b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Evaluating the potential for producing energy from

agricultural residues in Me
xico using MILP
optimization

Hugo Aldana, Francisco J. Lozano, Joaquín Acevedo*

Chemical Engineering Department, A4-224, Instituto Tecnolo
gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus
Monterrey, Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849 Monterrey, Mexico

article info abstract

Article history: The production chain of biofuels from agricultural residues in Mexico is analyzed,
Received 13 March 2013 considering the maximization of the energy produced, the overall costs minimization and
Received in revised form the mitigation of CO2 emissions. An analysis tool was developed through a comprehensive
24 May 2014 MILP model that takes into account all aspects of the supply chain with real data to define
Accepted 27 May 2014 robust alternatives to widen the country's energy portfolio. The mathematical model
Available online 20 June 2014 considers different technologies for converting the residues generated throughout the
country into three possible products. The results show that an adequate combination of
Keywords: fermentation and gasification technologies, and the selection of appropriate sites to locate
Biomass residues processing plants and suitable consumers for the biofuels produced, would result on the
Supply chain net production of around 237 PJ per year of energy and enough ethanol to substitute all the
Mixed integer program Methyl Ter-Butyl Ether (MTBE) used in gasoline in Me
xico, while preventing the emission of
Ethanol around 11 Tg of CO2 per year to the atmosphere. It is concluded that the use of agricultural
Bio-oil residues as an energy source should be considered as a national policy in energy in which
Synthesis gas the state-owned oil company, PEMEX, can lead the project given its experience in logistics
and nationwide presence, diversifying at the same time its portfolio of energy sources.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

environmental problems such as acid rain, increasing the

1. Introduction
The demand for energy is ever growing due to an increasing
population and improving level of life. Around the globe, the
main sources of energy are fossil fuels, representing in 2010
about 80% of the energy consumed [1]. In Mexico, dependence
on fossil fuels is even greater, representing 90% of the energy
supply of the country [2]. The use of these fossil fuels gener-
ates emissions that contribute to increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which cause
concentration of ozone in the troposphere, and global warm-
ing, with its consequent damage to the economy, as was
described in detail in the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics
of Climate Change [3]. According to the data provided by the
International Energy Agency, there has been a constant in-
crease in CO2 emissions, except after the financial crisis of
2008, when a decrease of 1.5% in emissions was observed. But
after that, the largest increase in emissions for a single year
occurred in 2010, with a growth of 4.6% with respect to 2009 to
reach 30.33 Pg [1,4].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ52 81 83582000x5436.

E-mail address: jacevedo@itesm.mx (J. Acevedo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.022
0961-9534/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9
The trend in increasing emissions of greenhouse gases has
led the developed countries to seek strategies to reduce them;
such strategies include the use of renewable sources of en-
ergy, among which biomass is included [5]. An example of this
is the use of 127 Tg of corn to produce 53.8 hm3 of ethanol
during 2011 in the United States, a considerable increase
respect the 6.2 hm3 produced in 2000 [6] or the 24.9 hm3 of
ethanol produced from sugar cane during 2009 in Brazil [4]. In
Me
xico, the use of biomass in accounted in 2010 for 3.8% of the
primary energy of which fuelewood represented 75% and
bagasse 25% [2]. However, the use of biomass commonly
destined for human consumption (such as corn) for the pro-
duction of biofuels or the shift from traditional crops or forest
to energy crops has been severely questioned here and in
many parts of the world [7e9].
In contrast, the use of chemical, biochemical, and ther-
mochemical technologies to process some of the residues
resulting from agricultural activities to produce liquid, solid,
or gaseous fuels, heat, and electricity [10,11] could radically
increase our contribution to the diversification of energy
production, reduce our carbon footprint, and add value to
waste materials [12e15]. One of the main concerns, however,
has been how to make the whole process feasible in terms of
economics, net energy production and minimize environ-
mental impact.
For this reason, supply-chain modeling and supply-chain
optimization for biomass and biofuel systems have received
a lot of attention among companies and academic research
groups alike in recent years. Models and solutions that can be
used as decision support tools for strategic analysis as well as
tactical planning for forest fuel supply have been proposed.
According with Zamboni et al. [16], in those countries where
production of biofuels is not yet established, a preliminary
design of such a system before it develops organically is of the
utmost importance to overcome the main drawbacks related
production as well as to the system integration within the
existing infrastructure. In tackling such high-level decision
problems, mathematical modeling has been recognized as the
best optimization option, especially in the early stage of un-
known structures design [17]. In particular, as stated by Kall-
rath [18], mixed integer programming (MIP) represents one of
the most suitable tools in determining the optimal solutions of
complex supply-chain (SC) design problems and most of the
works in this area are presented as this type of models.
The literature relative to supply chain for biofuel produc-
tion includes models that minimize the production costs for
an established demand (e.g. Frombo et al. [19], Eksoglu et al.
[20], and Zamboni et al. [16]), maximizing profits (e.g. Sharma
et al. [21], Kim et al. [22], and Parker et al. [23]), yield maxi-
mization or waste minimization (Zondervan et al. [24]) or
global environmental impact minimization in terms of GHG
emissions (Zamboni et al. [16]).
Sharma et al. [21] evaluate the CO2 emissions generated in
the production of biofuels, although these emissions are not
optimized, while Zamboni et al. [16] considers CO2 emissions
and costs in a multi-objective optimization in a simplified
model of a single feedstock and a single product. Eksoglu et al.
[20] consider the possibility of different raw materials with
different yields for a single product and technology (lignocel-
lulosic ethanol) and a single transport medium. A similar
373
analysis is proposed by Kim et al. [22], focused on the pro-
duction of synthetic gasoline and diesel through pyrolysis
combined with gasification and Fischer Tropsch synthesis. On
the other hand, Parker et al. [23] include in their analysis the
existence of multiple technologies and different types of
transports without a specific demand for the biofuel pro-
duced. Hamelinck et al. [25] evaluate the costs, emissions and
the energy required for transporting lignocellulosic residues
using material and energy balances for a proposed transport
chain without considering the optimization of such chain.
Most of these models have been applied to geographical
areas in the United States, Europe, and Asia; until now, this
type of study has not been reported for Me
xico in the open
literature. Still, there has been some works related to the
estimation of the energy content in the biomass; for example,
in the work of Islas et al. [26] a potential of 1 TJ y1 is estimated
for crops and agro-industrial residues, while Masera et al.
[27,28] obtained a 1.26 TJ y1 of potential from agricultural
residues; in the latter works possible routes of utilization are
mentioned, without evaluating them.
Islas et al. [26] proposed the possibility of using agricultural
residues on incinerators and cane bagasse in gasification
process, both for electricity generation; the production of
biofuels for transport is considered only from energetic crops.
Estrada and Islas [29] identify some technological perspectives
that should be considered for an integral development of
bioenergy, among those the adaptation and development of
technologies that transform residual biomass in energy
through pyrolysis, gasification and lignocellulosic ethanol
production. However, according to the Mexican Ministry of
Energy [30] for the period 2013e2027 the use of biomass for
energy production is expected to depend mainly on energy
crops such as sugar cane, sorghum, sugar beet, jatropha and
palm oil. The use of residues is expected to be limited only to
steam and power production in sugar mills from sugar cane
bagasse and firewood as heating media in rural areas.
In this work, the production of biofuels from agricultural
residues in Mexico is analyzed, considering the maximization
of the energy produced, the overall costs minimization and
the mitigation of CO2 emissions, taking into account the
contribution of every step of the supply chain, from the
transportation of raw materials, the definition of production
sites and appropriate technologies to transform those mate-
rials into a set of biofuels, to the transportation of products to
possible consumers. The resulting large-scale multi-objective
programming problem is solved as a series of single optimi-
zation problems that are presented as different case studies.
An analysis tool was created based on realistic data of
crops production, transport data, distances and demands
specific for Mexico. Our purpose is to demonstrate the feasi-
bility to produce large amounts of energy in Mexico in the
form of biofuels, using paths not considered currently in
government strategies, determining which technological
routes are the most convenient to get as much energy as
possible at the lowest cost and with the largest reduction on
the environmental impact, while identifying appropriate sites
to locate processing plants and suitable consumers for the
biofuels produced.
The tool was implemented as a mixed integer linear model
(MILP) that enables the selection of fuel conversion
374 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9
technologies, capacities, biomass locations, and the logistics
of transportation from agricultural fields to storage sites, from
storage sites to biofuel production plants and from plants to
final markets; the scale of the problem and potentially large
number of near-optimal solutions, requires the formulation of
a MILP in order to avoid the problems identified by Kallrath
[18] related to computational complexity, convergence issues,
getting stuck in bad local optima and availability of good
initial solutions. At the same time, the tool is sufficiently
general to easily accommodate different types of restrictions
(e.g. the need to produce a specific biofuel in a certain amount)
or to perform an analysis of the most important parameters
and constraints that would allow to explore the impact of
different policies or requirements (e.g. the utilization or ban of
a given crop).
A formal statement of the problem is given in the first
section. The MILP model, together with its implementation
using the commercial software GAMS (version 22.3) using the
CPLEX solver [31], is then described. A short review of agro-
nomics in Mexico and some of the basic technologies that
could be used to process the agricultural residues is then
presented to define the parameters that are used in the model.
Finally, we present the results obtained and discuss their
relevance in the energy landscape of the country.
2. Problem statement
The model considers a simple supply-chain (SC) network
(Fig. 1) that includes the following elements.
A set {c} of cities (nodes) including a subset of biomass
production sites {j}, where biomass from a set of crops {i} is
reaped in a period of time {p} during the year; a subset of
storage sites {k}, for the biomass collected; a set of technolo-
gies {t} to process the biomass residues; a subset of candidate
sites to install biofuel plants {x} of the given technologies {t},
where a set of products {b} can be manufactured; and a subset
of markets {l}, where the final products are sold.
The objective is to determine the number, location, and
size of processing facilities and the amount of materials to be
transported between the various nodes of the designed
network to maximize the overall gain of energy, at a minimum
cost, and with the maximum reduction of CO2 emissions,
while meeting some physical and logical constraints associ-
ated with the material and energy balances, technological
restrictions, different agricultural residues availability
through the year seasons, and product demands resulting
from possible public policies that could be implemented in the
country.
RTRp RTR
TTRp TTR
Biomass Storage
Sites {j} Sites {k}
Fig. 1 e Structure of the supply-chain network.
Table 1 e Sets used in the model.
Symbol Description
i Residues
c Nodes considered in the model.
The set is integrated by subsets j, k, x, l
j Nodes generators of residues
k Nodes for residues storage
l Nodes consumers of biofuels
x Nodes plants can be located
t Technologies available
b Products
p Periods of agricultural production
3. Mathematical model
A mathematical model was implemented, with the goal to
maximize net energy (NE) recovered in the form of biofuels,
minimize the cost of producing these biofuels (CPBf), and
maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide emitted into the
atmosphere (CD). The different variables utilized in the model
are presented in parentheses and the sets are enclosed within
curly brackets. Table 1 resumes the sets utilized in the model
and Table 2 presents the nomenclature of variables and
constants.
3.1. Objective functions
The model has been established as a MILP, with three possible
objectives: maximizing net energy, maximizing the reduction
of carbon dioxide emissions, or minimizing the cost of pro-
ducing biofuels. To avoid the solution of a multi-objective
problem, the model is executed for a single objective func-
tion (i.e., maximize NE) and later is re-evaluated for the sec-
ond or third objective function considering the result of the
first optimization as a constraint in the new optimization. To
simplify the model execution, the functions for scaling in-
vestment costs, which are not smooth, were transformed to
lineal equations assigning established capacities for the
plants.
The maximization of NE considers the energy contained in
the fuels produced (BEC) minus the energy required for baling
(BE), processing (PE), and transporting (TE) of both raw mate-
rials and products.
The maximization of CD considers the reduction of emis-
sions given by the substitution of fossil fuels for biofuels
(CDBf) minus the emissions produced for baling (CDB), pro-
cessing (CDP), and transporting (CDT) of both raw materials
and products.
RTP
TTP
Plants Markets
Sites {x} {l}
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 375

