Particle scale impacts on deconstruction energy of pine residues
The goal of this Case Study was to quantify the impacts of variable moisture and ash on hammer mill throughput and energy consumption and on generation of fines that are not able to be fed to conversion, as compared to a status quo Base Case system. Also considered was convertible carbon content (minimum carbon specification) and maximum ash content and the delivered feedstock cost impacts of not being able to feed residue not meeting both specifications to the conversion reactor. Laboratory data on the impacts of input particle size and moisture content on the exit particle size were received from FCIC Subtask 5.2 from their single particle impact population balance modeling study. Additional throughput and energy consumption data were obtained from FCIC Subtask 5.2 for the same grinder with a 6 mm screen in place. These data were utilized to develop the necessary response surface equations to perform throughput analysis using discrete event simulation. Because the ash contents in the separated fines had not been analyzed in the laboratory at the time of the model runs, we chose to assume that the ash distributed proportionally with total mass into the overs and unders in the disk screen following grinding. Key takeaways from this Case Study are that it is significantly more cost effective to hammer mill the residue prior to drying, even though the grinder throughput is lower and energy consumption is higher versus drying first before grinding. An effect of dry grinding versus high moisture grinding is the production of higher amounts of fines during dry grinding, leading to significantly more of the ground feedstock being rejected by conversion for being below a minimum particle size. With wet grinding the system is still able to produce more preprocessed feedstock meeting the minimum particle size specification even though the instantaneous throughput is lower than for the case of grinding dry feedstock. Additionally, even without the higher fines production from dry grinding, the status quo would still be more costly than wet grinding because the material is rejected after the drying energy has already been input for the dry grinding case. Finally, significant reductions in drying energy are obtained by drying after grinding, and those reductions are of far greater magnitude than the grinding energy increase.