0 Up votes0 Down votes

4 views12 pagesJul 11, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Annual Report 2013-14
- Venture Capitalist Vinod Khosla on Renewable Energy, 2009
- DESIGN OF A BIOGAS GENERATOR FOR USE IN SEMIARID REGIONS
- Biomass in Indonesia by Robert Duryea
- 2155-6199-C1-007-004 (1)
- Godin 2013 (Chemical Characteristics Biofuels Potentials Various Plant Biomasses Influence Harvesting Date) BG
- Bio Mas A
- Woodfuel Resource
- The role of wood energy in Asia.pdf
- My Home-Made Biomass Gasifier
- Lucia, 2008
- Wood Energy in America
- Biomass Energy
- Biofuel
- Realistic Approach
- 10.1108@09600039810245120
- 10.1057@jors.2013.84
- Production of Methanol From a Mixture of Torrefied Biomass and Coal
- Deloitte Nl Manufacturing Opportunities for the Fermentation Based Chemical Industry 2014
- Assignment.pdf

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

Received 3 April 2016 mainly caused by diminishing fossil fuel resources and environmental pollution from traditional fossil

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

26 July 2016

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

Accepted 27 July 2016

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

Available online 2 August 2016

management of biomass based clean power generation systems. The model integrates the location, ca-

pacity and technology decisions to nd the optimal combination of bioenergy production systems to

Keywords:

Investment planning

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

Strategic management technologies. The modelling approach and data analysis are presented to outline the important char-

Clean power generation acteristics of the problem for minimization of the supply chain cost and minimization of the greenhouse

Bio-based supply chains gas (GHG) emissions simultaneously. To handle the multi objective problem efciently, an integrated

Multiobjective optimization 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 al-

gorithm to design the most cost effective and environment friendly supply chain, to monitor the eco-

nomic 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.

Biomass is carbon based biological material derived from living,

The legislative regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the or recently living organisms available on a renewable basis. As an

European Union Emission Trading System (2009) and the European energy source, biomass can either be used directly to produce heat

Climate Change Programme (2000), force companies to change the by combustion, or indirectly to produce electrical and/or thermal

way they make their decisions and manage their supply chains in energy after converting it to various forms of liquid and gaseous

an energy efcient way (Marufuzzaman et al., 2014). Production of fuels (i.e. biofuel). For more detailed information about conversion

bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts is one of the most promising processes Faaij (2006) can be referred. Biomass has a great potential

alternative energy pathways that has been rapidly developing in 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

E-mail address: s.yilmaz@deu.edu.tr.

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

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

1180 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

special form of supply chains that includes biomass to energy strategic planning. The model integrates all activities in a bioenergy

conversion facilities as manufacturing facilities. supply chain from feedstock supply to power distribution, and all

In biomass based production, a possible solution to resource elements of the chain from biomass source sites to demand nodes.

scarcity issues, concerns have been expressed about the economic The model identies the optimal conguration of the supply chain

and environmental sustainability of the sector. Various biomass and selects the most appropriate power production technology to

based chains are operated throughout the world. However, the meet the electricity demand of given regions to enhance strategic

wide use of biomass based systems has resulted in new challenges decision making on bioenergy investments. It covers the decisions

such as long-distance biomass transportation in large-scale net- related to location, capacity sizing and technology selection by

works which results in additional logistics costs, energy con- capturing the tradeoffs that exist between costs and emissions in

sumption and ultimately higher GHG emissions compared to the supply chain. As solution methodology, an integrated approach

small-scale utilisation. Robust and integrated supply chains and is presented that combines fuzzy decision making and -constraint

logistics networks need to be developed especially in large ca- method, to capture both sustainability aspects by considering

pacity systems. different objectives and uncertainties in the system parameters

These challenges have motivated researchers to develop proper effectively. This method reects the characteristics of the problem

methodologies to select the most favorable supply chain congu- on hand. To explore the viability of the proposed model and solu-

ration and to identify cost-efcient abd environment friendly bio- _

tion approach a case study of Izmir, Turkey is conducted and further

based supply chains. Effectively designed renewable based supply enviro-economic analyses are performed to provide insights to aid

chains can have an economic advantage over non-renewable decision makers in strategic planning on bioenergy supply chains.

sourced systems and eliminate the issues related to sustainability. Computational experiments show that it is enable to provide high

In addition, to ensure sustainability in bioenergy systems optimi- quality solutions in a reasonable amount of time.

zation, usually multiple conicting objectives have to be consid- The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a

ered. Also, due to the nature of biomass based energy supply chains, comprehensive literature review on the studies that develop opti-

many uncertainties exist that make the system parameters uc- mization models for sustainable design of biomass based supply

tuate in a range, such as biomass supply and price uncertainties, chains and related it to our study. In section 2, the research gaps in

energy price and demand uncertainties, production and yield un- the current literature are revealed and the contributions of this

certainties and transportation uncertainties (Awudu and Zhang, study to full these gaps are stated. Section 3 presents the problem

2012). In many cases feedstock location, processing sites and description, formulation of the optimization models and the solu-

product destinations have profound implications for the prot- tion approach. In Section 4, the methodology that integrates fuzzy

ability and environmental impacts of the overall supply chain optimization and -constraint methods to solve the multi-objective

(Sharifzadeh et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to design robust, decision making problems on strategic design and management of

reliable and sustainable supply chains to deliver a competitive end bioenergy supply chains is presented. Section 5 explains the case

product to the end used markets and to sustainably meet the ever- study setting where the proposed optimization model and solution

increasing energy demand. In addition, to cope with the feedstock _

methodology are applied to the region of Izmir. Section 6 proposes

and technology related uncertainties effectively, a mixture of the results, further analyses and discussion. Section 7 discusses the

biomass resources and multiple technologies should be taken into conclusions along with future research directions.

account in the design phase instead of single biomass and tech-

nology. Among all the options given for a dened system compo-

nents and power generation, not all combinations may be sensible 2. Literature review

from efciency and economic point of view. Selecting appropriate

process congurations leads to optimal plant design and operation Table given below presents a literature review on studies that

(Ylmaz and Selim, 2013). develop optimization models to make decisions related to biomass

