.7
63.3
52.4
18.9
16.9
7.1
4.8
2.1
40.6
3.6
60.0
4.3
8.8
8.6
4.6
2.3
0.1
5.5
2.2
100.0
31
29
29
29
29
110
110
165
31
43
25
69
122
62
111
139
161
265
1163
42
49
58
23
356
26
52
51
103
51
4
34
19
511
80
478
46
82
100
201
93
27
348
221
1673
125
318
112
282
376
46
141
607
36
15
133
50
57
64
61
66
66
65
86
81
92
77
Table 5b
WP plant exergoeconomic analysis.
El. (GW hel)
A: Pre-heat
B: EVA
C: SH 1
D: SH 2
E: ECO
F: Turbine
G: DHEX
H: FWT
I: Dryer
K: Pellets
Overall
CEl. (/h)
0.25
6.2
25.7
0.34
0.63
2.89
21.6
646
8.9
29.7
71.5
530
Table 5c
TWP plant exergoeconomic analysis.
A: Pre-heat
B: EVA
C: SH 1
D: SH 2
E: ECO
F: Turbine
G: DHEX
H: FWT
I: Dryer
K: TWP
Overall
El. (GW hel)
CEl. (/h)
Z (/h)
gE (%)
ED (GW h)
yD (%)
yDrel (%)
cfuel (/MW h)
cproduct (/MW h)
CD (/h)
CD + Z (/h)
r (%)
f (%)
0.26
26.0
0.35
0.57
3.95
20.9
6.3
657
9.1
28.0
91.1
522
56
119
20
29
48
95
41
22
253
660
1343
73.8
27.8
61.9
35.4
47.7
81.0
82.6
91.1
93.9
94.9
50.1
4.1
80.9
5.7
11.9
11.6
6.1
3.1
0.1
6.6
7.4
137.5
26.2
72.2
38.1
64.6
52.3
19.0
17.4
4.7
4.5
5.1
42.3
3.0
58.8
4.2
8.7
8.5
4.4
2.2
0.1
4.8
5.4
100.0
32
30
31
30
30
115
114
172
31
42
26
77
135
63
115
129
167
273
880
41
65
68
20
374
27
55
54
107
53
3
31
48
543
76
494
46
84
102
202
94
25
284
708
2115
139
342
107
279
324
46
140
412
31
52
160
50
57
63
60
65
65
64
89
77
94
80
Table 5d
PS plant exergoeconomic analysis.
A: Pre-heat
B: EVA
C: SH 1
D: SH 2
E: ECO
F: Turbine
G: DHEX
H: FWT
I: Dryer
K: PS
Overall
El. (GW hel)
CEl. (/h)
Z (/h)
gE (%)
ED (GW h)
yD (%)
yDrel (%)
cfuel (/MW h)
cproduct (/MW h)
CD (/h)
CD + Z (/h)
r (%)
f (%)
0.26
26.3
0.36
1.42
1.99
22.3
5.9
633
9.1
67.6
43.4
507
53
114
19
28
46
91
39
21
238
342
991
73.7
28.0
48.7
43.0
48.6
80.4
82.4
89.9
93.0
89.8
46.0
4.6
87.3
6.7
11.3
10.2
6.4
3.2
0.1
8.6
14.5
153.0
26.3
72.0
51.3
57.0
51.4
19.6
17.6
5.3
6.1
10.2
46.0
3.0
57.0
4.4
7.4
6.7
4.2
2.1
0.1
5.6
9.5
100.0
32
30
30
30
30
116
115
178
33
46
26
74
132
83
94
139
171
274
945
44
61
66
21
378
29
49
44
106
52
3
40
94
568
75
492
47
77
90
197
91
24
279
436
1808
130
335
174
207
358
46
138
431
33
34
152
48
57
62
61
67
65
64
88
75
82
76
Abbreviations: EVA: Evaporator, SH: Superheater, ECO: Economiser, DHEX: district heat exchanger, FWT: feedwater treatment, TWP: torreed wood pellets, PS: pyrolysis
slurry,
Represented by the Z-value it can be observed that the integration has a strong inuence on the plants TCI. The cost per operation hour is highest for TWP as a result of the expensive
torrefaction reactor which results from the large size (due to the
long residence of 20 min) and, to some extent, also from the less
operation hours when compared to PS.
The overall exergetic efciency can be increased considerably

