Term paper CHL103

Submitted by Ayan Agrawal(2012BB50013) and Abhay

Tanksali(2012BB50003)
on
Optimal Planning of a Biomass conversion system considering Economic and
Environmental aspects(term paper originally published in Journal of Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research).
Abstract: This term paper presents a multiobjective optimization model based on a
mathematical programming formulation for the optimal planning of a biorefinery, considering
the optimal selection of feedstock, processing technology, and a set of products. The
multi-objective optimization problem simultaneously considers the profit maximization and the
environmental impact minimization. The economic objective function takes into account the
availability of bioresources, processing limits, and demand of products, as well as the costs of
feedstocks, products, and processing routes. On the other hand, the environmental
assessment includes the overall environmental impact measured through the eco-indicator-99
based on the life cycle analysis methodology.
Introduction:This term paper has tried solving this issue of optimizing: for a set of m
feedstocks, getting converted to k products forming b different by-products through r different
routes, and there are more than one options or routes to get the required product. Thus every
route has a different efficiency associated with it which has to be analysed and also the
efficiency of feedstock to byproduct is identified as conversion factors().

Mass Balances: Formulations involve non-linearities and hence create non-convex problems.
So now, since mass is conserved, we associate mass balance with an efficiency factor for
each processing technology, which indirectly linearizes the mass balance problem. There are
many routes and type of feedstock and also types of products and byproducts formed, and all
these factors decide the number of equations. For the main product k produced from the raw
material m, through route r, the mass balance can be stated as follows,
Pkmr =kmr Fkmr , k K, m M, r R

(1)

where Pkmr & Fkmr are the flow rates of products and raw materials, respectively.
For byproduct b yielded when product k is produced from raw material m through route r, the
following material balance is required
Bkmr = xFkmr , k K,m M, r R

(2)

where x is the conversion factor for the amount of byproduct b produced when bioresource m
is
processed through route r to produce main product k.

Maximum Available Raw Materials:

kr Fmmax, m M

(3)

where Fmaxm is the maximum amount available for bioresource m and is a parameter known
prior to the optimization process.
Maximum Products Demand:
mr Pkmr Pmaxk , k K
Maximum Processing Limits:

(4)

Pkmr Pmaxkmr , k K, m M, r R

(5)

Objective Function:
Objective function = [max profit; min EI]

(6)

The main aim of this function is to maximize the total profit and minimise the environmental
effects. Here Profit=total revenue-cost of production, EI(Environmental impact) is with respect
to use of bioresources, use of products, and processing. There exist different routes through
which this process can take place and we also can observe two extremes. One, maximum
gain will lead us to maximum environmental impact and minimum environmental impact will
lead to less profit and hence we need to find a midway to find an optimum way to produce so
as get best of both worlds, which is where pareto optimization solutions comes into picture.
Economic Objective: The economic objective function is formulated in terms of the total
annual profit. This function takes into account the costs of feedstocks, products, byproducts,
and
processing routes and is stated as follows
Profit = kmr Pkmr Ckvalue + kmr bBkmrbCbvalue - kmr Fkmr Cmcost - kmr Pkmr Ckmr processing(7)
In the profit objective function, the processing cost component includes the overall operating
and annualized capital costs associated with processing. The operating cost involves the
associated cost of the chemical supplies (besides the main feedstock), energy and other
utilities consumed during processing, as well as labor, supervision, lab charges, royalties,
catalyst, solvents, taxes,
and insurance. The annualized capital costs refer to the annualized investment of the required
facilities. Usually these processing costs follow nonlinear relationships to account for the
economies of scale; however, under the given limits these processing costs can be linearized
and become directly proportional to the product obtained.
Environmental Objective: The environmental assessment includes the overall
environmental impact measured through the eco-indicator-99 based on the life cycle analysis
methodology.
The eco-indicator-99 is based on the life cycle analysis methodology and takes into account
11 impact categories, which are classified into three main damage categories. These
categories
and subcategories are as follows:
1 Damage to the human health
1.1 Carcinogenic effects on humans
1.2 Respiratory effects on humans caused by organic substances
1.3 Respiratory effects on human caused by inorganic substances
1.4 Human health effects caused by ionizing radiation

