Capd2012 You v2

Multiobjective Optimization of Energy-Environmental Systems
Fengqi You
Chemical and Biological Engineering Northwestern University Evanston / Chicago, IL 60208
2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Motivation
Optimization for Energy and Sustainability

Complex Energy-Environmental Systems
Involve complex interactions and are usually highly coupled Require integrated systems analysis & optimization
Optimization involves multiple objectives

Three dimensions of Sustainability*
Economics Environmental impacts Social benefits
Other objectives
Uncertainty & risk, responsiveness Energy efficiency and energy payback time
* Grossmann, I. E., & Guilln G, G. (2010) Scope for the application of mathematical programming techniques in the synthesis and planning of sustainable processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34 (9), 1365-1376.
Two Example Applications
Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains
Optimization for Oil Spill Response Operations
Motivation
36 32
Production Volume
Energy Act 2007 Requirement
Billion Gallon per Year
28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0
Biodiesel Other Renewables Cellulosic Biofuels
Ethanol Biodiesel
Corn Biofuels
20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22
(Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Biomass Multi Year Program Plan, EERE, U.S. DOE, 2012 )
Year
Biomass-to-Biofuels Supply Chain
Feedstock Production
Feedstock Logistics
Biofuels Production
Biofuels Distribution
Biofuels End Use
Why does the biomass-to-biofuels supply chain matter?

A Link between sustainable biomass feedstock and biofuel products Integrated systems analysis of all components is necessary Must be overall economically, environmentally and socially sustainable Special characteristics different from other supply chains
Some biomass feedstocks (e.g. corn stover) have seasonal supply Feedstock may deteriorate with time after harvesting inventory control Diverse conversion pathways for biorefineries
(National Biofuels Action Plan, U.S.DOE, 2008; Biomass Multi Year Program Plan, EERE, U.S. DOE, 2012 )
Problem Statement Design of Biofuels Supply Chains

Maximizing the economic, environmental and social performance
Given: time periods, cost data, potential locations and conversion technologies, weather condition, feedstock and water availability, harvesting and transportation capacity, feedstock properties, demand, incentives Decisions: network design, facility location, technology selection, capital investment, production levels, inventory control, and logistics management
Harvesting sites
Collection Facilities
Biorefineries
Demand Zones
7
Challenges
Major Challenges:
How to capture the characteristics of biofuel supply chains?
Biomass: deterioration, seasonality, preprocessing and storage Biofuels: various conversion pathways/technologies, intermodal network
How to effectively integrate all the elements of the biofuel supply chain across temporal and spatial scales How to quantify the environmental impacts and social performance? How to tradeoff the economic, environmental and social objectives?
2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 8
Integrated Approach
Techniques
Process/SC Design Planning & Scheduling Inventory Control Multi-Objective
Biofuels Supply Chain

Design SC from Farm to Fuel Retailer, and design Biorefinery process
Centralized Processing Distributed Processing
Coordinate the supply, production and distribution of biomass & biofuel For seasonal supply of biomass and uncertain demand of biofuels Economic, environmental (LCA: field-to-wheel), social (EIO: jobyear)
Production Inventory
Harvest
Activity Levels under Seasonal Biomass Supply
9 10 11 12
Phase of LCA and Two Dimension Pareto Curve
Uncertainty
Many uncertainties due to feedstock supply and fuel product demand/price

Various Uncertainties 2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 9
Multi-Objective Mixed-Integer Programming Model

Objective:
Choose Discrete (0-1), continuous variables
Constraints:

Minimize: Total annualized cost Minimize: Total GHG emission (life cycle assessment: GREET model @ ANL) Maximize: Total job year created (economic input-out analysis: JEDI model @ NREL) Flow /inventory balance constraints
Flow balance at the harvesting sites Inventory balance at collection facilities Inventory balance at the biorefineries Flow balance at the demand zones
Harvesting and production constraints

Biomass availability constraints Harvesting capacity constraints Biomass conversion constraints Water usage constraints Byproduct production constraints Biorefinery capacity level constraints Piece-wise installation cost constraints Maximum production rate constraints Collection facility capacity constraints
10
Investment and financial constraints

