Strategic Management
Planning
Economy

© All Rights Reserved

9 views

Strategic Management
Planning
Economy

© All Rights Reserved

- Biomass PPT
- Test Euroexam
- Opportunities From Science and Technology 4
- BioFuel
- Modern Bio Fuels
- 1762-3295-1-SM
- baran01a
- BIO3_TRIPTICO
- Biofuel Production
- Renewable Energy
- Biomass Energy
- Biofuels Cellulosic Biomass StCloud
- Biomass energy.doc
- iPower Profile Mar2014
- Daud Et Al 2013 Devolatilization Studies of Oil Palm Biomass for Torrefaction Process Optimization
- BEE.proceedings
- Sam146 Stress Fan Optimization
- 17587
- Biomass Energy
- 40Unnto

You are on page 1of 12

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

systems for clean power generation: An -constraint based multi

objective modelling approach

Sebnem Ylmaz Balaman

Department of Industrial Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Tinaztepe Yerleskesi, Buca, 35160 Izmir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 3 April 2016

Received in revised form

26 July 2016

Accepted 27 July 2016

Available online 2 August 2016

Biomass based energy production has been considered as a part of the solution to energy crisis, which is

mainly caused by diminishing fossil fuel resources and environmental pollution from traditional fossil

fuel based energy production systems. Therefore, it is important to design sustainable and effective

systems for biomass based energy production to provide competitive advantage on fossil fuel resourced

systems. This study develops a novel optimization model to aid investment planning and strategic

management of biomass based clean power generation systems. The model integrates the location, capacity and technology decisions to nd the optimal combination of bioenergy production systems to

meet electricity demand of particular regions and accounts for multiple biomass types and power

technologies. The modelling approach and data analysis are presented to outline the important characteristics of the problem for minimization of the supply chain cost and minimization of the greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions simultaneously. To handle the multi objective problem efciently, an integrated

approach based on fuzzy decision making and -constraint method is proposed and used, considering

both sustainability aspects and uncertainties in the system parameters. The viability of the proposed

_

approach is explored on a case study of Izmir

region in Turkey. Different supply chain conguration

alternatives are provided for the case study region considering various weights for objective functions

representing relative importance of each objective. Corresponding supply chain performance measures

in terms of total cost and GHG emissions are proposed and discussed for each conguration alternative.

Further enviro-economic analyses denote that discounted investment cost and GHG emissions associated

with energy production activities receive the biggest shares in the total cost and in the total GHG

emissions, respectively. The government and private investors can employ the model and solution algorithm to design the most cost effective and environment friendly supply chain, to monitor the economic and environmental performance of the current biomass based supply chains and identify policies

to support a viable, protable and eco-friendly energy industry.

2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Investment planning

Strategic management

Clean power generation

Bio-based supply chains

Multiobjective optimization

1. Introduction

The legislative regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the

European Union Emission Trading System (2009) and the European

Climate Change Programme (2000), force companies to change the

way they make their decisions and manage their supply chains in

an energy efcient way (Marufuzzaman et al., 2014). Production of

bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts is one of the most promising

alternative energy pathways that has been rapidly developing in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.202

0959-6526/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Biomass is carbon based biological material derived from living,

or recently living organisms available on a renewable basis. As an

energy source, biomass can either be used directly to produce heat

by combustion, or indirectly to produce electrical and/or thermal

energy after converting it to various forms of liquid and gaseous

fuels (i.e. biofuel). For more detailed information about conversion

processes Faaij (2006) can be referred. Biomass has a great potential

as a renewable feedstock for producing various energy forms like

electrical energy, thermal energy and energy carriers (biofuels) by

different kinds of conversion systems with different scales that use

various conversion processes. Biomass to energy supply chain is a

1180

conversion facilities as manufacturing facilities.

In biomass based production, a possible solution to resource

scarcity issues, concerns have been expressed about the economic

and environmental sustainability of the sector. Various biomass

based chains are operated throughout the world. However, the

wide use of biomass based systems has resulted in new challenges

such as long-distance biomass transportation in large-scale networks which results in additional logistics costs, energy consumption and ultimately higher GHG emissions compared to

small-scale utilisation. Robust and integrated supply chains and

logistics networks need to be developed especially in large capacity systems.

These challenges have motivated researchers to develop proper

methodologies to select the most favorable supply chain conguration and to identify cost-efcient abd environment friendly biobased supply chains. Effectively designed renewable based supply

chains can have an economic advantage over non-renewable

sourced systems and eliminate the issues related to sustainability.

In addition, to ensure sustainability in bioenergy systems optimization, usually multiple conicting objectives have to be considered. Also, due to the nature of biomass based energy supply chains,

many uncertainties exist that make the system parameters uctuate in a range, such as biomass supply and price uncertainties,

energy price and demand uncertainties, production and yield uncertainties and transportation uncertainties (Awudu and Zhang,

2012). In many cases feedstock location, processing sites and

product destinations have profound implications for the protability and environmental impacts of the overall supply chain

(Sharifzadeh et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to design robust,

reliable and sustainable supply chains to deliver a competitive end

product to the end used markets and to sustainably meet the everincreasing energy demand. In addition, to cope with the feedstock

and technology related uncertainties effectively, a mixture of

biomass resources and multiple technologies should be taken into

account in the design phase instead of single biomass and technology. Among all the options given for a dened system components and power generation, not all combinations may be sensible

from efciency and economic point of view. Selecting appropriate

process congurations leads to optimal plant design and operation

(Ylmaz and Selim, 2013).

These necessities bring about the main research question of this

paper; how can a biomass based supply chain be optimized in a

sustainable and efcient manner, considering different biomass

types and power technologies and capturing system specic uncertainties in the design phase? Answering this research question,

this paper develops a novel mathematscal model to design sustainable supply chains for multiple biomass based power generation systems to enhance the investment decision making and

Reference

Model

type

Optimization scope

sizes, locations, biomass supply, facility selection and product

distributions.

MILP* Selection of facility location, capacity and technology selection

for biomass to biofuel supply chains as a network of biomass

producers, conversion facilities, and markets.

Lin et al. (2014) MILP

Planning of farm management, logistics activities, facility

allocation and distribution.

Xie et al. (2014) MILP

Locations and capacities of transshipment hubs, reneries and

terminals are determined by the model along with seasonal

feedstock/biofuel storage and shipment amounts.

Zhang and

Wright

(2014)

Marvin et al.

(2012)

supply chain from feedstock supply to power distribution, and all

elements of the chain from biomass source sites to demand nodes.

The model identies the optimal conguration of the supply chain

and selects the most appropriate power production technology to

meet the electricity demand of given regions to enhance strategic

decision making on bioenergy investments. It covers the decisions

related to location, capacity sizing and technology selection by

capturing the tradeoffs that exist between costs and emissions in

the supply chain. As solution methodology, an integrated approach

is presented that combines fuzzy decision making and -constraint

method, to capture both sustainability aspects by considering

different objectives and uncertainties in the system parameters

effectively. This method reects the characteristics of the problem

on hand. To explore the viability of the proposed model and solu_

tion approach a case study of Izmir,

Turkey is conducted and further

enviro-economic analyses are performed to provide insights to aid

decision makers in strategic planning on bioenergy supply chains.