Table 2 e Nomenclature.
Symbol Description Unit Type
AIC Annualized investment cost $ y1 Continuous
AiCu Unitary annualized investment cost $ y1 Continuous
BE Baling energy consumption per period GJ Continuous
BEC Energy contained in biofuels produced per period GJ Continuous
BEF Baling CO2 equivalent emission factor Mg Mg1 Continuous
BEu Unitary energy required for baling GJ Mg1 Continuous
Bf Biofuel produced per period Mg Continuous
BFD Biofuel demand per period Mg Continuous
BfP Biofuels produced in a plant per period Mg Continuous
CC Combined Cycle plant Not Apply Not Apply
CD Reduction in CO2 emissions per period Mg Continuous
CDB CO2 emissions produced for baling during the period Mg Continuous
CDBf CO2 emissions reduced by biofuels during the period Mg Continuous
CDP CO2 emissions produced for process during the period Mg Continuous
CDT CO2 emissions produced for transport during the period Mg Continuous
CEf Conversion efficiency to biofuels in mass basis Mg Mg1 Continuous
Cmax Maximum installed capacity of a plant Mg Continuous
Cmin Minimum capacity for operation Mg Continuous
CPBf Cost of produce biofuels per period $ Continuous
CPR Cost of processing residues per period $ Continuous
CR Cost of residues per period $ Continuous
CRu Unitary residue cost $ Mg1 Continuous
CT Cost of transport per period $ Continuous
EMF Biofuels CO2 equivalent emission factor Mg Mg1 Continuous
FC Mass fraction of carbon converted to synthesis gas Not Apply Not Apply
GR Residues generated per period Mg Continuous
H Mass fraction of moisture in the residues as received Not Apply Not Apply
LUu Unitary energy required for load and unload residues GJ Mg1 Continuous
M1 Maximum limit of biofuel produced during the period Mg Continuous
MTBE Methyl Ter-Butyl Ether Not Apply Not Apply
NE Net energy generated during the period GJ Continuous
OP Variable cost (operating cost) per period $ Continuous
OPu Unitary operating cost $ Mg1 Continuous
PCu Calorific value of products GJ Mg1 Continuous
PE Energy required for processing during the period GJ Continuous
PEF Process CO2 equivalent emission factor Mg Mg1 Continuous
PEu Unitary energy required for process GJ Mg1 Continuous
PTC Cost for transport products during the period $ Continuous
PTCu1 Unitary cost for transport of products by truck $ Mg1 km1 Continuous
PTE Energy for transport of products during the period GJ Continuous
PTEu Unitary energy required for transport of products by truck GJ Mg1 km1 Continuous
RTC Cost for transport residues during the period $ Continuous
RTCu2 Unitary cost for transport of residues by truck $ Mg1 km1 Continuous
RTE Energy for transport of residues during the period GJ Continuous
RTEu Unitary energy required for transport of residues by truck GJ Mg1 km1 Continuous
RTP Product transported by truck per period Mg Continuous
RTR Residue transported by truck to a plant per period Mg Continuous
RTRP Residue transported by truck to a storage site per period Mg Continuous
SSF Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation Not Apply Not Apply
TE Energy required for transport during the period GJ Continuous
TEF Transport CO2 equivalent emission factor Mg Mg1 Continuous
TG Turbogas plant Not Apply Not Apply
TTCu1 Unitary cost for transport of products by train $ Mg1 km1 Continuous
TTCu2 Unitary cost for transport of residues by train $ Mg1 km1 Continuous
TTEu1 Unitary energy required for transport of residues by train GJ Mg1 km1 Continuous
TTEu2 Unitary energy required for transport of products by train GJ Mg1 km1 Continuous
TTP Product transported by train during the period Mg Continuous
TTR Residue transported by train to a plant during the period Mg Continuous
TTRP Residue transported by train to a storage site during the period Mg Continuous
UR Residues utilized in each plant during the period Mg Continuous
URP Residues in an storage site during the period Mg Continuous
XC Mass fraction of carbon in the residue on a dry basis Not Apply Not Apply
Xcellulose Mass fraction of cellulose in the residue on a dry basis Not Apply Not Apply
Xhemicellulose Mass fraction of hemicellulose in the residue on a dry basis Not Apply Not Apply
yt Existence of processing plants Dimensionless Binary
376 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

Finally, the minimization of CPBf considers the sum of the the amount of product being transported by train (TTP) and
costs for processing (CPR) and for transport (CT) of both raw truck (RTP) to each consumer node.
materials and products, as well as the costs of the residues X
(CR). The key model formulation approaches are shown in BfPðp; x; bÞ ¼ URði; p; x; tÞ  CEfði; bÞ cðp; x; bÞ (5)
i;t
Table 3.
X
BfðbÞ ¼ BfPðp; x; bÞ cðbÞ (6)
3.2. Material balances p;x