These necessities bring about the main research question of this based supply chains considering economic and environmental

paper; how can a biomass based supply chain be optimized in a sustainability. Table depicts type of the model developed in each

sustainable and efcient manner, considering different biomass study, optimization scope of the study, system/process type

types and power technologies and capturing system specic un- considered in the study. The last ve columns of the table shows

certainties in the design phase? Answering this research question, that whether the study captures economic and environmental

this paper develops a novel mathematscal model to design sus- sustainability aspects, handles single/multi technology and

tainable supply chains for multiple biomass based power genera- biomass type, and considers uncertainty in system parameters.

tion systems to enhance the investment decision making and

Reference Model Optimization scope System/ Economic Environmental Single/ Single/ Uncertainty

type Process aspects aspects Multitechnology Multi consideration

type biomass

Zhang and MINLP* Design of optimal supply chain structure with optimal plant Fast e Single Single e

Wright sizes, locations, biomass supply, facility selection and product pyrolysis

(2014) distributions. biorenery

Marvin et al. MILP* Selection of facility location, capacity and technology selection Biofuel e Single Single e

(2012) for biomass to biofuel supply chains as a network of biomass production

producers, conversion facilities, and markets.

Lin et al. (2014) MILP Planning of farm management, logistics activities, facility Biofuel e Single Single e

allocation and distribution. production

Xie et al. (2014) MILP Locations and capacities of transshipment hubs, reneries and Bioethanol e Single Single e

terminals are determined by the model along with seasonal production

feedstock/biofuel storage and shipment amounts.

S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190 1181

(continued )

Reference Model Optimization scope System/ Economic Environmental Single/ Single/ Uncertainty

type Process aspects aspects Multitechnology Multi consideration

type biomass

Marufuzzaman MILP The optimal size and location of chipping terminals and along Gasication Single Single e

et al. (2016) with syngas production and transportation decisions are

made.

Andersen et al. MILP All components of the supply chain such as crop elds, Biodiesel e Single Single e

(2012) storages, production plants and distribution centers are production

optimized.

Zhang and Hu MILP Determination of facility number, location, capacity and Biofuel e Single Single e

(2013) production decisions at operational level such as biomass production

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 Bioenergy Single Multi e

(2015) MCA* bioenergy production. The study consists of land availability production

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 Biofuel e Multi Multi

(2011) multi-region systems that takes into account trade effects. production

Lam et al. MILP Selection of optimal technologies, plants location, and the Biofuel e Multi Multi e

(2013) annual amount of biomass product considering the objective production

functions related to environmental impact, cost functions.

Giarola et al. MILP Biomass type selection and supplier allocation, production Bioethanol Single Multi e

(2011) technology, site selection, capacity assignment and production

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 Fast e Single Single

et al. (2015) under uncertainty. pyrolysis

biorenery

Giarola et al. MILP Optimize the environmental and nancial performances Bioethanol Single Single e

(2012a,b) simultaneously by considering a wide set of alternative production

production technologies and specic geographical features.

Giarola et al. MILP Strategic design and planning of feasible and sustainable Bioethanol Single Single e

(2012a,b) multi-echelon bioethanol supply chains. production

You and Wang MILP Conversion pathways and technologies, feedstock seasonality, Liquid Multi Single e

(2011) geographical diversity, biomass degradation, infrastructure biofuel

compatibility, demand distribution, and government production

incentives are optimized.

~ ez-

Santiban MILP Selection of optimal feedstock, processing technology and Biofuel Multi Multi e

Aguilar et al. product combinations. production

(2011)

Li and Hu MISP* Capital investment and logistics decisions are made. Bio-oil e Single Single

(2014) gasication

Shabani and MISP Tactical supply chain planning of a power plant considering Forest-

Sowlati uncertainties in the quality of biomass. based

(2016) biomass to

power e Single Single

generation

*MINLP: Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming; MILP: Mixed Integer Linear Programming; LP: Linear programming; MCA: Multi criteria analyses; FLP: Fuzzy Linear Pro-

gramming; MISP: Mixed Integer Stochastic Programming.

Literature review ndings suggest that, the vast majority of the To sum up, review of the literature suggests that, there is a need

researches focus only on biomass to biofuel supply chains without to develop a comprehensive strategic planning approach to

conversion to electrical and/or thermal energy. However, in real congure biomass based supply chains taking into account multiple

world applications biofuel, which is obtained from multiple sources biomass types and conversion technologies by integrating sus-

of biomass, is commonly converted to energy in bioenergy plants tainability and uncertainty aspects in design phase. In addition, we

by power engines. Also, most of the models capture one type of can conclude that, there is a need to develop a generalizable model

biomass and one type of conversion technology/process (thermo- that aids to optimize cases related to investment decision making

chemical or biochemical), which makes them problem specic. In on biomass based supply chains that include both biomass pro-

addition, the literature review reveals that, none of the method- cessing facilities and energy production systems by only changing

ologies in the literature integrates the strategic decisions related to the dataset.

location, capacity and technology selection for both bioenergy By addressing these gaps in the literature, this study contributes

plants and preprocessing facilities with tactical decisions on pro- to the related body of knowledge mainly in two ways. The rst

duction and transportation of biomass and bioenergy. Also, it can contribution is proposing a new optimization model in the multi-

be concluded that, none of the current studies develop and use an objective framework for the strategic decision making in multiple

optimization methodology that integrates economic and environ- biomass and multiple technology based power production system

mental sustainability issues with uncertainty consideration in the investments, to minimize the total cost while simultaneously

same framework in design phase. minimizing the harmful environmental impacts in terms of GHG

1182 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

emissions. The main novelties in the proposed model are; (1) It is The rst objective function, namely minimization of total

generalizable as it covers conversion of multiple types of biomass monthly supply chain cost, can be calculated as follows;

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

covering multiple types of conversion technologies/processes, (2) It Total Supply Chain Cost Discounted Investment

integrates decisions related to both power plant technology and Costs Operational Costs Transportation Costs Biomass Pur-

preprocessing facility type. The second main contribution is pre- chasing Cost Auxiliary Material Cost

senting an integrated approach incorporating fuzzy decision mak-

ing and -constraint methods to solve the presented multi- Eq. (1) represents the rst objective function;

20 1 0 13

X

J X

E X

C X

K X

P X

T

Min f1 DF 4@ Yec $Kec $Xec A @ k A5

j

Ypt $Kpt $Zpt

j1 e1 c1 k1 p1 t1

" 1 0 13

P

J P

E P

C X

K X

P X

T

Pec $DK2ec $Xec A @ k A5

j

Ppt $K1pt $Zpt (1)

j1 e1 c1 k1 p1 t1

" 3 2 00 1 0 113 !