Computational experiments show that it is enable to provide high

quality solutions in a reasonable amount of time.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a

comprehensive literature review on the studies that develop optimization models for sustainable design of biomass based supply

chains and related it to our study. In section 2, the research gaps in

the current literature are revealed and the contributions of this

study to full these gaps are stated. Section 3 presents the problem

description, formulation of the optimization models and the solution approach. In Section 4, the methodology that integrates fuzzy

optimization and -constraint methods to solve the multi-objective

decision making problems on strategic design and management of

bioenergy supply chains is presented. Section 5 explains the case

study setting where the proposed optimization model and solution

_

methodology are applied to the region of Izmir.

Section 6 proposes

the results, further analyses and discussion. Section 7 discusses the

conclusions along with future research directions.

2. Literature review

Table given below presents a literature review on studies that

develop optimization models to make decisions related to biomass

based supply chains considering economic and environmental

sustainability. Table depicts type of the model developed in each

study, optimization scope of the study, system/process type

considered in the study. The last ve columns of the table shows

that whether the study captures economic and environmental

sustainability aspects, handles single/multi technology and

biomass type, and considers uncertainty in system parameters.

System/

Process

type

Single/ Uncertainty

consideration

aspects

aspects

Multitechnology Multi

biomass

Fast

pyrolysis

biorenery

Biofuel

production

Biofuel

production

Bioethanol

production

Single

Single

Single

Single

Single

Single

Single

Single

1181

(continued )

Reference

Model

type

Optimization scope

Marufuzzaman MILP

et al. (2016)

with syngas production and transportation decisions are

made.

All components of the supply chain such as crop elds,

Andersen et al. MILP

(2012)

storages, production plants and distribution centers are

optimized.

Zhang and Hu MILP

Determination of facility number, location, capacity and

(2013)

production decisions at operational level such as biomass

collection, fuel production, fuel distribution and inventory

control and allocation for a supply chain design.

Delivand et al. LP* and Determination of optimal facility locations and scales for the

(2015)

MCA* bioenergy production. The study consists of land availability

and suitability analysis to detect a number of appropriate

locations, location allocation analysis that optimal plant

locations were found for each scenario.

Aviso et al.

FLP*

The optimal supply chain design considering the case of

(2011)

multi-region systems that takes into account trade effects.

Lam et al.

MILP

Selection of optimal technologies, plants location, and the

(2013)

annual amount of biomass product considering the objective

functions related to environmental impact, cost functions.

Giarola et al.

MILP

Biomass type selection and supplier allocation, production

(2011)

technology, site selection, capacity assignment and

production planning for bioethanol facilities, logistic

distribution and transportation mode selection issues are

taken into account simultaneously.

Sharifzadeh

MILP

The optimal supply chain design and operational strategies

et al. (2015)

under uncertainty.

Giarola et al.

(2012a,b)

MILP

Giarola et al.

MILP

(2012a,b)

You and Wang MILP

(2011)

~ ezSantiban

Aguilar et al.

(2011)

Li and Hu

(2014)

Shabani and

Sowlati

(2016)

power

generation

MILP

simultaneously by considering a wide set of alternative

production technologies and specic geographical features.

Strategic design and planning of feasible and sustainable

multi-echelon bioethanol supply chains.

Conversion pathways and technologies, feedstock seasonality,

geographical diversity, biomass degradation, infrastructure

compatibility, demand distribution, and government

incentives are optimized.

Selection of optimal feedstock, processing technology and

product combinations.

MISP*

MISP

uncertainties in the quality of biomass.

System/

Process

type

Single/ Uncertainty

consideration

aspects

aspects

Multitechnology Multi

biomass

Gasication

Single

Single

Biodiesel

production

Single

Single

Biofuel

production

Single

Single

Bioenergy

production

Single

Multi

Biofuel

e

production

Biofuel

e

production

Multi

Multi

Multi

Multi

Bioethanol

production

Single

Multi

Fast

pyrolysis

biorenery

Bioethanol

production

Single

Single

Single

Single

Bioethanol

production

Liquid

biofuel

production

Single

Single

Multi

Single

Biofuel

production

Multi

Multi

Bio-oil

gasication

Forestbased

biomass to

Single

Single

Single

Single

*MINLP: Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming; MILP: Mixed Integer Linear Programming; LP: Linear programming; MCA: Multi criteria analyses; FLP: Fuzzy Linear Programming; MISP: Mixed Integer Stochastic Programming.

researches focus only on biomass to biofuel supply chains without

conversion to electrical and/or thermal energy. However, in real

world applications biofuel, which is obtained from multiple sources

of biomass, is commonly converted to energy in bioenergy plants

by power engines. Also, most of the models capture one type of

biomass and one type of conversion technology/process (thermochemical or biochemical), which makes them problem specic. In

addition, the literature review reveals that, none of the methodologies in the literature integrates the strategic decisions related to

location, capacity and technology selection for both bioenergy

plants and preprocessing facilities with tactical decisions on production and transportation of biomass and bioenergy. Also, it can

be concluded that, none of the current studies develop and use an

optimization methodology that integrates economic and environmental sustainability issues with uncertainty consideration in the

same framework in design phase.

to develop a comprehensive strategic planning approach to

congure biomass based supply chains taking into account multiple

biomass types and conversion technologies by integrating sustainability and uncertainty aspects in design phase. In addition, we

can conclude that, there is a need to develop a generalizable model

that aids to optimize cases related to investment decision making

on biomass based supply chains that include both biomass processing facilities and energy production systems by only changing

the dataset.

By addressing these gaps in the literature, this study contributes

to the related body of knowledge mainly in two ways. The rst

contribution is proposing a new optimization model in the multiobjective framework for the strategic decision making in multiple

biomass and multiple technology based power production system

investments, to minimize the total cost while simultaneously

minimizing the harmful environmental impacts in terms of GHG

1182

generalizable as it covers conversion of multiple types of biomass

into energy to meet the power demand of particular region(s) and

covering multiple types of conversion technologies/processes, (2) It

integrates decisions related to both power plant technology and

preprocessing facility type. The second main contribution is presenting an integrated approach incorporating fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods to solve the presented multi-

20

Min f1 DF 4@

"

"

J X

E X

C

X

j

j1 e1 c1

J P

E P

C

P

j1 e1 c1

i1 j1 c1 b1

Fb ,Rijcb 5

4

K X

P X

T

X

0

@

K X

P X

T

X

00

Cb ,@@

b1

k A5

Ypt $Kpt $Zpt

13

k A5

Ppt $K1pt $Zpt

k1 p1 t1

B

X

Costs Operational Costs Transportation Costs Biomass Purchasing Cost Auxiliary Material Cost

13

k1 p1 t1

j

Pec $DK2ec $Xec A

J P

I P

C P

B

P

monthly supply chain cost, can be calculated as follows;

J X

I X

C

X

(1)

Rijcb ,dij A

i1 j1 c1

J X

K X

T

X

113

Rjk

,djk AA5

tb

j1 k1 t1

K

X

!

k

S ,FW

k1

and sustainability aspects simultaneously.

3. Methods

3.1. Problem description and formulation of the models

This paper focuses on designing an optimized supply chain for

multi biomass based energy production considering sustainability

aspects. The supply chain in consideration consists of the biomass

source sites to supply multiple types of biomass, facilities for

preprocessing of biomass, facilities for storage of biomass,

biomass to electricity conversion plants, electricity demand

nodes.