It is assumed that biofuels plants can be installed in any city X X

BfPðp; x; bÞ ¼ TTPðp; x; l; bÞ þ RTPðp; x; l; bÞ cðp; x; bÞ (7)
where the biomass can be stored {k} or where the biofuels can l l
be sold {l}; the transport of materials can be made by truck or
train. In this way, the amount of each residue processed (UR) 3.3. Energy balances
at each period in each plant should be equivalent to the resi-
dues transported in by train (TTR) and by truck (RTR) from the The energy required for transportation (TE) is the result of
storage site. adding the energy required to transport residues (RTE) and
products (PTE). The energy required to transport residues is a
X
URði; p; x; tÞ ¼ TTRði; p; k; x; tÞ function of the total mass transported (TTR, RTR, TTRP, and
k RTRP) and the distance between nodes (Dc). In a similar way,
X
þ RTRði; p; k; x; tÞ cði; p; x; tÞ (1) the energy required for transport products is calculated from
k
TTP and RTP.
Also, the amount of residues in the storage site (URP) must be
equal to the residues transported by train (TTRP) and by truck TE ¼ PTE þ RTE (8)
(RTRP) from the generation site. It is assumed that the entire X
amount of residues in a storage site is utilized in the biofuel RTE ¼ TTRðp; k; x; bÞ  Dcðk; xÞ  TTEu1
p;k;x;b
production, as can be observed in equation (3) and, simulta- X X
neously, the residues in a storage site must be less or equal þ RTRðp; k; x; bÞ  Dcðk; xÞ  RTEu þ TTRPðp; j; kÞ
p;k;x;b p;j;k
than the total amount of generated residues (GR). X
X X  Dcðj; kÞ  TTEu1 þ RTR Pðp; j; kÞ  Dcðj; kÞ  RTEu
URPði; p; kÞ ¼ TTRPði; p; j; kÞ þ RTRPði; p; j; kÞ cði; p; kÞ p;j;k

j j (9)
(2)
X X
X X PTE ¼ TTPðp; x; l; bÞ  Dcðx; lÞ  TTEu2 þ RTPðp; x; l; bÞ
URPði; p; kÞ ¼ URði; p; x; tÞ cði; pÞ (3) p;x;l;b p;x;l;b

k x;t  Dcðx; lÞ  PTEu2

X X (10)
URPði; p; kÞ  GRði; p; jÞ cði; pÞ (4)
k j where TTEu1, TTEu2, RTEu, and PTEu are constants repre-
senting the energy required per unit of mass and distance for
The amount of biofuel produced in each plant (BfP) is a func-
each transportation service. These constants were obtained
tion of the conversion efficiency (CEf) of each type of residue in
from similar studies for other countries.
each process, while the total amount of each biofuel (Bf) is
The energy required for baling (BE) is estimated from the
given by the quantity produced in all plants in all periods.
amount of residues used and the energy required for the
Similarly as with residues, BfP in each period must be equal to
process (PE) is calculated from the amount of residues used
(UR). The energy content of biofuels (BEC) is found from the
amount of biofuel produced (Bf).
X
Table 3 e Key model formulation approaches. BE ¼ ðBEu þ LUuÞ  URði; p; x; tÞ (11)
i;p;x;t
Operation type Options Key Variables
Biomass Types of residues Amount of X
production residues utilized PE ¼ PEuðtÞ  URði; p; x; tÞ (12)
i;p;x;t
Residues Sites selected for
generation sites generation and storage X
Sites for BEC ¼ BfðbÞ  PCuðbÞ (13)
residue storage b
Transport Train Amount of residues
where BEu, LUu, and PEu are factors representing energy re-
Truck transported
Technology SSF Plant location quirements per unit of mass of residue baled, loaded/unloa-
Pyrolysis Plant production capacity ded, and processed respectively. PCu represents the calorific
Gasification Amount of residues value of biofuels.
processed Recent Mexican regulations have led to the substitution of
Biofuel Markets Sites for biofuel Type and amount of MTBE in gasoline by ethanol. In our model, we consider the
consumption biofuel consumed
possibility of using only ethanol obtained from residual
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 377

biomass by imposing a constraint to produce at least the 3.5. Environmental impact analysis
necessary biofuel for this demand at specific nodes. Ethanol
can be transported to these nodes by train or truck, resulting The environmental impact is measured by the reduction of
in the following constraint: carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere considering the
X reductions for the substitution of fossil fuels for biofuels
BfDðl; ethanolÞ  TTPðp; x; l; ethanolÞ (CDBf) and the emissions produced for baling (CDB), process-
p;x
X ing (CDP), and transporting (CDT) of both raw materials and
þ RTPðp; x; l; ethanolÞ cðl; ethanolÞ products.
p;x
CDBf is obtained from the total amount of biofuel pro-
(14)
duced, CDB is obtained from the energy required for baling,
Also, according to the literature used to define the techno- CDT is obtained from the energy required for transporting
logical parameters, it is considered a maximum installed ca- both residues and biofuels, and CDP is obtained from the en-
pacity of each plant (Cmax) and a minimum capacity below ergy required for processing residues.
which a plant should not be operated (Cmin). X
X CDBf ¼ BfðbÞ  EMFðbÞ (22)
URði; p; x; tÞ  C maxðtÞ cði; p; x; tÞ (15) b

i;p

DCB ¼ BE  BEF (23)

X
URði; p; x; tÞ  C minðtÞ cði; p; x; tÞ (16)
i;p CDT ¼ TE  TEF (24)
3.4. Economic analysis X
CDP ¼ PEuðtÞ  URði; p; x; tÞ  PEFðtÞ (25)
i;p;x;t
The cost of producing biofuels (CPBf) is determined by the
costs of transportation of products (PTC) and residues (RTC), In equations (22) and (23), EMF, BEF, TEF, and PEF are emission
and the cost of processing these residues (CPR). factors for fossil fuels substitution, baling, transport, and
Following the reasoning and the variables applied for the process residues respectively.
energy balances, these costs can be estimated as follows:
X X 3.6. Logical constrains
PTC ¼ TTPðp; x; l; bÞ  Dcðx; lÞ  TTCu1 þ RTPðp; x; l; bÞ
p;x;l;b p;x;l;b
In addition, the number of plants for each technology in the
 Dcðx; lÞ  PTCu1
same city is limited to 1, as shown below
(17)
X
ytðx; tÞ  1 (26)
X
RTC ¼ TTRðp; k; x; bÞ  Dcðk; xÞ  TTCu2 t

p;k;x;b
X limiting the production of biofuels by
þ RTRðp; k; x; bÞ  Dcðk; xÞ  RTCu2
p;k;x;b BfPðp; x; bÞ  M1  ytðx; tÞ cðp; x; b; tÞ (27)
X X
þ TTRPðp; j; kÞ  Dcðj; kÞ  TTCu2 þ RTRPðp; j; kÞ where M1 represents the maximum limit of biofuels
p;j;k p;j;k
produced.
 Dcðj; kÞ  RTCu2 The transport of residues and products (TTR, RTR, TTRP,
(18) RTRP, TTP, RTP) is limited by utilizing the incidence matrix,
where TTCu1, PTCu1, TTCu2, and RTCu2 are constants ob- which takes into account the existence of rail lines, the exis-
tained from data reported by the Ministry of Communications tence of demand of a given biofuel at each node, and the
and transports of Me
xico. distances between nodes (the country was grouped in
CPR includes the cost of the residues (CR), operating costs geographical regions allowing transportation of residues and
(OP), and the annualized investment costs (AIC). products only within those regions). Table 4 summarize the
main constrains of the model.
X
CR ¼ CRuðiÞ  URði; p; x; tÞ (19)
i;p;x;t

X 4. Application to Mexico
OP ¼ OPuðtÞ  URði; p; x; tÞ (20)
i;p;x;t
4.1. Nodes selection
X
AIC ¼ AiCuðtÞ  ytðx; tÞ (21) 4.1.1. Nodes for biomass production and storage
x;t
Following the suggestions of Ho € ldrich et al. [32], a distance of
where CRu, OPu, and AiCu are unitary costs obtained from 15 km is appropriate to define the sites for biomass production
previous reports, and yt(x,t) represents the decision vari- because it is economically and energetically not useful to
able that defines if a processing plant is built or not at any transport the biomass feedstock further, due to the low energy
of the possible sites {x} where a plant of technology {t} can content per volume. This gives 580 municipalities, which
be built. concentrate almost 60 Tg of residues and the capital cities
378 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

Table 4 e Optimization constrains

1. Energy balances consider transport of raw material (depending on the type of transport used, the amount of material and the distance
traveled), processing (depending on the technology, biochemical composition and amount of the raw material) and transport of products
(depending on the type of transport used, the amount of material and the distance traveled).
2. Each technology has an efficiency conversion based on the feed chemical composition.
3. The feed is constituted by a mix of different types of residues transported to the processing plant.
4. When a demand is established, the amount of biofuel produced must satisfy this demand.
5. The minimum capacity at which a plant can be operated is 50% of its maximum capacity.
6. Only one plant of each technology can be installed in each node.
7. Cities with a generation of more than 100 Gg y1 of residues were considered as nodes for storage.
8. The plants for each technology can be located either at the sites where residues are stored or at the sites where biofuels can be consumed.
9. The transport of residues and products is limited by the existence of routes for the two types of transports considered.

