Coal-fired power industry is under enormous pressure to accomplish carbon emission reduction targets. This paper proposes a bi-level multi-objective model for co-firing biomass with coal under carbon cap-and-trade regulation which considers a leader-follower Stackelberg game between the authority and the coal-fired power plants. The upper level regards social welfare maximization and allocation satisfaction maximization as its multiple objectives, while the lower level attempts to maximize the profits of each coal-fired power plant. The inherent uncertainty prompts the motivation for employing fuzzy set theory to characterize the uncertain parameters and determine their exact values. A case study from Shandong Province, China is provided to demonstrate the practicality and efficiency of the optimization model. -constraint method and interactive algorithm are used to solve the model, and furthermore the solutions associated with different free carbon emission quota levels and minimal allocation satisfactions have been generated to examine the influences. Based on the analysis and discussion, the methodology can meet the carbon emission reduction goals and transit to a lower-carbon power generation. It also assists the decision makers to develop desired quota allocation strategy in accordance with their attitudes and actual conditions.
World Meteorological Organization. 2018. WMO greenhouse gas bulletin: The state of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere based on global observations through 2017.
2.
International Energy Agency. 2019. Global Energy & Status Report.
3.
GlobalBP. 2019. BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
4.
ChristopherOCatherineRE. Global emission hotspots of coal power generation. Nature Sustain2019; 2: 113–121.
5.
YangNZhouYGeX. A flexible capture operation scheme design and evaluation of a coal-fired power plant integrated with a novel DCP and retrofitted solar system. Energy2019; 170: 73–84.
6.
International Energy Agency. 2019. Coal 2019.
7.
International Energy Agency. 2019. Coal-Fired Power.
8.
XuJHuangQLvC, et al. Carbon emissions reductions oriented dynamic equilibrium strategy using biomass-coal co-firing. Energy Policy2018; 123: 184–197.
9.
OladejoJMAdegbiteSPangC, et al. In-situ monitoring of the transformation of ash upon heating and the prediction of ash fusion behaviour of coal/biomass blends. Energy2020; 199: 117330.
10.
SaxenaRCAdhikariDKGoyalHB. Biomass-based energy fuel through biochemical routes: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2009; 13(1): 167–178.
11.
FakourianS. Co-milling and cofiring of woody biomass with coal in utility boilers: Enabling technology through experiments and modelling, Ph.D. thesis, Brigham Young University, 2020.
12.
OECD. OECD global forum on environment focusing on sustainable materials management, 2010.
13.
SaidurRAbdelazizEDemirbasA, et al. A review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2011; 15(5): 2262-2289.
14.
WelduWY. Life cycle human health and ecosystem quality implication of biomass-based strategies to climate change mitigation. Renew Energy2017; 108: 11–18.
15.
BeagleEBelmontE. Technoeconomic assessment of beetle kill biomass co-firing in existing coal fired power plants in the western united states. Energy Policy2016; 97: 429–438.
16.
HubweberLSchmittMJolyD, et al. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci2001; 27(2): 171–214.
17.
RobertMD. Coal and waste: Energy and recycling. Energy Environ1999; 10(4): 399–407.
18.
RajmohanKSRamyaCSunitaV. Trends and advances in bioenergy production and sustainable solid waste management. Energy Environ2019; 0(0): 1–25.
19.
Al-MansourFZuwalaJ. An evaluation of biomass co-firing in Europe. Biomass Bioenergy2010; 34(5): 620–629.
20.
FakourianSFryAJaspersonT. Analysis of particle behavior inside the classifier of a raymond bowl mill while co-milling woody biomass with coal. Fuel Process Technol2018; 182: 95–103.
21.
WanderPRBianchiFMCaetanoNR, et al. Cofiring low-rank coal and biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed with varying excess air ratio and fluidization velocity. Energy2020; 203: 117882.
22.
KimJHLeeYJYuJ, et al. Improvement in reactivity and pollutant emission by cofiring of coal and pretreated biomass. Energy Fuels2019; 33(MAY): 4331–4339.
23.
ZhouCGaoFYuY, et al. Emission and distribution behavior of toxic elements during the cocombustion of coal with biomass. Energy Fuels2020; 34(5): 6392–6400.
24.
FarooqSAqsaYFarrukhS, et al. Torrefied biomass fuels as a renewable alternative to coal in co-firing for power generation. Energy2020; 209: 118444.
25.
LiuQZhongWTangR, et al. Experimental tests on co-firing coal and biomass waste fuels in a fluidised bed under oxy-fuel combustion. Fuel2021; 286: 119312.
26.
JiangYJeonC-H. Comparative study on combustion and emission characteristics of torrefied and ashless biomass with coal through the 500 mw tangentially fired boiler simulation. Energy Fuels2021; 35(1): 561–574.
27.