We developed a MILP model that captures economic and environmental aspects by a multiobjective structure. The model, aims to

design the biomass based energy supply chain by making decisions

corresponding to; (1) conguration of the supply chain network (2)

procurement and allocation of the biomass resources; and (3) inventory, production and distribution planning, to meet the electrical

energy demand of (a) particular area(s). The model determines the

optimal conguration of the supply chain considering the tradeoffs

between costs and GHG emissions associated with production activities. The decisions made by the model are;

1.

2.

3.

4.

Types of facilities and technologies for power plants,

Amounts electricity produced in each power plant,

Amounts biomass distributed between biomass source sites,

facilities and plants,

5. Amount of biomass treated/stored in facilities,

6. Amount of auxiliary material consumed in power plants.

As stated before, a multiobjective model is proposed to reect

the multidimensional nature of the biomass based energy supply

chain conguration design problem under concern. The model includes three environmental and economic objectives. The objectives are: (1) minimization of total cost; and (2) minimization of

GHG emissions (CO2 eq) related to transportation and production in

the supply chain. The notations of the mathematical formulations

are presented in Appendix 1.

Eq. (2) shows the second objective function, namely minimization of GHG emissions associated with energy production, which

includes (1) GHG emissions from plants associated with production

of energy, (2) GHG emissions associated with transportation of

biomass.

Min f2

T

X

cept $

t1

J

X

K

X

T

X

B

X

4cet @

k1

K

X

!!

k

13

J X

I X

C X

B

X

Rijcb

i1 j1 c1 b1

Rtb A5

jk

j1 k1 t1 b1

(2)

Eqs. (3)e(13) represent the constraints of the model.

J

C X

X

ij

Rcb ABib

ci; cb

(3)

c1 j1

I X

C

X

Rijcb $vbc

i1 c1

I X

B

X

jk

Rtb

j1 b1

cj; cb

(4)

P

X

k

Zpt

$Kpt

ck; ct

(5)

cj; cc

(6)

ck; cf ; ct

(7)

p1

ij

Rcb

E

X

Xec $Kec

e1

i1 b1

J X

B

X

Rjk

tb

k1 t1

i1 b1

I X

B

X

K X

T

X

jk

T X

F

X

t1 f 1

Ek

Xftk $efn

P

X

k

Zpt

$KEpt

ck

ck

(8)

(9)

p1

Ek

L

X

DEkl

ck

(10)

cl

(11)

l1

K

X

DEkl T l

k1

P X

T

X

k

Zpt

1

ck

(12)

cj

(13)

p1 t1

E X

C

X

Xec 1

e1 c1

region by the total available biomass in that region. Eq. (4) ensures

the ow balance of the biomass supplied from biomass source site

to facility and from facility to biomass to energy conversion plant

considering the material loss in the biomass after the pretreatment

process (if the facility is for storage of biomass, the conversion rate

dbc is 1, which means no loss). Eqs. (5) and (6) limit the amount of

biomass transported to the facilities and plants to the maximum

capacity of the corresponding capacity levels of plants/facilities. Eq.

(7) calculate the amount of biofuel produced in biomass to energy

conversion plants. Eqs. (8) and (9) calculate the amount of electrical

energy produced in biofuel to energy conversion plants and restrict

this amount to the maximum capacity of the corresponding capacity levels of plants. Eqs. (10) and (11) ensure that all the electrical energy demand is met in the demand nodes. Eqs. (12) and

(13) ensure that at most 1 facility, biomass to biofuel conversion

plant and biofuel to energy conversion plant is constructed in each

selected location.

3.2. Solution methodology

In this section, the methodology which is employed to solve the

multi-objective strategic design and management problem by

integrating fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods is

explained.

There are several common techniques to solve a multiobjective

problems, such as the weighted-sum method, the -constraint

method, the goal attainment approach, and metaheuristics (Kindt

and Billaut, 2001). Among them, weighted sum method is the

method commonly used for economic/environmental management

problems compared with other optimization approaches established previously (Moghaddam et al., 2011, 2012). However, a wellorganized method to deal with multi-objective problems is

-constraint method (Haimes et al., 1971) which is aimed to minimize only one objective function (commonly, it may be the most

preferred or primary one) and to limit the others by some allowable

values i ; i2f1; :::; mg, and in this way, transforming the multiobjective optimization problem into a single-objective problem.

The -constraint method has several advantages over the

weighting method that merges the objective functions of the multiobjective problem into one objective function using weighted sum.

1183

(1) Using the weighted sum method, only efcient extreme solutions can be generated, while the -constraint technique

has the capability to generate nonextreme efcient solutions

in the feasible solution space (Rezvani et al., 2015). As a

consequence, with the weighting method we may spend a lot

of runs that are redundant in the sense that there can be a lot

of combination of weights that result in the same efcient

extreme solution. On the other hand, with the -constraint

we can exploit almost every run to produce a different efcient solution, thus obtaining a more rich representation of

the efcient set (Miettinen, 1998).

(2) The weighting method cannot produce unsupported efcient

solutions in multi-objective integer and mixed integer programming problems, while the e-constraint method does not

suffer from this pitfall (Reza Norouzi et al., 2014).

(3) In the weighting method the scaling of the objective functions has strong inuence in the obtained results. Therefore,

we need to scale the objective functions to a common scale

before forming the weighted sum. In the e-constrained

method this is not necessary (Mavrotas, 2009).

(4) We can control the number of the generated efcient solutions by properly adjusting the number of grid points in each

one of the objective function ranges by econstraint

method, which is not easy with the weighting method

(Mavrotas, 2009).

Therefore, the -constraint method seems to be a good choice to

solve multi-objective optimization problems.

Assume the following MOMP problem (Mavrotas, 2009):

max=min

st x2S

f1 x; f2 x; fm x

the m objective functions and S is the feasible region.

In the -constraint method we optimize one of the objective

functions using the other objective functions as constraints incorporating them in the constraint part of the model as shown below

(Chankong and Haimes, 1983);

max =min f1 x

st f2 x 2 for max functions;

f3 x 3 for min functions;

fm x m ;

x2S:

By introducing the ranges i ; i2f1; ; mg of objective functions

the efcient solutions of the problem are obtained.

Despite its advantages over the weighting method, it is emphasized in the literature that the -constraint method has two points

that need attention in its implementation (Ahmadi et al., 2014). The

rst problem is with the calculation of the ranges of objective

functions over the efcient sets. To overcome this decit, this study

employed a fuzzy logic based procedure to determine the ranges

more realistically and considering the system uncertainties. The

second problem with this technique is that the generated pareto

optimal solutions using this method may be dominated or inefcient; therefore, it is necessary to select the most efcient one among

them. Fuzzy decision making is utilized herein to eliminate this

shortcoming.

In this paper a modied version of the -constraint method is

proposed to address these issues by combining the method with

1184

proposed problem is described as the following steps;

Step 1. Problem P in Section 2 can be transformed into problem P0

according to the basic principles of the -constraint method. In P0,

the objective function is corresponding to f1 of P, and f2 of P is dealt

with as a constraint of P0. Problem P0 can be represented as follows:

emission minimization objectives, for each solution k, the membership degree mki is calculated based on its individual membership

functions by adding weight factors as follows:

min f1 x

st f2 x 2 ;

and constraints 3 13

most preferred solution.

bound for the second objective function) that is limited by the range

of objective function f2. To obtain the appropriate range of f2, multi

objective model P in Section 2 is solved as a single objective problem

using each time only one objective and ignore the other to specify

the efcient solutions (i.e. upper bound, expected value and lower

bound) for f2. For this purpose, a fuzzy logic based procedure is

introduced and the problem is divided into sub problems. Each time,

one of the upper, lower and expected values of the fuzzy parameters

are taken into consideration and sub problems are solved according

to either cost minimization or emission minimization objectives.