P

I P

J P

C P

B X

B X

I X

J X

C X

J X

K X

T X

K

Fb ,Rijcb 5 4 Cb ,@@ Rijcb ,dij A @ Rjk

tb

,djk AA5 k

S ,FW

i1 j1 c1 b1 b1 i1 j1 c1 j1 k1 t1 k1

and sustainability aspects simultaneously.

Eq. (2) shows the second objective function, namely minimi-

zation of GHG emissions associated with energy production, which

3. Methods includes (1) GHG emissions from plants associated with production

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

3.1. Problem description and formulation of the models biomass.

multi biomass based energy production considering sustainability X

T X

K I X

X J X

C X

B

aspects. The supply chain in consideration consists of the biomass Min f2 cept $ E k

4cet @ Rijcb

t1 k1 i1 j1 c1 b1

source sites to supply multiple types of biomass, facilities for 13

preprocessing of biomass, facilities for storage of biomass, X

J X

K X

T X

B

Rtb A5

jk

biomass to electricity conversion plants, electricity demand

nodes. j1 k1 t1 b1

We developed a MILP model that captures economic and envi- (2)

ronmental aspects by a multiobjective structure. The model, aims to

design the biomass based energy supply chain by making decisions Eqs. (3)e(13) represent the constraints of the model.

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

procurement and allocation of the biomass resources; and (3) in- X

C X

J

ij

ventory, production and distribution planning, to meet the electrical Rcb ABib ci; cb (3)

energy demand of (a) particular area(s). The model determines the c1 j1

optimal conguration of the supply chain considering the tradeoffs

between costs and GHG emissions associated with production ac-

tivities. The decisions made by the model are; X

I X

C X

K X

T

Rijcb $vbc Rjk

tb

cj; cb (4)

i1 c1 k1 t1

1. Numbers, locations and capacities of facilities, power plants,

2. Types of facilities and technologies for power plants,

3. Amounts electricity produced in each power plant,

X

I X

B

jk

X

P

4. Amounts biomass distributed between biomass source sites, Rtb k

Zpt $Kpt ck; ct (5)

facilities and plants, i1 b1 p1

5. Amount of biomass treated/stored in facilities,

6. Amount of auxiliary material consumed in power plants.

I X

X B

ij

X

E

j

As stated before, a multiobjective model is proposed to reect Rcb Xec $Kec cj; cc (6)

the multidimensional nature of the biomass based energy supply i1 b1 e1

chain conguration design problem under concern. The model in-

cludes three environmental and economic objectives. The objec-

tives are: (1) minimization of total cost; and (2) minimization of

J X

X B

jk

Rtb $rbft Bkft ck; cf ; ct (7)

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

j1 b1

the supply chain. The notations of the mathematical formulations

are presented in Appendix 1.

S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190 1183

X

T X

F

marized as follows;

Xftk $efn E k

ck (8)

t1 f 1

(1) Using the weighted sum method, only efcient extreme so-

lutions can be generated, while the -constraint technique

X

P

has the capability to generate nonextreme efcient solutions

Ek k

Zpt $KEpt ck (9)

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

p1

consequence, with the weighting method we may spend a lot

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

X

L

of combination of weights that result in the same efcient

Ek DEkl ck (10)

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

l1

we can exploit almost every run to produce a different ef-

cient solution, thus obtaining a more rich representation of

X

K

the efcient set (Miettinen, 1998).

DEkl T l cl (11)

k1

(2) The weighting method cannot produce unsupported efcient

solutions in multi-objective integer and mixed integer pro-

gramming problems, while the e-constraint method does not

X

P X

T

k

Zpt 1 ck (12) suffer from this pitfall (Reza Norouzi et al., 2014).

p1 t1 (3) In the weighting method the scaling of the objective func-

tions has strong inuence in the obtained results. Therefore,

we need to scale the objective functions to a common scale

X

E X

C

j

Xec 1 cj (13) before forming the weighted sum. In the e-constrained

e1 c1 method this is not necessary (Mavrotas, 2009).

(4) We can control the number of the generated efcient solu-

Eq. (3) restricts the biomass procurement amount from a supply tions by properly adjusting the number of grid points in each

region by the total available biomass in that region. Eq. (4) ensures one of the objective function ranges by econstraint

the ow balance of the biomass supplied from biomass source site method, which is not easy with the weighting method

to facility and from facility to biomass to energy conversion plant (Mavrotas, 2009).

considering the material loss in the biomass after the pretreatment

process (if the facility is for storage of biomass, the conversion rate Therefore, the -constraint method seems to be a good choice to

dbc is 1, which means no loss). Eqs. (5) and (6) limit the amount of solve multi-objective optimization problems.

biomass transported to the facilities and plants to the maximum Assume the following MOMP problem (Mavrotas, 2009):

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

(7) calculate the amount of biofuel produced in biomass to energy max=min f1 x; f2 x; fm x

conversion plants. Eqs. (8) and (9) calculate the amount of electrical st x2S

energy produced in biofuel to energy conversion plants and restrict

this amount to the maximum capacity of the corresponding ca- where x is the vector of decision variables, f1 x; f2 x; fm x are

pacity levels of plants. Eqs. (10) and (11) ensure that all the elec- the m objective functions and S is the feasible region.

trical energy demand is met in the demand nodes. Eqs. (12) and In the -constraint method we optimize one of the objective

(13) ensure that at most 1 facility, biomass to biofuel conversion functions using the other objective functions as constraints incor-

plant and biofuel to energy conversion plant is constructed in each porating them in the constraint part of the model as shown below

selected location. (Chankong and Haimes, 1983);

max =min f1 x

3.2. Solution methodology

st f2 x 2 for max functions;

f3 x 3 for min functions;

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

multi-objective strategic design and management problem by

fm x m ;

integrating fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods is

x2S:

explained.