were designated as the nodes generators of residues. Dis-
tances between cities were obtained through the Ministry of
Communications and Transportation of Mexico [33]. Fig. 2(a)
shows the distribution of selected cities in Me
xico.
For the establishment of the storage sites, 35 nodes that
generate more than 100 Gg y1 of residues were considered.
Fig. 2(b) shows the distribution of storage cities.
4.1.2. Nodes consumers of biofuels
The sites where the biofuels could potentially be consumed
were selected taking into account the applications that they
may have. Ethanol was considered to be used as a substitute
for MTBE in gasoline and therefore the 69 cities with distri-
bution and storage terminals (DST) of PEMEX gasoline were
considered as potential consumers of ethanol.
Bio-oil was considered for use in furnaces and boilers of
steel, cement, chemical, petrochemical, or power industries,
as a substitute for diesel or fuel oil. The cities selected were
those with large plants of the previously mentioned in-
dustries, and considered as storage nodes or ethanol con-
sumers. A total of 29 cities met the criteria.
Synthesis gas was proposed to substitute for natural gas in
turbogas (TG) or combined cycle (CC) power plants. For our
model, 38 nodes were selected where TG and CC power plants
are located. Fig. 3 summarizes the location of the consuming
cities for the three types of biofuels.
4.1.3. Nodes for plant location
Given the possibilities that biofuels can be produced either at
the sites where residues are stored or at the sites where bio-
fuels can be consumed, 108 nodes were selected as sites where
the processing plants can be located.
For modeling, the possibility of installing plants with a
capacity of 2, 4 and 6 Gg d1 based on the capacities of gasi-
fication plants already installed or being installed was
considered and it was assumed that those capacities were also
applicable to all the technologies. This assumption was made
because gasification is a mature technology, although just for
carbon. It was established that the minimum capacity below
which a plant should not be operated (Cmin) was equal to 50%
of the maximum installed capacity of the plant.
4.2. Technological parameters
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries and Food, around 550 different types
of crops are grown annually in Mexico [34], generating around
73 Tg of residues [35]. However, just 28 types of crops (corn,
sugar cane, sorghum, and wheat among others) generate 85%
of the total amount produced. Those residues were considered
in this study.
The moisture content of such material was estimated at
30%, assuming the biomass previously had been dried in the
field and is stored and packaged to be protected from the
weather on storage sites [36]. According to Bauen [37], the
“harvesting” of residues should be done in a sustainable way
to preserve the quality of the soil, control erosion, and main-
tain productivity; this is achieved by removing up to 50% of the
material generated, leaving the rest in the field. It is then
estimated that the selected crops produce almost 32 Tg of
residues available for biofuels. Table 5 shows the estimated
annual average of residues generated in Me
xico by each of the
selected crops during the years 2000e2010.
Processing biomass residues to produce biofuels can be
done through biochemical and thermochemical routes. Fig. 4
shows the different technological options available for pro-
cessing biomass and the products that can be obtained [19].
The choice of technology is influenced by economic and
environmental issues and the desired product. In this work,
we have selected the fermentation processes for ethanol
production, pyrolysis for bio-oil, and gasification for synthesis
gas. The choice was made because these are technologies that
have already been implemented in commercial facilities (in
the case of pyrolysis, because of the attention it has received
in recent years) and the products generated can be used
directly to replace fossil fuels in key sectors for the develop-
ment of the country (power generation, transport, heavy in-
dustry, etc.). In the following paragraphs, the technologies
being considered and the parameters used in the model
related to each one of them are described. Table 6 summarizes
the technological parameters used for biofuel production
while Table 7 summarizes the conversion efficiencies of each
technology considered when processing different types of
residues.
4.2.1. Fermentation
Fermentation refers to the breakdown of carbohydrates by
bacteria, microscopic yeasts, or fungi to produce ethanol. The
process of producing ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass
consists of several stages: feedstock pretreatment, detoxifi-
cation, hydrolysis, fermentation, and separation [53]. From
the arrangements referred to in the literature, the Simulta-
neous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) configuration
was selected, as it is widely used because of its advantages,
b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 379

Fig. 2 e Nodes producers of residues.

380 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

Fig. 3 e Nodes consumers of biofuel.

such as a reduced number of reactors and to promote the
consumption of glucose as soon as it is formed [54,55].
To determine the efficiency of conversion of lignocellulosic
biomass to ethanol, the content of hemicellulose and cellulose
was taken as the basis. Two limits were considered to define
this value. First, an upper value was define from the design
proposed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
[45], during the process to convert corn stover, 76.5% of
hemicellulose and 85.5% of cellulose were fermented toward
ethanol; because no detailed information was available for

xico during 2000e2008 and their chemical

Table 5 e Averaged estimated generation per year of agricultural residues in Me
composition.
Crop Grain Residue/Crop Residue Hemicellulosec Cellulosec Ligninc Carbon
Production ratio generated contentd
(Tg y1a) (kg kg1b) (Tg y1)
Mass% Dry base
Corn 22 1 22 41 23 36 56
Sugar cane 50 0.2 10 43 24 33 46
Sorghum 5.5 1.4 7.7 20 42 38 52
Wheat 3.4 1.3 4.42 30 39 31 43
Beans 1.4 2.1 2.94 42e 29e 29e 43
Cotton 0.5 5.03 2.52 78 16 6 41
Othersf 15.828 0.9g 14.23 42e 29e 29e 47e
TOTAL 63.81
a
Ref. [34].
b
Ref. [38].
c
Ref. [39].
d
Ref. [40].
e
Average values.
f
Include garlic, rice, oats, eggplant, broccoli, peanuts, zucchini, pumpkin, barley, onions, squash, green peas, green chili, cauliflower, green
beans, broad beans, tomato, potato, cucumber, soybean, green tomato, carrot.
g
Averaged estimated from Ref. [41,42].
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 381

Thermo-chemical Conversion Bio-chemical Conversion

Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis Digestion Fermentation

Gas Gas Charcoal

Biogas Ethanol

Bio-oil

Steam

Fuels and
Heat Electricity chemicals

Fig. 4 e Different biomass conversion technologies and their products.