Step 3. The payoff table is constructed which is an asymmetric

matrix where the matrix elements represent the optimum values of

the corresponding objective function. The lower, upper and expected values of each objective function are determined based on

the payoff table.

Step 4. Repeat to solve problem P0 with different values of 2 (i.e.

upper, expected and lower values from the payoff table), and nally,

obtain a set of pareto optimal solutions.

Step 5. After a set of pareto optimal solutions are obtained, a

decision maker may wish to select a preferred one from them and

may also want to know its degree of optimality. The fuzzy-logicbased approach (Esmaili et al., 2011) can both provide a most

preferred solution and also indicate its degree of optimality.

Therefore, in this paper, it is applied to assist in choosing a

preferred solution. In the m-objective optimization problem with k

pareto optimal solutions, the membership function mki indicates the

degree of optimality for the ith objective function in the kth solution. It is dened as follows;

1. In the case of objective functions being minimized;

8

>

1

>

>

>

>

<

k

mki ui fi x

>

ui li

>

>

>

>

:

0

fik x li

li < fik x ui

;

;

fik x > ui

8

>

1

>

>

>

>

< k

mki fi x li

>

u i li

>

>

>

>

:

0

fik x > ui

li < fik x ui

;

;

fik x < li

function fi of P, respectively, and fik x represents the value of the ith

objective function in the kth pareto optimal solution, such that

fik x2li ; ui .

Step 6. If a decision maker offers a preferred weight vector, which

represents the relative importance of each objective according to the

decision maker's preferences, for the cost minimization and

mki

Pm

i1

P

m

wi $mki

i1

wi

3.3.1. Case study region and biomass sources

To explore the viability of the proposed model, computational

experiments are performed on a real-world problem in Turkey. In

this regard, we aim to design a supply chain network for biomass

_

based energy production in Izmir,

which is the third largest city in

Turkey. As agriculture and stockbreeding are among the most

_

common economic activities in Izmir,

diverse set of biomass bio_

waste feedstock resources are available in Izmir

for energy pro_

duction. More specically, Izmir is the second largest producer in

Turkish poultry sector and has the fourth largest biogas production

potential from animal wastes in Turkey. The proposed model is

_

_

applied to all 20 counties of Izmir.

All of the counties of Izmir

are

considered as biomass supply sites and candidate sites for bioenergy plants and preprocessing facilities in the model. The map of

the case study region is depicted in Fig. 1. Each county is represented by a number in the model as depicted in Fig. 1. The starred

counties on the map constitute the city centre, therefore considered

as one county in the model.

The proposed model includes four types of waste biomass to be

transformed into energy; cattle manure, laying chicken manure and

broiler chicken manure, and waste wood. The resources are not uniformly distributed in the city, their yields vary signicantly between

_

counties of Izmir.

The existing feedstock annual yields and location

data are gathered from Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock and have been aggregated at county centroids.

3.3.2. Transportation

Given the regional focus in our case study, road transport is

considered as the preferred transportation mode as it is the most

_

common transportation mode in Izmir.

In this scope, transportation

by a single trailer truck with a load capacity of 32 tons is considered.

Currently, road transportation is the most common method for

biomass delivery especially for distances <110 km (Searcy et al.,

2007). Road transportation is favorable when exibility is required

and multiple forest and farm sited have to be accessed. Waste

biomass with high solid content (laying chicken manure and wood

waste) is considered as solid biomass, while feedstock with low total

solid content (cattle manure, broiler chicken manure) is considered

as liquid/semi-solid biomass. Biomass sources are transported by

trucks with the cost of V0.045/t-km for solid biomass and V0.05/tkm for liquid/semi-solid biomass. The cost data is derived from

Marufuzzaman et al. (2014) for liquid/semi solid biomass and from

Lu et al. (2015) for solid biomass and updated for the local conditions

considering the data gathered from local logistics rms. Data on

GHG emissions associated with transportation of biomass by trucks

is gathered from Marufuzzaman et al. (2014) and supported by the

data obtained from LCA software SIMAPRO.

3.3.3. Preprocessing facilities and bioenergy plants

Collection and pretreatment facilities to store, treat and

distribute biomass are considered as preprocessing facility types.

Cattle manure, laying chicken manure, broiler chicken manure and

maize are assumed to be collected and distributed via collection

1185

wood to convert into wood pellet, which is a more efcient biomass

with higher solid content than waste wood, by drying process.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) and gasication (G) technologies are

considered to convert biomass into energy. AD is utilized to produce biofuel (biogas) from cattle manure, laying chicken manure

and broiler chicken manure, which then be converted into electrical

energy by CHP engines. Biofuel (syngas) produced from waste

wood by G is assumed to be transformed into electrical energy in

CHP engines as well.

To ensure the efciency of biogas production process in the AD

plants, the total solid content of biomass slurry in the fermentation

tank should vary between 7% and 12%. To represent this technical

limitation, Eq. (14) is added to the model in Section 2 as a case

specic contraint;

PJ

7%

PB

PT

PB

PT

b1

j1

PJ

j1

b1

t1

TSb Sjk

! tb

jk

t1 Stb

12%

ck

amount of water (auxiliary material) used to adjust the total solid

content of the biomass mixture in the anaerobic digestion tank.

The other data and assumptions on facilities and plants are;

1. The electrical efciency of the cogeneration units are taken as

40%.

2. The conversion rate of waste wood to wood pellet is to be 80%.

3. The generated electrical energy, is assumed to be fed into the

national electricity grid.

4. Two capacity levels are considered for the pretreatment facilities and biomass to energy conversion plants. These capacity

levels reported in Table 1.

Data on GHG emissions associated with bioenergy production in

plants (including conversion in CHP units) are gathered utilizing

LCA software SIMAPRO and DECC (2015).

(14)

Wk

The generated electrical energy by the plants is fed into the

national electricity grid with a price of V0.103/kWh. Seven demand

Table 1

Capacity levels and unit investment costs per installed capacity depending on capacity levels of the plants.

Capacity Total biomass capacity of G Installed capacity of cogeneration Total biomass capacity of AD Installed capacity of cogeneration

level

plants (t/month)

unit in G plant (kWe)

plants (t/month)

unit in AD plant (kWe)

facilities (t/month)

1

2

1750

2250

3000

5000

Capacity

level

plants (V/ton)

in G plant (V/kWe)

Unit investment cost of AD Unit investment cost of CHP unit in Unit investment cost of PT

plants (V/ton)

AD plant (V/kWe)

facilities (V/ton)

1

2

20,000

18,000

800

750

1600

1500

4500

6000

9000

10,000

2750

3250

800

750

1000

750

1186

meet the corresponding electrical energy demand. The price and

demand data came from Republic of Turkey Ministry of energy and

Natural Resources. It is assumed that waste biomass is supplied by

the local farmers at no charge. Monthly discount rate is taken as

0.006 and lifetime of the plants are 20 years. The length of the time

period used in our computational experiments is one month.

We obtain the data on plant investment costs corresponding to

different plant capacity levels by a survey on AD and G plant installations around the Europe and by utilizing professional expert

The optimized supply chain conguration is determined by the

modied -constraint method taking the steps given in Section 4.