Biorefinery construction cost Government incentives Annualized investment cost
Production capacity constraints
Flow capacity constraints

Flow capacity in weight Biomass flow capacity in volume
Nonnegative and integrity constraints
Economic Objective: Cost Minimization

Economic objective
Measured by annualized total cost
Incentives Capital Investment Production cost Feedstock cost Transportation Cost Inventory Cost Preprocessing Cost Byproduct credit
Environmental Objective: Assessment Based on LCA

Environmental Objective
Measured by GHG emissions (converting to CO2 - equivalent) Farm-to-pump life cycle assessment
Data from Argonne GREET Model (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model) Integrate LCA with multi-objective optimization
PHASE I Goal and Scope
Annualized Total Cost
Optimal Solutions (Pareto Curve)
PHASE IV Interpretation
PHASE II Inventory Analysis
Combined with MultiObjective Optimization
Suboptimal Solutions B Infeasible Solutions A C GHG emissions
PHASE III Impact Assessment
Automatically search alternatives for improvement
Life Cycle Assessment

12
Social Objective: Maximizing the Local Job Created

Social Objective
Measured by accrued local jobs (full-time equivalent for a year) Integrate the MILP with NREL JEDI Model
Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model A state level input-output (IO) model to identify the local economic impacts (the number of jobs that will accrue to the state or local region) from the construction and operations of a project IO analysis evaluates and sums the impacts of a series of effects in multiple industry sectors affected by the change in expenditure Using state specific multipliers and personal expenditure patterns data derived from the IMPLAN Professional Model.
13
Biomass Feedstock Supply System
Major issues considered (in the mixed-integer programming model)

Major output
Feedstock availability, geographical distribution and seasonality Harvesting site locations, harvest capacity, weather variability Transportation network and modes, distance, intermodal transportation Biomass density, weight and volume capacity, preprocessing and storage When, where, which biomass should be harvested? How, when, how much to transport the feedstocks? Where, how much and how long should the biomass be stored? When, where and what type should the feedstocks be preprocessed? What should be the optimal capacity of collection/storage facilities?
Integrated Biorefineries
Major issues taken into account
Approach: Link MILP model with techno-economic models (NREL)

hydrolysis
Potential locations and conversion pathways, transportation connectivity Production capacity, techno-economics, government incentives and policy Feedstock handling, water usage and availability, byproducts ASPEN models for feedstocks and technologies with different capacities
Sugar/Starch Biomass
Major output

Sugar cane Corn grain

Cellulosic Biomass
C5/C6 Fermentation
Biochemical Conversion
Crude Ethanol Lignin residue
Distillation MeOH synthesis F-T synthesis
Ethanol Methanol F-T liquid Hydrogen
Number, size, location and technologies Amounts of ethanol and byproducts Biomass Feedstock and water usage Production and inventory levels
Pretreatment
Agricultural Residues Wood Energy Crops
Thermochemical Conversion
Gasification Pyrolysis Combustion
Syn-gas Bio oil Char, etc.
Gas cleanup & conditioning Hydrotreating/ Hydrocracking
WGS Gasoline/Diesel
Heat & Power
Some Pathways for the Production of Biofuels

(based on Huber et al., 2006)
15
Biofuel Distribution System
Major issues considered (in the mixed-integer programming model)

Transportation connectivity, intermodal transportation Network capacity, transportation types, policy Demand, spatial distribution, vehicles and engine technologies Environment, inventory control of ethanol, blending delay
Major output
When, how much to transport the biofuels from biorefineries to blending facilities and demand zones? Which transportation mode to be used for the deliveries? What is the maximum optimal distribution distance for different transportation mode (truck vs. dedicated ethanol pipeline)?
- constraint Method
Cost
Max Optimal Cost
Suboptimal Solutions Pareto Curve