1.5 Human health effects caused by ozone layer depletion

1.6 Damages to human health caused by climate change
2 Damage to the ecosystem quality
2.1 Damage to the ecosystem quality caused by ecotoxic emissions
2.2 Damage to the ecosystem quality caused by the combined effects of acidification
and eutrophication
2.3 Damage to the ecosystem quality caused by land occupation and land conversion
3 Damage to the resources
3.1 Damage to the resources caused by extraction of minerals
3.2 Damage to the resources caused by extraction of fossil fuels
There are three different perspectives to determine the eco-indicator-99 (i.e., hierarchical,
egalitarian, and individualist), and each one has its weight for each damage category. In the
hierarchical perspective the elected time is large and the substances are included if there is a
consensus with respect to their effect. In the hierarchical perspective it is assumed that
damage can be avoided using good actions.With respect to the fossil fuels, there is the
assumption that they cannot be easily replaced. In the egalitarian perspective the time elected
is large. The substances are included if there is no indication about their effect. In the
egalitarian perspective, damage cannot be avoided and catastrophic effects can be
produced.With regard to fossil fuels, the assumption that they cannot be substituted is
considered. In the individualist perspective, the elected time is short (100 years or less) and
the substances are included if they have a possible effect. In the individualist perspective it is
assumed that the damages are subject to changes because of technological improvements.
For the case of fossil fuels, it is assumed that the fossil fuels cannot be exhausted. The
hierarchical perspective is the one used in the proposed methodology because it allows
replacing the fossil fuels in a reasonable time.
EI = kmr Fkmr eco-indicatormresource + kmr Pkmr eco-indicatorkdisposal +
kmr Pkmr eco-indicatorkmr processing

(9)

In this expression, EI is the overall environmental impact and ecoindicatormresource,

eco-indicatork disposal, and eco-indicatorkmrprocessing are the eco-indicators-99 for the resources,
products, and processing, respectively. ecoindicatormresource accounts for the overall
environmental impact for feedstock production m as well as transportation from the cropland
to the processing facility, eco-indicatork disposal considers the overall environmental impact for
transportation, use, and final disposal of product k, and eco-indicatorkmrprocessing accounts for the
overall environmental impact for the processing route.
The constraint method is implemented in this term paper to determine the set of optimal
solutions that compensate for both objectives and are used to construct the Pareto curve. The
addressed problem can be stated as follows
objective function=[max profit ; min EI]
s:t:
(10)

eqs 1-5
where profit and EI are defined in eqs 8 and 9, respectively. First, to determine point C of
Figure 2, maximization of the profit is carried out without considering the EI as follows
Max Profit
s:t:
(11)
eqs 1-5
It is worth noting that solution of previous model usually yields the maximum EI in the Pareto
curve. Then to determine point A of Figure 2, minimization of the EI without taking into
account the profit is solved as follows
min EI
s:t:
(12)
eqs 1-5
Solution of the problem by eq 12 usually produces the minimum profit in the Pareto curve,
because this model does not consider the profit. These two extreme solutions (solutions C
and A given by relationships 11 and 12, respectively) then are used as limits to
build the Pareto curve by solving the following problem
max prof it
s:t:
(13)
EI
eqs 1-5
To yield the Pareto curve, the previous problem given by eq 13 is solved for different values of
. The limits for are the EI obtained from solutions C and A given by eqs 11 and 12 that
correspond to the maximum and minimum EI, respectively.

Conclusions:
This term paper presents a new mathematical formulation for optimal planning of a biorefinery
considering simultaneously maximization of the total net profit and minimization of the total
environmental impact. The profit accounts for sales of products and byproducts minus costs
of raw materials and costs for processing, whereas the environmental impact is measured
through the eco-indicator-99 that is based on life cycle analysis for the raw materials,
processing, and products. An efficient method is presented in this term paper to adequately
consider the objective function because these two objectives contradict each other. The
resulting model is an LP problem that can be easily solved for global solution.