There are several common techniques to solve a multiobjective By introducing the ranges i ; i2f1; ; mg of objective functions

problems, such as the weighted-sum method, the -constraint the efcient solutions of the problem are obtained.

method, the goal attainment approach, and metaheuristics (Kindt Despite its advantages over the weighting method, it is empha-

and Billaut, 2001). Among them, weighted sum method is the sized in the literature that the -constraint method has two points

method commonly used for economic/environmental management that need attention in its implementation (Ahmadi et al., 2014). The

problems compared with other optimization approaches estab- rst problem is with the calculation of the ranges of objective

lished previously (Moghaddam et al., 2011, 2012). However, a well- functions over the efcient sets. To overcome this decit, this study

organized method to deal with multi-objective problems is employed a fuzzy logic based procedure to determine the ranges

-constraint method (Haimes et al., 1971) which is aimed to mini- more realistically and considering the system uncertainties. The

mize only one objective function (commonly, it may be the most second problem with this technique is that the generated pareto

preferred or primary one) and to limit the others by some allowable optimal solutions using this method may be dominated or inef-

values i ; i2f1; :::; mg, and in this way, transforming the multi- cient; therefore, it is necessary to select the most efcient one among

objective optimization problem into a single-objective problem. them. Fuzzy decision making is utilized herein to eliminate this

The -constraint method has several advantages over the shortcoming.

weighting method that merges the objective functions of the multi- In this paper a modied version of the -constraint method is

objective problem into one objective function using weighted sum. proposed to address these issues by combining the method with

1184 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

fuzzy decision making. The modied -constraint method for the emission minimization objectives, for each solution k, the mem-

proposed problem is described as the following steps; bership degree mki is calculated based on its individual membership

Step 1. Problem P in Section 2 can be transformed into problem P0 functions by adding weight factors as follows:

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

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

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

mki i1

P m

i1 wi

min f1 x The solution with the maximum value of mki is selected as the

st f2 x 2 ; most preferred solution.

and constraints 3 13

3.3. Computational experiments

Step 2. To solve problem P0, we need to determine 2 (upper

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

3.3.1. Case study region and biomass sources

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

To explore the viability of the proposed model, computational

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

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

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

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

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

based energy production in Izmir, which is the third largest city in

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

Turkey. As agriculture and stockbreeding are among the most

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

common economic activities in Izmir, diverse set of biomass bio-

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

waste feedstock resources are available in Izmir for energy pro-

are taken into consideration and sub problems are solved according _

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

to either cost minimization or emission minimization objectives.

Turkish poultry sector and has the fourth largest biogas production

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

potential from animal wastes in Turkey. The proposed model is

matrix where the matrix elements represent the optimum values of _ _

applied to all 20 counties of Izmir. All of the counties of Izmir are

the corresponding objective function. The lower, upper and ex-

considered as biomass supply sites and candidate sites for bio-

pected values of each objective function are determined based on

energy plants and preprocessing facilities in the model. The map of

the payoff table.

the case study region is depicted in Fig. 1. Each county is repre-

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

sented by a number in the model as depicted in Fig. 1. The starred

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

counties on the map constitute the city centre, therefore considered

obtain a set of pareto optimal solutions.

as one county in the model.

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

The proposed model includes four types of waste biomass to be

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

transformed into energy; cattle manure, laying chicken manure and

may also want to know its degree of optimality. The fuzzy-logic-

broiler chicken manure, and waste wood. The resources are not uni-

based approach (Esmaili et al., 2011) can both provide a most

formly distributed in the city, their yields vary signicantly between

preferred solution and also indicate its degree of optimality. _

counties of Izmir. The existing feedstock annual yields and location

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

data are gathered from Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food, Agricul-

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

ture and Livestock and have been aggregated at county centroids.

pareto optimal solutions, the membership function mki indicates the

degree of optimality for the ith objective function in the kth solu-

3.3.2. Transportation

tion. It is dened as follows;

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

considered as the preferred transportation mode as it is the most

1. In the case of objective functions being minimized; _

common transportation mode in Izmir. In this scope, transportation

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

>

>1 ; fik x li

>

> Currently, road transportation is the most common method for

>

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

mki ui fi x ; li < fik x ui 2007). Road transportation is favorable when exibility is required

>

> ui li

>

>

>

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

0 ; fik x > ui 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

2. In the case of objective functions being maximized; as liquid/semi-solid biomass. Biomass sources are transported by

8 trucks with the cost of V0.045/t-km for solid biomass and V0.05/t-

>

>1 ; fik x > ui km for liquid/semi-solid biomass. The cost data is derived from

>

>

>

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

mki fi x li ; li < fik x ui Lu et al. (2015) for solid biomass and updated for the local conditions

>

> u i li

>

> considering the data gathered from local logistics rms. Data on

>

:

0 ; fik x < li GHG emissions associated with transportation of biomass by trucks

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

where li and ui denote the lower and upper limits of objective data obtained from LCA software SIMAPRO.

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

objective function in the kth pareto optimal solution, such that 3.3.3. Preprocessing facilities and bioenergy plants

fik x2li ; ui . Collection and pretreatment facilities to store, treat and

Step 6. If a decision maker offers a preferred weight vector, which distribute biomass are considered as preprocessing facility types.

represents the relative importance of each objective according to the Cattle manure, laying chicken manure, broiler chicken manure and

decision maker's preferences, for the cost minimization and maize are assumed to be collected and distributed via collection

S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190 1185

centers whereas pretreatment facilities are used to treat waste where, TSb is the total solid content of biomass b and W k is the

wood to convert into wood pellet, which is a more efcient biomass amount of water (auxiliary material) used to adjust the total solid

with higher solid content than waste wood, by drying process. content of the biomass mixture in the anaerobic digestion tank.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) and gasication (G) technologies are The other data and assumptions on facilities and plants are;

considered to convert biomass into energy. AD is utilized to pro-

duce biofuel (biogas) from cattle manure, laying chicken manure 1. The electrical efciency of the cogeneration units are taken as

and broiler chicken manure, which then be converted into electrical 40%.

energy by CHP engines. Biofuel (syngas) produced from waste 2. The conversion rate of waste wood to wood pellet is to be 80%.

wood by G is assumed to be transformed into electrical energy in 3. The generated electrical energy, is assumed to be fed into the

CHP engines as well. national electricity grid.