ChoiMKimKLiX, et al. Strategic combustion technology with exhaust tube vortex flame: Combined effect of biomass co-firing and air-staged combustion on combustion characteristics and ash deposition. Energy2020; 203: 117839.
28.
CoaseRH. The Problem of Social Cost, Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, 1960.
29.
TangRYangL. Impacts of financing mechanism and power structure on supply chains under cap-and-trade regulation. Transp Res E, Logist Transp Rev2020; 139: 101957.
30.
ChenYWangCNieP, et al. A clean innovation comparison between carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. Energy Strategy Rev2020; 29: 100483.
31.
XuXXuXHeP. Joint production and pricing decisions for multiple products with cap-and-trade and carbon tax regulations. J Clean Prod2016; 112: 4093–4106.
32.
Rashidizadeh-KermaniHVahedipour-DahraieMShafie-KhahM, et al. A regret-based stochastic bi-level framework for scheduling of DR aggregator under uncertainties. IEEE Trans Smart Grid2020; 11(4): 3171–3184.
33.
HanJLiuYLuoL, et al. Integrated production planning and scheduling under uncertainty: A fuzzy bi-level decision-making approach. 2020; 201-202: 106056.
FangHWangXXuL. Fuzzy learning for multi-dimensional adaptive physical layer authentication: A compact and robust approach. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun2020; 99: 1–1.
36.
LinCKangJHuangG, et al. Forest biomass-to-biofuel factory location problem with multiple objectives considering environmental uncertainties and social enterprises. J Clean Prod2020; 262: 121327.
37.
AgborEZhangXKumarA. A review of biomass co-firing in north america. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014; 40: 930–943.
38.
SahuSGChakrabortyNSarkarP. Coal-biomass co-combustion: An overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014; 39: 575–586.
39.
FerreroASaliconeS. The random-fuzzy variables: A new approach to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas2004; 53(5): 1370–1377.
40.
ZadehLA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst1978; 1(1): 3–28.
41.
XuJ. Fuzzy-like multiple objective decision making. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.
42.
ZengZXuJWuS, et al. Antithetic method-based particle swarm optimization for a queuing network problem with fuzzy data in concrete transportation systems. Computer Aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering2014; 29(10): 771–800.
43.
KrassDNedorezovTOvchinnikovA. Environmental taxes and the choice of green technology. Prod Oper Manage2013; 22(5): 1035–1055.
44.
YenipazarliA. Managing new and remanufactured products to mitigate environmental damage under emissions regulation. Eur J Oper Res2016; 249(1): 117–130.
45.
XuJHuangQWangF. Co-combustion of municipal solid waste and coal for carbon emission reduction: A bi-level multi-objective programming approach. J Clean Prod2020; 272: 121923.
46.
OECD. 1991. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks.
47.
XuJQiuRLvC. Carbon emission allowance allocation with cap and trade mechanism in air passenger transport. J Clean Prod2016; 131: 308–320.
48.
XuJXinYZhimiaoT. A tripartite equilibrium for carbon emission allowance allocation in the power-supply industry. Energy Policy2015; 82: 62–81.
49.
FlachslandCBrunnerSEdenhoferO, et al. Climate policies for road transport revisited (ii): Closing the policy gap with cap-and-trade. Energy Policy2011; 39(4): 2100–2110.
50.
YangWPanYMaJ, et al. Effects of allowance allocation rules on green technology investment and product pricing under the cap-and-trade mechanism. Energy Policy2020; 139: 111333.
51.
HuangQXuJ. Bi-level multi-objective programming approach for carbon emission quota allocation towards co-combustion of coal and sewage sludge. Energy2020; 211:118729.
52.
MaCRenYZhangY, et al. The allocation of carbon emission quotas to five major power generation corporations in China. J Clean Prod2018; 189(JUL.10): 1–12.
53.
LvCXuJXieH, et al. Equilibrium strategy based coal blending method for combined carbon and emissions reductions. Appl Energy2016; 183: 1035–1052.
54.
Shandong Provincial Bureau of Statistics. 2018. Shandong Provincial Statistical Yearbook. (in Chinese).
55.
Shandong Provincial Government. 2017. Low-carbon Development Work Plan of Shandong Province. (in Chinese).
56.
HanJHuYMaoM, et al. A multi-objective districting problem applied to agricultural machinery maintenance service network. Eur J Oper Res2020; 287(3): 1120–1130.
57.
YanYZhangHLongY, et al. Multi-objective design optimization of combined cooling, heating and power system for cruise ship application. J Clean Prod2019; 233: 264–279.
58.
ShiXXiaH. Interactive bilevel multi-objective decision making. J Oper Res Soc1997;48:943–949.
59.
ShiXXiaH. Model and interactive algorithm of bi-level multi-objective decision-making with multiple interconnected decision makers. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal2001;10: 27–34.