from 24% to 55%, 50% and 46% for WP, TWP and PS, respectively.
This clearly reveals the high exergetic efciency of the additional
processes (equipment I and K) which are usually well over 90%.
Comparably high exergetic efciencies for the torrefaction and
the fast pyrolysis process have been reported in Refs. [7,28]. The
300
high efciencies can be linked to two main reasons. First, the used
biomass fuel is broken down chemically to a much less extent as
when combusted. In the case of WP, no chemical reaction occurs
which basically conserves the chemical exergy. Second, the process
temperatures are much lower than for combustion which means
that less high temperature heat is converted to low-temperature
heat as it is the case in the boiler. This heat quality conversion
from high- to low-temperature naturally decreases the exergetic
efciency as it does decrease the Carnot efciency of the cycle.
This fact is also represented by the exergy destruction rates yD
and yDrel, which represent the exergy destruction in each unit
and relative to the whole process, respectively. For the CHP plant,
the evaporator and the superheater 2 which are both situated in
the combustion boiler show very high rates of exergy destruction.
In general, the units destruction rates yD, with the exemption of
the superheater 1 in the PS case, do not show signicant changes
which can be interpreted as a sign that the integration does not
hamper the plant operability. In the PS case the superheater 1
experiences heavily reduced mass ows which decrease the heat
exchanger efciency. The effect of the integration on the CHP
plants process parameters has been discussed in more detail in
previous work [1]. The relative exergy destruction yDrel for the different units is reduced slightly as a result of the additional (small)
exergy destruction within the additional equipment.
The specic fuel costs, cfuel, do not show large variations. The
same accounts for the specic product costs cproduct. For all integrated cases the specic cost for electricity increase somewhat,
but the specic cost for DH can be reduced by 7.7%, 4.9% and
4.5%, respectively. The obviously high prices for the product of
the feedwater treatment block can be related to the denition of
product and fuel in that unit as shown in Table A1. The product
is the increase in exergy which is achieved by pump work, steam
extraction and dryer condensate recovery of which the rst two
fuels have a high price. In addition the equipment cost (Z) is also
rather high for the small change in exergy that is achieved. The
overall product cost for the integrated cases are naturally lower
due to the high amount of exergy in the products which can also
be seen in the overall efciencies.
The values of the cost of exergy destruction, CD, do not differ
much among the different cases and are highest for the boiler
(evaporator and superheater 2) and the turbine. Compared to
those, the CD of the new equipment (I and K) appears moderate
and, regarding the value, reects inversely the exergetic efciency
of the upgrading processes. For the integration, the higher overall
cost of exergy destruction can be explained simply by the fact that
more fuel is handled in the plant and thus also more exergy is
destructed.
The factor r decribes the relative cost difference between fuel
and product. It also considers the equipment cost factor Z as well
as the exergetic efciency or destruction. According to the the F
and P rules, all cost resulting from required equipment and exergy
destruction are allocated to the product and increase its price.
This means that, for instance in the case of the evaporator all
exergy losses and the equipment cost are charged to the generated
steam which explains the high relative cost difference. Despite the
high equipment costs, the upgrading processes clearly benet from
the exergetic efciencies achieved.
The exergoeconomic factor f and describes the ratio of the
equipment cost (Z) to the cost of exergy destruction (CD) and loss
(CL). As a relative gure of merit it gives an indication whether it
is worth to optimise the unit for higher efciency at the detriment
of higher cost. High values indicate that a cheaper less efcient
component could be used in order to achieve lower total processing costs. Vice versa for low values the equipments efciency
should be improved at higher unit costs. Different equipment has
different optimal values as can be found for e.g. in Ref. [25].
Compared to those values, the CHP plant equipment (AF) is well

in range of the typical values, but the results indicate that for the
upgrading equipment cheaper, less efcient equipment could be
used. However, typical values for dryers, etc. could not be found
in the open literature. The steam tube dryer that is suggested in
this work could likely be replaced with a more efcient direct
back-pressure steam dryer. This would further increase the energetic and exergetic efciency of the plant. Given the already relatively high cost of a steam tube dryer, only a small inuence on
the plant economics can be anticipated when a direct
back-pressure steam dryer would be applied. However, the latter
technology will require wastewater treatment, due to the aromatic
compounds the water will be contaminated with. Nevertheless, the
inuence of other dryer concepts on the plant performance should
be studied in the future.
In summary, it can be concluded that also the exergetic analysis
indicates that WP production is favourable compared to TWP and
PS. The only remarkable difference appears in the calculation of
the exergetic efciency and here integrated WP production performs clearly best as it could already be shown in the primary
energy efciency assessment in Ref. [1]. Thus, the exergy analysis
provides more insight into the sources of exergy destruction and
especially in combination with the economic data the exergoeconomic data enhances the understanding of cost ows and centres
within the plant. Further the factors r and f reveal the points on
which further optimisation should focus on.
However, those results do not yet give the full knowledge
required in order to base an investment or development continuation decision on. As the exergoeconomic analysis yields production
costs for all products allocated based on their exergy content, those
can be easily compared with the potential turnover that can be
obtained on the product markets. Those results are presented in
Table 6. The results are based on the projected future average price
as explained in Section 2.4. As a result of the increased operation
hours the operation costs of CHP plant increase by 15%, 17% and
22% for WP, TWP and PS, respectively. Also as a result of the operation hours the annual fuel costs increase. Naturally the cost for
the upgrading equipment varies based on the investment cost,
the linked operation cost and the throughput-dependent fuel cost.
The overall annual values are roughly double for the integrated
cases, but interestingly vary only by 4.6% and 11.4% between WP
and PS and WP and TWP, respectively. Based on the TCI of the
upgrading equipment, higher variations could have been expected,
but the results undermine the high importance of the fuel costs
which is a common nding for biomass processing plants.
Comparing the exergy-allocated production unit cost with the
market prices shows that power generation has a negative prot
margin, whereas DH, WP and PS appear always positive i.e. profitable. The production of TWP is not viable from an exergoeconomic perspective due to the projected low prices and slow price
development of coal. Product markets for PS and TWP are currently
far from being established and thus the values used in this analysis
only give a rough estimation. However, in the opinion of the
authors, the assumption that TWP and PS could be sold at the same
price per thermal unit (/MW h) as their fossil competitors (coal
and heavy fuel oil) constitutes a most neutral and objective manner. TWP are a premium product since the usage of TWP is considered carbonneutral and TWP can replace fossil coal to 100%
without modication of existing coal-red boilers. Thus, the fact
that the TWP price is estimated to be lower than the price of WP
might appear peculiar. However, this relates to the price of coal,
which has been traded at lower prices than WP. It must be pointed
out that coal price has been corrected with the Finnish carbon tax,
i.e. the price projected is carbon tax-free as TWP originate from
biogenic raw material). In the price estimation the trend of coal
being traded cheaper than WP is assumed to continue in the future.

