Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Case study for multiperiod optimisation

According to statistics taken from Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), it is obvious from Figure 7 that
the price and amount of CPO production will vary for every agricultural season. It showed the actual
price and production in Malaysia Palm Oil industry for every month in year 2014. This issue of
fluctuation in both of the variables is one of the main concerns of investors as amount of utilities and
products produced will be affected. This will greatly affect the economic performance for whole system
in CUS. The price of CPO can be splited into three seasons (i.e. low season, midseason and high season)
based on the statistics shown in Figure 9.
Figure: Graph

Utility

Unit

Electricity
HPS

kWh
kg/h

MPS
LPS
Cooling Water
Chiller Water

kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h

Electricity
HPS
MPS
LPS
Cooling Water
Chiller Water

kWh
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h

Electricity
HPS
MPS
LPS
Cooling Water
Chiller Water

kWh
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h

Raw material supply


FFB
EFB
PMF
PKS
POME

Table 6: Utility demand for three seasons


Low season
Mid-season
Palm Oil Mill (POM)
720.00
840.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22500.00
12000.00
1000.00
Palm Oil Biorefinery (POB)
987.59
0.00
9880.11
0.00
0.00
1000.00
Palm Oil Refinery (POR)
1200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6000.00
1000.00

High season
960.00
0.00

0.00
26250.00
14000.00
1000.00

0.00
30000.00
16000.00
1000.00

1173.24
0.00
11717.60
0.00
0.00
1000.00

1350.00
0.00
13500.00
0.00
0.00
1000.00

1400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7000.00
1000.00

1600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8000.00
1000.00

Table 5: Raw material supply


Low season (kg/h)
Mid-season (kg/h)
60000.00
70000.00
13800.00
16100.00
7800.00
9100.00
3600.00
4200.00
36000.00
42000.00

High season (kg/h)


80000.00
18400.00
10400.00
4800.00
48000.00

Table 4: Fraction of occurrence for three seasons.


Occurrence
Less than 1,550,000 t
Less than USD 600 per ton
Between 1,550,000 and
Between USD 600 per ton and
1,800,000 t
USD 700 per ton
More than 1,800,000 t
Higher than USD 700 per ton

Season
Low
Mid
High

Fraction of occurrence
0.333
0.417
0.250

Table 4: Seasonal prices of palm-based biomasses.


Biomass
EFB
PKS
PMF
Compost

Low Season
6.00
50.00
22.00
100.00

Price of Biomass (USD/t)


Mid Season
8.00
70.00
50.00
150.00

High Season
10.00
90.00
70.00
200.00

In this case study, price of CPO which is less than USD 600 per ton and CPO production that is
lower than 1,550,000 tonnes are considered as the low season. Price of CPO lies in between USD 600 per
ton and USD 700 per ton and CPO production which is between 1,800,000 tonnes and 1,550,000 tonnes
are considered as the midseason; Price of CPO that is higher than USD 700 per ton and CPO production
that is higher than 1,800,000 tonnes are then considered as high season. Since there will be difference in
both of the variables (e.g., Amount of CPO production and CPO price) throughout the year, fraction of
occurrence can be applied which is based on the number of months in a year that fall in a region. Fraction

s
of occurrence,
,can be applied when calculating total EP by taking into account adds up of fraction of
occurrence times with EP for each season. (According to Eq.(30)). The seasonal prices of palm-based
biomasses and CPO production are then summarized in Table 4.
A superstructure is developed in order to provide all the possible alternative pathways that can cope with
the raw material inlet and product outlet (as shown in Figure 8). All the equipment inside superstructure
represents technologies that can be applied to produce intermediate or product. There might be more than
one piece of equipment inside an equipment block shown in superstructure as the block shown is just one
of the technologies available and there might be more equipment either in same capacity or different
capacity to run the system. All the pathways are mathematically modelled to allow quantitative analysis
and optimisation. All the information related to available design capacities with its capital and operating
cost can be referred to Supporting document sheet.

Optimisation Result
In this work, one scenario is modelled to demonstrate the proposed optimisation model. The scenario is a
multiperiod optimisation which involves the fluctuation in CPO production and price. This mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) model for all cases is solved via global solver in LINGO v13 with Intel Core
2 Duo (2.20 GHz) and 3GB RAM. The model is formulated based on equation shown in methodology.
The model consists of 971 total variables which include 207 nonlinear variables and 289 integer
variables, 725 total constraints and 110 nonlinear constraints. The model uses approximate 3 minutes in
order to get global optimum solution.
The optimised results and the selected technologies for this case are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.
The optimal configuration of CUS and the cascade diagram is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. As
shown in Table 5, the EP is found to be as USD 1,537,191 and CAPEX of the system is USD 6,661,259.
The payback period of the synthesised CUS is determined to be 3.17 years. Flowrate of biomasses in each
season of this case is tabulated in Table 6.
Figure: Optimised superstructure