This section describes the optimized supply chain conguration

determined by applying the model and solution algorithm.

The payoff table is obtained as described in Section 4 (Steps 2

and 3). Table 2 depicts the payoff values according to each objective

function and the upper, lower and expected values of the fuzzy

parameters (see Section 5.5).

Table 2

The payoff values according to each objective function.

Min. Cost

Upper bound

Expected value

Lower bound

Cost (V/Month)

GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq)

789,003

154,275

717,275

147,064

645,548

132,562

Upper bound

Expected value

Lower bound

Cost (V/Month)

GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq/Month)

3,822,542

150,272

3,474,857

146,641

3,127,371

124,371

opinion. Do et al. (2014) is also utilized to derive the data. The investment costs per kilowatt of installed power are taken into

consideration in a manner that they decrease with higher capacities

because of economies of scale. The investment costs per kilowatt of

installed power depending on capacity levels and counties are reported in Table 1. Annual operational costs of plants and storages are

taken as 5% of investment costs. This percentage is also obtained by a

survey on biogas plant installations and storages and by utilizing

professional expert opinion. It should be noted that, unit costs are

computed considering monthly capacity of the facilities and plants.

3.3.5. Uncertainty treatment

In practical cases on biomass based energy systems, system

parameters are affected signicantly by economical, social and

environmental policies as well as the uctuations in the market

conditions. Considering this fact, uncertainties in the following

parameters of which values are highly impacted by governmental

policies, competition between rms in the related market and

natural conditions about weather, soil etc are handled and

included to the methodology in this study;

1. Investment and operational costs

2. Transportation costs

3. Biomass yields

Therefore, we dene the coefcients in the model corresponding

to each of the above mentioned parameters within a range. The lower

and upper bounds for these coefcients are assumed to be 90% and

110% of their expected values in our computational experiments.

4. Results and discussion

This section presents the results of the computational experiments, provides further analyses of the results and a discussion on

the viability of the proposed methodology along with some

managerial insights. The proposed mathematical model and solution methodology are coded in ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio

(Version 12.2). The numerical experiments were performed on an

Intel Core Quad 2.66 GHz processor with 6 GB RAM on a 64-bit

platform under Windows 7 environment. The large-scale MILP

model is composed of 1347 constraints and 7641 variables (of

which 160 are integer variables).

solved with six different values of 2, which are depicted in italic

characters in Table 2, and a set of pareto optimal solutions is obtained. Table in Appendix 2 reports the pareto optimal solutions

according to each 2 values (upper limit for GHG emissions), along

with the strategic supply chain decisions related to decisions location, capacity and technology of bioenergy plants and preprocessing

facilities according to each solution. The table also depicts the corresponding membership function (mk ) values for each solution

alternative. The membership function values are calculated as

described in Section 4 (Step 5), based on three different weight

structures for the objective functions, to reect the relative importance of the objectives and provide the DM for a more condent

solution set; wCost 0.3 and wGHG Emissions 0.7 (WS1), wCost 0.5

and wGHG Emissions 0.5 (WS2), wCost 0.7 and wGHG Emissions 0.3

(WS3).

The table in Appendix 2 provides a broader perspective to decision makers by offering the results of the alternatives with three

different weight structures. Decision makers from different sectors

(governmental units or private companies) can choose the best

alternative according to their preferences related to objective

functions (costs vs. emissions). The main results that can be obtained from the table are summarized in the following;

1. If minimization of GHG emissions is more important than minimization of costs for a decision maker, the rst weight structure

(WS1) should be adopted (wCost 0.3 and wGHG Emissions 0.7)

and the optimal solution should be selected as the solution with

the highest mk value corresponding to this weight structure. From

the table, it can be observed that the optimal solution for this

situation is the 6th solution alternative (V3,748,708/Month total

cost and 124,371 kg CO2 eq/Month GHG emissions). In this situation, 1 collection centre with 2nd capacity level, 1 pretreatment

facility with 2nd capacity level and 1 pretreatment facility with

1st capacity level is constructed in Menemen, Merkez, Torbali,

respectively. Dikili and Urla are the selected counties for construction of 1 AD plant in each with 2nd capacity level, and

Selcuk, Bergama and Menemen are the counties for construction

of 1 G plant in each with 2nd capacity level.

2. If minimization of GHG emissions and minimization of costs are

equally important for a decision maker, the second weight

structure (WS2) should be adopted (wCost 0.5 and wGHG

Emissions 0.5) and the optimal solution should be selected as the

structure, that is the 1st, 2nd or 4th solution (V717,275/Month

total cost and 147,064 kg CO2 eq/Month GHG emissions) in this

case. The conguration results of this solution alternative are; 1

collection centre with 1st capacity level and 1 pretreatment

facility with 2nd capacity level are constructed in Merkez and

Torbali, respectively. Dikili and Urla are the selected counties for

construction of 1 AD plant with 1st capacity level, 1 G plant in

each with 1st capacity level, respectively.

3. If minimization of minimization of costs is more important than

GHG emissions for a decision maker, the third weight structure

(WS3) should be adopted (wCost 0.7 and wGHG Emissions 0.3). It

can be observed from the table that the optimal solution for this

situation is the 1st, 2nd or 4th solution alternatives (V717,275/

Month total cost and 147,064 kg CO2 eq/Month GHG emissions).

The conguration results of this solution are; 1 collection centre

with 1st capacity level and 1 pretreatment facility with 2nd

capacity level are constructed in Merkez and Torbali, respectively. Dikili and Urla are the selected counties for construction

of 1 AD plant with 1st capacity level, 1 G plant in each with 1st

capacity level.

Enviro-economic analyses are presented to provide a deeper

understanding of the model and the results obtained by the proposed solution methodology. If the results of the 1st, 2nd or 4th

alternatives in the table in Appendix 2 are compared to those of the

3rd alternative, it can be realized that a 9.86% decrease in total GHG

emissions can be attained with 367.51% increase in total cost. We

have observed similar percentages when we compare the 1st, 2nd or

4th alternatives with the 5th and 6th solution alternatives as well.

However, if the results of the 5th alternative are compared to those

of the 6th alternative, it can be realized that a 15.19% decrease in

GHG emissions can be attained with 6.63% increase in the total cost.

It can also be concluded from the table that, the total cost and

amount of GHG emissions do not differentiate between the values of

154,275, 150,272 and 147,064 for 2 as well as the conguration of

the supply chain, in other words the locations and capacities of

bioenergy plants and preprocessing facilities. However, giving 2

values smaller than 147,064 such as 146,641, 132,562 and 124,371

effects the total cost, GHG emissions and conguration of the supply

chain. The table reveals that decreasing the 2 value from 154,275 to

132,562 kgCO2eq/Month by 14%, causes a signicant increase in the

total cost, approximately by 367.51%, whereas a relatively small

decrease is observed in the GHG emissions by 9.8%. However, a

further decrease in 2 value from 132,562 to 124,371 kgCO2eq/

Month by 14% makes the GHG emissions decrease by the same

Fig. 2. The contribution of each cost component to the total supply chain cost according to WS1 (wCost 0.3 and wGHG Emissions 0.7).

1187

Fig. 3. The contribution of each cost component to the total supply chain cost according to WS2 (wCost 0.5 and wGHG Emissions 0.5) and WS3 (wCost 0.7 and wGHG

Emissions 0.3.