other residues, this value was considered the same for all Crescentino, Italy with a capacity to process up to 180 Gg y1 of
residues through the following equation obtained through dry biomass such as arundo donax and wheat straw [56]).
stoichiometric analysis: Therefore, a lower value for this parameter was considered to
be at 80% of the value estimated by equation (28). This lower
CEf ethanol ¼ 0:51ð1  HÞð0:855Xcellulose þ 0:765Xhemicellulose Þ (28)
value for the conversion efficiency of a fermentation process
where Xcellulose represents the fraction of cellulose in the was considered for most of the results presented in this paper,
residue on a dry basis, Xhemicellulose represents the fraction of while a sensitivity analysis is later presented using the upper
hemicellulose in the residue on a dry basis and H represents value.
the fraction of water in the raw material as received. Ethanol can be used as a solvent, as raw material for syn-
The yield obtained from equation (28) is consistently thesis of other products, or as a fuel or additive in gasoline for
higher than those reported in literature or expected at in- transportation. In this case, it is assumed that it will be used as
dustrial level for different residues (see for example Eksoglu additive in gasoline to substitute Methyl Ter-Butyl Ether
et al. [20] who utilizes an average yield of 22% for dry corn (MTBE), because the Mexican Ministry of Energy [29] is
stover and 21.3% for dry woody biomass, Sharma et al. [21]
who utilizes an average value of 22.7% for corn stover and
26.2% for wheat straw, or, at industrial level, the PROESA
technology where yields of 22.7e25% are reported for the
Table 7 e Residues conversion efficiencies for each
world's first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant located in
technology.
Residue Fermentation Pyrolysis Gasification
Mg Mg1
Table 6 e Selected technologies and their energetic
parameters. Sugar cane 0.148 0.55a 0.75
Corn 0.156 0.55b 0.62
Technologies Pretreatment Product External energy
Sorghum 0.14 0.49c 0.61
for process
Wheat 0.156 0.45d 0.40
(GJ Mg1)
Beans 0.164 0.49c 0.50
SSF Size reduction Ethanol 0 Cotton 0.218 0.40e 0.59
(>40 mm) Others 0.156c 0.49c 0.58c
Fast Drying, size Bio-oil 1.45 a
Ref. [47].
Pyrolysis Reduction b
Ref. [48].
Indirect Drying, Size Synthesis 1.44 c
Averaged values.
Gasification Reduction Gas d
Ref. [49].
e
Ref. [43e46]. Ref. [50].
382 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9
considering the introduction of 498 dam3 of ethanol to be
blended with gasoline for that purpose.
4.2.2. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the conversion of biomass into liquid, solid, and
gaseous fuel in the absence of oxygen. The process occurs in
the temperature range of 600e1000 K. Pyrolysis with heating
rates of about 300 K min1 (fast pyrolysis) has the advantage of
maximizing the production of liquid (up to 70%) [48], which
can easily be transported and handled [57]. The liquid pro-
duced (bio-oil) has a calorific value range of 16e19 MJ kg1
with moisture content between 20% and 30% [43].
The conversion efficiency of the pyrolysis process was
obtained from literature data for fast pyrolysis experiments
conducted in the laboratory or pilot plant by several authors
[47e50]. Because no information was available on a large-
scale process, the data reported for each of the residues
were used, even though the results obtained at a laboratory
scale may be different from those obtained on an industrial
scale because of scaling difficulties. For those residues for
which there was no experimental information, an averaged
value was used.
According to the overview of Czernik and Bridgwater [57],
bio-oil is expected to be used in furnaces and boilers. For the
production of bio-oil, the energy required to process the resi-
dues outlined by Polagye et al. [43] was used.
4.2.3. Gasification
Gasification is the conversion of carbon contained in biomass
into a fuel gas mixture (mainly carbon monoxide and
hydrogen, with carbon dioxide, methane, and other light hy-
drocarbons) generated by partial oxidation at high tempera-
tures (1000e1400 K) in the presence of a gasifying agent. The
resulting product, called synthesis gas, is a very versatile
material, which can be used to generate steam, electricity,
hydrogen, and chemicals with higher added value (ammonia,
methanol, etc.) [58].
The process used for obtaining synthesis gas is a form of
indirect gasification developed at BattelleeColumbus Labora-
tory and analyzed technically and economically by Craig et al.
and Spath et al. for the NREL [44,46]. As assessed by Craig and
Mann [44], the synthesis gas obtained has a calorific value of
17 MJ kg1, with average volume fractions of 0.1345 of CO2,
0.4316 of CO, 0.2128 of H2, and 0.2045 of CH4, and an average
molecular weight of 22 kg kmol1. Also, according to the work
of Spath et al. [46], the energy required for the gasification
reactor can be entirely supplied by burning char, a subproduct
of the same process.
The gasification efficiency was calculated based on the
carbon content of residues and a conversion rate determined
experimentally and reported in the literature [40]. The con-
version efficiency was calculated using the following
equation:
CEf gas ¼ 0:425XC FC ð1  HÞ
where XC represents the fraction of carbon in the residue on a
dry basis, FC represents the fraction of carbon converted to
synthesis gas, H is the fraction of moisture in raw materials,
and the constant (0.425) represents the mass of carbon per
mass unit of synthesis gas.
4.2.4. Energy for baling and transportation
The following assumptions were made to model the baling
and transportation energy requirements. Biomass is most
frequently collected in the field and transported without any
pretreatment to storage sites, because the farmers do not have
available technologies to process the residues directly in the
field. At the storage sites, and based on the considerations
made by Sokhansanj et al. [52], the biomass is packed in
square bales of 1.2  1.2  2.4 m.
Taking into account the average capacities of different
transport media (see for instance, Hamelinck et al. [25]), it was
assumed that the bales were transported from the storage
sites to the plant by truck with a capacity of 40 Mg or train with
a capacity of 1 Gg. Ethanol and bio-oil were transported from
the plant to the consumers in trucks of 33 m3 or in units of
2500 m3 by rail. Finally, synthesis gas is to be delivered
through pipelines to the site of consumption. Table 8 sum-
marizes the values of the energy consumed by each type of
transportation and the energy required for packaging, loading,
and unloading residues.
4.3. Economic parameters
The economic parameters were determined based upon those
reported in previous works and updated as of 2010 by pro-
ducer price indexes. The annualized investment cost (AiCu)
and operation cost (OPu) for each plant were estimated from
data provided by Aden et al. [45] for ethanol production, by
Polagye et al. [43] for bio-oil production, and by Craig and
Mann [44] for synthesis gas production. Data were updated
using the capital equipment producer price index and the
intermediate materials, supplies, and components producer
price index reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
United States respectively [59]. For determining the invest-
ment cost of each plant an exponential scaling factor of 0.7
was utilized, as recommended by Polagye et al. [43].
The cost of transport by train was determined averaging
the data reported by the General Direction of Rail and Multi-
modal Transport of the Ministry of Communications and
Transport of Mexico for grain and fodder transportation for
2010 [60]. The cost of transport by truck for residues was
estimated averaging the cost of transport for several routes
reported by the same Federal Department in [61] for 2004 and
was updated to 2010 using the producer price index for gen-
eral cargo transport reported by The Bank of Me
xico [62]. The
Table 8 e Energy consumption in transporting residues
and biofuels.
Transport type Transport energya Balling Load/unload
(MJ Mg1 km1) energyb energyb
MJ Mg1
Residues by train 0.3 125 354
(29)
Residues by truck 0.5 125 354
Products by train 0.3 NA NA
Products by truck 0.5 NA NA
NA ¼ Not Apply.
a
Ref. [51].
b
Ref. [52].
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 383

the Official Norm NOM-086-SEMARNAT-SENER-SCFI-2005. As

Table 9 e Cost for transportation.
Cost ($ Mg1 km1)
Residues by train 0.0343
Residues by truck 0.058
Products by train 0.0409
Products by truck 0.094
cost of transport by truck for product was taken from Gil and
Chaco
n [63]. Tables 9 and 10 present these parameters.
A cost of 49.66 $ Mg1 of biomass was determined. This
value is equal to the price of fodder crops in Me
xico, as re-
ported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Devel-
opment, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) for 2008 [64] and
updated using the producer price index for animal food as

xico [62].
reported by The Bank of Me
4.4. Environmental impact parameters
The parameters accounting for the emission of carbon dioxide
were obtained from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) [65], based on the combustion of diesel, natural
gas and residual fuel oil and use of electricity. The emission
factor for MTBE combustion takes into account the complete
combustion of the material, based on the data of Croezen and
Kampman in [66].
The CO2 emission factor for baling (BEF) and for transport
(TEF) was assumed to be 0.074 Mg GJ1, equal to the factor for
diesel combustion. The mitigation emission factor (EMF) was
obtained assuming the substitution of MTBE for ethanol, re-
sidual fuel oil for bio-oil, and natural gas for synthesis gas. The
process emission factor (PEF) was calculated taking into ac-
count the energy required for the process, in this case, burning
diesel and using electricity. Table 10 also presents the envi-
ronmental parameters under consideration for each
technology.
5. Results
5.1. Scenarios
By combining two objective functions at a time, six scenarios
were defined (S1eS6). Scenarios 1e4 consider first the maxi-
mization of net energy, with Scenarios 3 and 4 constrained by
a demand of 1 Tg of ethanol to substitute MTBE in gasoline
(estimated from the consumption of gasoline in Mexico for
2010, as reported by the Ministry of Energy [67]) sufficiently to
provide a mass fraction of 2.7% of oxygen, as established in
a secondary goal, Scenarios 1 and 3 analyze the minimization
of costs, while Scenarios 2 and 4 consider the reduction of CO2
emissions. In contrast, Scenarios 5 and 6 first assess the
maximization of CO2 mitigation and then the minimization of
costs. Once again, for Scenario 5, no constraint in ethanol
production was considered, while for Scenario 6, the previous
ethanol demand was introduced. These scenarios were
selected as they represent limiting cases from which all other
scenarios will generate less energy or will save less CO2
emissions.
5.2. Results
Fig. 5 summarizes, for each scenario, the net energy, the total
cost, and the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions. It can be
observed that the maximum energy obtained is around
255 PJ y1 for Scenario 1, descending 7% to 237 PJ y1 for Sce-
nario 6. The minimum cost of 2683 M$ y1 is for Scenario 1,
while the maximum is 3175 M$ y1 for Scenario 4, an increase
of 18%. The rise of the costs is explained by the increase in the
number of plants required, which goes from 21 in Scenario 1 to
34 in Scenario 4. Despite these changes in cost and net energy
generated, it can be observed that the mitigation of carbon
dioxide emissions remain almost constant at around 11 Tg y1
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fig. 6 presents the amount of biofuels produced with each
scenario. In every case, gasification is selected as the best
technological option, producing as much synthesis gas as
possible; only a small amount of ethanol is produced in sce-
narios 3e6, depending mainly on the constraints imposed on
its production when the net energy is maximized, while the
bio-oil obtained by pyrolysis remains uncompetitive in any
case. The amount of synthesis gas that can be produced fol-
lows a descending trend of 22% from 18.5 Tg y1 for Scenarios
1 and 2 to 14.4 Tg y1 for Scenarios 4 and 6. This reduction can
be expected because there are more constraints considered in
the latter scenarios (ethanol demand and maximum mitiga-
tion of CO2). In an opposite manner, ethanol increases its
production from zero Tg y1 for Scenario 1 and 2 to 1.2 Tg y1
for Scenarios 4 and 6. The increase in ethanol production is
due to the constraint imposed to produce a minimum amount
of ethanol. Also can be observed that, for scenario 5, an
amount of 0.67 Tg y1 of ethanol is produced because ethanol
has the highest mitigation factor of the three products
considered, while the emission factor of SSF is the lowest of
the three technologies.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the distribution of costs for each prod-
uct. It is shown that raw materials are the largest cost for
gasification (around 54%), while fixed (investment) costs are

Table 10 e Cost and environmental parameters for technology.