Table 6
Cost- and mass balance and plant protability; annual values.
Payment CHP plant (M)

Operation cost CHP (M)
Fuel cost CHP (M)
Fuel ow (kt)
Payment upgrading (M)
Operation cost Upgrading (M)
Fuel cost Upgrading (M)
Fuel ow upgrading (kt)
Overall production cost (M)
Power production cost (/MW hel)
DH production cost (/MW hth)
Bio-product Production cost (/MW hch)
Power generation (energy) (GW hel)
DH generation (energy) (GW hth)
Bio-product generation (energy)
(GW hch)
Bio-product ow (kt)
Wood chips market price (/MW h)
Power market price (/MW hel)
DH market price (/MW hth)
Bio-product market price (/MW h)
Power turnover (M)
DH turnover (M)
Bio-product Turnover (M)
Total turnover
Total prot (M)
Total prot (M) 30% of DH turnover for
piping
CHP
WP
TWP
PS
1.54
1.27
3.48
48.7
6.30
178.57
31.26
22.9
70.8
1.54
1.46
4.51
63.1
1.04
0.99
3.51
49.2
13.05
173.67
28.35
57.66
21.6
79.6
122.3
1.54
1.49
4.49
62.9
2.24
1.54
3.44
48.1
14.73
184.36
29.30
73.25
20.9
80.6
116.4
1.54
1.55
4.66
65.2
1.38
1.28
3.27
45.7
13.68
178.22
29.39
70.55
22.3
82.8
103.2
32.60
137.00
89.30
3.13
6.33
9.46
3.16
1.26
29.0
32.60
137.00
89.30
72.30
2.96
7.11
8.84
18.90
5.85
3.72
22.4
32.60
137.00
89.30
62.40
2.86
7.20
7.26
17.32
2.59
0.43
21.7
32.60
137.00
89.30
95.70
3.05
7.40
9.88
20.32
6.64
4.42
One reason for that the higher price of WP might be that WP are
not a typical fuel for medium- to large sized biomass power plants
in Finland and Sweden. They usually use wood chips as a fuel,
which is much cheaper. WP are sold rather to small-scale applications and private customers that are subjected to higher prices.
Energy companies might be willing to pay a higher price if they
were compensated for instance by means of the European emission
trading system.
In summary, integration of WP and PS increase the yearly prot
by 85% and 110%, respectively. The protability calculated as the
ration of revenues to prot can be almost doubled for WP and
PS. The integration of TWP is found to not increase the prot due
to high investment costs and the low coal price. For the sake of
completeness, results are also presented for the case that the plant
owner would need to pay a transmission fee for construction and
maintenance of the DH network. A value of 30% of the DH turnover
has been assumed reasonable. However, transmissions losses have
been neglected. Then prots are certainly lower.
Regarding the price development it can be calculated that the
PS-integrated systems will provide the same prot as WP when
the average price over the investment period is assumed to be
88.06 /MW hch and is the same as for TWP if assumed to be
56.43 /MW hch. This corresponds with the PS price being 8% and
42% lower than projected. In turn, in order to make TWP competitive with, the cost of using coal as fuel (thereby considering the
actual fuel and the cost for the emission trading certicates) would
need to be as high 97.22 /MW hth, which is a 48% higher price
than projected in this work.
As could be observed, the results presented above are heavily
dependent on the price assumptions and hence the projected fuel
and product market prices have been varied independently by
50%. As a matter of fact also the TCI cost, especially for the
upgrading bear a high amount uncertainty and have been varied
as well. The results are presented in Fig. 6.
All cases show that the dependency on the electricity market
price is minor when compared to the variation of DH and
bio-product
prices,
respectively.
Prot
variations
are
301
approximately 50% for the CHP plant but can be reduced to