Figure 2 and 3 illustrates the contribution of each cost component (Discounted investment cost, operational cost, transportation

cost and auxiliary material (in our case, water) cost to the total

supply chain cost according to the weight structures given in Section 6.1. The results denote that, discounted investment cost receives the biggest share of total cost for all weight structures, which

is followed by operational costs. The effects of transportation cost

and auxiliary variable cost on the total cost is negligible when

compared to investment and operational costs.

Further analyses on environmental impacts in terms of GHG

emissions from production and transportation activities in the

supply chain denote that GHG emissions associated with energy

production activities receive the biggest share of total GHG emissions. If the rst weight structure (WS1) is selected by the decision

maker, the related optimal conguration alternative causes 124,323

kgCO2eq/Month GHG emissions from production activities while

the transportation related GHG emissions are 48 kgCO2eq/Month.

When one of the second or third weight structures (WS2, WS3) is

selected, the GHG emissions associated with production and

transportation activities are 146,543 kgCO2eq/Month and 501

kgCO2eq/Month, respectively.

5. Conclusions

This study presents a new research effort to make strategic investment decisions on biomass based production systems in a cost

effective and environment friendly way. To this aim, a multiobjective

MILP model is developed to make decisions on the biomass supply

chain design and planning. The model identies the optimal structure of the supply chain and selects the most appropriate power

production technology as well as the preprocessing plant type to

meet the electricity demand of specic regions considering objectives related to the economic and environmental performance of the

supply chain. The model represents all of the supply chain activities

from biomass procurement to bioenergy production, and considers

economic and environmental objectives in an uncertain decision

environment. A methodology to solve multiobjective decision

making models is proposed and applied to the current problem on

bioenergy decision making. The methodology that combines fuzzy

decision making and -constraint methods in a novel way to capture

the trade-offs between the objectives effectively besides the system

specic uncertainties. Through computational experiments on a

_

multi biomass based energy supply chain design in Izmir,

Turkey, the

viability of the proposed model and solution methodology are

demonstrated. By further analyses, it is revealed that discounted

investment costs and operational costs receive the biggest share in

the total supply chain cost, whereas the energy production activities

have higher impact on GHG emissions than transportation activities.

This study distinguishes from the current literature in several

1188

management in multiple biomass and multiple technology based

supply chains that include both power plants and biomass processing facilities to enhance investment decision making. The

proposed model is generic in its structure and can be tailored to

handle bioenergy supply chain design problems in various regions

with different types of feedstock and transportation modes using

the same general framework. The model can be readily extended to

include additional, case-specic constraints required by the

problem. Second, it presents an integrated approach incorporating

fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods to solve the presented multi-objective problem by capturing the problem specic

uncertainties and sustainability aspects simultaneously. To our

knowledge, this is the rst study to develop a solution approach

that combines fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods to

capture both sustainability aspects by handling multiple objectives

and uncertainty in the system parameters in this eld.

The results of the case study reveal that the proposed model and

solution algorithm can effectively be used in practice, to obtain the

economic and environmental benets from biomass based energy

supply chain design. The government and private investors can

employ our mathematical model and solution algorithm to design

the most cost effective and environment friendly supply chain to

meet energy demand of a specic region(s) and estimate the cost

and harmful environmental effects that generated in a particular

region by constructing the supply chain. The model also facilitates

identifying policies to support a viable, protable and eco-friendly

Indices

i

j

k

l

b

f

p

e

t

c

solution methodology to be used for policy making purposes for

governmental units to provide an overall guidance on targets for

bioenergy production considering energy demands and environmental footprint limitations in a given region. However, the same

framework can also be applied at the company level, for use by a

single enterprise for strategic planning of its own activities under

similar production and environmental targets. Note that these two

problems are structurally similar, although the signicance of the

applications is markedly different.

Future research can extend the study by integrating the problem

with a district heating network to make use of the waste heat in

residential, industrial or agricultural areas to meet thermal energy

demand. Also, different modes of transportation (rail, sea etc)

can be included and the model can be extended to select the most

appropriate mode for a given region. The model can be extended to

capture the stochastic nature of biomass supply and technology

development by converting it to a Stochastic Programming model.

Including additional objectives in the proposed model may be

another extension of this study. In this regard, other environmental

objectives related to energy efciency and land use as well as social

objectives such as maximization of job creation or social acceptability of the energy conversion system, may be considered.

Appendix 1. The notations of the mathematical formulations.

Candidate locations for facilities

Candidate locations for energy plants

Demand nodes

Biomass types

Biofuel types

Capacity levels for energy plants

Capacity levels for facilities

Energy conversion technology

Facility type

Decision variables

1. Binary variables

k

Zpt

j

Xec

2. Positive variables

Rcb ; Rtb

Amount of biomass b shipped from; biomass source site i to facility j with type c, facility j to energy plant k with technology t (ton)

DEkl

Ek

Bkut

Sk

ij

jk

Parameters

1. Biomass supply and product demand

Amount of electricity demand at demand node l (kWh)

Tl

ABib

2. Capacities

Kpt ; Kec

KEpt

3. Costs and prices

Ypt ; Yec

Ppt ; Pec

Fb ; FW

Cb

4. Distances

dij ; djk

5. Conversion rates

vbc

eb

rbut

Biomass capacity of; energy plant of capacity level p with technology t, facility of capacity level e with type c

Installed electrical capacity of plant of capacity level p with technology t (kWe)

Unit

Unit

Unit

Unit

investment cost of; energy plant of capacity level p with technology t, facility of capacity level e with type c (V/ton), CHP (V/kWh

operational cost of; energy plant of capacity level p with technology t, facility of capacity level e with type c (V/ton), CHP (V/kWh)

cost of biomass b, auxiliary material (V/ton)

cost for transportation of biomass b (V/ton-km)

Conversion rate of biomass b in facility with type c (%)

Conversion rate of biomass b to electricity (kWh/m3)

Conversion rate of biomass b to biofuel u produced by technology t (m3/ton)

1189

(continued )

6. Carbon emissions

cept

cet

7. Other parameters

DF

GHG emissions associated with 1 kWh of electricity production by technology t (kg CO2 eq)

GHG emissions associated with 1 ton of biomass transportation (kg CO2 eq)

Discounting factor

2 values and corresponding conguration decisions.

