Next Article in Journal
Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting from Roadways under Open-Traffic Conditions: Analysis and Optimization with Scaling Law Method
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Optimal Scheduling of CHP Microgrid Considering Conditional Value-at-Risk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/en15093392
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Concept for Biomass and Organic Waste Refinery Plants Based on the Locally Available Organic Materials in Rural Areas of Poland

by
Krystian Butlewski
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, Falenty, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
Energies 2022, 15(9), 3392; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093392
Submission received: 5 April 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 4 May 2022 / Published: 6 May 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The importance of developing efficient and environmentally friendly means of biomass conversion into bioenergy, biofuels, and valuable products is currently high in Poland. Accordingly, herein, two new energy and biofuel units are proposed, namely, POLpec and POLbp, which are used as reference sources for comparing energy consumption and biofuel production in other countries or regions in the world. One POLpec equals 4400 PJ (195.1 Mtoe), reflecting the annual primary energy consumption of Poland in 2020. Meanwhile, one POLbp equals 42 PJ (1.0 Mtoe), referring to the annual production of biofuels in Poland in 2020. Additionally, a new import–export coefficient β is proposed in the current study, which indicates the relationship between the import and export of an energy carrier. More specifically, the potential of biomass and organic waste to be converted into energy, biofuels, and valuable products has been analysed for the rural areas of Poland. Results show that the annual biomass and organic waste potential is approximately 245 PJ (5.9 Mtoe). Finally, the concept of a biomass and organic waste refinery plant is proposed based on the locally available organic materials in rural areas. In particular, two models of biomass refinery plants are defined, namely, the Input/Output and Modular models. A four-module model is presented as a concept for building a refinery plant at the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute in Poznan, Poland. The four modules include anaerobic digestion, gasification, transesterification, and alcoholic fermentation. The primary reason for combining different biomass conversion technologies is to reduce the cost of biomass products, which, currently, are more expensive than those obtained from oil and natural gas.

1. Introduction

Poland is one of Europe’s largest countries, with a total population of 38.35 million people and a total area of 312,719 km2 [1]. As part of the European Union (EU), Poland has fulfilled the EU requirements regarding political and economic development, which include actions on climate, resource efficiency, and raw materials. Fossil fuels generate gases that are dangerous to our planet, yet continue to be intensively exploited, which may lead to an energy shortage for future generations. For this reason, the identification and development of renewable energy sources has garnered increasing attention [2]. Bioenergy is one of the key contributors to environmental protection, as it provides sustainable energy sourced from renewable biomass [3]. This biomass can be effectively converted into energy while also allowing other materials, such as chemical substances, fertilisers, and plastics, to be produced from it. However, Poland’s bioenergy sector remains below the expected level of development, with fewer than 300 biogas installations, approximately 100 of which are designed for agricultural substrates. Meanwhile, approximately 100,000 farms exist within Poland that are 20 ha (49.4 acre) to 50 ha (123.6 acre) in size and would, therefore, be suitable for small container biogas installations [4]. In fact, only 5% of the potential biogas produced in Poland is currently being utilised, despite there being 134,100 ha (331,361 acre) of fallow land that could be used for energy crops.
The annual biofuel production in Poland totals 42 PJ (1.0 Mtoe) [5], which is relatively low compared to other EU countries. However, the production capacity potential is not yet fully met. As such, there remains potential for doubling the biofuel production in Poland by using existing biofuel installations. However, the limitation on biofuel sources from the Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) Directive, which is an EU initiative concerning policies on biofuel sources, has decreased the availability of crops for biofuel production.
In general, the production of energy, energy carriers, and fuels is more expensive when such goods are converted from biomass rather than sourced from oil and coal. Therefore, to develop cheaper biomass products, which have tremendous advantages in terms of their effect on climate, biomass refineries have been developed as a new, efficient way of converting biomass into energy, energy carriers, biofuels, and valuable products.
This study presents a novel strategy for the development of four-module biomass refinery plants that consider the potential for biomass production and conversion technology in Poland. A module is defined as a single technology for biomass conversion comprising a biogas installation, pyrolysis or gasification reactor, fermentation unit for alcohol production, installation for producing biodiesel from vegetable oil, or any other biomass conversion technology unit for producing energy, biofuel, or valuable products. Hence, a two-module biomass refinery plant refers to the amalgamation of two different modules to improve the conversion process, with respect to a single module.

2. Biomass Resources for Energy Production in Poland

In 2019, Poland’s total energy consumption was 4405.8 PJ (105.2 Mtoe), while local production of primary energy was only 2528.5 PJ [6]. The greatest consumption was of coal, which was 1630.1 PJ (27.7 Mtoe). The consumption of oil, natural gas, lignite, and other energy sources, including renewable energy, were 1158.7 PJ (27.7 Mtoe), 709.3 PJ (16.9 Mtoe), 400.9 PJ (9.6 Mtoe), and 506.7 PJ (12.1 Mtoe), respectively. In contrast, the production of coal, oil, natural gas, lignite, and other sources including renewable energy were 1421.0 PJ (33.9 Mtoe), 37.9 PJ (0.9 Mtoe), 139.1 PJ (3.3 Mtoe), 384.3 PJ (9.2 Mtoe), and 462.7 PJ (11.1 Mtoe), respectively (Figure 1). Total energy consumption decreased in 2020 by 4.0% compared to the previous year and amounted to 4230.6 PJ (101.0 Mtoe). An increase in energy consumption was observed in the cases of natural gas (0.8%), renewable energy, and other carriers (6.9%), while a decrease was observed in the cases of hard coal (7.1%), lignite (6.4%), and crude oil (6.2%). Primary energy production in Poland in 2020 decreased by 6.0% compared to the previous year and amounted to 2377.8 PJ (56.8 Mtoe). A decrease in production was recorded in the cases of hard coal (7.5%), lignite (4.0%) and crude oil (6.6%), while an increase occurred in the cases of natural gas (7.3%) and other energy carriers (11.0%) [7]. Overall, there is a gradual decline in the importance of fossil fuels and an increase in renewable energy sources.
To quantify a country’s dependence on a particular energy source, the Butlewski coefficient β has been defined [8]. β is calculated as twice the ratio of the primary energy production to the sum of the primary energy production and the national energy consumption, as follows:
β = 2 ( E p E p + E c )
where Ep is the amount of the primary energy production in a particular region or country, and Ec is the total energy consumption in the region or country.
The Butlewski coefficient β ranges from 0 to 2 and is described in Figure 2. β simultaneously shows the contribution of energy production and consumption and the import-to-export relationship of an energy source. When β is zero, there is no production of a particular energy source, only consumption. When β is two, the total production of a particular energy source is exported with no local consumption. When β is equal to one, all the energy produced in the selected region or country is consumed within that area. In 2019, the Butlewski coefficients for coal, oil, natural gas, lignite, and other sources including renewable energy in Poland were 0.93, 0.06, 0.33, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively (Figure 3). This shows that Poland’s energy requirements depend heavily on the import of oil and natural gas, while coal and lignite consumption levels are similar to their production levels.
In Poland in 2020, there were renewable energy source installations of biogas, biomass, solar energy, wind energy, and hydro energy with a total power of 245 MW, 1508 MW, 708 MW, 6040 MW, and 974 MW, respectively [9]. In 2019, energy from renewable sources accounted for 12.16% of the gross final energy consumption [9]. The renewable biomass resources for energy production can be divided into five groups, namely, forest residues, agricultural residues, energy crops, grasses from meadows and pastures, and residential waste.