Minimize: Cost + Emission ( = 0.001)
Min Optimal Cost
Minimize: Emission
Impossible!
Smallest Emission Largest Emission
Emission
17
Case Study State of Illinois for Cellulosic Ethanol
Resource of agricultural residue
Resource of energy crop
Resource of wood residue
IL Population density
102 Counties
102 harvesting sites 102 potential collection facilities 102 possible biorefinery site locations 102 blending facilities/demand zones
Three Types of Feedstocks

Agricultural residues, energy crops and wood residues
Two Major Technologies

Biochem. (SSF, SHF) and thermochem. (gasification)
12 time periods per year (for 20 yrs)
Three Major Transportation Modes

Truck (large & small), train, water (barge & ship)
18
Case 1 Cost-Effective Design (near-term scenario)

102 MGY 124 MGY 150 MGY
Supply: 100% of states agricultural residue

10% 8% 17% 35%
Investment Production Transportation Storage & Handling
138 MGY
Population density
Demand: 10% of the current fuel usage (E10)

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Minimum Cost: $3.663/gal
30%
Feedstock
Cost Breakdown
TotalFeedstock Inventory (ton)
Biochemical Thermochemical
Feedstock Inventory
19
Case Study for County-Level SC of Illinois (Yr 2022 scenario)
Annualized Total Cost
Suboptimal Solutions
Infeasible Solutions GHG emissions
Population density
Supply: 50% of states cellulosic biomass
Agricultural residues: corn stover, etc. Energy crops: switchgrass, miscanthus, etc. Wood residues : forest and mill residue, urban wood Two major conversion technologies (Biochem. and thermochem.) Three major transportation modes (Truck, train, & water) 102 Counties (harvesting sites, plant locations, demand zones) 12 time periods per year (for 20 years)
Demand: 5.594% of 16 BGY (EISA cellulosic biofuel requirement )
20
Pareto Curve 1 (Economic vs. Environmental)

Total Annualized Cost ($MM)
6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300
Suboptimal Solutions
Pareto Curve
Good Choice
22200 22300 22400 22500 22600 22700 22800 22900 23000
Total Annual Emission (Kton CO2 -eq)

Case 2 Cost Effective & Good Choice Solutions

Minimum Cost: $3.225/gal
Population density
TotalFeedstock Inventory (ton)
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Feedstock Inventory
10% 3% 19%
Investment
39%
Production Transportation Storage & Handling
Unit Cost: $3.243/gal
29%
Feedstock
Cost Breakdown
22
Case 2 Pareto Curve (Economic vs. Social)

16000
Total Annualized Cost ($MM)
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Almost linear the higher expenditure, the more jobs created
Total Accrued Local Job (full time equivalent for a year)

Remarks
Unit cost reduce from $3.663/gal in Case 1 to $3.225 in Case 2
Large scale production (near term vs. Yr 2022)
Economy of scale, shorter average transportation
Feedstock diversity
hedge the seasonality, lower inventory cost, reduce deterioration
Plant locations usually have abundant biomass resource

Reduce cellulosic biomass transportation cost
Investment and production costs contribute 70% of total cost

Improving the conversion technologies is the key issue
Maximum social impact is almost proportional to the total cost

Consistent with the government policies and social responsibilities
Time for a break some simple math
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -4 -2
pdf for a and b
6
25
Problem Solution
pdf for x
0.3
No train is expected to crash
0.2
0.1
0 -10
-5
10
26
Optimization of Biofuel Supply Chains under Uncertainty
Problem Statement
Minimizing Cost & Risk for Biofuel SC Design under Uncertainty
Given: time periods, cost data, potential locations and technologies, production & transportation capacity, incentives, uncertainty distributions of supply and demand Decisions: network design, facility location, technology selection, capital investment, production levels, inventory control, and logistics management Objective: Minimizing Cost & Risks
Harvesting Sites
Hydrocarbon Biorefineries
Demand Zones
27
Case Study State of Illinois for Bio-gasoline and Biodiesel
IL Population density
102 Counties for harvesting sites, potential biorefinery plant locations, and demand zones Three Types of Feedstocks
Agricultural residues, energy crops, & wood residues
Two Major Conversion Technologies
12 time periods per year (for 20 years)
~70,000 uncertain parameters (10212205)
Gasification + FT Synthesis Pyrolysis + Hydroprocessing

