THERMAL SCIENCE

International Scientific Journal

Srđan M. Vasković

,

Milica M. Perić

,

Petar M. Gvero

,

Mirko S. Komatina

,

Milan A. Jugović

MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL BIOENERGY CHAINS

ABSTRACT
This study proposes optimal supply chain models for agricultural biomass, focusing on straw and corn stalks. Four bioenergy chains, corn stalk pellets, corn stalk chips, straw bales, and straw pellets, were evaluated using multicriteria decision making tools and life cycle assessment. Key criteria included energy efficiency, investment costs, fuel production costs, and environmental impacts such as GHG emissions, acidification, eutrophication, and particulate matter formation. Results indicate that straw bales (L3) and corn stalk chips (L2) offer the most sustainable options, with straw bales demonstrating superior energy efficiency and lower environmental impacts. The VIKOR method, combined with the entropy weight method, identified straw bales as the optimal supply chain under various weighting scenarios. These findings provide actionable insights for sustainable bioenergy development and policy formulation.
KEYWORDS
agricultural biomass, bioenergy, life cycle assessment, straw, corn stalk, MCDM
PAPER SUBMITTED: 2024-08-20
PAPER REVISED: 2025-01-22
PAPER ACCEPTED: 2025-01-27
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 2025-02-16
DOI REFERENCE: https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI240820010V
CITATION EXPORT: view in browser or download as text file
THERMAL SCIENCE YEAR 2025, VOLUME 29, ISSUE Issue 4, PAGES [2769 - 2780]
REFERENCES
  1. ***, Government of the Republic of Serbia, Strategija Razvoja Energetike Republike Srbije do 2025. sa Projecijama do 2030., (Energy Sector Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia by 2025 with Projections until 2030 - in Serbian), 2015
  2. Tica, N., et al., Izveštaj Projekta: Mogućnosti i Ekonomski Aspekti Upotrebe Žetvenih Ostataka za Proizvodnju Toplotne Energije (Project report: Possibilities and economic aspects of using of agricultural residues for heat production - in Serbian), Novi Sad, Serbia, 2015
  3. ***, German Solar Energy Society, Ecofys & Ecofys., Planning and Installing Bioenergy Systems a Guide for Installers, Architects and Engineers, 2004
  4. Turanjanin, V. M., et al., Development of the Boiler for Combustion of Agricultural Biomass by Products, Thermal Science, 14 (2010), 3, pp. 707-714
  5. Marinković, A. D., et al., Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Emission from Cigar Burner Combustion System and Comparison of Their Content in Fly Ashes, Thermal Science, 26 (2022), 6A, pp. 4749-4761
  6. Martinez-Valencia, L., et al., Biomass Supply Chain Equipment for Renewable Fuels Production: A Review, Biomass and Bioenergy, 148 (2021), 106054
  7. Nunes, L. J. R., Silva, S., Optimization of the Residual Biomass Supply Chain: Process Characterization and Cost Analysis, Logistics, 7 (2023), 3, 48
  8. Vatsanidou, A., et al., A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Production from Energy Crops in Crop Rotation Using Different Tillage System, Sustainability, 12 (2020), 17, 6978
  9. Lijo, L., et al., Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Production From Biomass: The Italian Experience, in: Green Energy and Technology, Springer Verlag, New York, USA, 2019, pp. 81-98
  10. Sun, O., Fan, N., A Review on Optimization Methods for Biomass Supply Chain: Models and Algorithms, Sustainable Issues, and Challenges and Opportunities, Process Integration Optimization Sustainabillity, 4 (2020), Mar., pp. 203-226
  11. Mann, M. K., Spath, P. L., Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification Combined-Cycle Power System, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report No. NREL/TP-430-23076, doi.org/10.2172/10106791, 1997
  12. Wang, C. N., et al., Bi-Objective Optimization Modeling For Biomass Supply Chain Planning, Measurement and Control, 57 (2024), 8, pp. 1087-1098
  13. Huy Nguyen, D., Study on Biomass Supply Chain Planning and Inventory Control of Perishable Products, Other. Ph. D. thesis, Université de Technologie de Troyes, Troyes, France, 2019
  14. Yu, Z., et al., Review in Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Conversion Through Pyrolysis-Issues and Recommendations, Green Chemical Engineering, 3 (2022), 4, pp. 304-312
  15. Helal, M.A., et al., A Review of Biomass-to-Bioenergy Supply Chain Research Using Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization, Energies, 16 (2023), 3, 1187
  16. Osman, A. I., et al., Conversion of Biomass to Biofuels and Life Cycle Assessment: A Review, Environmental Chemistry Letters, 19 (2021), July, pp. 4075-4118
  17. Firouzi, S., et al., Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Select Appropriate Biomass Resources for Biofuel Production, Science of the Total Environment, 770 (2021), 144449
  18. Štilić, A., Puška, A., Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods with Sustainable Engineering: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices, Eng, 4 (2023), 2, pp. 1536-1549
  19. Vasković, S., et al., Energy Chains Optimization for Selection of Sustainable Energy Supply, in: Sustainable Supply Chain Management, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, 2016
  20. Mrkić-Bosancic, M., et al., Optimization of Energy Mix and Possibilities of Its Application in Energy Transition Using Multicriteria Approach, Thermal Science, 27 (2023), 3B, pp 2501-2512