2.1. Forestry Resources

In Poland, 9.26 million ha (22.88 million acres) of land were reported to be covered by forests in 2019 [10], constituting 29.61% of the country’s land area. The total area of tree removal in 2019 was 42.37 million m3 (1496.83 million ft3) [10]. Assuming that tree residue, as an energy source, constitutes 15% of the total tree removal [11], the amount of wood in 1 m3 equals 500 kg (1102.3 lb) [12], and the wood calorific value is 15 MJ/kg (7.18 mBtu/lb) [13]; thus, the energy potential from tree removal was 47.66 PJ (1.14 Mtoe) in 2019. Another source of woody biomass is the waste from wood processing technologies, mainly from sawmills, post-consumer wood waste, and the manufacturing of furniture, windows, doors, and panels. The annual total volume of this material is approximately 13.3 million m3 (469.7 million ft3) [14]. Assuming that the weight of 1 m3 (35.31 ft3) of this material is, on an average, 300 kg (661.4 lb), and that the calorific value is 15 MJ/kg (7.18 mBtu/lb), the potential energy from wood waste in Poland equals 59.85 PJ (1.43 Mtoe).

2.2. Straw

The area in which cereals are sown and the annual amount of grain produced in Poland is 7.81 million ha (19.30 million acres) and 26.78 million tonnes (59.04 billion lb), respectively [15]. The amount of straw based on grain production can be calculated as follows:
SY = [(1 − HI)/HI)] GY
where SY is the straw yield in a given year, GY is the grain yield in a given year, and HI is the harvest index.
The harvest index quantifies the crop yield (amount of grain) relative to the total amount of biomass produced [16]. It varies with the kind of cereal, climate, average temperature, level of precipitation, and soil quality. For Poland, the average harvest index can be assumed to be 0.55. The next assumption concerns the amount of straw that can be dedicated to energy conversion. Presumably, 85% of the total straw production must be left for animal production and the sustainability of soil parameters. Therefore, the annual straw yield for energy production (SYe) in Poland can be calculated as follows:
SYe = [(1 − 0.55)/0.55 × 26.78 × 106 t] × 0.15 = 3.29 × 106 t
This means that Poland’s straw energy potential is 49.35 PJ (1.18 Mtoe), assuming that the straw calorific value equals 15 MJ/kg (7.18 mBtu/lb).
Wooden biomass and straw are made of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin. In the fermentation process after pre-treatment by hydrolysis, energy carriers such as biogas and bioethanol can be obtained [17].

2.3. Biogas Production

Biogas is produced during the anaerobic digestion process in a specially designed installation. The main components of biogas are methane and carbon dioxide, each taking up 40–60% of the biogas volume. There are over 300 biogas installations in Poland, including agricultural wastewater treatment and landfill biogas plants. According to the National Centre for Agricultural Support, there are 113 agricultural biogas installations with a total annual biogas production of 490.14 million m3 (17,309 million ft3) [18]. Assuming that the biogas calorific value is 18.0 MJ/m3 (8.62 mBtu/lb), the annual potential energy from agricultural biogas equals 8.82 PJ (0.21 Mtoe). The number of agricultural biogas plants is far less than that which was planned by the Ministry of Economy in 2009, which aimed to build at least one agricultural biogas installation in each commune with a power of about 1 MWe by 2020. In Poland, there are 2175 rural communes, meaning that the plan was to build enough agricultural biogas plants by 2020 to produce approximately 2200 MW (7.51 billion Btu/h) and deliver an annual biogas production output of approximately 10,000 million m3 (353.15 billion ft3), which is ~20 times higher than the current production output. Thus, this plan was not realistic, as it is now apparent that only ~20 agricultural biogas installations can be built in Poland per year due to the low profit associated with running a biogas installation, which results from the current, relatively low natural gas price and the lack of sufficient financial support from the government. However, there is huge potential for building agricultural biogas installations based on the number of substrates that could be utilised in the anaerobic process. In the EU, including the UK, only 561 PJ (13.40 Mtoe) of primary biogas was produced in 2016, while the theoretical potential of biogas production in 2020 was estimated to be 6950 PJ (165.97 Mtoe) [19]. This means that by implementing financial support in the E-27 countries for converting agricultural by-products and waste into biogas, a huge number of energy carriers can be produced. At the same time, the environment can be protected by placing agricultural by-products and waste into anaerobic chambers for biogas generation, which can be subsequently used for electricity and heat generation, as well as for fuel for the transportation sector.