28
Two-Stage Stochastic Programming Approach

Scenario Generation
Historical data obtained from Energy Information Administration Forecast using time series method => normally distributed parameters Generate scenarios by Monte Carlo sampling
Two-stage Decisions
First stage decisions (here-and-now)
Network design, technology selection, capital investment
Second stage decisions (wait-and-see)

Harvesting, production, inventory, transportation, sale
Result of SP Model
E[Cost] = $ 2,822.6 15.6 MM
(95% confidence interval)
N = 1,000 scenarios
30
Multi-cut L-shaped Method

Deterministic Model
# of Binary Var. # of Cont. Var. # of Constraints
Stochastic Programming Model 100 scenarios 408 65,118,126 2,939,130 1,000 scenarios 408 651,171,126 29,379,330
408 652,296 30,708
Impossible to solve directly takes >10 hours by using standard L-shaped only 1.5 hours with multi-cut version
Multi-cut Bender Decomposition Algorithm
Computational Performance
31
Risk Management
SP model: minimize expected cost (risk-neutral objective) A few risk measures
Variance Upper partial mean
Probabilistic financial risk (Barbaro et al., 2002) Downside risk (Eppen et al., 1988) CVaR (Rockafellar and Uryasev, 2000)
(Mulvey et al., 1995) (Ahmed and Sahinidis, 1998)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 -10
-5
10
Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR)
Downside Risk
32
Multiobjective Optimization Model Formulation

CVaR Objective Economic Objective Original Constraints
min : CVaR ( x, ) =
sS
ps s
+ VaR
min : E[Cost ] = Cost Capital + sS ps CostsOperations s.t.
) b, x n f ( x,=
s CostsOperations VaR, s S s 0, s S
VaR 0
VaR Constraints
Pareto Curve CVaR vs. E[Cost]
34
CVaR
35
Downside Risk
36
Current Work: Multiobjective to Multi-scale Optimization

hydrolysis
Sugar/Starch Biomass
Sugar cane Corn grain

Cellulosic Biomass
C5/C6 Fermentation
Biochemical Conversion
Crude Ethanol Lignin residue
Distillation MeOH synthesis F-T synthesis
Ethanol Methanol F-T liquid Hydrogen
Pretreatment
Agricultural Residues Wood Energy Crops
Thermochemical Conversion
Gasification Pyrolysis Combustion
Syn-gas Bio oil Char, etc.
Gas cleanup & conditioning Hydrotreating/ Hydrocracking
WGS Gasoline/Diesel
Triglycerides Source
Heat & Power Extraction Raw oil Transesterification Biodiesel
Oil Seeds
Objective: Integration of biorefinery process design with biofuel supply chain optimization

Representation of detailed process models and operational logistics Multi-scale and multi-site modeling geospatially distributed production facilities and supply chain infrastructure Focusing on advanced infrastructurecompatible biofuels, i.e. drop-in fuel
37
Current Work: Solving Larger-Scale Problems

Computational Challenge
Problem size for nationwide analysis (3,141 counties)
12,564 binary variables 3,552,527,574 continuous variables 2,842,407,120 constraints
Initialization Solve the | j | MILP relaxation of LR subproblems of (AP) under Yj=1, set Vj as the optimal objective Update subgradients Yes No
Update LB
Fixed 0-1 variables
Solve reduced (P) for UB No Convergence ? Yes Stop
Optimization Algorithm and Decomposition Methods
High Performance Computation

38
39
Ecological, Economic and Social Impacts of Oil Spills
BP Stock Price in 2010


Number of spills (>10.000 gallons)
Motivation
year1
400 300 200 100 -
Hundreds of oil spills (>10,000 gallons) per Planning the response operations is important but non-trivial
The case of Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill
Costs up to $40 billion2 for cleanup and coastal protection Many thousands of people and equipments involved
1970
1980
1990
2000
* 1. International oil spill conference 2001
2. BP report, Nov. 2, 2010
41
Literature Review
Very few on oil spill response planning
Most modeling papers on oil spill are for oil weathering process Psaraftis & Ziogas (1985), Wilhelm & Srinivasa (1996, 1997), Ornitz & Champ (2003), Gkonis et al. (2007), etc.
Limitations of previous works