  21. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., et al., Life Cycle Assessment of Bioenergy Product Systems: A Critical Review, Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy, 1 (2021), 100015
  22. Perić, M. M., et al., Life Cycle Assessment Of Wood Chips Supply Chain In Serbia, Renewable Energy, 155 (2020), Aug., pp. 1302-1311
  23. Ma, Y., et al., The Economic Feasibility and Life Cycle Carbon Emission of Developing Biomass-Based Renewable Combined Heat and Power (RCHP) Systems, Fuel, 353 (2023), 129177
  24. Perić, M. M., et al., Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Miscanthus Crop for Sustainable Household Heating In Serbia, Forests, 9 (2018), 10, 654
  25. Perić, M. M., et al., Diesel Production by Fast Pyrolysis of Miscanthus Giganteus, Well-Topump Analysis Using the Greet Model, Thermal Science, 23 (2018), 1, pp. 365-378
  26. Alejandro Perdomo, E. E., et al., Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Wood Production-Methodological Options: A Literature Review, Bioenerg. Res., 14 (2021), Mar., pp. 492-509
  27. Campos-Guzmán, V., et al., Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Review of Approaches for the Sustainability Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104 (2019), C, pp. 343-366
  28. Vasković, S., et al., Multi-Criteria Optimization Concept for the Selection of Optimal Solid Fuels Supply Chain from Wooden Biomass, Croatian J. of Forest Engineering, 36 (2015), 1, pp. 109-123
  29. ***, www.propelety.com/pellet-line/
  30. Kwasniewski, D., Logistic and Economical Preconditions for Production of Pellets From Sawdust, Agricultural Engineering, 23 (2019), 2, pp. 5-14
  31. Krmpotić, T., Kiš, A., Total Costs of Agricultural Machinery, Agric. Technol., 30 (2005), 2, pp. 105-114
  32. Savin, L., Optimization of the Structure of the Machine Pool at Field Crops Production, Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, 2004
  33. ***, tehmago.co.rs/category/poljoprivredne-masine-i-oprema,
  34. Đević, M., et al., Modern Wheat Combine Claas Lexion 450 in Corn and Wheat Harvesting, Agric. Technol., 28 (2004), 1, pp. 27-40
  35. Bavrka, I., Ekonomska Opravdanost Korištenja Žetvenih Ostataka za Unaprjeđenje Dohotka (Economic Justification of Using Crop Residues to Increase Income - in Croatian), Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2017
  36. Bavrka, I., et al., Generating Cost Price for Crop Residues, Journal of Central European Agriculture, 20 (2019), 1, pp. 542-555
  37. Potkonjak, V., Zoranović, M., Collection, Transport and Storage of Straw Bales, Contemporary Agricultural Technology, 31 (2005), 4, pp. 204-210
  38. Theerarattananoon, K., et al., Physical Properties of Pellets Made from Sorghum Stalk, Corn Stover, Wheat Straw, and Big Bluestem, Ind. Crops. Prod., 33 (2011), 2, pp. 325-332
  39. Sokhansanj, S., et al., Integrating Biomass Feedstock With an Existing Grain Handling System for Biofuels, ASABE, St. Joseph, Mich., USA, 2006, Paper No. 06618
  40. Zajac, P., Rozic, T., Energy Consumption of Forklift Versus Standards, Effects of Their Use and Expectations, Energy, 239 (2022), Part D, 122187
  41. ***, FOEN, Non Road Emissions Database, www.bafu.admin.ch/luft/00596/06906/offroad-daten/index.html?lang=en
  42. ***, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Agricultural Mechanization, Equipment, and Facilities: 2012 Census of Agriculture, Belgrade, 2014, pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2012/Poljoprivredna%20mehanizacija,%20oprema%20i%20objekti.pdf
  43. ***, EUROSTAT, 2019
  44. Wojcik-Gront, E., et al., The Analysis of Wheat Yield Variability Based on Experimental Data from 2008-2018 to Understand the Yield Gap, Agriculture, 12 (2022) 1, p. 32
  45. Tarkalson, D. D., et al., Impact of Removing Straw from Wheat and Fields: A Literature Review, Better Crops, 93 (2009), 3, pp. 17-19
  46. Guerrieri, A. S., et al., Study of a Large Square Baler with Innovative Technological Systems that Optimize the Baling Effectiveness, Agriculture, 9 (2019), 5, 86
  47. Suardi, A., et al., Economic Distance to Gather Agricultural Residues from the Field to the Integrated Biomass Logistic Centre: A Spanish Case-Study, Energies, 12 (2019), 16, 3086
  48. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. H., Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 156 (2004), 2, pp. 445-455
  49. Dang, V. T., Dang, W. V. T., Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in the Evaluation of Environmental Quality of OECD Countries: The Entropy Weight and VIKOR Methods, International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 36 (2020), 1, pp. 119-130
  50. Mi, J., et al., A Method of Entropy Weight Quantitative Risk Assessment for the Safety and Security Integration of a Typical Industrial Control System, IEEE Access, 9 (2021), June, pp. 90919-90932
  51. ***, ers.ba/
  52. Huijbregts, M. A. J., et al., ReCiPe 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22 (2017), Dec., pp. 138-147
  53. Goedkoop, M., et al., ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, Report I: Characterisation, VROM, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2013
  54. Theilig, K., et al., Life Cycle Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Sustainable Building Parts: Criteria, Methods, and Application, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29 (2024), Aug., pp. 1965-1991
PDF VERSION [DOWNLOAD]
Multi-criteria analysis of agricultural bioenergy chains

2025 Society of Thermal Engineers of Serbia. Published by the Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International licence