2.3.1. Biogas from Livestock Manure

The theoretical annual biogas potential in Poland obtained from cattle slurry, pig slurry, and poultry manure can be calculated from Equation (4):
Bp = 365 N Ȳ Ab (m3/year)
where Bp is the annual theoretical biogas potential from a given source; N is the number of livestock (cattle, pig, or poultry); Ȳ is the daily average amount of slurry per given livestock, which is 35.92 kg (79.19 lb) for cattle, 8.7 kg (19.18 lb) for pigs, and 0.11 kg (0.24 lb)for poultry [20]; and Ab is the total average biogas output from 1 kg of a given substrate, which is 0.028 m3/kg (0.45 ft3/lb), 0.025 m3/kg (0.40 ft3/lb), and 0.080 m3/kg (1.28 ft3/lb) for cattle slurry, pig slurry, and poultry manure, respectively [21,22,23,24]. Based on the number of livestock in Poland, which includes 6,201,400 cattle, 11,827,500 pigs, and 180,758,000 poultry [25], the theoretical annual biogas potential for livestock has been calculated to be 2277 million m3 (80,412 million ft3) for cattle, 939 million m3 (33,160 million ft3) for pigs, and 581 million m3 (20,518 million ft3) for poultry. Assuming the biogas calorific value to be 18.0 MJ/m3 8.62 mBtu/lb), the annual biogas potential is theoretically 40.99 PJ (978.84 ktoe), 16.90 PJ (403.57 ktoe), and 10.46 PJ (249.78 ktoe) for cattle slurry, pig slurry, and poultry manure, respectively. Biogas plants that use animal slurry can only be built in places where there are large farms with thousands of poultry or pigs, or at least hundreds of cattle. Therefore, the technical annual potential can be calculated by multiplying the theoretical values by 0.2. This means that the annual technical biogas potential in Poland from cattle slurry, pig slurry, and poultry manure is 8.20 PJ (195.82 ktoe), 3.38 PJ (80.71 ktoe), and 2.09 PJ (49.91 ktoe), respectively, providing a total of 13.67 PJ (326.44 ktoe).

2.3.2. Biogas from Maize Silage

In addition to animal slurry, there is huge potential for producing biogas from maize. In Poland, the areas where maize is produced for green fodder and corn are 602,000 ha (1.49 million acres) and 645,000 ha (1.59 million acres), respectively [26]. The average maize yield from 1 ha is 42.6 tonnes 93,916 lb). Biogas efficiency from maize silage is approximately 0.210 m3/kg (3.36 ft3/lb), which means the theoretical potential of producing biogas from maize is 5385 million m3 (190,169 million ft3). However, maize is mainly produced as feed for animals. Therefore, the realistic potential of maize for biogas production can only constitute 25% of the theoretical value or 1346 million m3 (47,534 million ft3) of biogas (24.2 PJ) (577.90 ktoe). Meanwhile, maize can also be produced on fallow land, of which Poland has 134,100 ha (331,361 acres). If only 50% of this land was to be used for maize production, an additional 600 million m3 (21,189 million acres) of biogas (10.8 PJ) (257.90 ktoe) could be generated.

2.4. Energy Crops

Energy crops can be divided into three groups, namely, short-rotation woody biomass, grasses, and agricultural crops. Energy crops can be cultivated in agricultural and forested lands. In Poland in 2019, 154,100 ha (380,781 acres) of land were used for energy plantations [27], of which 17,105 ha (42,266 acres) and 136,999 ha (338,525 acres) were on arable and forested lands, respectively. Energy plantations can be divided into two categories, namely, annual and perennial plantations. In Poland, rapeseed, maize, sugar beets, and cereals represent the most popular annual plantations. Meanwhile, the perennial plantations largely include Miscanthus giganteus, Virginia mallow, willow, and poplar; these crops dominate energy crop plantations in Poland. Assuming 15 MJ/kg (7.18 mBtu/lb) is the average calorific energy value of energy crop dry mass and the average mass yield from 1 ha is 10 tonnes, the total energy gained from energy crops in Poland is approximately 23.1 PJ (551.63 ktoe), annually. However, there is huge potential for increasing the amount of energy from energy crops by increasing their planting area. In fact, currently, approximately 2 million ha (4.9 million acres) of land in Poland has low soil quality that could be used for planting energy crops. Based on the above calculation, the energy gained from these plantations could reach 300 PJ (7.2 Mtoe).

2.5. Grasses from Meadows and Pastures

There are 2.75 million ha (6.80 million acres) of permanent meadows and 0.40 million ha (0.99 million acres) of permanent pastures in Poland [26]. Presently, the role of permanent grasslands for producing animal fodder is decreasing in importance. Therefore, some of these grasslands are being converted into arable land or land for energy crop cultivation. However, grasslands are very important for stabilising biodiversity, protecting water and soil, and producing oxygen. One potential strategy to properly maintain grasslands is to implement grass growing in these regions to produce energy carriers. After harvesting and drying, the biomass can be formed into briquettes, provided that the moisture level does not exceed 35%. Alternatively, it can be transformed into various energy carriers (e.g., black pellets, biogas, syngas) by using advanced biomass processing techniques, such as biological technologies (e.g., anaerobic digestion for biogas production) and thermochemical technologies (e.g., torrefaction or pyrolysis processes for bio coal or syngas production). Biomass can also be converted by burning in ovens to directly generate heat; however, this is the least efficient technique for this process. From the 2.75 million ha (6.80 million acres) of meadows in Poland, 12.77 million tonnes (28.15 billion lb) of hay is produced annually from the harvested grass (Hm) [26]. Assuming 30% less grass is harvested from pastures than from meadows, the total grass obtained from pastures (Hp) would be 1.30 million tonnes. Assuming that hay has a 15% moisture content and that the dry mass calorific value of grass is 15 MJ/kg (7.18 mBtu/lb), the total potential energy for the grassland (Eg) in Poland would be 179.39 PJ (4.28 Mtoe), as shown in Equation (5):
Eg = [0.85 (Hm + Hp)] 15 MJ/kg = 179.39 PJ
However, due to environmental protection and animal feed requirements, only 10% of the theoretical value can be considered for energy use, reducing this figure to 17.9 PJ (427.5 ktoe).

2.6. Communal Waste

In 2018, Poland generated 12.485 million tonnes (27.52 billion lb) of municipal waste [28]. Assuming the average calorific value of waste is ~9 MJ/kg (4.31 mBtu/lb) and that the amount of organic waste in communal waste is 50%, it can be concluded that energy production from organic communal waste can reach 56.18 PJ (1.34 Mteo). Currently, the incineration process is used intensively for the disposal of communal waste in Poland. However, more environmentally friendly and efficient technologies for utilising communal waste are being developed, including anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, and torrefaction processes.

2.7. Potential Energy Production from Biomass in Poland

Renewable energy sources remain poorly developed in Poland. However, currently, projects have been initiated to increase the number of wind turbines, hydroelectric power stations, and photovoltaic installations. A significant proportion of the work in this area concerns using biomass for energy production and energy carriers, as well as for producing chemical substances, fertilisers, plastics, and other materials and products according to the bioeconomy approach. Biomass for energy and energy carrier production can be extensively, and intensively, developed in Poland. The extensive approach involves increasing the number of biogas installations from the current hundreds to thousands, and increasing the use of fallow land for energy crops. Meanwhile, the intensive approach concerns changing low-efficiency solid biomass incineration technology into advanced processing technologies, such as torrefaction, pyrolysis, and gasification. In addition, it is worth transitioning from the present use of biodegradable organic waste obtained from incineration to the use of anaerobic fermentation. The realistic total energy produced from agriculture biomass in Poland may be up to 245 PJ (5.85 Mtoe), including the contribution of the particular biomass sources, as indicated in Figure 4.