Figure: Cascade diagram

Table: Total amount of available and consumed raw material for low, mid and high season
Low season
Mid season
High season
Available Consume Available Consume Available Consume
d
d
d
EFB
13800.00
3964.58
16100.00
4630.70
18400.00
2351.22
PKS
3600.00
3600.00
4200.00
4200.00
4800.00
1152.96
PMF
7800.00
2081.24
9100.00
2476.33
10400.00 10400.00
POME
36000.00 36000.00 42000.00 42000.00 48000.00 48000.00
Analysis of optimisation result
As the objective function of both cases is set to be maximizing EP, the model will tend to limit the
number and capacity of equipments to be selected. The design capacities of the equipment are based on
the maximum operating capacity among all scenarios. Therefore, the CAPEX of each equipment is
modelled based on the season with the highest capacities.
Table 79 and Figure 912 summarised the optimisation results. From Table 7, it can be noticed that the
synthesised CUS configuration in Case 1 yielded a higher EP as compared to Case 2. This is due to Case
1 did not considered any variations whereas Case 2 did consider variations which make the whole case
more realistic. In addition, Case 1 required a smaller number of units as compared to Case 2 (as shown in
Table 9). This is evident as the number of units selected for Cases 1 and 2 are 15 and 17, respectively.
This is because Case 1 and 2 utilise different method to purify biogas. Although Case 2 requires more
amount of equipment, however, the CAPEX for Case 2 is relatively lower compared to Case 1.

Since Case 1 generate higher amount of biogas as compared to Case 2 due to the assumption that the
supply of raw material is constant throughout the year, the biogas generated can used to generate
electricity for self-consumption or exported to power grid. In Case 1, an anaerobic digester is selected to
convert the wastewater into biogas, followed by three units of membrane separator and one unit of amine
scrubber to remove the impurity (i.e. carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide) in the biogas. The purified
biogas is then sent to gas turbines for the generation of electricity. Similar with Case 1, Case 2 utilised
the anaerobic digester and six units of membrane separations to produce biogas. However, due to the
constraint imposed on the capital cost, the amount of biogas generated is lesser as compared to Case 1.
Thus, surplus power generated by the CUS configuration in Case 2 is much lower than in Case 1.
Direct drive steam turbine (DDST) refers to turbine that utilised electricity to operate while
mechanical drive steam turbine (MDST) refers to turbine that uses shaft work to operate. The efficiency
of mechanical drive turbine is set at 80% and 43% for direct drive turbine. As shown in Table 9 as well as
Figure 9 and Figure 10, one medium pressure MDST are being select in both the cases. Based on the
optimisation result, the selected MDST for both cases are used to drive the biomass boiler feed pump.
This is because biomass boiler feed pump have the highest energy consumption as compared to the other
pump inside the CUS. The rest of the pumps only require energy less than 10 kWh for every season in
both cases. The biomass boiler feed pump requires 41.53 kWh and 46.52 kWh energy for Case 1 and
Case 2 respectively. In order to apply shaft work in a system, a turbine is needed to connect to a pump.
Since the energy required by some of the pumps is very low, thus, there will be not suitable for system to
allocate every pump with a turbine in economical perspective even though the efficiency of mechanical
drive turbine is higher than direct drive turbine. In this case, the cost of supplying electricity to operate
the pumps will be cheaper than buying a new turbine for every pump. Based on the objective function
which is to maximise the economic potential (EP), the shaft work is utilised to operate pump with higher
energy requirement, which are pump at biomass boiler pipeline in both Case 1 and Case 2.
In addition, Table 8 shows that the amount of empty fruit bunches (EFB), palm mesocarp fiber
(PMF) and palm kernel shell (PKS) biomasses utilised in both cases. It can be noted that higher amount of
biomasses are utilised in Case 2 as compared with Case 1. This is mainly because the amount of biogas
generated in Case 2 is much lesser than Case 1, therefore, higher amounts of EFB, PMF and PKS would
be required for the generation of electricity in order to achieve maximum GP. Despite such differences in
all three cases, it is noted that the available palmbased biomass supply in each season was sufficient for
the CUS to be self-sustained and to meet the demands of each participating company inside the COS.

EP is lower in multiperiod case consider variation now..last time no


CAPEX is lower in multiperiod case
Number of equipment is higher in multiperiod case
Method of purify biogas is different use large amount of equipment but
cheaper
EFB and PKS is higher in multiperiod case