23% for the PS plant, which makes it clearly less dependent on
the development of the electricity prices.
Dependency on the DH price is generally high, but possible
prot variations can be decreased by 39 percentage points and
44 percentage points for WP- and PS-integration, respectively.
Due to the negative prot margin of TWP, the plant is extremely
sensitive on DH price variations.
The prot of the integrated systems naturally depends more on
the bio-product prices, than on the DH prices since they constitute
the major products. PS and WP prot change reacts more distinct
by 14- and 18 percentage points when compared to changes of
the DH price. The TWP (Fig. 6c) system reacts with the same sensitivity on bio-product and DH price changes which means that
the lines are completely overlapping.
Regarding the investment costs it can be seen that for the
stand-alone CHP plant, the prot varies by 25% at 50% variation
of the investment cost. For the integrated options the cost of the
CHP was kept constant and only the upgrading equipments price
has been varied. It can be seen that TWP reacts most sensitive
due to high FCI and low prot margins. It has been calculated that
even at zero equipment cost the calculated prot of TWP would
neither reach the WP nor PS. If the PS equipment was 44% more
expensive than the prot would be same as for the WP case. In
general, at constant CHP plant investment costs, the inuence of
the PS and WP equipment investment cost on the plant protability is rather small.
For increased fuel prices, it can be seen (Fig. 6) that the integrated systems react more sensitively, mainly due to the higher
amount of fuel used in the processes. Except for the highly sensitive TWP case, compared to the CHP case, WP and PS react moderately on the increase of the wood chip price considering the 2.3
times higher fuel consumption. PS is a bit more sensitive on the
fuel price variation as the change of the bio-product costs has a
greater inuence on the prot margin.
It can be concluded that the integration of WP and PS reduces
the uncertainty and the risk of the plant operation considerably.
On the other hand it must be considered that the DH market,
due to its local nature and high infrastructure cost that restricts
possibilities for market liberalisation, can be considered quite
stable and price variations are less likely than e.g. on the very volatile oil market. As mentioned in Section 2.4., the prices for WP
increased only moderate compared to wood chip prices. This price
difference denes the potential prot margin from input to product, and if a steeper price increase occurs, also the WP
price-prot dependency might become more benecial.
Summarising it can be stated, that the integration of PS with a
municipal CHP plant bears the potential for the highest protability under the assumed future market scenario. Production of WP
seems to be second-most protable option. Replacement of coal
through production of TWP is penalised with high investment
and a low fuel-product prot margin.
Interestingly, it appears that the least efcient (exergetically
and energetically) process has the potential to be most protable
due to steep price increase expected for HFO. It needs to be mentioned that char-removal from the PS would yield a product that
might be comparable to light fuel oil which is traded at a much
higher price but could be produced only at smaller volume. In addition PS and pyrolysis oil form an interesting interstage product for
further upgrading towards transport fuel either by de-oxygenation
or gasication and FischerTropsch synthesis which could further
raise market demand and price as soon as technical and political
barriers have overcome and 2nd generation biofuels will enter
the transport fuel market. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that
all products discussed can be produced at competitive prices under
current tax and subsidy regimes.
302
(b) Sensitivity Analysis WP
160%
160%
120%
120%
Change Yearly Profit
(a) Sensitivity Analysis CHP
80%
40%
0%
-40%
-80%
-120%
-160%
-50%
80%
40%
0%
-40%
-80%
-120%
-25%
0%
25%
-160%
-50%
50%
-25%
Price variation
Variation Power Price
Variation Feedstock Price
Variation DH Price
Variation Investment Cost

25%
50%
Variation DH Price
Variation WP Price
(d) Sensitivity Analysis PS
160%
160%
120%
120%
(c) Sensitivity Analysis TWP
80%
40%
0%
-40%
-80%
80%
40%
0%
-40%
-80%
-120%
-120%
-160%
-50%
0%
Price variation
-25%
0%
25%
50%
-160%
-50%
-25%

Variation DH Price
0%
25%
50%
Price Variation
Price Variation
Variation TWP Price
Variation DH Price
Variation PS Price
Fig. 6. Inuence of investment cost and fuel and product market price on the plant prot.
4. Conclusions
An exergoeconomic analysis has been carried out for the integration of WP, TWP and PS with a CHP plant. The results are compared to the CHP stand-alone plant and among each other. The
integration causes the annual cost to rise considerably.
The highest investment is required for the TWP integration and
is mainly caused by the large reactor volume required due to the
long residence time of approximately 20 min. Results also show
that for all cases the gross electricity generation can be increased
by 1013% due to longer operation hours, but that the net power
output decreases by 2.68.7% due to the additionally installed
equipment.
The combustion process in the boiler and the ue gaswater
heat exchangers cause the highest rates of exergy destruction.
This can be attributed to the high rate of irreversible chemical
break-down in the combustion and also to the heat exchange from
hot ue gas to the moderate-tempered steam. Conversely, the integrated processes show very low rates of exergy destruction which
results in high exergetic efciencies. The total systems exergetic
efciencies show, compared to the stand-alone CHP plant, that
those can be improved substantially from 24% to 55%, 50% and
46% for WP, TWP and PS, respectively. This is well in line with
results gained by a primary energy efciency assessment carried
out previously [1].
In order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the systems
studied, future prices for fuel and products were projected based
on historical price data. The economic results reveal that the
investment and operation cost only provide a relatively small share
on the total annual production cost; i.e. all systems are fuel-cost
dominated. Based on the cost allocation based on the exergy content of the products it has been shown that electricity and TWP
production generation has a negative prot margin, but that this