3. Biofuel Production in Poland

Despite the current stagnation of global biofuel production, there has been an increase in biofuel production in recent years in Poland, reaching 42 PJ (1.00 Mtoe) in 2020 [5]. However, the production capacity has not yet been fully met with a potential for doubling production by using the full capacity of the biofuel installations in Poland. Meanwhile, the limitations imposed by the ILUC Directive have changed the policies on alternative biofuel sources and lowered the demand for crops for non-food use.
There are two major types of biofuels in Poland. The first type consists of pure biofuels that are produced using different technologies, such as mechanical, chemical, or biological processes, and are fuels that are directly used to run engines. These include mechanically pressed rape oil, ester (which can be produced via a transesterification reaction), and ethanol obtained from corn or wheat fermentation. The second group of biofuels comprises the pure biofuels mentioned above mixed with gasoline or diesel. Rape oil and ester can be mixed with diesel, whereas ethanol can be mixed with gasoline (Figure 5).
The main substrates for biofuel production in Poland are oilseed rape and corn. Oilseed rape is used to produce esters that can be directly used to run engines designated for B100 fuel. In 2020, 846,307 tonnes (1.867 million lb) of ester fuel were produced in Poland [5], which is equal to approximately 36 PJ (859.7 ktoe). Ester is typically mixed with diesel, and the fuel type is marked based on the proportion of ester in the blend. In Poland, fuel designated as E7 is produced and contains up to 7% ester in the total fuel volume. Corn is used for producing bioethanol, which is mixed with gasoline to as much as 5% of the fuel volume. This kind of fuel is designated as E5. The amount of bioethanol produced in Poland was 196,596 tonnes (0.433 million lb) in 2020 [5], which equalled approximately 5 PJ (119.4 ktoe). There are 13 producers of bioethanol and 11 producers of ester in Poland [5]. For the total production of 0.85 million tonnes (1.873 million lb) of ester in 2020, approximately 1 million ha (2.471 million acres) of land were needed for oilseed rape cultivation. In Poland, bioethanol is produced primarily from corn and wheat and the land area required to produce 200,000 tonnes (440,920 million lb) of bioethanol is ~100,000 ha (247,100 acres).

4. New Energy and Biofuel Units

Here, two new energy and biofuel units are proposed that are more comprehensible, as they refer to the respective levels of energy consumption and biofuel production of a country (Poland) as the world’s average with respect to its area, while considering all countries with an area >30,000 km2 (11,583 mi2). Poland is ranked 71 out of 141 countries by the Worldometer in the area size of countries criteria [29]. As such, the proposed universal energy and biofuel units are as follows:
1 POLpec (Pp) = 4400 PJ (105,072 ktoe)
1 POLbp (Pb) = 42 PJ (1003 ktoe).
POLpec refers to Poland’s primary energy consumption, which was approximately 4400 PJ (105.1 Mtoe) in 2020 [1]. POLbp refers to Poland’s biofuel production expressed as an energy unit which is calculated using Equation (6):
POLbp = A 1 C 1 + A 2 C 2 + … + A n C n
where A1, A2, …, An are the amounts of specified types of biofuel produced in a certain area (region or country) in a given year expressed in kg or m3, and C1, C2, …, Cn are the calorific values of the biofuels.
For Poland, POLbp was calculated to equal 42 PJ (1.0 Mtoe) based on Equation (6) for the year 2020, as shown below:
POLbp = A 1 C 1 + A 2 C 2 = 846 , 307 , 000   kg   ·   43   MJ / kg   + 196 , 596 , 000   ·   27   MJ / kg   =   41.70   PJ   =   42   PJ
where A1 is the production level of ester used for mixing with diesel, A2 is the production level of bioethanol used for mixing with gasoline, C1 is the calorific value of ester, and C2 is the calorific value of ethanol.
In 2019, the energy consumption in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania was 0.61, 2.92, 2.41, 1.50, 0.84, and 0.32 POLpec, respectively [30]. Biofuel production in 2019 in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands was 0.45, 3.41, 2.69, 0.76, and 1.89 POLbp, respectively [31].

5. Refinery Plant Concept for Locally Available Organic Materials in Rural Areas in Poland

Biomass refineries are a new concept, and concern the improvement of biomass quality in terms of energy generation and the production of biofuels and valuable products [32]. The name ‘biomass refinery’ (often called a biorefinery, which is frequently misinterpreted to refer to alcohol production) refers to the idea of obtaining a wide range of products from biomass. For example, a great number of products are obtained from petroleum refineries. In the case of biomass, it is possible to obtain even more products than are produced from petroleum, with a huge advantage in terms of the sustainability of these processes. The major disadvantage of converting biomass into a range of new products is the level of technological development, which is still too low to produce biomass-based products that could economically compete with petroleum-based products. However, cheaper products generated from biomass could be obtained by combining various biomass technologies in one place to achieve a superior economic approach based on the combined flows of feedstock, media, and products [33,34].
In general, the production of biomass-converted goods, such as fuels, energy, and certain substances, is more expensive than that of products sourced from oil or coal. Therefore, to develop biomass-sourced products, which have tremendous advantages in terms of their effect on the climate (due to sustainability when compared with oil or coal-based products), many countries have created incentive policies, including financial support for companies that process biomass.
The products that can be obtained from biomass refineries and compared to products from oil refineries are shown in Figure 6. The main products in oil refineries are diesel and gasoline, which are produced from approximately 80% of the raw material. Kerosene, which is mainly produced as aviation fuel, accounts for approximately 10% of processed crude oil. The remaining 10% is used for producing lubricants, oils, asphalt, sulphur, carbon, hydrogen, and hydrocarbons for chemical synthesis, including that of polymer materials. Oil refineries are characterised by the fact that they are supplied with a substrate that has repeatable properties and is processed by physical and chemical methods. In contrast, the substrates in biomass refineries may comprise a wide range of materials with different physical and biological properties. In addition to the physical and chemical methods of biomass processing, there are also biological methods, which are inherently unstable processes. Therefore, the type, quantity, and quality of products obtained from a biomass refinery largely depend on local access to substrates and the methods used for their pre-treatment. The main products of biomass refineries include fuels such as biogas, biodiesel, bioethanol, syngas, and biochar. Biomass refinery products that provide a platform for the production of valuable final products include digestate, glycerin phase, proteins, lignin, sugars, and other chemicals that are used to produce many end products, such as plastics, fertilisers, biomaterials, feeds, food, and pharmaceuticals.