Complex interactions between response operations and oil transport and weathering process are neglected
Integration leads to challenging optimization problem (MIDO)
Coastal protection operations have not been taken in account in response planning it may cost more to protect the coast than cleanup Only single objective is used minimizing either time or cost
Multi-objective optimization
Background Oil Transport & Weathering Processes

Evaporation Spreading
Dissolution Photo-oxidation
wind
Drift Emulsification Dispersion

Biodegradation
Spreading
Sedimentation
Background Oil Transport and Weathering Model

Dynamic Oil Weathering Model
Complex physical & chemical phenomena taking place simultaneously Over 50 models exists, mostly are based on semi-empirical approach An example given below (note: oil spill cleanup affects volume and area)
Spreading Evaporation Dispersion Emulsification Volume balance
Background Cleanup and Coastal Protection Methods
45
Background Oil Spill Response Operations

Dispersant Dispersant
Boom Burning Skimmers
Mechanical (skimming)
Water content Slick thickness Weather condition Hydrodynamics
In-situ Burning
Slick thickness Oil viscosity Parent oil density Weather condition
Chemical Dispersant
Emulsification degree Dispersant availability Weather & sea condition Regulation
Coastal Protection
Oil slick area Boom availability Staging area location Sea & weather condition
46
Problem Statement
Given:
An oil spill
location & spill amount, oil physical / chemical properties, cleanup target
A set of staging areas

Location, required boom length, life time, deployment rate, unit D&M cost
Sets of mechanical/skimming, in-situ burning, & dispersant cleanup facilities

Availability, response times & costs, operating windows
A set of time periods for the response planning
Major Decisions:
Oil spill cleanup Coastal protection Oil transport & weathering
Objectives: Min. Cost & Max. Responsiveness

Challenges
Modeling Challenge
Coastal protection, spill cleanup, oil transport and weathering process
Time-dependent oil physical and chemical properties, hydrodynamics, weather conditions, facility availability, performance degradation, cleanup operational window, and government regulations Different time representation: discrete (planning) vs. continuous (weathering) Account for the complex interactions between them (spreading, evaporation, dispersion, and emulsification v.s. cleanup and boom protection)
Multi-Objective Challenge
Measure of responsiveness Tradeoff between economic and responsiveness
Computational Challenge
Multi-Objective mixed-integer dynamic optimization (MIDO) problem Non-convex MINLP after discretization based on orthogonal collocation on FEs
2,052 discrete variables, 11,482 continuous variables, 14,006 constraints
Multi-Objective Mixed-Integer Dynamic Optimization Model

Objective:
Min: Total cost (= cleanup cost + coastal protection cost - credit from oil recovery) Min: Response timespan (= measure of responsiveness)
Constraints:
Cleanup planning constraints
Availability of mechanical systems Cleanup rate of skimmers Availability of burning systems Operational window of burning sys. Availability of dispersant systems Performance of dispersant systems Chemical dispersant balance Dispersant availability Regulation on dispersant application
Coastal protection constraints

Coastal protection identification Boom length balance Boom deployment constraints Boom failure constraints Spreading process Evaporation process Dispersion process Emulsification process Viscosity increment Volume balance
(bilinear terms)
Dynamic Oil weathering model (ODEs)
Nonnegative & integrity constraints
49
Simultaneous Approach for Solving the MIDO

Full discretization based on orthogonal collocation on finite elements*
High robustness and efficiency
Integrating discrete- and continuous-time representation

A finite element = a time period (e.g. a day) Oil transport and weathering model use continuous-time formulation Planning model uses multi-period formulation
Consistent with the real-world practice Cleanup rate as a piecewise step function
Challenge: Initialization
Resulting model is a large-scale non-convex MINLP
EX1: 2,052 discrete var., 11,482 continuous var., 14,006 constraints EX1: Solving the RMINLP directly with any NLP solver leads to infeasibility
* Biegler et al. (2002);
Cuthrell & Biegler (1987)
50 2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Approximate MILP Model for Initialization