is balanced out by the other products DH and WP or PS,
respectively. With the projected future prices PS integration
allows for the highest prot which is 2.1 times higher
than for the stand-alone plant. WP integration is calculated
to yield 12% less prot than PS, whereas TWP reduces the prot
of the strand-alone CHP plant by 18%. If a transmission fee of
30% of DH turnover is assumed PS gives a 3.5 times higher
prot than the stand-alone CHP plant and performs 16% better
than WP.
Those ndings point out the importance of the assumed
product and fuel market prices and investment costs and consequently a sensitivity study has been carried out in where those
have been varied individually by 50%. It could be shown that
the integration of WP and PS decrease the dependency on the
power and heat market price.
Even though being the least efcient upgrading technology,
with moderate investment cost and a high future potential at high
bio-oil demand and price, PS integration constitutes the best
option from an economical perspective. Based on the results, the
integration of TWP production cannot be recommended.
Acknowledgements
This work is jointly funded by Finnish Academy (Grant No.
268222) and CNPq(Br)/AKA(Fi) International Call N.30/2012
Grant 490245/2012-9. The nancial support of Ekokem OY is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A
See Table A1.
303
Z-values/annual equipment cost (k)

Evaporator
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Economiser
Air pre-heater
Turbine
DH exchanger
FW treatment
Annual plant operation cost
x4 = 0.859
e_ 20 e_ 21 El:
x4 (e2 e15 e17 + e3)
e15 e16
(1 x4) (e2 e15 e17 + e3)
e19 e20
e8 e9 e13
e9 e12
El. + e13 + e23
e22 e23 + e21 e28 + e24 + El.
e17 e18a + El. + e25
e_ 2 e_ 1
e5 e4
e6 e5
e7 e6
e4 e14
El.
e11 e10
e14 e12
e25
e26 + e27
Table A2
Stand-alone CHP plant: annual Z-values, exergy- and cost uxes.
Stream data
Stream no.
1. Air ambient
2. Air boiler in
3. Biomass boiler in
4. Economiser water out
5. Steam evaporator out
6. Steam superheater 2 in
7. Live steam
8. Turbine exhaust
9. DH return water
10. DH supply water
11. Condensate out
12. Turbine bleed
13. Economiser water in
14. FG Superheater 1 in
15. FG Superheater 1 out
16. FG air pre-heater in
17. FG air pre-heater out
x3 = 0.8589
x2 = 0.8587
x1 = 0.8585
For TWP and PS, the losses due to re-mixing of stream 18 with the main ue gas ow has been accounted for in section K.
a
e_ 20 e_ 21 El:
x3 e_ 2 e_ 15 e_ 3
e15 e16
(1 x3) (e2 e15 + e3)
e16 e19
e8 e9 e13
e9 e12
El. + e13 + e23
e22 e23 + e21 e28 + e24 + El.
e17 e18a + El. + e25
e_ 17 e_ 18 El:
x2 e_ 2 e_ 15 e_ 3
e15 e16
(1 x2) (e2 e15 + e3)
e16 e17
e8 e9 e13
e9 e12
El. + e13 + e20
e19 e20 + e18 e24 + e21 + El.
El. + e22
A: Air pre-heating
B: EVA
C: SH 1
D: SH 2
E: ECO
F: Turbine
G: DH Exchanger
H: FWT
I: dryer
K: Upgrading
e_ 16 e_ 17 El:
x1 e_ 2 e_ 14 e_ 3
e14 e15
(1 x1) (e2 e14 + e3)
e15 e16
e7 e8 e12
e8 e11
El. + e12
e_ 2 e_ 1
e_ 5 e_ 4
e6 e5
e7 e6
e4 e13
El.
e10 e9
e13 e11
e_ 2 e_ 1
e_ 5 e_ 4
e6 e5
e7 e6
e4 e14
El.
e11 e10
e14 e12
e22
e23
e_ 2 e_ 1
e_ 5 e_ 4
e6 e5
e7 e6
e4 e14
El.
e11 e10
e14 e12
e25
e26 + e27
P
PS
F
P
F
P
TWP
WP
F
P
F
CHP
Flowsheet section
Table A1
Denition of fuel (F) and product (P) according to (Lazzareto) for the process units. Please refer to Figs. 14. e_ i denotes the exergy ux of the stream i and El. stands for power. The variable xi describes the amount of the combustion heat