To ensure the efciency of biogas production process in the AD 4. Two capacity levels are considered for the pretreatment facil-

plants, the total solid content of biomass slurry in the fermentation ities and biomass to energy conversion plants. These capacity

tank should vary between 7% and 12%. To represent this technical levels reported in Table 1.

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

specic contraint; Data on GHG emissions associated with bioenergy production in

plants (including conversion in CHP units) are gathered utilizing

PJ PB PT LCA software SIMAPRO and DECC (2015).

j1 b1 t1 TSb Sjk

7% ! tb 12% ck (14)

PJ PB PT jk

j1 b1 t1 Stb Wk 3.3.4. Economic parameters

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 Total biomass capacity of PT

level plants (t/month) unit in G plant (kWe) plants (t/month) unit in AD plant (kWe) facilities (t/month)

2 2250 6000 10,000 3250 5000

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

level plants (V/ton) in G plant (V/kWe) plants (V/ton) AD plant (V/kWe) facilities (V/ton)

2 18,000 750 1500 750 750

1186 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

nodes are considered in the different locations around the city to 4.1. The optimized supply chain conguration

meet the corresponding electrical energy demand. The price and

demand data came from Republic of Turkey Ministry of energy and The optimized supply chain conguration is determined by the

Natural Resources. It is assumed that waste biomass is supplied by modied -constraint method taking the steps given in Section 4.

the local farmers at no charge. Monthly discount rate is taken as This section describes the optimized supply chain conguration

0.006 and lifetime of the plants are 20 years. The length of the time determined by applying the model and solution algorithm.

period used in our computational experiments is one month. The payoff table is obtained as described in Section 4 (Steps 2

We obtain the data on plant investment costs corresponding to and 3). Table 2 depicts the payoff values according to each objective

different plant capacity levels by a survey on AD and G plant in- function and the upper, lower and expected values of the fuzzy

stallations around the Europe and by utilizing professional expert parameters (see Section 5.5).

Table 2

The payoff values according to each objective function.

GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq) 154,275 147,064 132,562

GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq/Month) 150,272 146,641 124,371

opinion. Do et al. (2014) is also utilized to derive the data. The in- After obtaining the payoff table, the mathematical model is

vestment costs per kilowatt of installed power are taken into solved with six different values of 2, which are depicted in italic

consideration in a manner that they decrease with higher capacities characters in Table 2, and a set of pareto optimal solutions is ob-

because of economies of scale. The investment costs per kilowatt of tained. Table in Appendix 2 reports the pareto optimal solutions

installed power depending on capacity levels and counties are re- according to each 2 values (upper limit for GHG emissions), along

ported in Table 1. Annual operational costs of plants and storages are with the strategic supply chain decisions related to decisions loca-

taken as 5% of investment costs. This percentage is also obtained by a tion, capacity and technology of bioenergy plants and preprocessing

survey on biogas plant installations and storages and by utilizing facilities according to each solution. The table also depicts the cor-

professional expert opinion. It should be noted that, unit costs are responding membership function (mk ) values for each solution

computed considering monthly capacity of the facilities and plants. 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 impor-

3.3.5. Uncertainty treatment

tance of the objectives and provide the DM for a more condent

In practical cases on biomass based energy systems, system

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

parameters are affected signicantly by economical, social and

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

environmental policies as well as the uctuations in the market

(WS3).

conditions. Considering this fact, uncertainties in the following

The table in Appendix 2 provides a broader perspective to de-

parameters of which values are highly impacted by governmental

cision makers by offering the results of the alternatives with three

policies, competition between rms in the related market and

different weight structures. Decision makers from different sectors

natural conditions about weather, soil etc are handled and

(governmental units or private companies) can choose the best

included to the methodology in this study;

alternative according to their preferences related to objective

functions (costs vs. emissions). The main results that can be ob-

1. Investment and operational costs

tained from the table are summarized in the following;

2. Transportation costs

3. Biomass yields

1. If minimization of GHG emissions is more important than mini-

mization of costs for a decision maker, the rst weight structure

Therefore, we dene the coefcients in the model corresponding

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

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

and the optimal solution should be selected as the solution with

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

the highest mk value corresponding to this weight structure. From

110% of their expected values in our computational experiments.

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

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

4. Results and discussion cost and 124,371 kg CO2 eq/Month GHG emissions). In this sit-

uation, 1 collection centre with 2nd capacity level, 1 pretreatment

This section presents the results of the computational experi- facility with 2nd capacity level and 1 pretreatment facility with

ments, provides further analyses of the results and a discussion on 1st capacity level is constructed in Menemen, Merkez, Torbali,

the viability of the proposed methodology along with some respectively. Dikili and Urla are the selected counties for con-

managerial insights. The proposed mathematical model and solu- struction of 1 AD plant in each with 2nd capacity level, and

tion methodology are coded in ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio Selcuk, Bergama and Menemen are the counties for construction

(Version 12.2). The numerical experiments were performed on an of 1 G plant in each with 2nd capacity level.

Intel Core Quad 2.66 GHz processor with 6 GB RAM on a 64-bit 2. If minimization of GHG emissions and minimization of costs are

platform under Windows 7 environment. The large-scale MILP equally important for a decision maker, the second weight

model is composed of 1347 constraints and 7641 variables (of structure (WS2) should be adopted (wCost 0.5 and wGHG

which 160 are integer variables). Emissions 0.5) and the optimal solution should be selected as the

S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190 1187

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 Fig. 3. The contribution of each cost component to the total supply chain cost ac-

can be observed from the table that the optimal solution for this cording to WS2 (wCost 0.5 and wGHG Emissions 0.5) and WS3 (wCost 0.7 and wGHG

situation is the 1st, 2nd or 4th solution alternatives (V717,275/ Emissions 0.3.

The conguration results of this solution are; 1 collection centre percentage (14%) and results in an increase of total cost by 11.8%.

with 1st capacity level and 1 pretreatment facility with 2nd Figure 2 and 3 illustrates the contribution of each cost compo-

capacity level are constructed in Merkez and Torbali, respec- nent (Discounted investment cost, operational cost, transportation

tively. Dikili and Urla are the selected counties for construction cost and auxiliary material (in our case, water) cost to the total

of 1 AD plant with 1st capacity level, 1 G plant in each with 1st supply chain cost according to the weight structures given in Sec-

capacity level. tion 6.1. The results denote that, discounted investment cost re-

ceives 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

4.2. Enviro-economic analyses

compared to investment and operational costs.