(Response Planning)
MILP
Cleanup rate Volume, area, thickness, viscosity, water content, evaporation rate, dispersion amount, etc.
(Oil Weathering)
ODE
The MIDO can be decomposed as an MILP and an ODE system

ODE for oil weathering; MILP for response planning
Bilinear terms in the cleanup planning constraints are now linear if state variables (physical and chemical properties of oil slick) are fixed
Step 1: Solve the ODE with zero cleanup rate (eq. to natural weathering process) Step 2: Construct the approximate MILP model for initialization
Fix state variables based on the ODE solution, except volume and area Compute the percentage of oil removed by natural weathering at time t (t) Add the following volume balance constraints to the MILP:
51
Case Study Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

S2 S1
Spill Site
S3
Major Input Data

API = 25, other oil data from ADIOS (NOAA , 2000) Spill rate: 10,000 m3/day for 42 days Cleanup target: 1,500 m3 on sea surface Cleanup by mechanical, in-situ burning and dispersant sys. (C-130, helicopter, vessel) Drift towards to the shore 3 staging areas (locations and required booms)
Problem Size (MINLP after discretization)

# of Discrete Variables: 2,052 # of Continuous Variables: 11,482 # of Constraints: 14,006
Solution
Direct solution: infeasible for any solver Proposed approach: 139CPUs/instance (CPLEX + KNITRO + DICOPT)
52
Pareto Curve Cost vs. Timespan (local optima)

1200
A
1000
Coastal Protection Burning Skimming Dispersant
Total Cost (Million $)
800 600 400 200 0 70 90 110 130
B C
150
170
Cleanup Time Span (Days)

Conclusion
Remarks
Summary
Various objectives for energy-environmental system optimization
Economic, environment, social, risk, responsiveness
Key component: finding a suitable quantitative measure Computational challenges lie in:
Large-scale optimization problems Handling uncertainties and risks
Extensions
Algae for CCS and biodiesel production Organic photovoltaic systems ($$$, LCA, EPBT) New material and process development for CCS
Fengqi You
Chemical and Biological Engineering Northwestern University
you@northwestern.edu http://you.mccormick.northwestern.edu

Capd2012 You v2

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Capd2012 You v2

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Multiobjective Optimization of Energy-Environmental Systems

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Optimization for Energy and Sustainability

Optimization involves multiple objectives

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Two Example Applications

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Optimization for Oil Spill Response Operations

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Two Example Applications

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Optimization for Oil Spill Response Operations

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Energy Act 2007 Requirement

Billion Gallon per Year

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Biomass-to-Biofuels Supply Chain

Biofuels End Use

Why does the biomass-to-biofuels supply chain matter?

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Problem Statement Design of Biofuels Supply Chains

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Biofuels Supply Chain

Activity Levels under Seasonal Biomass Supply

Phase of LCA and Two Dimension Pareto Curve

Many uncertainties due to feedstock supply and fuel product demand/price

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Multi-Objective Mixed-Integer Programming Model

Harvesting and production constraints

Investment and financial constraints

Production capacity constraints

Flow capacity constraints

Nonnegative and integrity constraints

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Economic Objective: Cost Minimization

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Environmental Objective: Assessment Based on LCA

Annualized Total Cost

Optimal Solutions (Pareto Curve)

PHASE II Inventory Analysis

Combined with MultiObjective Optimization

Suboptimal Solutions B Infeasible Solutions A C GHG emissions

PHASE III Impact Assessment

Automatically search alternatives for improvement

Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Social Objective: Maximizing the Local Job Created

2012 CAPD Annual Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Biomass Feedstock Supply System

Major issues considered (in the mixed-integer programming model)

Life Cycle Optimization of Sustainable Biofuel Supply Chains

Major issues taken into account

Approach: Link MILP model with techno-economic models (NREL)

Sugar cane Corn grain

Crude Ethanol Lignin residue

Distillation MeOH synthesis F-T synthesis

Ethanol Methanol F-T liquid Hydrogen