transferred in the boiler that is utilised for evaporation. The remaining heat is used for superheating (1 xi).
186.71
730.67
177.77
119.61
292.53
340.89
583.55
251.51
132.84
2816.08
Operation time
(h)
Exergy ux
(GW h/y)
Cost ux
(/h)
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
5088
0.37
10.28
138.83
9.71
33.81
40.67
45.82
17.09
10.62
23.88
1.40
0.31
1.90
50.90
39.62
22.95
9.51
151.42
720.48
229.01
865.61
955.16
1071.35
397.71
414.87
32.28
7.18
73.98
297.66
231.62
134.08
55.61
Table A3
CHP plant integrated with WP production: annual Z-values, exergy- and cost uxes.
Evaporator
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Economiser
Air pre-heater
Turbine
DH exchanger
FW treatment
Dryer
Pelletising
Stream data
Stream no.
1. Air ambient
2. Air boiler in
7. Live steam
8. Steam turbine in
9. Turbine exhaust
10. DH return water
11. DH supply water
12. Condensate out
13. Turbine bleed
198.97
778.65
189.44
127.46
311.74
363.27
621.86
268.03
141.56
1239.19
793.46
2033.36
Operation time
(h)
Exergy ux
(GW h/y)
Cost ux
(/h)
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
6384
0.30
13.50
179.82
12.88
44.20
53.10
59.71
50.82
18.92
10.88
25.31
1.55
0.19
2.69
143.48
737.07
221.24
841.42
927.48
1039.13
877.07
325.55
341.02
26.51
3.15
74.88
(continued on next page)
304
Table A3 (continued)
Stream data
Stream no.
15. FG Superheater 1 in
16. FG superheater 1 out
17. FG economiser out
18a. FG dryer in
18b. FG to stack at full load
19. Steam dryer in
20. Dryer condensate
20a. Time domain 1
21. Biomass dryer in
22. Biomass WP in
23. Wood pellets
24. FG out wet
24a. Dryer dry fg out
24b. Dryer wet fg Out
Table A5
CHP plant integrated with PS production: annual Z-values, exergy- and cost uxes.
Operation time
(h)
Exergy ux
(GW h/y)
Cost ux
(/h)
6384
6384
6384
6384
3944
6384
3944
3944
6384
3944
3944
3944
6384
3944
3944
65.94
51.44
30.04
12.37
6.81
5.56
8.89
0.78
0.78
140.16
139.78
139.78
11.90
6.33
8.81
300.35
234.26
136.74
56.34
50.50
65.78
262.33
22.97
14.19
890.60
1477.42
1750.06
103.32
65.35
46.98
Table A4
CHP plant integrated with TWP production: annual Z-values, exergy- and cost uxes.
Evaporator
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Economiser
Air pre-heater
Turbine
DH exchanger
FW treatment
Dryer
Torrefaction
Stream data
Stream no.
1. Air ambient
2. Air boiler in
7. Live steam
8. Steam turbine in
9. Turbine exhaust
10. DH return water
11. DH supply water
12. Condensate out
13. Turbine bleed
15. FG superheater 1 in
17. FG torrefaction in
18. FG torrefaction out
21a. FG dryer in
21b. FG to stack at full load
22. Steam dryer in
23a. Time domain 1
25. Biomass torrefaction in
26. Torreed wood pellets
27. Torrefaction gas
28. FG out wet
28a. Dryer dry FG out
28b. Dryer wet FG out
200.79
785.75
191.17
128.62
314.58
366.59
627.53
270.47
142.85
1045.36
2729.30
6803.02
Operation
time (h)
Exergy ux
(GW h/y)
Cost ux
(/h)
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
4136
4136
6576
6576
6576
4136
2440
4136
4136
6576
4136
4136
4136
4136
6576
4136
4136
0.27
11.85
187.32
13.31
44.50
53.80
60.32
51.45
19.14
11.74
25.43
1.51
0.19
2.70
68.69
53.67
8.10
4.43
31.41
27.74
12.29
6.73
5.56
8.87
0.77
0.77
137.22
136.88
129.40
7.69
14.72
6.81
9.16
132.70
789.30
225.77
863.91
953.19
1067.44
895.62
331.15
346.41
25.87
3.16
74.73
318.17
248.45
62.70
34.35
145.24
127.41
56.74
51.51
65.61
273.19
23.68
14.89
831.42
1361.04
2020.35
120.04
57.14
52.15
38.73