Further analyses on environmental impacts in terms of GHG

Enviro-economic analyses are presented to provide a deeper

emissions from production and transportation activities in the

understanding of the model and the results obtained by the pro-

supply chain denote that GHG emissions associated with energy

posed solution methodology. If the results of the 1st, 2nd or 4th

production activities receive the biggest share of total GHG emis-

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

sions. If the rst weight structure (WS1) is selected by the decision

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

maker, the related optimal conguration alternative causes 124,323

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

kgCO2eq/Month GHG emissions from production activities while

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

the transportation related GHG emissions are 48 kgCO2eq/Month.

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

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

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

selected, the GHG emissions associated with production and

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

transportation activities are 146,543 kgCO2eq/Month and 501

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

kgCO2eq/Month, respectively.

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 5. Conclusions

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

bioenergy plants and preprocessing facilities. However, giving 2 This study presents a new research effort to make strategic in-

values smaller than 147,064 such as 146,641, 132,562 and 124,371 vestment decisions on biomass based production systems in a cost

effects the total cost, GHG emissions and conguration of the supply effective and environment friendly way. To this aim, a multiobjective

chain. The table reveals that decreasing the 2 value from 154,275 to MILP model is developed to make decisions on the biomass supply

132,562 kgCO2eq/Month by 14%, causes a signicant increase in the chain design and planning. The model identies the optimal struc-

total cost, approximately by 367.51%, whereas a relatively small ture of the supply chain and selects the most appropriate power

decrease is observed in the GHG emissions by 9.8%. However, a production technology as well as the preprocessing plant type to

further decrease in 2 value from 132,562 to 124,371 kgCO2eq/ meet the electricity demand of specic regions considering objec-

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

Fig. 2. The contribution of each cost component to the total supply chain cost ac- have higher impact on GHG emissions than transportation activities.

cording to WS1 (wCost 0.3 and wGHG Emissions 0.7). This study distinguishes from the current literature in several

1188 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

ways. First, it proposes a new optimization model for strategic bioenergy industry. For example, it is possible for the model and

management in multiple biomass and multiple technology based solution methodology to be used for policy making purposes for

supply chains that include both power plants and biomass pro- governmental units to provide an overall guidance on targets for

cessing facilities to enhance investment decision making. The bioenergy production considering energy demands and environ-

proposed model is generic in its structure and can be tailored to mental footprint limitations in a given region. However, the same

handle bioenergy supply chain design problems in various regions framework can also be applied at the company level, for use by a

with different types of feedstock and transportation modes using single enterprise for strategic planning of its own activities under

the same general framework. The model can be readily extended to similar production and environmental targets. Note that these two

include additional, case-specic constraints required by the problems are structurally similar, although the signicance of the

problem. Second, it presents an integrated approach incorporating applications is markedly different.

fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods to solve the pre- Future research can extend the study by integrating the problem

sented multi-objective problem by capturing the problem specic with a district heating network to make use of the waste heat in

uncertainties and sustainability aspects simultaneously. To our residential, industrial or agricultural areas to meet thermal energy

knowledge, this is the rst study to develop a solution approach demand. Also, different modes of transportation (rail, sea etc)

that combines fuzzy decision making and -constraint methods to can be included and the model can be extended to select the most

capture both sustainability aspects by handling multiple objectives appropriate mode for a given region. The model can be extended to

and uncertainty in the system parameters in this eld. capture the stochastic nature of biomass supply and technology

The results of the case study reveal that the proposed model and development by converting it to a Stochastic Programming model.

solution algorithm can effectively be used in practice, to obtain the Including additional objectives in the proposed model may be

economic and environmental benets from biomass based energy another extension of this study. In this regard, other environmental

supply chain design. The government and private investors can objectives related to energy efciency and land use as well as social

employ our mathematical model and solution algorithm to design objectives such as maximization of job creation or social accept-

the most cost effective and environment friendly supply chain to ability of the energy conversion system, may be considered.

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

and harmful environmental effects that generated in a particular Appendix 1. The notations of the mathematical formulations.

region by constructing the supply chain. The model also facilitates

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

Indices

i Biomass source sites

j Candidate locations for facilities

k Candidate locations for energy plants

l Demand nodes

b Biomass types

f Biofuel types

p Capacity levels for energy plants

e Capacity levels for facilities

t Energy conversion technology

c Facility type

Decision variables

1. Binary variables

k

Zpt 1 if an energy plant of capacity level p and technology t is located at k, 0 otherwise

j

Xec 1 if a facility of capacity level e and type c is located at j, 0 otherwise

2. Positive variables

ij jk

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)

Ek Amount of electricity produced at plant k (kWh)

Bkut Amount of biofuel u produced at plant k with technology t (m3)

Sk Amount of auxiliary material consumed at energy plant k (ton)

Parameters

1. Biomass supply and product demand

Tl Amount of electricity demand at demand node l (kWh)

ABib Amount of available biomass b at biomass source site i (ton)

2. Capacities

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

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

3. Costs and prices

Ypt ; Yec 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

Ppt ; Pec Unit 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)

Fb ; FW Unit cost of biomass b, auxiliary material (V/ton)

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

4. Distances

dij ; djk Distances from; biomass source site i to facility j, facility j to plant k (km)

5. Conversion rates

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

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

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

S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190 1189

(continued )

6. Carbon emissions

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

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

7. Other parameters

DF Discounting factor

2 values and corresponding conguration decisions.