Value of 2

Pareto

optimal

(kg CO2 eq/

solution no. Month)

Cost

GHG emissions

(V/Month) (kg CO2 eq

(V/Month)

preprocessing facilities

154,275

717,275

147,064

147,064

717,275

147,064

132,562

3,353,316 132,562

150,272

717,275

146,641

3,515,713 146,641

124,371

3,748,708 124,371

level,

Bayndr e 1 G plant

1. capacity level

Dikili e 1 AD plant 1. capacity

level,

Bayndr e 1 G plant

1. capacity level

Bergama, Menemen, Urla e 1

AD plant in each 2. capacity

level

Beydag,

Foca e 1 G plant in each 1.

capacity level

Dikili e 1 AD plant 1. capacity

Merkez e 1 collection

level,

centre 1. capacity level,

Bayndr e 1 G plant

Torbal e 1 pretreatment

1. capacity level

facility 2. capacity level

Bergama, Seferihisar, Merkez

Beydag, Cesme e 1

collection centre in each 1. e 1 AD plant in each 2.

capacity level,

capacity level,

Urla e 1 collection centre 2. Selcuk, Urla e 1 G plant in

each, 2. capacity level

capacity level,

Merkez e 1 pretreatment

facility in each 2. capacity

level

Dikili, Urla, e 1 AD plant in

Menemen e 1 collection

each 2. capacity level,

centre 2. capacity level,

Selcuk, Bergama,

Merkez e 1 pretreatment

Menemen e 1 G plant in each,

facility 2. capacity level

2. capacity level

Torbali e 1 pretreatment

facility 1. capacity level

147,064

Merkez e 1 collection

centre 1. capacity level,

Torbal e 1 pretreatment

facility 2. capacity level

Merkez e 1 collection

centre 1. capacity level,

Torbal e 1 pretreatment

facility 2. capacity level

Bergama, Merkez e 1

collection centre in each 2.

capacity level

Bayndr e 1 pretreatment

facility, 2. capacity level

References

Ahmadi, A., Ahmadi, M.R., Nezhad, A.E., 2014. A lexicographic optimization and

augmented -constraint technique for short-term environmental/economic

combined heat and power scheduling. Elect. Pow. Comp. Syst. 42 (9), 945e958.

Andersen, F., Iturmendi, F., Espinosa, S., Diaz, M.S., 2012. Optimal design and

planning of biodiesel supply chain with land competition. Comput. Chem. Eng.

47, 170e182.

Awudu, I., Zhang, J., 2012. Uncertainties and sustainability concepts in biofuel

supply chain management: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16,

1359e1368.

Aviso, K.B., Tan, R.R., Culaba, A.B., Cruz Jr., J.B., 2011. Fuzzy inputeoutput model for

optimizing eco-industrial supply chains under water footprint constraints.

J. Clean. Prod. 19, 187e196.

Chankong, V., Haimes, Y.Y., 1983. Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and

Methodology. North-Holland, New York.

Delivand, M.K., Cammerino, A.R.B., Garofalo, P., Monteleone, M., 2015. Optimal locations of bioenergy facilities, biomass spatial availability, logistics costs and

GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions: a case study on electricity productions in

South Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 129e139.

Do, T.X., et al., 2014. Techno-economic analysis of power plant via circulating

uidized-bed gasication from woodchips. Energy 70, 547e560.

Emissions Trading System (2009). (ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.html).

Esmaili, M., Amjady, N., Shayanfar, H.A., 2011. Multi-objective congestion management by modied augmented e-constraint method. Appl. Energy 88 (3),

bioenergy plants

mk1

mk2

mk

0.97

0.24

WS1(0.3*0.97)(0.7*0.24) 0.459

WS2(0.5*0.97)(0.5*0.24) 0.605

WS3(0.7*0.97)(0.3*0.24) 0.751

0.97

0.24

WS1 0.459

WS2 0.605

WS3 0.751

WS2(0.5*0.147)(0.5*0.726) 0.436

WS3(0.7*0.147)(0.3*0.726) 0.321

0.97

0.24

WS1 0.459

WS2 0.605

WS3 0.751

WS2(0.5*0.096)(0.5*0.255) 0.175

WS3(0.7*0.096)(0.3*0.255) 0.143

0.023 1

WS1(0.3*0.023)(0.7*1) 0.707

WS2(0.5*0.023)(0.5*1) 0.511

WS3(0.7*0.023)(0.3*1) 0.316

755e756.

European Climate Change Programme (2000). (ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/

index_en.html).

Faaij, A.P.C., 2006. Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices. Energy

Policy 34, 322e342.

Giarola, S., Zamboni, A., Bezzo, F., 2011. Spatially explicit multi-objective optimisation for design and planning of hybrid rst and second generation bioreneries.

Comput. Chem. Eng. 35 (9), 1782e1797.

Giarola, S., Zamboni, A., Bezzo, F., 2012a. Environmentally conscious capacity

planning and technology selection for bioethanol supply chains. Renew. Energy

43, 61e72.

Giarola, N., Shah, A., Bezzo, F., 2012b. A comprehensive approach to the design of

ethanol supply chains including carbon trading effects. Biores. Technol. 107,

175e185.

Haimes, Y.Y., Lasdon, L.S., Wismer, D.A., 1971. On a bicriterion formulation of the

problems of integrated system identication and system optimization. IEEE

Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. SMC 1 (3), 296e297.

Kindt, V.T., Billaut, J.-C., 2001. Multicriteria scheduling problem: a survey. RAIRO

Oper. Res. 35 (2), 143e163.

Kyoto Protocol (1997). (unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php).

Lam, H.L., Ng, W.P.Q., Ng, R.T.L., 2013. Green strategy for sustainable waste-toenergy supply chain. Energy 57, 4e16.

Li, Q., Hu, G., 2014. Supply chain design under uncertainty for advanced biofuel

production based on bio-oil gasication. Energy 74, 576e584.

Lin, T., Rodrguez, L.F., Shastri, Y.N., Hansen, A.C., King, K.C., 2014. Integrated strategic and tactical biomass-biofuel supply chain optimization. Bioresour.

1190

Lu, X., Withers, M.R., Seifkar, N., et al., 2015. Biomass logistics analysis for large scale

biofuel production: case study of loblolly pine and switchgrass. Biores. Technol.

183, 1e9.

Marufuzzaman, M., Li, X., Yu, F., Zhou, F., 2016. Supply chain design and management for syngas production. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4 (3), 890e900.

Marvin, W.A., Schmidt, L.D., Benjaafar, S., et al., 2012. Optimization of a lignocellulosic biomass-to-ethanol supply chain. Chem. Eng. Sci. 67 (1), 68e79.

lu, S.D., Hernandez, R., 2014. Environmentally friendly

Marufuzzaman, M., Eksiog

supply chain planning and design for biodiesel production via wastewater

sludge. Transp. Sci. 1e20. Articles in Advance.

Mavrotas, G., 2009. Effective implementation of the e-constraint method in MultiObjective mathematical Programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 213,

455e465.

Miettinen, K., 1998. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. USA. Kluwer, Boston,

MA.

Moghaddam, A.A., Sei, A., Niknam, T., 2012. Multi-operation management of a

typical micro-grids using particle swarm optimization: a comparative study.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2), 1268e1281.

Moghaddam, A.A., Sei, A., Niknam, T., Pahlavani, M.R., 2011. Multi-objective

operation management of a renewable MG (micro-grid) with back-up microturbine/fuel cell/battery hybrid power source. Energy 36 (11), 6490e6507.

Reza Norouzi, M., Ahmadi, A., Esmaeel, Nezhad, A., Ghaedi, A., 2014. Mixed integer

programming of multi-objective security constrained hydro/thermal unit

commitment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (0), 911e923.

Rezvani, A., Gandomkar, M., Izadbakhsh, M., Ahmadi, A., 2015. Environmental/

economic scheduling of a micro-grid with renewable energy resources. J. Clean.

Prod. 87 (0), 216e226.

Santiban

system considering economic and environmental aspects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

50 (14), 8558e8570.

Searcy, E., Flynn, P., Ghafoori, E., Kumar, A., 2007. The relative cost of biomass energy

transport. Appl. Biochem. Biotecnol. 136e140, 639e652.

Shabani, N., Sowlati, T., 2016. A hybrid multi-stage stochastic programming-robust

optimization model for maximizing the supply chain of a forest-based biomass

power plant considering uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3285e3293.