Evaporator
Superheater 2
Superheater 1
Economiser
Air pre-heater
Turbine
DH exchanger
FW treatment
Dryer
Fast pyrolysis
Annual plant operation
cost
Stream data
Stream no.
1. Air ambient
2. Air boiler in
7. Live steam
8. Steam turbine in
9. Turbine exhaust
10. DH return water
11. DH supply water
12. Condensate out
13. Turbine bleed
15. FG superheater 1 in
17. FG pyrolysis in
17a. Time domain 1
18. FG pyrolysis out
21a. FG dryer in
21b. FG to stack during
full load
22. Steam dryer in
23a. Dryer condensate
25. Biomass pyrolysis in
26. Pyrolysis slurry
27. Pyrolysis gas
28. FG out wet
28a. Dryer dry FG out
28b. Dryer wet fg out
205.10
802.63
195.27
131.39
321.34
374.46
641.01
276.28
145.92
1093.79
1570.38
5757.58
Operation time
(h)
Exergy ux
(GW h/y)
Cost ux
(/h)
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
7032
4592
7032
4592
7032
7032
7032
4592
2440
0.29
13.30
201.91
12.36
46.32
52.67
61.23
52.46
19.53
10.89
25.72
1.54
0.20
2.75
54.37
41.34
19.63
19.63
9.21
50.55
30.77
13.37
7.81
5.56
134.10
797.86
203.63
842.92
917.48
1031.44
864.38
319.20
333.68
24.81
3.05
72.73
231.39
175.52
136.65
89.23
65.18
218.08
132.87
57.97
54.08
65.29
4592
4592
7032
4592
4592
4592
4592
7032
4592
4592
8.77
0.79
0.79
130.41
130.06
115.76
12.20
14.57
7.72
9.00
255.83
23.05
15.05
711.73
1250.85
1544.92
162.79
57.61
53.53
45.90
Appendix B
In the following Tables A2A5, the Z-values, the exergy uxes
and cost uxes that form the input to exergy and
exergy-economic analysis are presented. It is important to understand that the units analysed differ in their operation time. The
power plant equipment is in operation during the whole operation
time (time domain 1) whereas the dryer and upgrading equipment
(sections I and K in Figs. 14) is only in operation when the CHP
plant does not supply the full DH load of 16.5 MW (time domain
2). Depending on the time domain the denominator for the cost ux
operation varies and thus the nominal values. For instance, in all
integrated cases the ue gas leaving the air-preheater during full
load operation is by-passed to the stack, whereas in part load operation those are led through the dryer as carrying and heating medium. In order to formulate the cost balances the time domain needs
to be considered accordingly. For the sake of visual clarity, the
by-pass of the dryer has not been illustrated in Figs. 14. For the
dryer efciency calculation the enthalpy difference of the dry ue
gas has been considered and hence those values are given as well.
References
[1] Kohl T, Laukkanen T, Jrvinen M, Fogelholm CJ. Energetic and environmental
performance of three biomass upgrading processes integrated with a CHP
plant. Appl Energy 2013;107:12434.
[2] Batidzirai B, Mignot APR, Schakel WB, Junginger HM, Faaij APC. Biomass
torrefaction technology: Techno-economic status and future prospects. Energy
2013;62:196214.
[3] van der Stelt MJC, Gerhauser H, Kiel JHA, Ptasinski KJ. Biomass upgrading by
torrefaction for the production of biofuels: a review. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35:374862.
[4] Adams PWR, Shirley JEJ, McManus MC. Comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of wood pellet production with torrefaction. Appl Energy
2015;135:36780.
[5] Starfelt F, Aparicio ET, Li H, Dotzauer E. Integration of torrefaction in CHP
plants a case study. Energy Convers Manage 2015;90:42735.
[6] Peters JF, Petrakopoulou F, Dufour J. Exergetic analysis of a fast pyrolysis
process for bio-oil prodcution. Fuel Proc Technol 2014;119:24555.
[7] Boateng AA, Mullen CA, Osgood-Jacobs L, Carlson P, Macken N. Mass balance,
energy, and exergy analysis of bio-oil production by fast pyrolysis. J Energy Res
Technol 2012;134(4):19.
[8] Rogers JG, Brammer JG. Estimation of the production cost of fast pyrolysis biooil. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;36:20817.
[9] Fortums Bio-oil plant commissioned in Joensuu - rst of its kind in the world;
2013. <http://www.fortum.com/en/mediaroom/pages/fortums-bio-oil-plantcommissioned-in-joensuu-rst-of-its-kind-in-the-world.aspx>
[Cited
01.30.2015].
[10] Grling M, Larsson M, Alvfors P. Bio-methane via fast pyrolysis of biomass.
Appl Energy 2013;112:4407.
[11] Djuric Ilic D, Dotzauer E, Trygg L, Broman G. Integration of biofuel production
into district heating Part I: An evaluation of biofuel production costs using
four types of biofuel production plants as case studies. J Cleaner Prod
2014;69:17487.
[12] Truong NL, Gustavsson L. Cost and primary energy efciency of small-scale
district heating systems. Appl Energy 2014;130:41927.
[13] Sartor K, Quoilin S, Dewallef P. Simulation and optimization of a CHP biomass
plant and district heating network. Appl Energy 2014;130:47483.
305
[14] Kohl T, Laukkanen T, Jrvinen M. Integration of biomass fast pyrolysis and