Pareto Value of 2 Cost GHG emissions Strategic decisions for Strategic decisions for mk1 mk2 mk

optimal (kg CO2 eq/ (V/Month) (kg CO2 eq preprocessing facilities bioenergy plants

solution no. Month) (V/Month)

1 154,275 717,275 147,064 Merkez e 1 collection Dikili e 1 AD plant 1. capacity 0.97 0.24 WS1(0.3*0.97)(0.7*0.24) 0.459

centre 1. capacity level, level, WS2(0.5*0.97)(0.5*0.24) 0.605

Torbal e 1 pretreatment Bayndr e 1 G plant WS3(0.7*0.97)(0.3*0.24) 0.751

facility 2. capacity level 1. capacity level

2 147,064 717,275 147,064 Merkez e 1 collection Dikili e 1 AD plant 1. capacity 0.97 0.24 WS1 0.459

centre 1. capacity level, level, WS2 0.605

Torbal e 1 pretreatment Bayndr e 1 G plant WS3 0.751

facility 2. capacity level 1. capacity level

3 132,562 3,353,316 132,562 Bergama, Merkez e 1 Bergama, Menemen, Urla e 1 0.147 0.726 WS1(0.3*0.147)(0.7*0.726) 0.552

collection centre in each 2. AD plant in each 2. capacity WS2(0.5*0.147)(0.5*0.726) 0.436

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

Bayndr e 1 pretreatment Beydag,

facility, 2. capacity level Foca e 1 G plant in each 1.

capacity level

4 150,272 717,275 147,064 Merkez e 1 collection Dikili e 1 AD plant 1. capacity 0.97 0.24 WS1 0.459

centre 1. capacity level, level, WS2 0.605

Torbal e 1 pretreatment Bayndr e 1 G plant WS3 0.751

facility 2. capacity level 1. capacity level

5 146,641 3,515,713 146,641 Beydag, Cesme e 1 Bergama, Seferihisar, Merkez 0.096 0.255 WS1(0.3*0.096)(0.7*0.255) 0.207

collection centre in each 1. e 1 AD plant in each 2. WS2(0.5*0.096)(0.5*0.255) 0.175

capacity level, capacity level, WS3(0.7*0.096)(0.3*0.255) 0.143

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

capacity level, each, 2. capacity level

Merkez e 1 pretreatment

facility in each 2. capacity

level

6 124,371 3,748,708 124,371 Menemen e 1 collection Dikili, Urla, e 1 AD plant in 0.023 1 WS1(0.3*0.023)(0.7*1) 0.707

centre 2. capacity level, each 2. capacity level, WS2(0.5*0.023)(0.5*1) 0.511

Merkez e 1 pretreatment Selcuk, Bergama, WS3(0.7*0.023)(0.3*1) 0.316

facility 2. capacity level Menemen e 1 G plant in each,

Torbali e 1 pretreatment 2. capacity level

facility 1. capacity level

755e756.

References 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

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

Policy 34, 322e342.

augmented -constraint technique for short-term environmental/economic

Giarola, S., Zamboni, A., Bezzo, F., 2011. Spatially explicit multi-objective optimisa-

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

tion for design and planning of hybrid rst and second generation bioreneries.

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

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

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

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

47, 170e182.

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

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

43, 61e72.

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

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

1359e1368.

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

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

175e185.

optimizing eco-industrial supply chains under water footprint constraints.

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

J. Clean. Prod. 19, 187e196.

problems of integrated system identication and system optimization. IEEE

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

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

Methodology. North-Holland, New York.

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

Delivand, M.K., Cammerino, A.R.B., Garofalo, P., Monteleone, M., 2015. Optimal lo-

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

cations of bioenergy facilities, biomass spatial availability, logistics costs and

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

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

Lam, H.L., Ng, W.P.Q., Ng, R.T.L., 2013. Green strategy for sustainable waste-to-

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

energy supply chain. Energy 57, 4e16.

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

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

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

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

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

Lin, T., Rodrguez, L.F., Shastri, Y.N., Hansen, A.C., King, K.C., 2014. Integrated stra-

Esmaili, M., Amjady, N., Shayanfar, H.A., 2011. Multi-objective congestion manage-

tegic and tactical biomass-biofuel supply chain optimization. Bioresour.

ment by modied augmented e-constraint method. Appl. Energy 88 (3),

1190 S.Y. Balaman / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1179e1190

Technol. 156, 256e266. Santiban ~ ez-Aguilar, J.E., et al., 2011. Optimal planning of a biomass conversion

Lu, X., Withers, M.R., Seifkar, N., et al., 2015. Biomass logistics analysis for large scale system considering economic and environmental aspects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

biofuel production: case study of loblolly pine and switchgrass. Biores. Technol. 50 (14), 8558e8570.

183, 1e9. Searcy, E., Flynn, P., Ghafoori, E., Kumar, A., 2007. The relative cost of biomass energy

Marufuzzaman, M., Li, X., Yu, F., Zhou, F., 2016. Supply chain design and manage- transport. Appl. Biochem. Biotecnol. 136e140, 639e652.

ment for syngas production. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4 (3), 890e900. Shabani, N., Sowlati, T., 2016. A hybrid multi-stage stochastic programming-robust

Marvin, W.A., Schmidt, L.D., Benjaafar, S., et al., 2012. Optimization of a lignocel- optimization model for maximizing the supply chain of a forest-based biomass

lulosic biomass-to-ethanol supply chain. Chem. Eng. Sci. 67 (1), 68e79. power plant considering uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3285e3293.

Marufuzzaman, M., Eksiog lu, S.D., Hernandez, R., 2014. Environmentally friendly Sharifzadeh, M., Garcia, M.C., Shah, N., 2015. Supply chain network design and

supply chain planning and design for biodiesel production via wastewater operation: systematic decisionmaking for centralized, distributed, and mobile

sludge. Transp. Sci. 1e20. Articles in Advance. biofuel production using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) under un-

Mavrotas, G., 2009. Effective implementation of the e-constraint method in Multi- certainty. Biomass Bioenergy 81, 401e414.

Objective mathematical Programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 213, UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2015. Government emission conver-

455e465. sion factors for greenhouse gas company reporting: Conversion factors 2015 -

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

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

Moghaddam, A.A., Sei, A., Niknam, T., 2012. Multi-operation management of a biofuel supply chain design under feedstock seasonality with a case study based

typical micro-grids using particle swarm optimization: a comparative study. on California. Biores. Technol 152, 15e23.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2), 1268e1281. Ylmaz, S., Selim, H., 2013. A review on the methods for biomass to energy con-

Moghaddam, A.A., Sei, A., Niknam, T., Pahlavani, M.R., 2011. Multi-objective version systems design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25, 420e430.

operation management of a renewable MG (micro-grid) with back-up micro- You, F., Wang, B., 2011. Life cycle optimization of biomass-to-liquid supply chains

turbine/fuel cell/battery hybrid power source. Energy 36 (11), 6490e6507. with distributedecentralized processing networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (17),

Reza Norouzi, M., Ahmadi, A., Esmaeel, Nezhad, A., Ghaedi, A., 2014. Mixed integer 10102e10127.

programming of multi-objective security constrained hydro/thermal unit Zhang, L., Hu, G., 2013. Supply chain design and operational planning models for

commitment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (0), 911e923. biomass to drop-in fuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 58, 238e250.