Process Annualized Cost Annualized Cost Annualized Cost Operation Emission Mitigation
plant 2 Gg d1 plant 4 Gg d1 plant 6 Gg d1 cost ($ Mg1) factor factor
M$ y1 Mg Mg1
SSF 24.9 41.5 56 21.62 0 1.91
Fast Pyrolysis 4.15 7.23 8.3 6.58 0.131 1.19
Indirect Gasification 17.1 27.9 36.7 9.92 0.129 0.95
384 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

3500 35 300

3000 30 250

CO2 Mitigation (Tg y-1)

2500 25

Net Energy (PJ y-1)

Total Cost (G$ y-1)
200

2000 20
150
1500 15

100
1000 10

50
500 5

0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Scenarios
Total Cost CO2 Mitigation Net Energy

Fig. 5 e Net energy, total cost, and CO2 mitigation.

the most important for fermentation processes (41%) followed
by the cost of biomass (35%). The results for the fixed costs for
the ethanol production are similar to those obtained for
Eksoglu et al. [20] accounting for 49% of the total; other costs
reported differ from those obtained here, since they used a
much lower biomass cost (between 26.53 $ Mg1 and
29.4 $ Mg1 depending on the type of the residue) and do not
consider train as a transport option.
The unitary cost of energy produced in the first scenario
(S1) is 8.62 $ GJ1 for synthesis gas, while for S3, the unitary
cost of energy produced is 8.18 $ GJ1 for synthesis gas and
28.12 $ GJ1 for ethanol. This cost of ethanol is competitive
with market price, which is in the range 28.70e30.45 $ GJ1 [68]
but almost doubles the cost between 15 $ GJ1 and 20 $ GJ1
obtained by Parker et al. [23]. Synthesis gas, on the other hand,
is not competitive with natural gas delivered in pipelines
(produced in Mexico or imported from the USA) because of its
present low price, around 2.53 $ GJ1 average in 2012 [69]; this
price is one-third that of the highest price that this
geographical zone has had in the past 5 years, but it is ex-
pected to remain at that level in the near future. However,
because of availability issues, Mexico is expected to import up
to 357 PJ y1 of liquefied natural gas (LNG) during the period
2015e2026 [70], according to the prospective of natural gas for
2012e2026 published by the Ministry of Energy. While LNG
would cost around 15.8 $ GJ1, the use of synthesis gas ob-
tained from agricultural residues could replace up to 70% of
these imports at almost half the price. This is relevant
because, at the moment, Petro
leos Mexicanos e PEMEX, the
state-owned and only Mexican oil company e rejected two
projects to produce ethanol: the first one because the winner
could not demonstrate the capacity to produce the amount of
ethanol required using sugar cane, and the second because
PEMEX offered a price 31% lower than the market price in
Me
xico [71e74].
Table 11 summarizes the energy and carbon dioxide out-
puts for each scenario for transportation, baling, and pro-
cessing; the highest amount of energy added to biofuel
production is for processing, followed by transportation, and
finally for baling. The energy invested to produce biofuels
ranges from 59 PJ y1 for Scenario 1 decreasing to 47.65 PJ y1
for Scenario 6, accounting only for 19% and 17% of the energy
obtained in the form of biofuels respectively for those sce-
narios; the reason for this decrease is that the production of
ethanol does not require additional energy. Including the
emissions related to the construction of these production sites
would change the final result of this scenario.

Fig. 6 e Biofuel production. Fig. 7 e Distribution of costs S1.

 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 385

100 In terms of the physical installations, the construction of

90 the largest plants (6 Gg d1) was selected for the production of
synthesis gas, while, for ethanol production, plants with the
80
smallest capacity (2 Gg d1) were enough to ensure the pro-
70 duction of all the bioethanol needed. Similar results for the
60 gasification were found by Frombo et al. [19], where the large
50 plant sizes were preferred for fluidized bed gasification. In
%

contrast, Parker et al. [23] found that 75% of the cellulosic

40
ethanol plants selected by their model were between
30 2.25 Gg d1 and 3.175 Gg d1 of feedstock input; in a similar
20 way, Eksoglu et al. [20] found that, for low conversion rates, it
10 was better to open two or three small size facilities instead of a
large one centrally located.
0
The capacities of storage sites present a wide range, be-
Ethanol Bio-oil Synthesis gas
tween 10 Gg y1 and 4 Tg y1. It is also observed that, for all
Product
scenarios, transportation by train was preferred for both res-
Fixed cost Variable cost
idues and products whenever it is available, which is similar
Raw material Transport of products
Transport of residues to the results in the work of Hamelinck et al. [25] and expected
given the long distances in the country.
Fig. 8 e Distribution of costs S3. From the six scenarios evaluated, 19 cities were found to
have the greatest potential for the establishment of biomass
processing plants, being part of the optimal solution in all
Biomass absorbs the CO2 emissions generated during its scenarios. These cities would be the most suitable sites for
processing and final use through photosynthesis. This makes installing biofuel plants mainly because of their proximity to
it, in principle, a neutral source in terms of emissions as the potential consumers of biofuels and because all of these cities
cycle is completed. However, there are additional emissions of have a TG or CC plant. This shows that the model integrates
CO2 along the production of biofuels. This means that there is the new infrastructure with that already existing to improve
a balance between the GHG emitted during the life cycle of the the economic and energetic efficiency of the network. The
biofuel and those saved for the fossil fuels substituted. Ac- distribution of these cities is shown in Fig. 9. The numbers in
cording to the results obtained in this study, the use of bio- this Figure are related to Table 12 where the name and the
fuels produced form agricultural residues in Mexico would state of each city are listed. Also, in the same Table, the
have a net reduction in emissions of around 11 Tg of CO2 as maximum distance from where biomass is transported to the
compared to the use of fossil fuels, independently of the plant is also shown. The average distance to transport
technological route selected. The emissions reduced repre- biomass to a plant from a storage site is 200 km, which is 25%
sent close to 2.6% of the CO2 emitted in Mexico during 2007 [4]. higher than the value obtained from Parker et al. [23] where
the majority of biorefineries in his model had feedstock areas
greater than 160 km from where their supply was obtained.
Since there is no change in the CO2 mitigation, Scenarios 1
and 3 were considered to perform a sensibility analysis for the
Table 11 e Maximized net energy and biofuels amount yield of SSF process accounting for possible improvements in
from residues processing for the scenarios described. this technology. The simulations were performed using
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 directly the efficiencies obtained from equation (28), repre-
senting a 20% increase compared to the values used in pre-
Energy Outputs
Balling (PJ y1) 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
vious runs. The results show an increase of only 1.2% of the
Transport (PJ y1) 12.95 12.95 13.05 13.05 12.86 13.06 total energy obtained and 8.3% for the cost for S1, while the
Process (PJ y1) 42.45 42.45 31.62 30.90 36.83 30.91 amount of ethanol produced went up to 0.67 Tg y1; for S3, an
Energy 59.08 59.08 48.35 47.64 53.37 47.65 increase of 5.9% in energy and 3.7% in cost was observed,
Invested (PJ y1) while the production of ethanol was increased in 15.7%.
Products (PJ y1) 314.48 314.48 285.85 284.79 305.71 284.79
Regarding the cities selected to produce biofuels, 15 of them
% of energy 19 19 17 17 17 17
remain as in the previous runs for both scenarios, while only
invested respect
products