5.1. Biomass Refinery Models

Here, two models of biomass refinery plants have been developed. The first is called the Input/Output model, and is based on the material flow from input substrates to output products. This model allows the conversion routes to be optimised in terms of the type of substrates, the generated energy, and the types of products. The second model is called the Modular model, and is based on linking defined conversion technologies, called modules. This model combines two or more linked modules with the aim of improving efficiency by using a wide range of locally available substrates, as well as utilising by-products or waste generated from one module in another module.

5.1.1. Input/Output Model of Biomass Refineries

The biomass refinery system in the Input/Output (I/O) model is shown in Figure 7. The input is a biomass raw material (e.g., plants, wood waste, by-products from food processing) that is pre-treated (e.g., through drying, crushing, silage) prior to the main conversion process (e.g., anaerobic fermentation, pyrolysis, torrefaction) into another quality product (e.g., biogas, syngas, biochar). The outputs of this biomass refinery model can be a bioenergy vector or a valuable product. Bioenergy vectors are biofuel (e.g., biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas), heat, or electricity, whereas valuable products include chemicals, materials, fertilisers, fibres, plastics, feed, and food. With fixed input–output (raw material product) parameters in a biomass refinery, it is possible to control a wide range of processes so that the products being designed can have different physicochemical properties.

5.1.2. Modular Model of Biomass Refineries

The Modular model of biomass refineries is shown in Figure 8. A module is a single installation in which a specific biomass-converting process occurs. Each module must be linked to other modules by the flow of materials, energy, media, or energy carriers. The Modular approach of a refinery allows the process of converting raw materials to be optimised in terms of energy consumption, pollutant emissions, product quality, and process efficiency. In addition, the Modular model assumes that modules can be connected or detached depending on the availability of raw materials in the defined refinery operating area. Figure 9 shows examples of single-, two-, three-, and four-module biomass refineries that use the biomass processing technologies of anaerobic fermentation, gasification, transesterification, and alcoholic fermentation. The simplest form of a biomass refinery is a single-module installation, which can include biogas plants, alcoholic fermentation plants, pyrolysis or gasification systems, or chemical reaction plants (e.g., transesterification installation), among other installations. In these systems, one main product as well as various by-products are usually formed. In anaerobic biomass fermentation plants, the main product is biogas and the by-product is digestate, which can be converted into fertiliser, energy carriers in the form of solid (pellet) materials, or gas (syngas) substances. In biomass pyrolysis plants, the main product is producer gas, and the by-product is carbonised process residue, which can be used to produce various valuable substances including activated carbon.
The second level of technological advancement in a biomass refinery is a two-module system. In this arrangement, the two modules are connected in such a way that there are material, energy, and technological bonds between them, which result in the production of products at a lower price than that of individual systems. The possible combination of a biogas plant with a gasification plant has been described previously [33], which assumes that biogas produced in the anaerobic fermentation plant will be used to supply energy to the gasification reactor. Syngas produced in the reactor after the cleaning and treatment will serve as fuel for the molten carbonate fuel cell, while the waste heat generated in the refinery will be converted to electric power by using organic Rankine cycle systems.
At level three of the biomass refinery technology, there is a combination of three biomass processing plants: a biogas-producing installation, a producer-gas-generating plant, and a chemical reaction unit for methylene ester production. Glycerin phase, a by-product of the transesterification reaction, can be converted into syngas in the gasification reactor. Syngas can then be converted into methanol and used for methanol ester production. Thus, in this three-module system, the glycerin phase can be converted into a substrate for the transesterification reaction.
The fourth level of technological advancement of a biomass refinery is characterised by the presence of four biomass conversion modules for different products. An example of a four-module refinery would be an installation combining the aforementioned three modules with a biomass alcoholic fermentation module in which the main product is bioethanol, which is used for the production of biofuel as a mixture with gasoline. The alcoholic fermentation by-product, which is the distillery by-product, can be used as a substrate for producing biogas in a four-module biomass refinery plant.

6. Four-Module Concept of Biomass Refinery Plants

A four-module biomass refinery plant is planned to be created at the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute in Poznan, Poland. A diagram of this refinery system is shown in Figure 10. This refinery consists of four modules that are connected in terms of energy, material, and logistics, which are, namely, biogas, pyrolysis, transesterification, and fermentation installations. It is assumed that the main module of the refinery will be the biogas plant, in which the substrate will be a distillery by-products combined with fresh biomass, which has not yet been defined; however, this biomass will be one that can create synergies in the context of biomethane yield. The products of the biogas plant will be biogas and digestate. The main components of biogas will be methane and carbon dioxide. Biogas after purification (following the removal of hydrogen sulphide, in particular) will primarily be used to generate electricity using combustion engines coupled to a generator [35,36]. It will also be directly incinerated in boilers to obtain heat. After treatment by one of the previously described methods [37,38,39,40,41], biogas will be used to produce transport fuel (compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)). It will also be compressed and injected into the natural gas network or subjected to various chemical processes to obtain substances such as those produced from natural gas [42,43,44,45]. The proposed four-module refinery plant assumes cryogenic biogas treatment. With this technology, carbon dioxide is separated from methane, and the liquified methane can be used as LNG transport fuel [46,47]. In the proposed refinery, cleaned and upgraded biogas will be used to power fuel cells, in which electricity will be generated and waste heat will be produced [33,48,49]. Electricity can then be used to power a microwave pyrolysis reactor in which producer gas and char will be produced [34,50]. Methanol can be obtained from producer gas in a special reactor [51], and can then be used as a substrate in a transesterification reaction with vegetable oil, in which biodiesel and glycerin phases will be formed [52]. From the char, pellets and briquettes can be formed using a press machine, or they can be used to produce other products such as activated carbon or fertiliser [53]. Hydrogen, obtained from producer gas by conversion in a special reactor, can be used as a transport fuel after compression, or it can be processed for other purposes including chemical synthesis [54,55]. A microwave reactor can convert a single type of biomass (e.g., chicken litter), a biomass mixture (e.g., chicken litter with wood chips), or a mixture of different types of materials (e.g., wood chips with agricultural plastics and rubber waste) into valuable products [34,56,57]. In the alcoholic fermentation plant, bioethanol will be produced and mixed with fossil fuel to obtain commercial biofuel [58,59]. As previously stated, distillery by-products of alcoholic fermentation, will be a substrate for the biogas plant [60,61]. In the transesterification plant, methanol will react with vegetable oil (fresh or waste) to form an ester, which will then be mixed in a certain proportion with diesel (e.g., 5% ester, 95% diesel) to form ‘biodiesel’ [62,63]. A by-product of the transesterification reaction is the glycerin phase, which can be converted into a producer gas in a microwave reactor [34,64]. In the biogas plant, a digester will also be formed, which can be separated into a solid and liquid fraction. The solid fraction can be used to produce energy pellets [65] or as a valuable component in fertiliser production [66,67]. The liquid fraction can be returned to the biogas plant as a process liquid, or it can be poured into farmland. Waste heat generated in a fuel cell can be used to maintain the assumed temperature in the anaerobic fermentation chamber [33,68].
At the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, the selection of substrates, the requirements of the technical parameters of individual equipment, and the price of the obtained products have been analysed. As a result of the synergy of the system, it is assumed that the cost of the obtained products in the designed refinery will be competitive with the prices of products derived from raw fossil materials.