Rezvani, A., Gandomkar, M., Izadbakhsh, M., Ahmadi, A., 2015. Environmental/ Zhang, Y., Wright, M.M., 2014. Product selection and supply chain optimization for

economic scheduling of a micro-grid with renewable energy resources. J. Clean. fast pyrolysis and biorenery system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53 (51),

Prod. 87 (0), 216e226. 19987e19999.

- Annual Report 2013-14Uploaded byFirstpost
- Venture Capitalist Vinod Khosla on Renewable Energy, 2009Uploaded byThe Manual of Ideas
- DESIGN OF A BIOGAS GENERATOR FOR USE IN SEMIARID REGIONSUploaded bySteven Jones
- Biomass in Indonesia by Robert DuryeaUploaded byJohanMargono
- 2155-6199-C1-007-004 (1)Uploaded by123hap
- Godin 2013 (Chemical Characteristics Biofuels Potentials Various Plant Biomasses Influence Harvesting Date) BGUploaded byumasatish_pakki
- Bio Mas AUploaded byinma2148
- Woodfuel ResourceUploaded byBruno Prior
- The role of wood energy in Asia.pdfUploaded byMiguel Perca
- My Home-Made Biomass GasifierUploaded byettypasewang
- Lucia, 2008Uploaded byAyban Wan
- Wood Energy in AmericaUploaded byEd
- Biomass EnergyUploaded byVance Navales
- BiofuelUploaded byparthpppp
- Realistic ApproachUploaded byPrabhakar Reddy
- 10.1108@09600039810245120Uploaded bynikunjjain001
- 10.1057@jors.2013.84Uploaded byNoldy Sinsu
- Production of Methanol From a Mixture of Torrefied Biomass and CoalUploaded byResky Ervaldi Saputra
- Deloitte Nl Manufacturing Opportunities for the Fermentation Based Chemical Industry 2014Uploaded byBiswajeet Pattnaik
- Assignment.pdfUploaded byAr Varun Verma
- Biofuels 04.06.2016Uploaded byEr Elango
- Complex Algal CommunitiesUploaded bypeter
- Biofuels from Microalgae.pdfUploaded byluis AP
- G1-004-FulltextUploaded byCesar Humberto Zavala Inga
- Biofuel Roadmap for India_2015.pdfUploaded bySrinivas Duvvuri
- Manuscript%20for%20sago-based%20ethanol%20production_Final_Resubmission_DN4_YK4.docxUploaded byIbrahim Nick Dibal
- Segetis ProfileUploaded bySiti Ramadhani
- BacaUploaded byPutri Ajeng
- Bio EthanolUploaded byAnonymous KRS4E6cG
- IEA.pdfUploaded byAriscynatha Putra I

- Neumann Managing the Sovereign Debt CrisisUploaded byAna Gs
- Strategic Manag and DeterminismUploaded byAna Gs
- Action-Oriented Strategic ManagUploaded byAna Gs
- Applying Strategic Manag at EEOCUploaded byAna Gs
- Case 2-3: Starnes Brenner Machine Tool CompanyUploaded byJonathan Truong
- Sephora-presentationUploaded byAna Gs
- National_ML_TF_Risk_Assessment.pdfUploaded byAna Gs
- Personal Accessories in RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- Impact of QE on Credit RiskUploaded byAna Gs
- Financial Markets in 2020Uploaded byAna Gs
- Modele de Marketing - ArticolUploaded byAna Gs
- A Theoretical Model of Strategic Management of Family Firms a Dynamic Capabilities Approach 2016 Journal of Family Business StrategyUploaded byAna Gs
- Risks and Vulnerabilities RomaniaUploaded byAna Gs
- The Foreign Exchange Market-John Maynard KeynesUploaded byAna Gs
- Investment Planning and Strategic Management of Sustainable Systems for Clean Power Generation an Constraint Based Multi Objective Modelling ApproachUploaded 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

- 30BUploaded byDinesh Mehta
- Rathore et alUploaded byIqra Sarfraz
- Ethanol production from Potato WasteUploaded byMicaiah Das
- BiofuelUploaded bynedunilavan
- Industrial Symbiosis With BiofuelsUploaded byDumitru Poleac
- 2009 BioenergyUploaded bylivgal
- Need of CS in Energy SectorUploaded byTibin Joseph
- Proposal (Draft) Finale 2Uploaded byRomesor Apol
- What is renewable energy.docxUploaded byarchitectfemil6663
- Important_Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues A review.pdfUploaded byLoredana-Ionela Dumitraşcu
- Renewable_Energies_Outlook_2016-2030_P.compressed.pdfUploaded byAdam Gomez
- CAECA5D5d01Uploaded byVinoth
- Renewable Energy From BiomassUploaded byCris Navea
- Wood Energy FinalUploaded byAnil Kunwor
- Nov16-BMMUploaded byNuno Monteiro
- 2011 Gold Bio-energy supply chains and stakeholdersUploaded byf_caro01
- Integrated Renewable Energy SystemUploaded bybhuvana_eee
- Biofuel Water FootprintUploaded byEdison Diaz
- Biomass Feed Stocks Literature ReviewUploaded byErik Hoover
- SustainabilityUploaded byjubatus.libro
- Resume of Journal - Forestry Residues and Wood Waste for Biofuel ProductionUploaded byHalimah Haa
- Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries.pdfUploaded byHuang Li Liang
- EqtecUploaded byHarun Azureking
- Bioenergy TradeUploaded byjayengsumangat
- Broschure Hp EnUploaded byRade Djukic
- BiofuelUploaded byankitshah1
- Case StudyUploaded byguillaumeEMN
- Techno-Economic Evaluation of Tor Ref Action, Fast Pyrolysis and Pellet is at IonUploaded byGeorge Van Bommel
- The Bio Refinery Concept Using Biomass Instead of Oil for Producing Energy and ChemicalsUploaded byfranknsaful
- Biomass in Rural AreasUploaded bydreamspacearchitects

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.