mez Palacio, Durango; Tula de Allende, Hidalgo;
the cities of Go
Emissions Cadereyta de Jimenez, Nuevo Leon, and Cajeme Sonora were
Mitigation replaced by Acolman Estado de Me
xico and Navojoa, Sonora.
CO2 emission 6.71 6.71 5.32 5.22 5.98 5.22 These changes also resulted in a reduction on the distance
(Tg y1) from the production plants to the consumers, becoming
CO2 not emitted 17.57 17.57 16.22 16.18 17.22 16.18
163 km on average.
(Tg y1)
It can be observed from these results that there is a real
% net CO2 2.60 2.60 2.51 2.62 2.79 2.62
emissions saveda potential to produce energy from residues and diversify the
a energetic matrix of the country. Albeit the large uncertainty
Respect the emissions reported for 2009 according to Ref. [4].
inherent in many of the parameters of the model (from raw
386 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9
Fig. 9 e Nodes with high potential for biofuel production.
material characteristics, supply and price, fuel demands and
price, production and yield of different technologies and
biomass types, to tax, governmental and regulatory policies),
some of the actions taken to minimize this uncertainty, like
averaging the production of the different crops for a 10 year
period, or the sensitivity analysis on technology efficiency,
show that there was not a substantial change in the results for
the design variables, namely the location, size and technology
of the plants selected, as well as the amount of energy
produced.
The tendencies observed of a net gain of energy, the ca-
pacity to produce enough ethanol to substitute all the MTBE
used in Mexico for gasoline, and the possibility to couple these
technologies with the existing infrastructure represent a great
opportunity for the country to rethink its energy policy,
especially considering the goal established to reduce the use
fossil fuels for power generation in 35% for 2024, 40% for 2035
and 50% for 2050 [30] and its plead to reduce its GHG emissions
in 30% for 2020 and 50% for 2050, according with the National
Strategy for Climate Change [75].
In terms of future work, we envision the expansion of this
model to stochastic and multiperiod formulations, to account
for variations in biofuels prices and demand, biomass prices
and availability, and to determine the best time to build each
plant, based on the national renewable energy strategy. A
variation in ethanol yields based on experimental data with
different raw materials should also be included, as well as a
relation between cumulative installed capacity and associated
production cost reductions for experience.
6. Conclusions
The feasibility to produce biofuels from agricultural residues
in Mexico was demonstrated by means of a comprehensive
MILP model that considers economical, technological and
environmental aspects to define robust alternatives to widen
the energy portfolio. According to the modeling conditions,
the results show that biofuels production can generate a
positive energy balance, taking into account the energy in-
vestment in baling, processing, and transportation in the
entire production chain.
Net energy maximization can be obtained through a com-
bination of technologies, to produce ethanol via simultaneous
saccharification and fermentation, and synthesis gas via
gasification; the latter is presented as a strategic option for the
production of large amounts of energy for the near future,
while the efficiency of conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to
ethanol through fermentation is increased. The production of
synthesis gas would be economically viable considering it as a
substitute of liquefied natural gas, and could replace up to 70%
of its imports.
According to these results, the use of residues as an energy
source should be considered as a national energy policy in
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9 387

[4] International Energy Agency. CO2 emissions from fuel

Table 12 e Nodes with high potential for biofuel combustion highlights 2011. Paris (FR): OECD/IEA; 2009.
production and maximum distance for residues supply. p. 123.
Numbera Municipality State Maximum [5] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Distance (km) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention
on climate change. Kyoto (JP): United Nations; 1998. p. 20.
1 Mexicali Baja California 0
[6] Renewable Fuels Association. 2012 ethanol industry outlook.
2 Hermosillo Sonora 348
Washington (DC): Renewable Fuels Association; 2012. p. 35.
3 Cajeme Sonora 86
[7] Rathmann R, Szklo A, Schaeffer R. Land use competition for
4 Chihuahua Chihuahua 101
production of food and liquid fuels: an analysis of the
5
n
Culiaca Sinaloa 120
arguments in the current debate. Renew Energy
6 Durango Durango 474
2010;35(1):14e22.
7 Go
mez Palacio Durango 455

n
[8] Escobar JC, Lora ES, Venturini OJ, Ya ~ ez EE, Castillo EF,
8 Cadereyta Jime
nez Nuevo Leo
n 62
Almazan O. Biofuels: environment, technology and food
9 Valle Hermoso Tamaulipas 127
security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(6e7):1275e87.
10 Altamira Tamaulipas 155
[9] Gonza
lez MA, Castan~ eda ZY. Biocombustibles, biotecnología
11 Juanacatla
n Jalisco 74
y alimentos: impactos sociales para Me


xico. Nueva Epoca
12 San Luis de la Paz Guanajuato 139
2008;21(57):55e83.
13 Tula De Allende Hidalgo 399
[10] Demirbas MF. Biomass resource facilities and biomass
14 Pedro Escobedo Quere
taro 142
conversion processing for fuels and chemicals. Energy
de Arteaga
Convers Manag 2002;42(11):1357e78.
15 Cuautlancingo Puebla 216
[11] Demirbas MF, Mustafa B. Recent advances on the production
16 Acapulco Guerrero 112
and utilization trends of bio-fuels: a global perspective.
de Jua
rez
Energy Convers Manag 2006;47(15e16):2371e81.
17 Medellín Veracruz-Llave 111
[12] Fernandes U, Costa M. Potential of biomass residues for
18 Palizada Campeche 483
energy production and utilization in a region of Portugal.
19 Otho
n P. Blanco Quintana Roo 333
Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34(5):661e6.
a
According to Fig. 9. [13] Gregg JS. National and regional generation of municipal
residue biomass and the future potential for waste-to-energy
implementation. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34(3):379e88.
which PEMEX can be a leader given its presence across the
[14] Matsumura Y, Minowa T, Yamamoto H. Amount, availability
nation, and the means and wide experience in logistics to and potential use of rice straw (agricultural residue) biomass
distribute fuels all over the country; such capacities are rele- as an energy resource in Japan. Biomass Bioenergy
vant since the residues are dispersed in extended areas all 2005;29(5):347e54.
over the nation, although the consumers of the biofuels could [15] Cuiping L, Yanyongjie, Chuangzhi W, Haitao H. Study on the
be defined in very specific places. In the same way, the use of distribution and quantity of biomass residues resource in
residues can contribute, for PEMEX and for the nation, to China. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27(2):111e7.
[16] Zamboni A, Bezzo F, Shah N. Spatially explicit static model
diversify its portfolio of energy sources, just as all other
for the strategic design of future bioethanol production
important oil companies have been doing. At the same time, systems. 2. Multi-objective environmental optimization.
this strategy would also help to reduce up to 2.6% of the CO2 Energy Fuels 2009;23(10):5134e43.
emissions in Mexico and produce enough ethanol to [17] Beamon B. Supply chain design and analysis: models and
completely replace MTBE in gasoline in Mexico, which would methods. Int J Prod Econ 1998;55(3):281e94.
allow compliance with the federal strategies and legislations. [18] Kallrath J. Mixed integer optimization in the chemical
process industry: experience, potential and future
perspectives. Chem Eng Res Des 2000;78(6):809e22.
[19] Frombo F, Minciardi R, Robba M, Rosso F, Sacile R. Planning
woody biomass logistics for energy production: a strategic
Acknowledgments decision model. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33(3):372e83.
[20] Eksoglu SD, Acharya A, Leightley LE, Arora S. Analyzing the
design and management of biomass-to-biorefinery supply
Authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
chain. Comput Ind Eng 2009;57(4):1342e52.
Air Pollution Engineering Research Chair from ITESM for the
[21] Sharma P, Sarker BR, Romagnoli JA. A decision support tool
development of this article. for strategic planning of sustainable biorefineries. Comput
Chem Eng 2011;35(9):1767e81.
[22] Kim J, Realff MJ, Lee JH, Whittaker C, Furtner L. Design of
biomass processing network for biofuel production using an
references MILP model. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(2):853e71.
[23] Parker N, Tittmann P, Hart Q, Nelson R, Skog K, Schmidt A,
et al. Development of a biorefinery optimized biofuel supply
[1] International Energy Agency. Key world energy statistics curve for the Western United States. Biomass Bioenergy
2012. Paris (FR): OECD/IEA; 2012. p. 80. 2010;34(11):1597e607.
[2] Secretaría de Energía de Me
xico. Balance nacional de energía [24] Zondervan E, Nawaz M, De Haan A, Woodley J, Gani R.
2011. Mexico City (MX): Secretaría de Energía; 2012. p. 159. Optimal design of a multi-product biorefinery system.
[3] Stern(Great Britain. Treasury) N. The economics of climate Comput Chem Eng 2011;35(9):1752e66.
change: the Stern review. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge [25] Hamelinck CN, Suurs R, Faaij A. International bioenergy
University Press; 2006. p. 575. transport cost and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy
388 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9

2005;29(2):114e34. economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and