Sharifzadeh, M., Garcia, M.C., Shah, N., 2015. Supply chain network design and

operation: systematic decisionmaking for centralized, distributed, and mobile

biofuel production using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) under uncertainty. Biomass Bioenergy 81, 401e414.

UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2015. Government emission conversion factors for greenhouse gas company reporting: Conversion factors 2015 full set.

Xie, F., Huang, Y., Eksioglu, S., 2014. Integrating multimodal transport into cellulosic

biofuel supply chain design under feedstock seasonality with a case study based

on California. Biores. Technol 152, 15e23.

Ylmaz, S., Selim, H., 2013. A review on the methods for biomass to energy conversion systems design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25, 420e430.

You, F., Wang, B., 2011. Life cycle optimization of biomass-to-liquid supply chains

with distributedecentralized processing networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (17),

10102e10127.

Zhang, L., Hu, G., 2013. Supply chain design and operational planning models for

biomass to drop-in fuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 58, 238e250.

Zhang, Y., Wright, M.M., 2014. Product selection and supply chain optimization for

fast pyrolysis and biorenery system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53 (51),

19987e19999.

- Biomass PPTUploaded byIce D.
- Test EuroexamUploaded byBreggae
- Opportunities From Science and Technology 4Uploaded byDaisy
- BioFuelUploaded byapi-26998277
- Modern Bio FuelsUploaded byH Janardan Prabhu
- 1762-3295-1-SMUploaded byNafiul Amri Syafi'i
- baran01aUploaded byapi-26622648
- BIO3_TRIPTICOUploaded byHB Batche
- Biofuel ProductionUploaded byTuan Lam Ngoc
- Renewable EnergyUploaded byBasavaraj Shahapur
- Biomass EnergyUploaded bybodepu
- Biofuels Cellulosic Biomass StCloudUploaded byKhati Nguyen
- Biomass energy.docUploaded byMrlichlam Vo
- iPower Profile Mar2014Uploaded byMarites Pangilinan
- Daud Et Al 2013 Devolatilization Studies of Oil Palm Biomass for Torrefaction Process OptimizationUploaded byDhianRhanyPratiwi
- BEE.proceedingsUploaded byAnna Aladjadjiyan
- Sam146 Stress Fan OptimizationUploaded bySanthosh Lingappa
- 17587Uploaded bytunganh1110
- Biomass EnergyUploaded byChinnaBabu
- 40UnntoUploaded byRdy Simangunsong
- azad2015.pdfUploaded byDan Cuizon
- Biofuel SustainabilityUploaded bymariniabrahan
- 142194-378229-1-SMUploaded byalem010
- Evolutionary Algorithms.pdfUploaded byingjojeda
- 1-s2.0-S0261306908004913-mainUploaded byPrashant Kumar Choudhary
- Gtaylor_tsec Biosys Jul09Uploaded byimdadamu
- Multi Scenario-Multi CriteriaUploaded byBrad
- 2014 OAG Bio Power - Project Replacement of Existing Diesel Plants to Gassification April 2014Uploaded bydean roberts
- research gateUploaded byinnovatorinnovator
- 149.IJMPERDJUN2019149Uploaded byTJPRC Publications

- Neumann Managing the Sovereign Debt CrisisUploaded byAna Gs
- Strategic Manag and DeterminismUploaded byAna Gs
- Investment-planning-and-strategic-management-of-sustainable-systems-for-clean-power-generation-An-constraint-based-multi-objective-modelling-approach_.pdfUploaded byAna Gs
- Action-Oriented Strategic ManagUploaded byAna Gs
- Case 2-3: Starnes Brenner Machine Tool CompanyUploaded byJonathan Truong
- Sephora-presentationUploaded byAna Gs
- Applying Strategic Manag at EEOCUploaded byAna Gs
- National_ML_TF_Risk_Assessment.pdfUploaded byAna Gs
- Impact of QE on Credit RiskUploaded byAna Gs
- Financial Markets in 2020Uploaded byAna Gs
- Personal Accessories in RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- Modele de Marketing - ArticolUploaded byAna Gs
- Risks and Vulnerabilities RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- The Foreign Exchange Market-John Maynard KeynesUploaded byAna Gs
- A Theoretical Model of Strategic Management of Family Firms a Dynamic Capabilities Approach 2016 Journal of Family Business StrategyUploaded byAna Gs
- Jewellery in RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- Quantitative EasingUploaded byAna Gs
- Critical Thinking Lesson21Uploaded byAna Gs
- Bastiat - A PETITION From the Manufacturers of CandlesUploaded byAna Gs
- Consumer Types FranceUploaded byAna Gs
- Watches in RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- MusicUploaded byAna Gs
- 19Uploaded byapi-3725843
- ESM 2013_Ch 6_The Foreign Exchange Market (1).pdfUploaded byAna Gs

- Organic Aquaculture - A New Approach in Fisheries DevelopmentUploaded byDr. Subhendu Datta
- Catalogo IV GoldUploaded byEurico José Cuinica
- Amplus SolarUploaded byAbhishek Abhi
- Easst PanelsUploaded byJuan Carlos Aceros
- GLobal WaTer SuMMitUploaded byThiwakkaran Muagan
- 12356.pdfUploaded byJairo Arenas
- Brochure ICSET 2013Uploaded byAinissesthai Guapo
- Harrisburg Recovery Coordinator Exit Plan 8-18Uploaded byBecca Oken-Tatum
- Syllabus 7 and 8 B.arch KTU Final at 1125pmUploaded byAjith Bhaskar
- Agriculture Of PakistanUploaded byKashif Abbas
- Metal recycling: opportunities, limited, infrastructureUploaded byUnited Nations Environment Programme
- Laccei 2019 Paper45Uploaded bysou-chan Arenas
- Preliminary Programme FOREN 2018 v 28.03Uploaded bySilvia Tudor
- OUR Planet: Building Inclusive Green Economies: South-South Cooperation for Sustainable Development and Poverty EradicationUploaded byUnited Nations Environment Programme
- Anupam Corporate BrochureUploaded byMADHU SUDHAN
- Consumption Junction - Too Much is Never EnoughUploaded byFrank A. Sicoli
- KPMG CII Travel Tourism Sector ReportUploaded byshinkoicagmailcom
- Urban TerminologiesUploaded byJemyla Klucy
- PDF 15 15_Why-it-Matters_Goal15__Life-on-Land_3p.pdfUploaded byNadra Nusyirwan
- Ncp Demonstration Paper Oko ForestsUploaded byIngeniería Industrias Alimentarias Itsm
- Training-Workshop-On-Documenting-Good-Practices-For-Effective-Local-Governance-A-Trainer’s-Manual.pdfUploaded byJeesson Alamar
- Csr 292Uploaded bygopinath87
- Medicinal Plants - Rural Resource Pack - NetherlandsUploaded byno1dubakoor
- banana-peels-as-water-purifier-webtranscript.docUploaded byshekure
- Ecosystem Services of Southeast Asia: Major Threats and OpportunitiesUploaded byGlobal Canopy Programme
- COP on ProgressUploaded byclemclab
- March 2010 Ground Cover Newsletter, Landcare VictoriaUploaded byThe Burrenbeo Trust
- Nigel Roomie - Business Models for SustainabilityUploaded byStefanBelibou
- Peet y Watts_Development TheoryUploaded byAgostina Costantino
- Rural TourismUploaded bySayantan Pal