The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating profitability of two biochar production scenarios: slow pyrolysis vs fast pyrolysis
Abstract
We estimate the profitability of producing biochar from crop residue (corn stover) for two scenarios. The first employs slow pyrolysis to generate biochar and pyrolysis gas and has the advantage of high yields of char (as much as 40 wt‐%) but the disadvantage of producing a relatively low‐value energy product (pyrolysis gas of modest heating value). The second scenario employs fast pyrolysis to maximize production of bio‐oil with biochar and pyrolysis gas as lower‐yielding coproducts. The fast pyrolysis scenario produces a substantially higher value energy product than slow pyrolysis but at the cost of higher capital investment. We calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) for each scenario as functions of cost of feedstock and projected revenues for the pyrolysis facility. The assumed price range for delivered biomass feedstock is $0 to $83 per metric ton. The assumed carbon offset value for biochar ranges from $20 per metric ton of biochar in 2015 to $60 in 2030. The slow pyrolysis scenario in 2015 is not profitable at an assumed feedstock cost of $83 per metric ton. The fast pyrolysis scenario in 2015 yields 15% IRR with the same feedstock cost because gasoline refined from the bio‐oil provides revenues of $2.96 per gallon gasoline equivalent. By 2030, the value of biochar as a carbon offset is projected to increase to $60 per metric ton and the price of gasoline is expected to reach $3.70 per gallon, which would provide investors with an IRR of 26%. © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., & Glaser, B. (2003) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1022833116184 · Cited by 1,878
Roberts, K. G., Gloy, B. A., Joseph, S., Scott, N. R., & Lehmann, J. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es902266r · Cited by 1,243
Jones, S. B., Valkenburg, C., Walton, C. W., Elliott, D. C., Holladay, J. E., Stevens, D. J., Kinchin, C., & Czernik, S. (2009) · doi:10.2172/949907 · Cited by 320
Cited by
Development of biochar-based functional materials: toward a sustainable platform carbon material
Liu, W.-J., Jiang, H., & Yu, H.-Q. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00195 · Cited by 1,754
Biofuels Production through Biomass Pyrolysis—A Technological Review
Jahirul, M., Rasul, M., Chowdhury, A., & Ashwath, N. (2012) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en5124952 · Cited by 1,427
Carbon-Based Adsorbents for Postcombustion CO 2 Capture: A Critical Review
Creamer, A. E., & Gao, B. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b00627 · Cited by 598
A review on catalytic pyrolysis of plastic wastes to high-value products
Peng, Y., Wang, Y., Ke, L., Dai, L., Wu, Q., Cobb, K., Zeng, Y., Zou, R., Liu, Y., & Ruan, R. (2022) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115243 · Cited by 538
Characteristics and applications of biochar for environmental remediation: a review
Xie, T., Reddy, K. R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., & Spokas, K. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2014.924180 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, T. R., Wright, M. M., & Brown, R. C.
- Venue
- Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-12-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-68
- ISSN
- 1932-1031 (ISSN-L)
- 1932-104X
- OpenAlex
- W2051769438
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.