7. Conclusions

The four-module biomass refinery plant will be developed to integrate various biomass conversion techniques with the goal of reducing the production costs of bioenergy vectors (e.g., biofuels, heat, electric power) and valuable products. This unique plant will amalgamate four major biomass processing technologies, namely, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis (gasification), transesterification, and fermentation. The latest knowledge of these technologies will be implemented in this experimental plant, which is planned to be constructed at the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute in Poznan, Poland. Further design details will be presented at future international conferences and published articles.
Moreover, two new units have been introduced concerning energy and fuels: POLpec (Pp) and POLbp (Pb). One POLpec (Pp) equals 4400 PJ (105,072 ktoe), reflecting the energy consumption of Poland. One POLbp (Pb) equals 42 PJ (1003 ktoe) and refers to the annual biofuel production in Poland as of 2020. These units allow for easy comparison of the different situations of energy and biofuel production and consumption in countries and regions, while also being used in a wider application when clear and readable units are required. To show an area’s dependence on a particular energy source, the Butlewski coefficient β has also been defined and can vary from 0 to 2 depending on the import–export situation of an energy source. Finally, it has been shown that the potential of biomass and organic waste from rural areas of Poland for the biomass refinery supply is approximately 245 PJ (5851 ktoe), which may contribute ~6% to the total energy consumption in Poland.

Funding

This research received no external founding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences–National Research Institute in Falenty, Poland [grant number 9/72/2021].

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

EU—European Union; ILUC—Indirect Land Use Change; LNG—liquefied natural gas; Pb, POLbp—Poland’s biofuel production; Pp, POLpec—Poland’s primary energy consumption; GJ—gigajoule; km—kilometre; MW—megawatt; PJ—petajoule.