[26] Islas J, Manzini F, Masera O. A prospective study of bioenergy
use in Mexico. Energy 2007;32(12):2306e20.
[27] Masera O. La bioenergía en Me
xico: un catalizador del
desarrollo sustentable. Mexico City (MX): Ediciones Mundi-
Prensa; 2006. p. 119.
[28] Masera O, Coralli F, García C, Riegelhaupt E, Arias T, Vega J,
et al. La Bioenergía en Me
xico: Situacio
n actual y
perspectivas. Mexico City (MX): Red Mexicana de Bioenergía,
A.C; 2011 Aug.. p. 42.
[29] Estrada C, Islas J. Energías alternas: Propuesta de
Investigacio
n y Desarrollo Tecnolo
gico para Me
xico. Mexico
City (MX): Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; 2010. p. 136.
[30] Secretaría de Energía de Me
xico. Prospectiva de energías
renovables 2013e2027. Mexico City (MX): Secretearía de
Energía; 2013. p. 88.
[31] Rosenthal RE. GAMS e a users' guide. Washington (DC):
GAMS Development Corporation; 2006. p. 271.
[32] Ho€ ldrich A, Epp C, Witzelsperger J. Feasibility study for
mixed biomass pellets production in the German sample
region: Straubing, Bavaria. Munich (DE): WIP Renewable
Energies; 2009. p. 20.
[33] Point to point routes [Internet]. Mexico City (MX): Secretaría
de Comunicaciones y Transportes; 2010 [Cited 2010
JuleSept]. Available from: http://aplicaciones4.sct.gob.mx/
sibuac_internet/ControllerUI?action¼cmdEscogeRuta.
[34] Produccio
n Anual [Internet]. Mexico City (MX): Servicio de
informacio
n agroalimentaria y pesquera; 2011 [cited 2011 jul
7]. Available from: http://www.siap.gob.mx/agricultura-
produccion-anual/.
[35] Torres F, Go
mez E. Energías renovables para el desarrollo
Sustentable en Me
xico. Mexico City (MX): SENER-GTZ; 2006.
p. 89.
[36] Cuadrado H, Mejía S, Contreras A, Romero A, García J. Manejo
agrono
mico de algunos cultivos forrajeros y te
cnicas para su
conservacio
n en la regio
n caribe colombiana. Turipana
Editorial Siglo 21; 2003 Aug.. p. 52.
[37] Bauen A. Sustainable heat and electricity from sugarcane
residues gasification in Brazil. In: Hamndia N, Da Garca M,
editors. New and renewable technologies for sustainable
development. Norwell (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers;
2002. pp. 429e41.
[38] Va
zquez M. Factores de emisiones en Paraguay para los
sectores: energía, agricultura, cambio de uso de tierra y
silvicultura. Asuncio
n (PY): Informe final para el proyecto
PAR/98/G31, primera comunicacio
n nacional de cambio
clima
tico; 2002 Dec.. p. 23.
[39] Gaur S, Reed TB. Thermal data for natural and synthetic
fuels. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998. p. 258.
[40] Kirubakaray V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Nalini R, Sekar T,
Premalatha M, Subramanian P. A review on gasification of
biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(1):179e86.
[41] Dupuis I. Estimacio
n de los residuos agrícolas generados
en la isla de Tenerife. Santa Cruz de Tenerife (ES):
Servicio Te
cnico de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural; 2006
Mar.. p. 19.
[42] Instituto Canario de Estadísticas (ISTAC). Anuario estadístico
de Canarias 2005. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ES): ISTAC;
2006 Oct.. p. 213.
[43] Polagye BL, Hodgson KT, Malte PC. An economic analysis of
bio-energy options using thinning from overstocked forest.
Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31(2e3):105e25.
[44] Craig K, Mann MK. Cost and performance analysis of
biomass-based integrated gasification combined-cycle
(BIGCC) power systems. Golden (CO): NREL; 1996 Oct.. p. 58.
Report No.: NREL/TP-430-21657.
[45] Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J.
Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and
enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. Golden (CO): NREL;
2002 Jun.. p. 88. Report No.: NREL/TP-510-32438.
[46] Spath P, Aden A, Eggeman T, Ringer M, Wallace B, Jechura J.
Biomass to hydrogen production detailed design and
economics utilizing the Battelle Columnus Laboratory
indirectly-heated gasifier. Golden (CO): NREL; 2005 May. p. 57.
Report No.: NREL/TP-510-37408.
[47] Das P, Ganesh A, Wangicar P. Influence on pretreatment for
dashing of sugar cane bagasse on pyrolysis products.
Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27(5):445e57.
[48] Agblevor FA. Fast pyrolysis of stored biomass feedstocks.
Energy Fuels 1995;9(4):635e40.
[49] Goyal HB, Seal D, Saxena RC. Bio-fuels from thermochemical
conversion of renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2008;12(2):504e17.
[50] Caglar A, Demirbas A. Conversion of cotton cocoon shell to
liquid products by pyrolysis. Energy Convers Manag
2000;41(16):1749e56.
[51] Secretaría de Energía de Me
xico. Indicadores de eficiencia
energe
tica en Me
xico: 5 sectores, 5 retos. Mexico City (MX):
Secretaría de Energía; 2011. p. 163.
[52] Sokhansanj S, Kumar A, Turhollow A. Development and
implementation of integrated biomass supply analysis and
logistics model (IBSAL). Biomass Bioenergy
2006;30(10):838e47.
[53] Mustafa B. Progress in bioethanol processing. Energy
Combust Sci 2007;34(5):551e73.
[54] Hahn-Haegerdal B. Bio-ethanol e the fuel of tomorrow from
the residues of today. Trends Biotechnol 2006;24(12):549e56.
[55] Sanchez O, Cardona C. Produccio
n biotecnolo
gica de alcohol
carburante I: obtencio
n a partir de diferentes materias
primas. Interciencia 2005;30(11):671e8.
[56] Pescarolo S, Frattini A, Oriani L, Ferrero S, Chiaramonti D.
PROESA technology: the industrial solution for cellulosic

(CO): ethanol. In: IEA Bioenergy, editor. IEA bioenergy conference
2012; 2012 Nov 13e15; Viena. Viena (AT): IEA Bioenergy; 2012.
pp. 417e22.
[57] Czernik S, Bridgwater AV. Overview of applications of
biomass fast pyrolysis oil. Energy Fuels 2004;18(2):590e8.
[58] De Souza-Santos ML. Solid fuels combustion and
gasification: modeling, simulation, and equipment
operation. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 508.
[59] Producer price indexes [Internet]. Washington (DC): Bureau
of Labor Statistics. [Cited 2010 Nov 18]. Available at: http://
www.bls.gov/ppi/
[60] Consulta de tarifas. Direccio
n General de Transporte
Ferroviario y Multimodal [Internet]. Mexico City (MX):
Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. [Cited 2010 Nov
16]. Available at: http://dgtfm.sct.gob.mx/index.php?id¼546
[61] Arroyo JA, Aguerrebere R. Estado superficial y costos de
operacio
n en carreteras. Quere
taro (MX): Secretaría de
Comunicaciones y Transportes; 2002. p. 76. Report No.: 202.
[62]
Indice de precios productor y de comercio exterior [Internet].
Mexico City (MX): Banco de Me
xico. [Cited 2010 Nov 18].
Available at: http://www.banxico.gob.mx/SieInternet/
consultarDirectorioInternetAction.do?
accion¼consultarDirectorioCuadros&sector¼20&locale¼es
[63] Gil G, Chaco
n S. La crisis del petro
leo en Me
xico. Mexico City
(MX): Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnolo
gico; 2008 Apr..
p. 292.
[64] Cierre de la produccio
n agrícola por cultivo [Internet]. Mexico
City (MX): Servicio de informacio
n agroalimentaria y
pesquera; 2009 [cited 2009 Jul 7]. Available from: http://www.
siap.gob.mx/index.php?option¼com_
wrapper&view¼wrapper&Itemid¼350.
[65] Go
mez DR, John D, Watterson JD. Stationary combustion. In:
Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 7 2 e3 8 9
2006 IPCC guidelines for national green house gas
inventories. Energy, vol. 2. Hayama (JP): IPCC; 2006. p. 47.
[66] Croezen H, Kampman B. The impact of ethanol and ETBE
blending on refinery operations and GHG-emissions. Energy
Policy 2009;37(12):5226e38.
[67] Sistema de Informacio
n Energe
tica [Internet]. Mexico City
(MX): Secretearía de Energía. [Cited 2010 Aug 25]. Available
from: http://sie.energia.gob.mx/sie/bdiController
[68] Carries L. Preparan licitaciones de etanol para DF y
Monterrey. Milenio 2010 Mar 17:20. Negocios.
[69] Precios de venta de primera mano Gas Natural [Internet].
Comisio
n Reguladora de Energía [Cited 2012 December 7].
Available at: http://www.cre.gob.mx/articulo.aspx?id¼169
[70] Secretaría de Energía de Me
xico. Prospectiva del Mercado de
Gas Natural 2012e2026. Mexico City (MX): Secretearía de
Energía; 2012. p. 208.
389
[71] Arzate E. PEMEX: Licitacio
n a la vista. CNNEXPANCION; 2011
Jul 29. Manufacture. Available at: http://www.cnnexpansion.
com/manufactura/2011/07/29/pemex-licitacion-a-la-vista.
[72] Ramírez M. Desairan a Pemex en licitacio
n de etanol.
Zafranet; 2012 Mar 20. Noticias Azúcar. Available at: http://
www.zafranet.com/2012/03/desairan-a-pemex-en-licitacin-
de-etanol/?lang¼en.

pez A. Fracasa sexenio con etanol. Reforma 2012 Oct 1:3.
[73] Lo
Economía.
[74] Ramírez M. Revocan fallo para el etanol. Reforma 2010 Mar
22:2. Negocios.
[75] Gobierno de la Republica. Estrategia Nacional de Cambio
Clima
tico. Diario Oficial de la Federacio
n; 2013 Jun 1. Sect. 3.