precedent feedstock steam drying with a municipal combined heat and power
plant. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;71:41330.
[15] Bergman PCA, Boersman AR, Zwart RWR, Kiel JHA. Torrefaction for biomass coring in existing coal-red power stations Biocoal. Petten (NL), Energy
Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN); 2005 [Jul. Report No.:
ECN-C-05-013].
[16] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and
metallurgical processes. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1988.
[17] Liu Y, Aziz M, Fushimi C, Kansha Y, et al. Exergy analysis of biomass drying
based on self-heat recuperation technology and its application to industry: a
simulation and experimental study. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51:999710007.
[18] Tekniikka & Talous. Accessed 15.12.2014; 2008 <http://www.tekniikkatalous.
/energia/keravan+biovoimalaitos+sai+peruskiven/a119018>.
[19] Caputo AC, Palumbo M, Pelagagge PM, Scacchia F. Economics of biomass
energy utilization in combustion and gasications plants: effects of logistic
variables. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28:3551.
[20] Peters MS, Timmerhouse KD. Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers. fourth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991 [p. 525, 531, 570].
[21] Hurme M. Process design manual. Otaniemi 2008. Online material. <https://
noppa.aalto./noppa/kurssi/ke-107.5500/materiaali/KE-107_5500_process_
design_manual.pdf> [accessed 15.12.14].
[22] Brammer JG, Bridgewater AV. Drying Technologies for an integrated
gasication bio-energy plant. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 1999;4V3:24389.
[23] Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a
technology assessment and economic analysis. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL); 2006 [Nov. Technical Report No. NREL/TP-510-37779].
[24] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efciencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy
2006;31:125789.
[25] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design & optimization. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1996.
[26] Statistics Finland. Energy prices. Online database; 2014. <http://193.166.171.
75/database/statn/ene/ehi/ehi_en.asp> [cited 30.11.14].
[27] Tulli Customs. Foreign trade statistics. Online database; 2014. [cited
15.12.14]. CN groups: 27101951, 27101955, 27101961, 27101962,
27101963, 27101964, 27101965, 27101968, 27101969, 27102031,
27102035, 27102039. <http://uljas.tulli./>.
[28] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. More efcient biomass gasication via
torrefaction. Energy 2005;31:345870.

Exergoeconomic Assessment of CHP-Integrated Biomass Upgrading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exergoeconomic Assessment of CHP-Integrated Biomass Upgrading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Exergoeconomic assessment of CHP-integrated biomass upgrading

Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 470 23628.

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

price ination rate ()

plant and found it economically feasible to replace the DH systems

favoured integration of wood pellets regarding the energetic

2. Methods and materials

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

Air blower and pre-heating

District heat exchanger

Air blower and pre-heating

District heat exchanger

2.1. Description of the evaluated processes

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

Air blower and pre-heating

District heat exchanger

Air blower and pre-heating

District heat exchanger

Dryer and crusher

(D) tubes in the boiler walls and in the freeboard, respectively.

calculated based on the simulation softwares implemented data

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

temperatures. The fuel has been dened based on data obtained

eph hp; T hp0 ; T 0 T 0 sp; T sp0 ; T 0 ;

where h and s are the specic enthalpy and entropy, respectively,

eph cp T T 0 T 0 cp lnT=T 0 Rlnp=p0 ;

where the heat capacity of the mixture (cp) is estimated using:

and the heat capacity of each component in the gas mixture

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

CHP plant design data

The standard chemical exergy of each gaseous component (ech,m) is

ech LHV hE  zW  b eS LHV  zs eash  zash eW

EC new EC old  Snew =Sold j ;

EC year1 EC year2  CEPCIyear1 =CEPCIyear2

1:0412 0:216zH2 =zC 0:2499zO2 =zC 1 0:7884zH2 =zC 0:045zN2 =zC

This correlation is suitable for cases where the oxygen/carbon ratio

where hE represents the enthalpy of vaporization of water, zW is the

Power: Work is equivalent to exergy. Thus, the power consumption

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

Investment cost (k)

2.4. Exergoeconomic analysis

destruction will be charged to the products. In turn, this means that

cout e_ out k cw  Wk cheat  e_ heat k

Comparable to the energy balance, it describes that the sum of all

where i is the interest rate and b the general ination. Based on

TOC = PEC * (1 + IC) * CEPCI2013/CEPCIRef.year.

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

TOC = PEC * (1 + IC) * CEPCI2013/CEPCIRef.year.

TOC = PEC * (1 + IC) * CEPCI2013/CEPCIRef.year.

in three based on the users total annual consumption) were

T. Kohl et al. / Applied Energy 156 (2015) 290305

is further assumed that no CO2 tax (84.43 /tonne in 2013)

The denition of products and fuels was obtained from Lazzaretto

The specic fuel costs are calculated with the data in

cfuel C fuel  t=EF

Fig. 5. Price history and projection of applicable energy commodities. Continuous

C D;k ED;k  cfuel

r cproduct cfuel =cproduct

Thus, it reects the equipment cost factor Z as well as the exergetic

yD;rel;k ED;k =ED;total

The main characteristic of Eq. (14) is its non-conservative nature.

yD;k ED;k =EF;k

ech LHV hE zW b eS LHV zs eash zash eW

EC new EC old Snew =Sold j ;

EC year1 EC year2 CEPCIyear1 =CEPCIyear2

cout e_ out k cw Wk cheat e_ heat k

cfuel C fuel t=EF

C D;k ED;k cfuel