References

  1. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland, Statistics Poland (GUS). 2021. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-statystyczny-rzeczypospolitej-polskiej-2021,2,21.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  2. Gielen, D.; Boshell, F.; Saygin, D.; Bazilian, M.D.; Wagner, N.; Gorini, R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 24, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rather, R.A.; Wani, A.W.; Mumtaz, S.; Padder, S.A.; Khan, A.H.; Almohana, A.I.; Almojil, S.F.; Alam, S.S.; Baba, T.R. Bioenergy: A foundation to environmental sustainability in a changing global climate scenario. J. King Saud Univ.—Sci. 2022, 34, 101734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture. 2020. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/statistical-yearbooks/statistical-yearbooks/statistical-yearbook-of-agriculture-2020,6,15.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  5. National Agricultural Support Centre Public Information Bulletin. Data on Biocomponent Production in 2020. Warsaw, Poland. 2021. Available online: https://bip.kowr.gov.pl/informacje-publiczne/odnawialne-zrodla-energii/informacje-dotyczace-rynku-biokomponentow (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  6. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Energy Statistics in 2018 and 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/environment-energy/energy/energy-statistics-in-2018-and-2019,4,15.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  7. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Energy Statistics in 2019 and 2020. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/energia/gospodarka-paliwowo-energetyczna-w-latach-2019-i-2020,4,16.html (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  8. Butlewski, K. Evaluation of the Present State and Prospects for Energy and Energy Carrier Production from Biomass in Poland. In Proceedings of the 25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Stockholm, Sweden, 12–15 June 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Energy Regulatory Office (URE), Renewable Energy Sources, Installed Power. Available online: https://www.ure.gov.pl/pl/oze/potencjal-krajowy-oze (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  10. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Statistical Yearbook of Forestry in 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/en/defaultaktualnosci/3328/12/2/1/statistical_yearbook_of_forestry_2019.pdf/ (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  11. Iglinski, B.; Cichosz, M.; Skrzatek, M.; Buczkowski, R. Technical potential of waste biomass for energy in Poland. Eng. Protec. Environ. 2018, 22, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ray, C.D. Calculating the Green Weight of Wood Species. PennState Extension 2014. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/calculating-the-green-weight-of-wood-species (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  13. Aniszewska, M.; Gendek, A. Comparison of heat of combustion and calorific value of the cones and wood of selected forest trees species. For. Res. Pap. 2014, 75, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kurowska, A. Waste wood supply structure in Poland. Sylwan 2016, 160, 187–196. [Google Scholar]
  15. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture in 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/rolnictwo/ (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  16. Dai, J.; Bean, B.; Brown, B.; Bruening, W.; Edwards, J.; Flowers, M.; Karow, R.; Lee, C.; Morgan, G.; Ottman, M.; et al. Harvest index and straw yield of five classes of wheat. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 85, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhu, J.H.; Pan, X.J. Woody biomass pretreatment for cellulosic ethanol production: Technology and energy consumption evaluation. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 13, 4992–5002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. National Agricultural Support Centre (KOWR). 2020. Available online: https://www.kowr.gov.pl/odnawialne-zrodla-energii/biogaz-rolniczy/wytworcy-biogazu-rolniczego/rejestr-wytworcow-biogazu-rolniczego (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  19. Strzalka, R.; Schneider, D.; Eicker, U. Current status of bioenergy technologies in Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 801–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iglinski, B.; Buczkowski, R.; Iglinska, A.; Cichosz, M.; Piechota, G.; Kujawski, W. Agricultural biogas plant in Poland: Investment process, economical and environmental aspects, biogas potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4890–4900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Weiland, P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Igliński, B.; Buczkowski, R.; Cichosz, M. Biogas production in Poland–Current state, potential and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 686–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Comino, E.; Reggio, V.A.; Rosso, M. Biogas production by anaerobic co-digestion of cattle slurry and cheese whey. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 114, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Piwowar, A.; Dzikuć, M.; Adamczyk, J. Agricultural biogas plants in Poland—Selected technologies, market and environmental aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Agriculture in 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/rolnictwo/rolnictwo-w-2019-roku,3,16.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  26. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in 2018. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/uprawy-rolne-i-ogrodnicze/produkcja-upraw-rolnych-i-ogrodniczych-w-2018-roku,9,17.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  27. Jezierska-Thole, A.; Rudnicki, R.; Kluba, M. Development of energy crops cultivation for biomass production in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 534–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Environment 2019. Warsaw, Poland. 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowisko/ochrona-srodowiska-2019,1,20.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  29. Worldometer. Largest Countries in the World (by Area). Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/2022 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  30. Eurostat. Final Energy Consumption by Product. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00123/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  31. Statista. Biofuels Production in Selected Countries in Europe in 2019. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/332510/biofuels-production-in-selected-countries-in-europe/ (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  32. Huang, C.; Jiang, X.; Shen, X.; Hu, J.; Tang, W.; Wu, X.; Ragauskas, A.; Jameel, H.; Meng, X.; Yong, Q. Lignin-enzyme interaction: A roadblock for efficient enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Butlewski, K. Combined Biomass Gasification and Anaerobic Digestion for the Synergic Effect in Power Production for the Local Application. In Proceedings of the European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 6–9 June 2016; pp. 884–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Butlewski, K. Anaerobic digestion and microwave pyrolysis techniques for recycling organic wastes. Polimery 2019, 64, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Feroskhan, M.; Thangavel, V.; Subramanian, B.; Sankaralingam, R.K.; Ismail, S.; Chaudhary, A. Effects of operating parameters on the performance, emission and combustion indices of a biogas fuelled HCCI engine. Fuel 2021, 298, 120799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Czekala, W.; Gawrych, K.; Smurzynska, A.; Mazurkiewicz, J.; Pawlisiak, A.; Chelkowski, D.; Brzoski, M. The possibility of functioning micro-scale biogas plant in selected farm. J. Water Land Develop. 2017, 35, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Butlewski, K. Biogas upgrading methods including possibilities of thermal integration with the biomass fermentation process. Probl. Agric. Eng. 2016, 24, 67–83. Available online: https://www.itp.edu.pl/old/wydawnictwo/pir/zeszyt_92_2016/Butlewski%20K%20%20Metody%20uzdatniania%20biogazu.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  38. Carranza-Abaid, A.; Wanderley, R.R.; Knuutila, H.K.; Jakobsen, J.P. Analysis and selection of optimal solvent-based technologies for biogas upgrading. Fuel 2021, 303, 121327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cavaignac, R.S.; Ferreira, N.L.; Guardani, R. Techno-economic and environmental process evaluation of biogas upgrading via amine scrubbing. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, M.U.; Lee, J.T.E.; Bashir, M.A.; Dissanayake, P.D.; Ok, Y.S.; Tong, Y.W.; Shariati, M.A.; Wu, S.; Ahring, B.K. Current status of biogas upgrading for direct biomethane use: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fu, S.; Angelidaki, I.; Zhang, Y. In situ Biogas Upgrading by CO2-to-CH4 Bioconversion. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Goulding, D.; Power, N. Which is the preferable biogas utilization technology for anaerobic digestion of agricultural crops in Ireland: Biogas to CHP or biomethane as a transport fuel? Renew. Energy 2013, 53, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Patrizio, P.; Leduc, S.; Chinese, D.; Dotzauer, E.; Kraxner, F. Biomethane as transport fuel—A comparison with other biogas utilization pathways in northern Italy. Appl. Energy 2015, 157, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fernandez-Gonzalez, J.M.; Martin-Pascual, J.; Zamorano, M. Biomethane injection into natural gas network vs. composting and biogas production for electricity in Spain: An analysis of key decision factors. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rosha, P.; Rosha, A.K.; Ibrahim, H.; Kumar, S. Recent advances in biogas upgrading to value-added products: A review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2021, 46, 21318–21337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yousef, A.M.; El-Maghlany, W.M.; Eldrainy, Y.A.; Attia, A. Upgrading biogas to biomethane and liquid CO2: A novel cryogenic process. Fuel 2019, 251, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pellegrini, L.A.; De Guido, G.; Lange, S. Biogas to liquified biomethane via cryogenic upgrading technologies. Renew. Energy 2018, 124, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Thirusevi, D.; Kumar, P.S.; Kumar, M.A.; Lay, C.H.; Aathika, S.; Mani, Y.; Jagadiswary, D.; Dhanasekaran, A.; Shanmugam, P.; Sivanesan, S.; et al. A critical review on global trends in biogas scenario with its up-gradation techniques for fuel cell and future perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 16734–16750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Butlewski, K. Fuel cells in agricultural heat and power generating plants. Probl. Agric. Eng. 2013, 3, 109–125. Available online: https://www.itp.edu.pl/old/wydawnictwo/pir/zeszyt_81_2013/K_Butlewski%20%20Ogniwa%20paliwowe%20.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  50. Zhou, N.; Zhou, J.; Dai, L.; Guo, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Deng, W.; Lei, H.; Chen, P.; Liu, Y.; et al. Syngas production from biomass pyrolysis in a continuous microwave assisted pyrolysis system. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 314, 123756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Liu, L.; Lin, Z.; Lin, S.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.; Lin, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wan, S.; et al. Conversion of syngas to methanol and DME on highly selective Pd/ZnAl2O4 catalyst. J. Energy Chem. 2021, 58, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Jesus, S.S.; Ferreira, G.F.; Moreira, L.S.; Filho, R.M. Biodiesel production from microalgae by direct transesterification using green solvents. Renew. Energy 2020, 160, 1283–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ansari, S.H.; Ahmed, A.; Razzaq, A.; Hildebrandt, X.L.; Park, Y.K. Incorporation of solar-thermal energy into gasification process to co-produce bio-fertilizer and power. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Patra, T.K.; Mukherjee, S.; Sheth, P.N. Process simulation of hydrogen-rich gas production from producer gas using HTS catalysis. Energy 2019, 173, 1130–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Okolie, J.A.; Patra, B.R.; Mukherjee, A.; Nanda, S.; Dalai, A.K.; Kozinski, J.A. Futuristic applications of hydrogen in energy, biorefining, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and metallurgy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 8885–8905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Asomaning, J.; Haupt, S.; Chae, M.; Bressler, D.C. Recent developments in microwave-assisted thermal conversion of biomass for fuels and chemicals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 642–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Suriapparao, D.V.; Vinu, R. Biomass waste conversion into value-added products via microwave-assisted Co-Pyrolysis platform. Renew. Energy 2021, 170, 400–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Caligiuri, C.; Renzi, M.; Bietresato, M.; Baratieri, M. Experimental investigation on the effects of bioethanol addition in diesel-biodiesel blends on emissions and performances of a micro-cogeneration system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 185, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Park, S.H.; Cha, J.; Lee, C.S. Impact of biodiesel in bioethanol blended diesel on the engine performance and emissions characteristics in compression ignition engine. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. O’Shea, R.; Lin, R.; Wall, D.M.; Browne, J.D.; Murphy, J.D. Using biogas to reduce natural gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at a large distillery. Appl. Energy 2020, 279, 115812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Singh, N.; Basu, S.; Balakrishnan, M. Comprehensive treatment scheme for distillery wastewater targeting recovery of water, antioxidant compounds and biogas. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mofijur, M.; Siddiki, S.Y.; Shuvho, M.B.; Djavanroodi, F.; Fattah, I.M.; Ong, H.C.; Chowdhury, M.A.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Effect of nanocatalysts on the transesterification reaction of first, second and third-generation biodiesel sources—A mini-review. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 128642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ng, M.H.; Yung, C.L. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic characterisation of palm biodiesel and its blends. Fuel 2019, 257, 116008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sajid, M.; Ayoub, M.; Uemura, Y.; Yusup, S.; Saleem, M.; Abdullah, B.; Khan, A.U. Comparative study of glycerol conversion to polyglycerol via conventional and microwave irradiation reactor. Mater Today Proc. 2019, 16, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ogwang, I.; Kasedde, H.; Nabuuma, B.; Kirabira, J.B.; Lwanyaga, J.D. Characterization of Biogas Digestate for Solid Biofuel Production in Uganda. Sci. Afr. 2021, 12, e00735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Valentinuzzi, F.; Cavani, L.; Porfido, C.; Terzano, R.; Pii, Y.; Cesco, S.; Marzadori, C.; Mimmo, T. The fertilising potential of manure-based biogas fermentation residues: Pelleted vs. liquid digestate. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Skibko, Z.; Romaniuk, W.; Borusiewicz, A.; Porwisiak, H.; Lisowski, A. Use of pellets from agricultural plants in fertilization of oxytrees in Podlasie, Poland. J. Water Land Develop. 2021, 51, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kwan, T.H.; Shen, Y.; Pei, G. Recycling fuel cell waste heat to the thermoelectric cooler for enhanced combined heat, power and water production. Energy 2021, 223, 119922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 03392 g001 550
Figure 1. The primary energy production and the total energy consumption in Poland in 2019. Data were obtained from the Polish Central Statistical Office [6].
Figure 1. The primary energy production and the total energy consumption in Poland in 2019. Data were obtained from the Polish Central Statistical Office [6].
Energies 15 03392 g001
Energies 15 03392 g002 550
Figure 2. Illustration describing the meaning of the Butlewski coefficient β. I—import; E—export; Ep—primary energy production in a particular region or country; Ec—total energy consumption in the region or country.
Figure 2. Illustration describing the meaning of the Butlewski coefficient β. I—import; E—export; Ep—primary energy production in a particular region or country; Ec—total energy consumption in the region or country.
Energies 15 03392 g002
Energies 15 03392 g003 550
Figure 3. The Butlewski coefficient β for various energy carriers in Poland in 2019. RES—renewable energy sources.
Figure 3. The Butlewski coefficient β for various energy carriers in Poland in 2019. RES—renewable energy sources.
Energies 15 03392 g003
Energies 15 03392 g004 550
Figure 4. Potential for energy production from agricultural and residential resources in Poland.
Figure 4. Potential for energy production from agricultural and residential resources in Poland.
Energies 15 03392 g004
Energies 15 03392 g005 550
Figure 5. Processes for producing biofuels in Poland.
Figure 5. Processes for producing biofuels in Poland.
Energies 15 03392 g005
Energies 15 03392 g006a 550Energies 15 03392 g006b 550
Figure 6. Products obtained from: (a) oil refineries and (b) biomass refineries.
Figure 6. Products obtained from: (a) oil refineries and (b) biomass refineries.
Energies 15 03392 g006aEnergies 15 03392 g006b
Energies 15 03392 g007 550
Figure 7. A biomass refinery in the Input/Output (I/O) model.
Figure 7. A biomass refinery in the Input/Output (I/O) model.
Energies 15 03392 g007
Energies 15 03392 g008 550
Figure 8. Biomass refinery system in the Modular model. Arrows indicate possible links between modules.
Figure 8. Biomass refinery system in the Modular model. Arrows indicate possible links between modules.
Energies 15 03392 g008
Energies 15 03392 g009 550
Figure 9. Biomass refinery systems: (a) single-, (b) two-, (c) three-, and (d) four-module configurations. The arrows between modules indicate possible technological links between them.
Figure 9. Biomass refinery systems: (a) single-, (b) two-, (c) three-, and (d) four-module configurations. The arrows between modules indicate possible technological links between them.
Energies 15 03392 g009
Energies 15 03392 g010 550
Figure 10. Example of the four-module biomass refinery plant at the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute (Poznan, Poland). TB—transport biofuel; F—fertiliser; H—heat; EC—energy carrier.
Figure 10. Example of the four-module biomass refinery plant at the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute (Poznan, Poland). TB—transport biofuel; F—fertiliser; H—heat; EC—energy carrier.
Energies 15 03392 g010
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Butlewski, K. Concept for Biomass and Organic Waste Refinery Plants Based on the Locally Available Organic Materials in Rural Areas of Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 3392. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093392

AMA Style

Butlewski K. Concept for Biomass and Organic Waste Refinery Plants Based on the Locally Available Organic Materials in Rural Areas of Poland. Energies. 2022; 15(9):3392. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093392

Chicago/Turabian Style

Butlewski, Krystian. 2022. "Concept for Biomass and Organic Waste Refinery Plants Based on the Locally Available Organic Materials in Rural Areas of Poland" Energies 15, no. 9: 3392. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093392

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop