P. 1
NREL2010 Cellulosic Ethanol

NREL2010 Cellulosic Ethanol

|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by Samaneh Babaee

More info:

Published by: Samaneh Babaee on Jan 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/25/2013

pdf

text

original

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-46588
June 2010
Techno-Economic Analysis of
Biochemical Scenarios for
Production of Cellulosic Ethanol

F. Kabir Kazi, J. Fortman, and R. Anex
Iowa State University
G. Kothandaraman
ConocoPhillips Company
D. Hsu, A. Aden, and A. Dutta
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308


Technical Report
NREL/TP-6A2-46588
June 2010
Techno-Economic Analysis of
Biochemical Scenarios for
Production of Cellulosic Ethanol

F. Kabir Kazi, J. Fortman, and R. Anex
Iowa State University
G. Kothandaraman
ConocoPhillips Company
D. Hsu, A. Aden, and A. Dutta
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510


NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.
Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii
Foreword
The purpose of this techno-economic analysis is to compare a set of biofuel conversion
technologies selected for their promise and near-term technical viability. Every effort has been
made to make this comparison on an equivalent basis using common assumptions. The process
design and parameter value choices underlying this analysis are based on public domain
literature only. For these reasons, the results are not indicative of potential performance. Rather
they are meant to represent the most likely performance given the current state of public
knowledge.
iv
List of Acronyms
AFEX ammonia fiber explosion (or expansion)
ASPEN Advanced Simulator For Process Engineering (software)
BTU British thermal unit
CAFI Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation
COD chemical oxygen demand
DB declining balance (depreciation)
EtOH ethanol
EVD experimentally validated data
FCI fixed capital investment
FPU filter paper units
GGE gallons of gasoline equivalent
IRS Internal Revenue Service
MACRS (IRS) modified accelerated cost recovery system
PV product value
MM million
MT metric ton
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
SSCF simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation
SSF simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
ST short ton
TD&IC total direct and indirect costs
TCI total capital investment
v
Executive Summary
A techno-economic analysis on the production of cellulosic ethanol by fermentation was
conducted to understand the viability of liquid biofuel production processes within the next 5-8
years. Initially, 35 technologies were reviewed and a matrix was prepared considering
economics, technological soundness and maturity, environmental aspects, process performance,
and technical and economic risks. Then, a two-step down selection was performed to choose
scenarios to be evaluated in a more detailed economic analysis. In the first screening, the
lignocellulosic ethanol process was selected because it is well studied and portions of the process
have been tested at pilot scales. In the second screening, seven scenarios of process variations
were selected: four variations involved pretreatment (dilute acid, two-stage dilute acid, hot water,
and ammonia fiber explosion) and three variations involved downstream processes
(pervaporation, separate 5-carbon and 6-carbon sugar fermentation, and on-site enzyme
production). Each of these scenarios was examined in detail. Given the time needed for design,
construction, and startup of large process plants, plants operating in the 5-8 year timeframe
would likely need to be based on recent experimental data. For this work, process designs were
constrained to public data published in 2007 or earlier, without projecting for future process
improvements. Economic analysis was performed for an “n
th
plant” (mature technology) to
obtain total investment and product value (PV) (defined as value of the product needed for a net
present value of zero with a 10% internal rate of return). The final selection among the scenarios
was performed primarily based on the PV. Sensitivity analysis was performed on PV to assess
the impact of variations in process and economic parameters. Results show that the modeled
dilute acid pretreatment process without any downstream process variation had the lowest PV of
$3.40/gal of ethanol (which is $5.15/gallon of gasoline equivalent, GGE) in 2007 dollars.
Sensitivity analysis shows that PV is most sensitive to feedstock and enzyme costs.
The cellulosic ethanol process is a new technology, for which a pioneer plant is expected to be
significantly more expensive than the n
th
plant. To assess the impact of technology maturity on
pioneer plant cost, a cost growth analysis was performed following a method documented in a
RAND Corporation report. This methodology attempts to incorporate added expenses and start-
up time for a new process. There is some subjectivity in choosing the parameters for the pioneer
plant analysis, so a range of parameters was used to estimate pioneer plant costs for three
scenarios: optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic. The PV obtained from cost-growth
analysis is substantially larger for a pioneer plant, increasing from $3.40/gal (which is
$5.15/GGE), before including added expenses, to $5.01/gal ($7.59/GGE), $5.76/gal
($8.72/GGE), and $7.08/gal ($10.71/GGE) for the optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic
scenarios, respectively.
The PV obtained from the 2007 published data is much higher than the market gasoline price.
Also, published technological data may not be adequate to accurately project a competitive PV
from a commercial plant of 2000 MT/day capacity. However, this analysis identifies some of the
more cost intensive operations and areas. The current process can only reach approximately
4.5% ethanol in the fermentor beer, which is a third of what grain ethanol plants are achieving
today. The analysis also assumed an enzyme price as $0.69/gal of ethanol produced. Based on
this analysis, we believe that high-performance enzymes at a cheaper price are required and that
more research is needed to achieve higher ethanol concentration in the fermentor for this process
to compete in the current energy market.
vi
Table of Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ iv
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Summary of the Down-Selection Process ..................................................................................1
Project Assumptions ..................................................................................................................3
Process Description and Flow Diagram .....................................................................................4
Process Variations ......................................................................................................................5
Dilute Acid Pretreatment .....................................................................................................5
Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment ...................................................................................6
Hot Water Pretreatment .......................................................................................................8
AFEX Pretreatment ..............................................................................................................8
Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation .......................................................................................9
Ethanol Separation Using Pervaporation ...........................................................................10
On-Site Enzyme Production ..............................................................................................12
Methodology for Economic Analysis ......................................................................................13
Methodology for Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for n
th
Plant ........................................13
Pioneer Plant Analysis .......................................................................................................14
Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 18
n
th
Plant Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................18
Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................21
Pioneer Plant Analysis Results ................................................................................................24
Comparison with Previous Studies ......................................................................................................... 25
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 27
References ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 31
Appendix A - Assumptions for Techno-economic Studies of Biochemical Conversion
Processes ............................................................................................................................31
Plant Size, Location, and Construction ..............................................................................31
Units ...................................................................................................................................31
Feedstock and Enzymes .....................................................................................................31
Material and Energy Balance .............................................................................................32
Equipment Design, Material of Construction, and Costing ...............................................33
Chemical Costing ...............................................................................................................34
Operating Cost ...................................................................................................................34
Wastewater Treatment Plant ..............................................................................................34
Greenhouse Emissions and Control ...................................................................................35
Cost Analysis .....................................................................................................................35
Appendix B - Sensitivity Parameters and Values ....................................................................37
Appendix C - Sensitivity Results .............................................................................................39
Appendix D - Cost Analysis Result Summary ........................................................................43
Appendix E - Equipment List and Costs, Installation Factors, and Installed Equipment Costs
for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes .............................................................................51
vii
Appendix F - Process Operating Summaries ...........................................................................62
Appendix G - General Process Description .............................................................................78
Appendix H - Cost By Area Of Process Scenarios ..................................................................81
Appendix I - Down Selection Matrix .......................................................................................85
Appendix J - Analysis: Cost Growth Variables And Results ..................................................90


List of Figures
Figure 1. Overall process block diagram of a typical cellulosic ethanol process plant (based on
NREL’s 2002 design report and modified to 2007 EVD) .................................................. 5
Figure 2. Process flow diagram for dilute acid pretreatment .......................................................... 6
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for two-stage dilute acid pretreatment/hydrolysis and
fermentation ........................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. Process flow diagram for base case pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and
fermentation ........................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 5. Hot water pretreatment process flow diagram ................................................................. 8
Figure 6. AFEX process flow diagram ........................................................................................... 9
Figure 7. Separate C5 and C6 fermentation configuration ........................................................... 10
Figure 8. Base case distillation configuration ............................................................................... 11
Figure 9. Pervaporation separation process .................................................................................. 12
Figure 10. On-site enzyme production process flow diagram ...................................................... 13
Figure 11. Impact of pretreatment parameters on PV ................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Impact of saccharification parameters on PV .............................................................. 22
Figure 13. Impact of overall process/economic parameters on PV (dilute acid pretreatment) ..... 23
Figure 14. Ethanol cost estimations from previous techno-economic studies. ............................. 25
Figure G-1. Wastewater treatment section (Area 600) ................................................................. 79
Figure G-2. Steam and power generation section (Area 800) ...................................................... 80


List of Tables
Table 1. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment
Processes ........................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2. Product Value for Various Pretreatment and Downstream Process Variations .............. 18
Table 3. Comparison of Dilute Acid Pretreatment Results from Lab- and Pilot-Scale Data ....... 19
Table 4. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario .................................. 20
Table 5. Pioneer Plant Analysis Results for the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario ...... 24
Table A-1. Corn Stover Feedstock Composition .......................................................................... 32
Table B-1. Sensitivity Parameters for Pretreatment and Saccharification (AREA 200) .............. 37
Table B-2. Sensitivity Parameters for Overall Process ................................................................. 38
Table C-1. Impact of Pretreatment Parameters on PV .................................................................. 39
Table C-2. Impact of Overall Process and Economic Parameters on PV ..................................... 42
Table D-1. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ................... 43
Table D-2. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids)
Processes ........................................................................................................................... 44
viii
Table D-3. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Process ........................ 45
Table D-5. Cost Analysis Result Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes ........................... 47
Table D-6. Cost Analysis Result Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes .............. 48
Table D-7. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Pervaporation Purification Processes ................. 49
Table D-8. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Processes ..... 50
Table E-1. Equipment Lists and Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes .......................... 51
Table F-1. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ..................................... 62
Table F-2. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (Pilot) Processes .......................... 64
Table F-3. Operating Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes .................. 66
Table F-4. Operating Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Processes ....................................... 68
Table F-5. Operating Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes ............................................. 70
Table F-6. Operating Summary for Separate C5 & C6 Fermentation Processes .......................... 72
Table F-7. Operating Summary for Pervaporation Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment
Processes ........................................................................................................................... 74
Table F-8. Operating Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes ................................. 76
Table H-1. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Scenario .................... 81
Table H-2. Costs by Area of the 2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Scenario .............................. 81
Table H-3. Costs by Area of the Hot Water Pretreatment Scenario ............................................. 82
Table H-4. Costs by Area of the AFEX Pretreatment Scenario ................................................... 82
Table H-5. Costs by Area of the Separate C-5 and C-6 Fermentation Process Scenario ............. 83
Table H-6. Costs by Area of the Pervaporation Process Scenario ................................................ 83
Table H-7. Costs by Area of the On-site Enzyme Production Processes Scenario ...................... 84
Table I-1. Process Down-Selection Matrix ................................................................................... 85
Table J-1. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High
Solids Loading) Processes ................................................................................................ 90
Table J-2. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Hot water Pretreatment
Processes ........................................................................................................................... 90
Table J-3. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Two-Stage Dilute Acid
Pretreatment Processes ...................................................................................................... 91
Table J-4. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for AFEX Pretreatment Processes .... 91
Table J-5. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for On-Site Enzyme Production
Processes ........................................................................................................................... 92
Table J-6. PV from Cost Growth Analysis for Various Process Scenarios .................................. 92


1
Methodology
The objective of this study was to select a biochemical conversion process from published
literature to produce a second generation liquid biofuel from lignocellulosic biomass. The studies
involved several steps defining the objective and scope of the project. They started with a review
of various biochemical processes published in journals and reports and then applied two steps of
screening to make the final selection. The cost analysis is performed assuming n
th
plant
technology (mature technology) and then subjected to cost growth analysis for a pioneer plant.
The following steps explain the basic methodology for performing the techno-economic analysis:
• Search literature for technologies under consideration
• Perform down selection with criteria to narrow to a few scenarios
• Design process models using AspenPlus process simulation using available experimental
data
• Size and cost equipment using traditional methods such as literature references and
vendor quotations
• Determine project investments and perform discounted cash flow analysis
• Adjust sensitivity parameters and document results
• Perform pioneer plant cost growth and performance analysis.

Summary of the Down-Selection Process
Thirty-five biochemical fuel production technologies were initially selected for consideration
(Table I-1). Each technology option was evaluated based on economic and technical feasibility,
environmental performance, and uncertainty criteria to determine, at a high level, the
technologies with the greatest overall promise in the 5-8 year timeframe. For a plant to be
operating at commercial levels in this timeframe, the plant would likely need to be designed
based on current data because of the time needed for design, construction, and startup of a plant.
A matrix of techno-economic studies was developed for “down selecting” the most promising
fuels and processes. Major process and economic parameters such as feedstock, capital
expenditure, operating cost, yield, capacity factor, complexity of the process, level of technology
development, and internal rate of return were included in the matrix. These parameters cover the
major process aspects that reflect the overall economics of the processes. This evaluation was
conducted using past models, if they existed. It was also conducted through publicly available
literature in 2007. If quantitative numbers were available for the matrix, they were used. But
since the technologies are not mature, many matrix entries were qualitative.
Both butanol and ethanol processes were initially considered. Butanol has properties such as
higher energy density and immiscibility with water that may make it a better transportation fuel.
However, butanol production processes are currently at the lab scale or very early pilot stage of
development, and published data on butanol-producing organisms indicate low yields relative to
ethanol production. Therefore, only ethanol technologies were adopted for analysis.

2
Ethanol-producing processes were categorized by pretreatment method. Substantial research has
been done on biomass pretreatment for biochemical conversion at the bench scale by the
Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI) projects [1, 2, 3]. Based on the
results of these studies, concentrated acid, SO
2
-steam, lime, and ammonia-recycle-percolation
pretreatment were rejected as less attractive due to the high costs associated with the processes.
The pretreatment processes selected for further analysis were:
1. Acid pretreatment (single-stage dilute and two-stage dilute)
2. Ammonia Fiber Explosion (or Expansion) (AFEX)
3. Hot water pretreatment.

Dilute acid is a pretreatment technology that showed promise in the original CAFI study [1, 2]
and serves as the base technology for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s)
cellulosic ethanol design report [4]. AFEX is a pretreatment that does not require as much water
as other pretreatments. Hot water pretreatment has low capital investment requirements. Two-
stage dilute acid is a pretreatment that eliminates the need for enzymes for saccharification, one
major source of uncertainty in the other pretreatments. Single-stage dilute acid, AFEX, and hot
water pretreatment conversions are based on bench-scale experiments from CAFI [3]. Two-stage
dilute acid pretreatments are also based on bench-scale experiments [5, 6].
In addition, process variations in combination with pretreatment that may offer attractive system
performance were also considered. Among those process variations selected for further study
was the production of enzymes on-site using hydrolyzate as a carbon source. On-site enzyme
production may be cheaper by precluding the use of stabilizers and other additives that are
needed when enzymes are purchased.
Another variation considered was parallel fermentation of 5-carbon (C5) and 6-carbon (C6)
sugars. Current cofermentative organisms do not have high ethanol yields and are not highly
robust to system variations. We therefore chose to include parallel fermentations of C5 and C6
sugars for comparison with the baseline fermentation.
Another technology that was considered worthy of further analysis was the use of pervaporation
instead of the beer distillation column to separate ethanol and potentially allow higher titer and
substrate utilization in the fermentor. Pervaporation also has the advantage of lower steam and
utility requirements than a distillation column.
The three downstream technologies—parallel fermentation of C5 and C6 sugars, on-site enzyme
production, and pervaporation—were compared to a base case using dilute acid pretreatment.
All together, seven scenarios were examined:
• Dilute Acid Pretreatment
• Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment
• Hot Water Pretreatment
3
• AFEX Pretreatment
• On-site Enzyme Production with Dilute Acid Pretreatment
• Ethanol Separation using Pervaporation with Dilute Acid Pretreatment
• Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation with Dilute Acid Pretreatment.

Project Assumptions
For each down-selected process a common list of assumptions on process operations and
economic analysis was made. The scope of the work was to determine the product value of
cellulosic ethanol for a plant operating in the 5-8 year timeframe. This timeframe was chosen
because of the renewable fuel standard volumes mandated in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 [7]. For a plant to be operating at commercial levels in this timeframe, the
plant would likely need to be designed based on current data as large process plant projects
typically take more than four years for design, construction, and startup [8]. The major
assumptions are highlighted below, and the complete list is provided in Appendix A.
• The plant capacity is 2000 MT/day.
• The processes use corn stover as feedstock.
• The feedstock contains 25% moisture and the composition is assumed to be the same as
that obtained in CAFI II feedstock analysis (Table A-1).
• Plant capacity factor is 96% (350 on-stream days/year).
• Feedstock cost is $83/dry MT ($75/dry ST).
• Purchased enzyme cost from off-site source is $507/MT ($460/ST) of broth of 10%
protein used at a loading of 31.3 mg protein per gram cellulose in the feed. This cost was
calculated based on the cost of producing enzyme on-site using hydrolyzate. This cost
comes to $0.69/gallon of ethanol.
• The processes use 2007 lab-scale, experimentally validated data (2007 EVD) and
equipment prices (indexed).
• Plant depreciation is calculated following the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modified
accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) over 7 years for the main plant and 20 years
for the cogeneration area.
• Plant life is 20 years.
• The plant is 100% equity financed.
• Contingency factor and working capital are 20% of total direct and indirect costs
(TD&IC) and 15% of fixed capital investment (FCI), respectively, for n
th
plant.
• The plant initiates operation in 5-8 years.
• Adopted units: cost of all purchased chemicals and feedstocks, plant capacity, and yields
are reported in metric tons (MT). Operating conditions: temperature (in
o
C), pressure (in
bar), and mass flow rates (in MT/day).
4
Process Description and Flow Diagram
The different scenarios detailed above were generated by modifying the NREL 2002 production
process [4]. Appendix G contains a general description of the process steps that have not been
altered from previous NREL studies. Appendix F contains details of operating conditions for the
major process steps. The basic cellulosic ethanol production process, modified from NREL’s
2002 design report [4], comprises nine sections as shown in Figure 1 and listed below.
• Feed Handling (Area 100)
• Pretreatment and Detoxification (Area 200)
• Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation (Area 300)
• On-site Enzyme Production (Area 400)
• Product Recovery (Area 500)
• Wastewater Pretreatment (Area 600)
• Storage (Area 700)
• Burner/Boiler Turbo-Generator (Area 800)
• Utilities (Area 900) sections.

The AspenPlus Process Simulator is used in process modeling. Current technological data are
used in the simulation and described as the 2007 experimentally validated data (2007 EVD). In
the pretreatment area, data for AFEX and hot water 2007 EVD are obtained from CAFI II
research [1, 2, 3]. Two-stage dilute acid data are based on available literature [5, 6]. Dilute acid
pretreatment data are taken from both CAFI II and NREL research. For all other areas, 2007
EVD conversion data are obtained from NREL research [9]. The overall process block diagram
is shown in Figure 1. Operating conditions of the major unit operations of each area and mass
flow rates are included in Figure 1.





5
AREA 100
FEED HANDLING
(T = 20
o
C; P = 1.01 bar)
AREA 200
PRETREATMENT &
CONDITIONING
(T = 190
o
C; P = 13.17 bar)
AREA 600
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
(T=21.1
o
C, P=1.01 bar)
AREA 700
STORAGE
AREA 800
BURNER/BOILER
TURBOGENERATOR
(T=510
o
C, P=97.5 bar)
AREA 900
UTILITIES
FEEDSTOCK
WASHED & SHREDDED
STOVER (3085 MT/d)
ACID
(199 MT/d)
LIME
(147 MT/day)
GYPSUM
(332MT/d)
HYDRO-LYZATE
NUTRIENTS
(109 MT/d)
ENZYME (209 MT/d)
B
R
O
T
H
V
E
N
T
VENT
(445 MT/d)
E
t
O
H

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
STILL SOLIDS (1137 MT/day)
EVAP SYRUP (1882 MT/day)
EVAPORATOR CONDENSATE (435 MT/d)
STEAM
(1205 MT/d)
WASTE WATER (1085 MT/d)
VAPOR TO ATM.
(485 MT/d)
STEAM
(5026 MT/d) ELECTRICITY
B
O
I
L
E
R

B
L
O
W
D
O
W
N
ANAEROBIC CH4 (7 MT/day)
2667 MT/d
(25% Moisture)
WASH WATER
(755 MT/d)
NUTRIENTS (1MT/d)
WATER
To CLARIFIER
AIR OUT
(118 MT/d)
AIR IN
(112 MT/d)
(9987 MT/d)
AREA 300
SACCHARIFICATION &
CO-FERMENTATION
(T = 32
o
C, P = 1.01 bar)
S
C
R
U
B
B
E
R

B
O
T
T
O
M
(
4
3
6

M
T
/
d
)
AREA 500
DISTILLATION
DEHYDRATION
SCRUBBER
EVAPORATOR
(T=100
o
C, P=1.89 bar)
(
1
0
3
0
1

M
T
/
d
)
(
4
4
0

M
T
/
d
)
(2361 MT/d)
R
E
C
Y
C
L
E

W
A
T
E
R

(
4
3
9
3

M
T
/
d
)

R
E
C
Y
C
L
E

C
O
N
D

(
2
3
8
1

M
T
/
d
)
RECYCLE WATER
(1530 MT/d)
(
4
5
7

M
T
/
d
a
y
)
(
1
5
5

M
T
/
d
)
DIGESTOR SOLIDS
(3 MT/day)
T
R
E
A
T
E
D

W
A
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
(
2
0
3
7

M
T
/
d
)
GAS TO STACK
(10544 MT/d)
COMBUSTION AIR
(7794 MT/d)
BOILER FEED WATER
(5181 MT/d)
ASH
(297 MT/d)
COOLING TOWER
BLOWDOWN
(379 MT/d)
AIR (477 MT/d)
RECYCLE WATER
(2037 MT/d)
VAPOR TO
ATMOSPHERE
(37937 MT/d)
MAKEUP WATER
(50854 MT/d)
WATER RETURN
(7754 MT/d)
TO PROCESS
AIR OUT (148 MT/d)
AIR IN (142 MT/d)


Figure 1. Overall process block diagram of a typical cellulosic ethanol process plant (based on
NREL’s 2002 design report and modified to 2007 EVD)


Process Variations
This section includes a description of each of the process scenarios. Results from the seven
process variations are shown in Table 2 of the Results and Discussion section.
Dilute Acid Pretreatment
Table F-1 includes a summary of the dilute acid operating conditions and model parameters. The
biomass from Area 100 is fed by a screw feeder to the presteamer, where low pressure steam
(163°C, 4.46 bar) is added to maintain a temperature of around 100°C. The presteamer allows a
portion of the pretreatment heat requirement to be met with low pressure steam. The biomass
then enters the pretreatment reactor, where high pressure steam (268°C, 13.17 bar) is added as
shown in Figure 2. Sulfuric acid, diluted with process water, is added to the reactor at a rate
necessary to achieve 1.9 wt% of the liquid phase in the reactor. The reactor temperature,
pressure, and residence time are maintained at 190°C, 11.6 bar, and 2 minutes, respectively. The
biomass slurry is then flashed to 1.0 bar in the blow-down tank. The solid fraction is separated
from the slurry in a Pneumapress pressure filter. In order to reduce toxicity to the fermentation
organisms downstream, a liming step is added to neutralize excess H
2
SO
4
in the hydrolyzate.
6
Solid lime is added to the overliming tank along with the aqueous fraction from the Pneumapress
to raise the pH to 10. The reaction of lime and H
2
SO
4
forms gypsum, which is separated from the
hydrolyzate as solid cake. The residence time in the overliming tank is 1 hour. The slurry is
pumped to a second tank where additional H
2
SO
4
is added to reduce the pH to 4.5. The residence
time in the second tank is 4 hours, which allows the gypsum crystals to grow to an adequate size
for solid/liquid separation. The gypsum is separated from the slurry in a two-step process, with
the first being a hydrocyclone and the second being a rotary drum filter. The conditioned
hydrolyzate is mixed with the solid biomass fraction from which it was previously separated in
the Pneumapress pressure filter, and the resulting slurry is ready for enzymatic hydrolysis. Mass
balance and operating conditions of major unit operations are shown in the process flow diagram
(Figure 2).

ACID
RECYCLED
CONDENSATE
ACID
STORAGE
STEAM
(1205 MT/day)
VENT (to WWT)
(1073 MT/day)
S
O
L
I
D
S

(
1
8
6
8

M
T
/
d
a
y
)
LIQUID
ACID
(111 MT/day)
GYPSUM
(332 MT/day)
RECYCLE WATER
(1096 MT/day)
TO AREA 300
(SACCHARIFICATION)
RECYCLE WATER
(3297 MT/day)
CONDITIONED LIQUID
PREHYDROLYSIS
REACTOR
BLOW-
DOWN
TANK
S/L
SEPARATION
OVERLIMING
NEUTRALIZATION
RESLURRY
TANK
GYPSUM SEPARATION
L
I
M
E

(
1
4
7

M
T
/
d
a
y
)
ACID SOLUTION
(2469 MT/day, 3.59% conc)
L
I
G
N
O
C
E
L
L
U
L
O
S
I
C
S

/

H
Y
D
R
O
L
Y
S
A
T
E
SCREW
CONVEYOR
(3085 MT/day; 54% solids)
AIR (112 MT/day)
T=190
o
C,
P=11.6 bar
T=101
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
VENT (to A-800)
(129 MT/day)
T=50
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
T=57
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
(7097 MT/day)
LIME
HANDLING
LIME
HOPPER
CAR
VENT
SHREDDED & WASHED
STOVER (from A-100)
(9987 MT/day)


Figure 2. Process flow diagram for dilute acid pretreatment

Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment
An operating summary of the two-stage dilute acid pretreatment is provided in Table F-2. In the
two-stage dilute acid pretreatment process, the first stage solubilizes most of the hemicellulose,
just as in the dilute acid pretreatment process. In the second stage, a higher concentration of acid
is added to hydrolyze the cellulose and remaining hemicellulose (Figure 3). This contrasts with
the dilute acid pretreatment process, where enzymes are used to hydrolyze the cellulose (Figure
4). Mass balance and operating conditions of the major unit operations are shown in the flow
diagrams (Figures 3 and 4). Two-stage dilute acid conversion data were taken from literature for
softwood and assumed to be similar for corn stover [5, 6].
7

2
ND
STAGE
ACID
DILUTE
SULFURIC ACID
(373 MT/d)
ACID-TREATED
FEED
(1875 MT/d)
FERMENTOR
CORN STEEP LIQUOR
(104 MT/d)
BEER STORAGE
TANK
TO A500
DISTILLATION
SEED
FERMENTOR
TO SCRUBBER
(247 MT/d)
OVERLIMING
TANK
GYPSUM
(34 MT/d)
T=210°C
P=18.7 bar
T=32°C
P=1.01 bar
7% contamination
(0.7 MT/d)
T=32°C
P=1.01 bar
(10080 MT/d)
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
(351 MT/d)
TO SCRUBBER
(29 MT/d)
DILUTION RECYCLE
(8297 MT/d)
INOCULUM
(5 MT/d)
CORN STEEP LIQUOR
DIAMMONIUM
PHOSPHATE


Figure 3. Process flow diagram for two-stage dilute acid pretreatment/hydrolysis and fermentation




Detoxified
Hydrolysate
Enzyme
(209 MT/d)
(9987 MT/d)
Saccharification
Tank
T = 32
o
C
P = 1 atm
Ethanol
Fermentor
T = 32
o
C
P = 1 atm
CSL
(103 MT/d)
To Fermentor
(9176 MT/d)
T
o

S
e
e
d

F
e
r
m
e
n
t
o
r
(
1
0
2
0

M
T
/
d
)
DAP
(0.7 MT/d)
CSL
(5 MT/d)
(979 MT/d)
Inoculum
To Scrubber
(46 MT/d)
To Scrubber
(394 MT/d)
To Beer Tank
Beer
Storage
Tank
Scrubber Bottoms
(436 MT/d)
To Distillation
(10301 MT/d)
Seed
Fermentor




Figure 4. Process flow diagram for base case pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and
fermentation

8
Hot Water Pretreatment
Table F-3 contains a summary of model parameters for hot water pretreatment. The chopped and
washed biomass from Area 100 is mixed with recycled hot water from Area 500. The slurry is
fed to a plug flow pretreatment reactor. The reactor pressure is maintained at 12.7 bar and the
temperature is held constant at 190°C. The residence time in the pretreatment reactor is 5
minutes. The slurry is then cooled to 65°C and flashed to 1.0 bar in the flash tank. Ammonia is
added to the reactor to neutralize acetic acid formed during the pretreatment process. The xylose
and cellulose pretreatment yields are shown in Table F-3. Mass flow rates and operating
conditions of reactor and major units are shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 5).

CONDENSATE
VENT
TO AREA 300
(SACCHARIFICATION)
BLOW-
DOWN
TANK
T=65
o
C
P=12.4 bar
STEAM
L
I
G
N
O
C
E
L
L
U
L
O
S
I
C
S

/

H
Y
D
R
O
L
Y
S
A
T
E
SCREW
CONVEYOR
PREHYDROLYSIS REACTOR
(T =
o
C, P = 12.43 bar)
AMMONIA
AMMONIA
TANK
CONDENSATE
AMMONIA
(9973 MT/day)
(13083 MT/d)
T=20
o
C,
P=17.23 bar
AMMONIA
NEUTRALIZER
T=80
o
C, P=1.01 bar
SHREDDED & WASHED
STOVER (from A-100)
(3078 MT/day; 54.4% solids)
(
1
3
0
5
1

M
T
/
d
)
(32 MT/day)
(0 MT/d)

Figure 5. Hot water pretreatment process flow diagram

AFEX Pretreatment
A summary of operating parameters for AFEX pretreatment can be found in Table F-4. In the
AFEX pretreatment process, the biomass is treated with liquid anhydrous ammonia under high
pressure (17.2 bar) and 60°C for about 5 minutes [10]. The pressure is rapidly released, causing
the fibers to explode and increasing the access of enzymes to cellulose. Most of the ammonia is
recovered from the blow-down tank. Residual ammonia is recovered from the solids by a flash
followed by fractionation from other volatiles. Recovered ammonia vapor is then compressed,
condensed, and recycled back into the AFEX reactor [10]. The pretreated biomass is slurried into
a holding tank to be sent to Area 300 for enzymatic hydrolysis (Figure 6).

9
Liquid Ammonia
Shredded Stover
AMMONIA
STORAGE
Steam
Recycle Water
To Area 300
(Saccharification)
Biomass Slurry
BLOW-
DOWN
TANK
Liquid Ammonia
Lignocellulosics/
Hydrolysate
SCREW
CONVEYOR
AMMONIA
RECYCLE
COMPRESSOR
AFEX
REACTOR
Compressed Ammonia
FLASH
DRUM
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
A
m
m
o
n
i
a

V
a
p
o
r
Ammonia Vent
3078.55 MT/d
(53.5% Solids)
1610.78 MT/day
713.67 MT/day
8
9
7
.
1

M
T
/
d
a
y
(10461.26 MT/day)
4138.17 MT/day
40.2 MT/day
Lignocellulosics/
Hydrolysate
1
7
3
6
.
9
1

M
T
/
d
a
y
4851.84 MT/day
(2401.25 MT/day)
1.5 MT/day
121.79 MT/day
(8061 MT/day)
839.80 MT/day
Condensate
3201.84 MT/d
To Recycle
(Acid/Other
Volatiles/Water)
HOLDING
TANK


Figure 6. AFEX process flow diagram

Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation
Separate solid and liquid processing (C6 and C5 sugars respectively) takes advantage of
enhanced yields where xylose is fermented separately using Zymomonas mobilis and glucose is
fermented separately with yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Saccharomyces pastorianus). This
avoids the issue of lower xylose to ethanol yields seen in the current cofermenting organisms.
One disadvantage of separate processing is that more water is needed to dilute the solids stream
because the best yields are achieved at low solids loading. The additional water increases ethanol
recovery costs. The process shown in Figure 7 attempts to mitigate the water issue by using the
product stream from the liquor (xylose) fermentation to dilute the stream prior to
saccharification. Table F-5 contains a summary of operating parameters for the separate C5 and
C6 fermentation scenario, based on work by Dutta et al. [11].


10
ACID
RECYCLED
CONDENSATE
ACID
STORAGE
STEAM
(1217 MT/d)
VENT (to WWT)
(1068 MT/d)
LIQUID
RECYCLE WATER
(3289 MT/d)
PREHYDROLYSIS
REACTOR
BLOW-
DOWN
TANK
NH4OH (61.9%)
ACID SOLUTION
(2443 MT/d, 3.63% conc)
L
I
G
N
O
C
E
L
L
U
L
O
S
I
C
S

/

H
Y
D
R
O
L
Y
S
A
T
E
SCREW
CONVEYOR
AIR (112 MT/d)
T=190
o
C,
P=11.6 bar
T=101
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
VENT (to A-800)
(118 MT/day)
(7083 MT/d)
SHREDDED & WASHED
STOVER (from A-100)
(
6
7
3
9

M
T
/
d
)
(5671 MT/d)
To WWT
(11 MT/d)
SEPAR
ATOR
(319 MT/d)
H2SO4 (100%)
(203 MT/d)
(
7
4
0
2

M
T
/
d
)
Seed
Fermentor
C-5 Sugar
Fermentor
T = 32
o
C
P = 1.01 bar
RECYCLE
WATER
(1627 MT/d)
To SCRUBBER
(17 MT/d)
SEPAR
ATOR
(93 MT/d)
CSL
Sacchari-
fication/
Fermentor
T = 32
o
C
P = 1.01 bar
(209 MT/d)
WATER
(3079 MT/d; 54.4% solids)
YEAST
CSL
C-6 Sugar
Fermentor
T = 32
o
C
P = 1.01 bar
SEPAR
ATOR
(16 MT/d)
(114 MT/d)
(
1
1
3
7
9

M
T
/
d
)
To SCRUBBER
(304 MT/d)
To BEER
STORAGE TANK
(11075 MT/d)
T=32
o
C
P=1.01bar
SEPA-
RATOR
(
9
1
2

M
T
/
d
)
(923 MT/d)
(929 MT/d)
DAP
(0.7 MT/d)
CSL
(5 MT/d)
(8310 MT/d)
(
9
3
1
5

M
T
/
d
)
To SCRUBBER
(134 MT/d)
(
9
1
8
0

M
T
/
d
)
(1860 MT/d)
(11249 MT/d)
REACIDI-
FICATION
TANK
T=63
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
NEUTRA-
LIZATION
TANK
T=30
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
S/L
SEPARATION


Figure 7. Separate C5 and C6 fermentation configuration

Ethanol Separation Using Pervaporation
Pervaporation refers to separation using a membrane with liquid feed on one side and a low-
pressure, gaseous permeate output on the other side. Components in the liquid feed preferentially
permeate through the membrane and then evaporate into the gaseous phase. Because
pervaporation does not involve a large heat input, the process could save on costs associated with
the heat and steam needed for the reboiler of a conventional distillation column. A summary of
operating parameters for the pervaporation separation scenario is located in Table F-6.
In contrast to the base case distillation configuration (Figure 8), the pervaporation variation
modifies the distillation section of the dilute acid model by inserting a pervaporation system in
place of the beer column (Figure 9). The pervaporation system output is calculated from a
separation factor and a total material flux needed to achieve the same separation as in the beer
column [12]. The separation factors and material fluxes are based on literature [12]. In the base
case dilute acid model, the beer column also serves to separate carbon dioxide from the ethanol
stream. In the pervaporation model, a flash tank is added to separate out CO
2
at 110°C and a heat
exchanger cools the stream to 41°C. The separation of CO
2
is assumed to be easier than what is
modeled here, so neither the capital nor utility costs of the flash tank and heat exchanger are
included in the economic analysis. The membrane system costs $200/m
2
in 1999 dollars, with a
replacement needed every five years at a cost of $100/m
2
[13].

11

(10301 MT/d)
P-378
From Beer Storage
Beer Storage
Tank
To Scrubber
(14 MT/d)
Rectification
Column
99.5% EtOH
(457 MT/d)
93% EtOH
(612 MT/d)
Steam
Vapor
1
st
Effect
Evaporator
2
nd
Effect
Evaporator
2
nd
Effect
Evaporator
S/L
Separation
Solids to Combustor
Vapor
Evaporator Condensate
(1426 MT/d)
To Combustor
(1882 MT/d)
(1335 MT/d)
(878 MT/d)
(155 MT/d)
Regenerant
Mole-
cular
Sieve
Rectification Bottom to Pneuma Press
(7467 MT/d)
(3308 MT/d)
Liquor
CIP CIP
CIP
(1137 MT/d)
To A-200
(Pneuma Press)
(
4
7
4
3

M
T
/
d
)
Vapor Entrainment
(6 MT/d)
(1581 MT/d)
Condensate
(1484 MT/d)
Condensate
To A200
(
8
9
5
1

M
T
/
d
)
(1484 MT/d)
(1435 MT/d)
Condensate
(1435 MT/d)


Figure 8. Base case distillation configuration

12
(10637 MT/d)
P-358
From Beer Storage
Pervaporation
Rectification
Column
99.3% EtOH
(461 MT/d)
92% EtOH
(617 MT/d)
Steam
Vapor
1
st
Effect
Evaporator
2
nd
Effect
Evaporator
2
nd
Effect
Evaporator
S/L
Separation
Solids to Combustor
Vapor
Evaporator Condensate
(1483 MT/d)
To Combustor
(1898 MT/d)
(1475 MT/d)
(1014 MT/d)
(156 MT/d)
Regenerant
Mole-
cular
Sieve
Rectification Bottom to Pneuma Press
(7625 MT/d)
(3381 MT/d)
(
4
8
7
6

M
T
/
d
) Liquor
CIP CIP CIP
31% EtOH
To A-200
(Pneuma Press)
(1118 MT/d)
Vapor Entrainment
(6 MT/d)
Condensate Condensate
(1537 MT/d)
Condensate
(1495 MT/d)
(1537 MT/d)
(
9
1
6
2

M
T
/
d
)
To A200
(1625 MT/d)
(1495 MT/d)


Figure 9. Pervaporation separation process

On-Site Enzyme Production
Table F-7 contains a summary of the on-site enzyme production operating parameters. On-site
enzyme production (Area 400) is modeled as a variation to the baseline dilute acid process model
(where enzyme is assumed to be purchased from suppliers). This work was based on a design
report by NREL in 1999 [14]. Cellulase enzyme is a mixture of endoglucanases, exoglucanases,
and β-glucosidase enzymes. In the present case, Trichoderma reesei (a fungal strain) is used for
on-site cellulase enzyme production. A portion of the conditioned pretreated biomass from Area
200 is pumped to Area 400, where a fraction of the stream is used for the growth of Trichoderma
reesei inoculums in seed bioreactors. The remainder is pumped into the jacketed aerobic
bioreactors where inocula are added from the seed bioreactors to produce enzymes. Corn steep
liquor and other trace nutrients are also added to the reactors. Ammonia is used to control pH and
to provide additional fixed nitrogen to the fungus; oxygen is supplied by an air compressor. To
control foam formation, corn oil is added into the bioreactors. Mass flow rates and process
conditions of major unit operations are shown in Figure 10.


13
(1306 MT/d)
CSL (1 MT/d)
SEED
REACTOR
DILUTE DETOXIFIED HYDROLYZATE (118 MT/d)
CSL
NUTRIENTS
ANTIFOAM
ANTIFOAM TANK MEDIA PREPARATION
TANK
CELLULASE
FERMENTOR
AMMONIA/SO2
(6 MT/d)
VENT
(895 MT/d)
DETOXIFIED HYDROLYZATE
AND LIGNOCELLULOSIC
VENT
(11396 MT/d)
CSL/NUTRIENTS (19.6 MT/d)
AIR
(873 MT/d)
AIR (11212 MT/d)
T=28
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
(8.7 MT/d)
T=28
o
C,
P=1.68 bar
T=20
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
T=20
o
C,
P=1.01 bar
AIR
COMPRESSOR
(1358 MT/d)
CELLULASE TO
AREA-300
AIR
(12085 MT/d)
AMMONIA/SO2 (0.3 MT/d)


Figure 10. On-site enzyme production process flow diagram

Methodology for Economic Analysis
The base case cost estimation and analysis is performed assuming the plant is an n
th
plant design.
This means that a similar plant was previously constructed and operated without unexpected
delays in startup and capacity loss. The process design is assumed to become the n
th
plant,
operating at the reported yields from experimental, bench-scale data. This is a major assumption
for a process that is still early in its development, and when an n
th
plant for cellulosic ethanol
becomes commercial, it may not look like this design. However, the n
th
plant analysis was
chosen to provide an analysis parallel to analyses done by different groups, including NREL, the
CAFI group, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
However, because of the new technological elements of cellulosic ethanol production there are a
number of engineering design and performance uncertainties. These uncertainties are accounted
for in the cost growth analysis for a pioneer plant using the risk analysis methodology developed
by RAND [15, 16]. The details of the cost estimation for the n
th
plant and the cost growth
analysis for the pioneer plant are discussed in the following subsections.
Methodology for Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for n
th
Plant
Mass and energy balances for each of the seven selected process variations are performed by
AspenPlus Process Simulator. Pinch analysis is performed to optimize energy balances. The
14
stream flow rates, from AspenPlus simulations, are used to size unit operations. The costs for
most of the equipment are obtained from previous vendor quotes obtained by NREL. Individual
equipment is scaled and the scaled cost is estimated following exponential correlations as
described in Appendix A. The scaled cost is then indexed to a year 2007 dollar value using the
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [17]. Separate installation factors are used for each of
the unit operations to obtain individual installed equipment costs. The installation factors are
obtained from the vendors who provided equipment quotes. The cost analysis is performed
following NREL’s approach [4] and that found in Peters et al. [18], with modified terminologies.
Total installed cost (TIC) is defined as the sum of total installed equipment cost, warehouse, and
site development costs.
Engineering and supervision costs, construction expenses, and legal and contractor’s fees are
assumed to be 32%, 34%, and 23% of purchased equipment cost, respectively. Total direct and
indirect costs (TD&IC) is the sum of total installed cost and indirect costs. Contingency is
assumed to be 20% of TD&IC, and working capital is 15% of fixed capital investment (FCI).
FCI is the sum of TD&IC and contingency, and the total capital investment is the sum of FCI
and working capital.
The manufacturing costs include raw materials costs (such as corn stover), variable costs (such
as process chemicals, enzyme, nutrients) and fixed operating costs (employee salaries, overhead,
insurance, and maintenance). The feedstock cost is assumed to be $83/dry MT ($75/dry ST)
(Appendix A). The chemical and nutrients costs are obtained from NREL’s previous quotes from
suppliers and are indexed to 2007 dollar values following the Inorganic Chemical Index of the
SRI International Economics Handbook, Economic Environment of the Chemical Industry [19].
NREL estimated the required number of employees and their salaries in their 2002 design report
[4]. In the present study, the same number of employees is required for the same plant capacity,
and the salaries are indexed to 2007 dollar values following the labor index from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics [20].
In the present analysis, the process and steam generation plants are assumed to depreciate in 7
and 20 years, respectively, following IRS MACRS, and the plant life is 20 years. The project is
assumed to be 100% equity financed and internal rate of return is 10%. For the present cost
analysis, the capital investment is spread over 3 years at a rate of 8%, 60%, and 32% in the first,
second, and third years, respectively. The product value (PV) of ethanol is calculated by iterating
to reach a net present value of $0 with a 10% internal rate of return.
Pioneer Plant Analysis
The pioneer plant analysis is performed using a method developed by Merrow et al. of RAND
Corporation [15]. This methodology considers two sources of production cost growth in pioneer
plants: less than expected plant performance and low capital cost estimation. These sources are
regressed with two multi-factor ordinary least squares correlations to estimate the unexpected
reduced plant performance (Equation 1) and capital cost growth (Equation 2) associated with
pioneer plants.
Equation 1 estimates pioneer plant performance as a percentage of design capacity in the second
6 months after startup.
15

Plant Performance = 85.77 – 9.69×NEWSTEPS + 0.33×BALEQS
– 4.12×WASTE – 17.91×SOLIDS (Eq. 1)

Where,
NEWSTEPS ≡ The number of steps in the process that have not been proven
commercially.
BALEQS ≡ The percentage of mass and energy balance equations used in plant design
that are validated with commercial-scale data. The RAND report also mentions
that some weight is given to rigorous theoretical models.
WASTE ≡ Potential problems that may be associated with waste handling. A 0-5 scale is
used, with 0 meaning no waste handling issues and 5 meaning significant waste
handling issues.
SOLIDS: The scale used is 0 or 1. If the process handles solids then the value is 1;
otherwise it’s 0.

Equation 2 estimates the capital cost growth, defined as the ratio of estimated to actual costs.
Cost Growth = 1.12196 – 0.00297×PCTNEW – 0.02125×IMPURITIES
– 0.01137×COMPLEXITY + 0.00111×INCLUSIVENESS
– C
1
×PROJECT DEFINITION (Eq. 2)

Where,
PCTNEW ≡ The installed cost of all commercially undemonstrated equipment as
percentage of total installed equipment cost.
IMPURITIES: Represents the potential process issues that may arise due to impurity
buildup from recycle streams or problems due to equipment corrosion. The value
ranges from 0 to 5, with 0 being given to processes with no impurity buildup or
corrosion issues.
COMPLEXITY ≡ The number of continuously linked process steps.
INCLUSIVENESS ≡ The percentage of three factors: pre-startup personnel costs, pre-
startup inventory cost, and land purchase. For example, if two of these factors
have been rigorously considered, the variable would be given a value of 67%.
C1: C1 is 0.06361 if the design is at pre-development/exploratory or research and
development stage and 0.04011 if the design is in commercial or pre-commercial
stage. For the present studies C1 is assumed to be 0.06361.
PROJECT DEFINITION: Includes commitment of funds to define the plant scope, basic
plant layout, and process flow conditions. Most major equipment is defined and
examination of site begins at this point. The amount of work involved here
depends on how much information is already available from previous project
experience. Often some critical level of engineering (heat and mass balances,
equipment need, and so forth) and site-specific information (on-site and off-site
unit configurations, soils and hydrology data, health and safety requirements, and
environmental requirements) is completed here. A numerical value is assigned to
define the level of engineering completed at the time of estimation, following the
16
level of completeness: (1) engineering completed, (2) moderate or extensive
engineering, (3) limited engineering, and (4) screening design stage. Similarly, a
value for site-specific information is assigned by the following: (1) definitive or
completed work, (2) preliminary or limited work, (3) assumed or implicit
analysis, and (4) not used in the cost estimation at all. The range of values given
to project definition is 2 (for maximum definition) to 8 (for no definition).

Cost growth analysis for all seven process variations was performed. There was some
subjectivity in choosing the parameters for the pioneer plant analysis, so a range of parameters
was used to estimate pioneer plant costs for three scenarios: optimistic, most probable, and
pessimistic. For the dilute acid pretreatment process the selected variable values of Equations 1-2
are shown in Table 1; the selection justification is discussed below. For all other process
variations, the variable values are shown in Appendix J.

Table 1. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
6 6 6 PCTNEW 61.76 61.76 61.76
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 3 COMPLEXITY
b
6 6 6
SOLIDS 1 1 1
INCLUSIVE-
NESS
33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant
Performance (%)
22.10 14.68 7.26 Cost Growth 0.53 0.42 0.32
a
New steps/units: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Beer Column, and
Combustor.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation,
Distillation, and Steam/Power Generation.


Justification of Correlation Variable Value Selection for Plant Performance (Equation 1)
For all three scenarios, the operations considered new steps/units are feedstock handling,
pretreatment, saccharification, cofermentation, beer column, and the fluidized bed combustor
(for converting lignin to heat and power), resulting in a value of 6 for NEWSTEPS.
Some of the steps and units are being used commercially, so the BALEQS variable is assigned a
value of 50, 40, and 30 for optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic scenarios, respectively.
The wastewater contains a small amount of furfural that may not be degraded by the anaerobic or
aerobic treatments used in the model, meaning that an additional chemical treatment may be
necessary. No additional complications with waste are foreseen. The WASTE variable was
assigned a value of 2 for the most probable case. Values of 1 and 3 were assigned for the
optimistic and pessimistic cases, respectively.
17
These variable values are used in Equation 1 to calculate the percentage of Plant Performance for
the three cases (Table 1).
Justification of Correlation Variable Value Selection for Cost Growth (Equation 2)
The feedstock handling area, pretreatment area, saccharification, cofermentation, beer column,
and fluidized bed combustor are selected as new technologies/units to calculate the parameter
PCTNEW for all three of the cases.
Some of the degradation products inhibit the saccharification and fermentation process, and
buildup of those inhibitors in the process may result in yield loss. For the most probable case, the
assigned value for the variable IMPURITIES is 3. For the optimistic and pessimistic cases the
assigned values are 0 and 5, respectively.
The process design has six continuously linked process steps, which include feedstock handling,
pretreatment, saccharification, cofermentation, distillation, and steam/power generation.
Therefore, the value for the variable COMPLEXITY is assigned as 6 for all three cases.
Some of the initial plant inventory is included in the base case cost estimate, although it is not
validated in a commercial plant. So, for the optimistic scenario a value of 33% is assigned for the
variable INCLUSIVENESS. The value of 0% is assigned for both pessimistic and most probable
cases.
A plant site has not been chosen, so none of the site-specific information has been procured.
Some level of engineering has been completed. Therefore, a value of 6 is assigned for most
probable and optimistic cases for the variable PROJECT DEFINITION and the pessimistic case
is assigned a 5.
The assigned variable values are used in Equation 2 to calculate the percentage of cost growth as
shown in Table 1. The base case n
th
plant TCI is divided by the cost growth, obtained from
Equation 2 (Table 1), to obtain an estimate for the pioneer plant TCI. The contingency factor is
increased to 30%, compared with 20% for an n
th
plant, to account for additional construction
uncertainties. The plant performance, obtained from Equation 1 (Table 1), is multiplied by the
first year ethanol sales to account for the reduced production of a pioneer plant. For the
discounted cash flow analysis, plant performance is increased by 20% per year until design
capacity is reached.
18

Results and Discussion
n
th
Plant Cost Analysis

Ethanol yield, byproduct credit, total installed equipment cost, total project investment, and
estimated PV for each of the process variations are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Product Value for Various Pretreatment and Downstream Process Variations
Process
Variations
Total
Capital
Investment
($MM)
Total
Installed
Equipment
Cost ($MM)
Ethanol
Yield
(Gal/MT)
a

Ethanol
Production
(MM
Gal/Yr)
b

Electricity
Export
($MM/Yr)
Product
Value
($/Gal)
c

Dilute Acid
Pretreatment
(base case)
376 164
76.3
(288.8)
53.4 (202.2) 11.7
3.40
(0.90)
Dilute Acid
Pretreatment
(high solids)
389 169
72.5
(274.5)
50.8 (192.1) 12.6
3.60
(0.95)
Two-Stage Dilute
Acid Pretreatment
391 173
46.8
(177.5)
32.8 (124.2) 16.8
4.38
(1.16)
Hot Water
Pretreatment
361 156
55.8
(211.0)
39.0 (147.7) 11.3
4.44
(1.21)
AFEX
Pretreatment
386 167
65.9
(249.7)
46.2 (174.8) 16.9
3.69
(0.97)
Pervaporation-
Distillation
501 209
76.9
(291.3)
53.9 (203.9) 13.6
3.75
(0.99)
Separate C5 and
C6 Fermentation
386 168 79.3 (300) 55.5 (210.1) 6.5
3.67
(0.97)
On-site Enzyme
Production
434 188
67.7
(256.3)
47.4 (179.4) -0.8
3.54
(0.94)
a
Values in parentheses are in liter/MT.
b
Values in parentheses are in MM liter/year.
c
Values in parentheses are in
$/liter.

Each pretreatment process has some variation in yield (47-76 gal/MT) with dilute acid
pretreatment being the highest. The lowest PV among all process variations is from the dilute
acid pretreatment scenario, which is $3.40/gal, and those for other pretreatment processes are in
the range of $3.60/gal to $4.44/gal. The yield from two-stage dilute acid pretreatment is lowest
(46.8 gal/MT) and the process requires higher TCI ($391 million), which drives the PV as high
as $4.38/gal.
The installed equipment cost and TCI for all four pretreatment scenarios are in the range of
$156-$173 million and $361-$391 million, respectively, with hot water pretreatment being the
lowest and two-stage dilute acid pretreatment being the highest. The reason for lower installed
equipment cost for hot water is because it uses a relatively simple horizontal tubular pretreatment
reactor. The installed cost of the tubular reactor is $311,000 for hot water pretreatment, whereas
pretreatment reactors for dilute acid and AFEX pretreatment processes are $22.99 million and
$9.15 million, respectively. The dilute acid pretreatment process requires long retention time for
19
overliming, which requires large expensive vessels. Although the AFEX reactor cost is lower
than the dilute acid pretreatment reactor, the AFEX pretreatment process has additional
expensive unit operations (such as the ammonia compressor) that increase the total installed
equipment cost to slightly more than that of dilute acid pretreatment processes.
For the comparison of pretreatment technologies, lab-scale experimental data at low solids
loading (25%) were used in the model [3]. In order to understand how process scale-up may
impact ethanol production cost, a process model was developed using data from experiments
conducted at NREL at higher solids loading (40%). Table 3 presents a summary comparison of
the results from the dilute acid pretreatment models.

Table 3. Comparison of Dilute Acid Pretreatment Results from Lab- and Pilot-Scale Data

Base Case
(2007 EVD)
High Solids
Solids Loading 25% 40%
PV ($/gal) 3.40 3.60
Ethanol Yield (gal/MT) 76.3 72.5
Installed Equipment Cost (MM$) 164.1 169.4
Fixed Capital Investment (MM$) 326.8 337.8
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 375.9 388.5
Lang Factor 3.44 3.43

The PV of the model using high solids loading is $0.20/gal higher than that of the base case
model. This is primarily due to the decreased ethanol production caused by lower yields of
monosaccharides at higher solids loadings.
The costs of each process area for the dilute acid pretreatment scenario are presented in Table 4;
costs for other scenarios are given in Appendix H. The expensive areas of the dilute acid
pretreatment scenario are the pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation, distillation and
solids recovery, and boiler and turbo-generator sections. Among these, the boiler and turbo-
generator section is the most expensive area, accounting for 56% of the total installed equipment
costs.


20
Table 4. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario
Cost Areas/Factor
Installed Cost
Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100)
10.9 6.6 6.0 5.5
Pretreatment (Area 200)
36.2 22.1 19.7 18.0
Saccharification and Fermentation (Area 300) 21.8 13.3 17.3 15.8
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 26.1 15.9 17.2 15.8
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600)
3.5 2.1 2.6 2.4
Storage (Area 700)
3.2 2.0 2.0 1.8
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800)
56.1 34.2 40.3 36.9
Utilities (Area 900)
6.3 3.8 4.2 3.8
Total Installed Equipment Cost
164.1 100 109.3 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI)
326.8
Working Capital (WC)
49.0
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
375.9
Lang Factor
a

3.44
a
The Lang factor is calculated by dividing TCI by the total purchased equipment cost.

The PV from the pervaporation scenario is $3.75/gal, which is higher than the PV for the base
case process (dilute acid pretreatment process, $3.40/gal). The cost differential comes from the
high capital cost of the pervaporation membrane, which is not well developed commercially.
Ethanol yield in the dilute acid pretreatment process with cofermentation is 76.3 gal/MT. It was
thought that separate C5 and C6 sugar fermentation using selective yeast might reduce the PV
because of higher yields (79.3 gal/MT). However, the PV is 8% higher than the base case
scenario because of increased capital costs primarily due to the additional fermentation vessels
required.
It was also thought that on-site enzyme production might provide economic advantages over
purchasing enzymes because it eliminates the need to use stabilizing chemicals and to
concentrate the enzyme broth prior to transportation. The PV from the on-site enzyme production
process is $3.54/gal, which is $0.14/gal higher than the base case dilute acid pretreatment
process. The cost of the enzyme is affected by a lower electricity credit than the base case. This
is because of high electricity consumption by the compressor supplying air to the enzyme
production bioreactors that leads to lower net excess electricity and lower ethanol yield (67.7
gal/MT). In the on-site enzyme production process, part of the feedstock (hydrolyzate from Area
200) is diverted to enzyme production, which reduces the overall plant capacity by 6 MMGal of
ethanol per year. It is assumed that Trichoderma reesei is the enzyme-producing fungal strain.
The specific activity of enzyme, yield, and productivity are 600 FPU/g protein, 0.33 g protein/g
cellulose and xylose, and 0.125 g protein/L-hr, respectively. The PV is higher for the on-site case
than for the off-site case because the off-site case’s enzyme cost was determined after increasing
the feedstock in order to produce the same amount of ethanol. This increase in scale provided
some economic benefit. This comparison does not include costs of stabilizing chemicals
21
associated with purchased enzymes, so the enzyme cost continues to be uncertain. However, the
comparison of an on-site case helps demonstrate what yields and electricity tradeoffs occur when
enzyme is produced on-site.
Sensitivity Analysis
Process-specific sensitivity analysis of pretreatment and saccharification operations was
performed on all pretreatment process scenarios. This analysis showed the impact of process
operation parameters including operating temperature, retention time, acid concentrations, and
yields on PV. The results are shown in Figures 11 and 12 (the detailed parameter values and
results are tabulated in Table B-1 and Table C-1, respectively). PV is most sensitive to
pretreatment solid consistency, retention time, and xylan and cellulose conversions. When the
retention time of the dilute acid pretreatment reactor is increased from 2 to 10 minutes, an
increase in PV of 16% is observed (Figure 11). When the conversion of xylan to xylose in the
pretreatment reactor is reduced from 82.5% (2007 EVD) to 33%, the PV increases by 6%. And
when the solid consistency in the hot water pretreatment reactor is increased from 13% to 20%,
the PV is reduced by 10%. Xylose and cellulose conversions in the pretreatment reactor of the
two-stage dilute acid scenario showed significant impact on PV. The PV increased by 44% and is
reduced by 10% when xylan to xylose conversion is reduced from 82.5% to 33% and cellulose to
glucose conversion is increased from 6.3% to 23%, respectively. The impact of other
pretreatment parameters on PV is not so significant.



Figure 11. Impact of pretreatment parameters on PV


22
Among the saccharification parameters, cellulose to glucose conversions showed significant
impact on PV for all scenarios (Figure 12; the detailed parameter values and results are tabulated
in Table B-1 and Table C-1, respectively). For the dilute acid pretreatment process, the PV
increased by 20% when the cellulose to glucose conversion was reduced from 91% to 67%. The
impact on PV for the hot water pretreatment scenario was much higher. For the hot water
scenario, the PV increased by 31% when the cellulose to glucose conversion was reduced from
90% to 65%.



Figure 12. Impact of saccharification parameters on PV

A sensitivity analysis for the major economic assumptions was performed on the dilute acid
pretreatment process to test the robustness of the estimated PV. The selected sensitivity
parameters were feedstock cost, enzyme loading, enzyme cost (for purchased enzymes),
contingency factor, installation factor (or corresponding installed equipment cost), and byproduct
(electricity) credit. The feedstock cost and enzyme price have the dominant impact on PV.
Enzyme loading, contingency factor, and the total installed equipment cost showed moderate
impact on PV. Results are shown in Figure 13 (the detailed parameter values and results are
tabulated in Table B-2 and Table C-2, respectively).

23
Product Value, PV ($/GGE)
Feedstock Cost (55 : 83 : 110 $/MT)
Enzyme Cost (256 : 507 : 1460 $/MT of broth)
Enzyme Loading (20 : 31.3 : 33.3 mg/g protein)
Contingency (10 : 20 : 30 % TPI)
Pretreatment Reactor (23, + 25% MM$)
Installed Equipment Cost (159 : 164 : 194 MM$)
Electricity Price (0.06 : 0.054 : 0.04 $/kWh)
$4.15 $4.65 $5.15 $5.65 $6.15 $6.65 $7.15 $7.65
_

Figure 13. Impact of overall process/economic parameters on PV (dilute acid pretreatment)

When feedstock cost was increased from $83/dry MT (base case scenario) to $110/dry MT, PV
increased by 11%. PV increased by 38% to $4.70/gal when enzyme cost was increased from
$507/MT broth to $1460/MT (equivalent to $2.00/gal of ethanol produced). When enzyme cost
was reduced to $256/MT (equivalent to $0.35/gal of ethanol produced), a 10% decrease in PV
was observed. The exact cost of cellulase enzymes for large scale needs is not yet publicly
available. A recent Novozymes presentation estimated enzyme costs in 2009 to be around $1–
$2/gal of ethanol, and this range is included in the sensitivity analysis [21]. It may be important
to further study the on-site enzyme production process with emphasis on microbial strain, protein
yield, specific activity, residence time, oxygen requirement, and overall process area
optimization. The current study is limited to publicly available data on those important
parameters.
The enzyme loading in the saccharification reactor showed some impact on PV. When the
enzyme loading was reduced from 31.3 mg protein/g cellulose (equivalent to 18.8 FPU/g
cellulose) to 20 mg protein/g cellulose (equivalent to 12 FPU/g cellulose), the PV was reduced
by 7%; the PV increased by 1% when the loading was increased from 31.3 to 33.3 mg protein/g
cellulose (equivalent to 20 FPU/g cellulose).
Sensitivity analysis on total installed equipment cost was also performed. When the installed
equipment cost was increased from $MM164.1 (corresponding weighted average installed factor
of 2.58 for the base case scenario) to $MM194 (corresponding installed factor of 3.05 obtained
from Peters and Timmerhaus [18]), the PV increased by 4%. Contingency factor showed a
similar impact on PV. The impact of other parameters such as reactor cost and electricity price
on PV was not significant.
24
Pioneer Plant Analysis Results
Table 5 shows the pioneer-plant PV results for all three cases. The PV for the most-probable case
is $5.76/gal, and that for the optimistic and pessimistic cases is $5.01/gal and $7.08/gal,
respectively. The PV for the most probable, optimistic, and pessimistic cases is 69%, 47%, and
108% more, respectively, than the PV estimated for the n
th
plant. The cost growth analysis shows
that the TCI and Lang factor increased significantly from the base case n
th
plant. For the most
probable cost growth scenario, the TCI and Lang factor are MM$886.4 and 8.11, respectively,
which are an increase of 136% from the base case n
th
plant values.

Table 5. Pioneer Plant Analysis Results for the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario
Cost Item
Cost Growth (Pioneer Plant)
Most Probable Optimistic Pessimistic
PV ($/gal) 5.76 5.01 7.08
Fixed Capital
Investment (MM$)
833 674 1,111
Total Capital
Investment (MM$)
886 727 1,164
Lang Factor 8.11 6.65 10.65

25
Comparison with Previous Studies
The results of this study deviate considerably from a number of previous techno-economic
analyses of cellulosic ethanol production. There are many contributing factors to this deviation,
and an explanation of the most significant of these factors is discussed here. Figure 14 presents a
plot of estimated ethanol prices from seven previous studies as a function of feedstock price. The
ethanol and feedstock prices were updated to 2007 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. The
solid line on the plot represents the PV for the dilute acid pretreatment scenario using the model
developed in this study as a function of feedstock price.



Figure 14. Ethanol cost estimations from previous techno-economic studies.
(1) Short term technology—Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). (2) Middle term
technology—Simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation (SSCF). (3) Long term technology—
Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP). (4) Separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF). (5) SSF. (6) CBP. (7)
SSCF.

After updating the feedstock and ethanol prices to 2007 dollars, much of the difference from
previous studies can be explained by the clear correlation that exists between feedstock price and
ethanol price. However, all of the studies except that of Nguyen and Saddler [22] remain lower
than the line derived from this study. The study by Hamelinck et al. [23] represents a significant
outlier from the apparent correlation between feedstock price and ethanol price. The three
ethanol price estimates are for short-term (5 years from time of study), middle-term (10–15
years), and long-term (20+ years) technology implementation. The short-term estimate is closest
to the time frame considered in this study. However, it also deviates from the trend of other
studies. The assumptions for the short-term estimate—including feedstock input, rate of return,
and reaction conversions—are quite similar to those used in this study, and the TCI (updated to
2007 dollars) is nearly equal as well. The most significant difference from this study is the non-
feedstock operating cost, which is approximately $0.32/gal ethanol (EtOH) compared to
26
$1.68/gal. This is partly due to lower costs for corn steep liquor, cellulase, and other raw
materials. This factor accounts for most of the discrepancy between ethanol price estimates.
The ethanol price from the study published by Sendich et al. [24] is also slightly lower than the
apparent correlation of feedstock and ethanol price. The lowest estimate in that study assumes
the use of consolidated bioprocessing, which is an advanced technology also modeled in the
long-term estimate from Hamelinck et al. [23]. The higher ethanol price estimate of $1.03/gal is
from a model using simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation (SSCF). SSCF is a more
advanced technology than was considered in this study; this factor results in lower capital and
operating costs by combining enzymatic saccharification and fermentation. A new AFEX
pretreatment scheme was also employed, which may have contributed to lower capital and
operating costs of pretreatment.
The enzyme cost used in this study is much higher than that used in other studies. Because
enzyme cost is such a significant fraction of the PV, it contributes significantly to the
discrepancy between the current study and previous studies. For example, the enzyme prices
used in the prior studies of Wingren et al. (2003), Wingren et al. (2004), and Aden et al. [25, 26,
4] are approximately 30%, 30%, and 17% of the price used in this study, respectively.
27
Conclusions
The present study is based on published technological and economical data that in many ways
lacks specifics and details. Thus, a list of assumptions was developed. Sensitivity analysis on
those assumptions was performed, and their impact on TCI and PV was wide. The studies
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. The major strength of the technology is
its pre-commercial maturity. Several pilot-scale cellulosic ethanol plants are in development
today. The U.S. Department of Energy has funded 10 pioneer plant projects producing biofuels
using a biochemical pathway [27]. However, technological and economic data from these pilot
and demo plants are not publically available for use in this study.
The published data in 2007 shows that the technology can reach 4.5% of ethanol concentration in
the fermented beer, which is approximately one-third of what commercial grain ethanol plants
are achieving. The enzyme and feedstock costs are two major cost contributors. In our studies,
cellulase price is assumed to be nearly $0.70/gal of ethanol produced and its loading is 18.8
FPU/g of cellulose. The high cost of enzymes represents a significant opportunity to reduce the
PV through improved biotechnology. The current feedstock cost is assumed to be $83/MT.
However, the cost is likely to be location sensitive. It is important to critically estimate the
feedstock cost, which may limit the plant locations to certain areas. Published improvements in
process technology since 2007 have not been considered in this work, and these improvements
would likely decrease PV for a project being designed today.

28
References
1. Eggeman, T.; Elander, R.T. “Process and Economic Analysis of Pretreatment
Technologies.” Bioresource Technology; Vol. 96(18), 2005; pp. 2019-2025.
2. Elander, R.; Eggeman, T. Alternative Pretreatment (CAFI)—Inital Data And Economic
Analysis. Report. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2004.
3. Wyman, C.E.; Dale, B.E.; Elander, R.T.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladish, M.R.; Lee, Y.Y.
“Comparative Sugar Recovery Data from Laboratory Scale Application of Leading
Pretreatment Technologies to Corn Stover.” Bioresource Technology; Vol. 96, 2005; pp.
2026-2032.
4. Aden, A.; Ruth, M; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan, J.; Wallace, B.;
Montague, L.; Slayton, A.; Likes, J. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design
and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic
Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. Report No. NREL/TP-510-32438. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2002.
5. Neeves, K.; Ibsen, K. Lignocellulosic Biomass-to-Ethanol Process Design and
Economics Using Two-Stage Dilute Acid Hydrolysis. Report. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2000.
6. Nguyen, Q.A.; Tucker, M.P.; Keller, F.A.; Eddy, F.P. “Two-Stage Dilute-Acid
Pretreatment of Softwoods.” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology; Vol. 84-86, 2000;
pp. 561-576.
7. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Public Law 110-140; 121, 1491.
Available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf.
8. Myers, C.W.; Shangraw, R.F.; Devey, M.R.; Hayashi, T. Understanding Process Plant
Schedule Slippate and Startup Costs. Report No. R-3215-PSSP/RC. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corp., June 1986.
9. Aden, A. Biochemical Production of Ethanol from Corn Stover: 2007 State of
Technology Model. Report No. NREL/TP-510-43205. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2008.
10. Teymouri, F.; Laureano-Perez, L.; Alizadeh, H.; Dale, B.E. “Optimization of the
Ammonia Fiber Explosion (AFEX) Treatment Parameters for Enzymatic Hydrolysis of
Corn Stover.” Bioresource Technology; 96, 2005; pp. 2014-2018.
11. Dutta, A.; Dowe, N.; Ibsen, K.; Schell, D.; Aden, A. “Comparison of Biochemical
Conversion Process Configurations for the Production of Cellulosic Ethanol.”
Biotechnology Progress; Vol. 26(1), 2009; pp. 64-72. DOI: 10.1002/btpr.311.
29
12. Hsu, D. Process Economics of Pervaporation Membrane Separation of Ethanol and
Water in the Biochemical Design Report. Technical Memo. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008.
13. O’Brien, D.J.; Roth, L.H.; McAloon, A.J. “Ethanol Production by Continuous
Fermentation-Pervaporation: A Preliminary Economic Analysis.” Journal of Membrane
Science; Vol. 166(1), 2000; pp. 105-111.
14. Wooley, R.; Ruth, M.; Sheehan, J.; Ibsen, K.; Majdeski, H.; Galvez, A. Lignocellulosic
Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-current Dilute Acid
Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios. Report No.
NREL/TP-580-26157. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1999.
15. Merrow, W.E.; Phillips, K.E.; Myers, C.W. (1981). Understanding Cost Growth and
Performance Shortfalls in Pioneer Process Plants. Report No. RAND/R-2569-DOE.
Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1981.
16. Wallace, B. Cost Estimation for a Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Pioneer Plant.
NREL Technical Memo. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003.
17. “Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.” Chemical Engineering. November 2008.
18. Peters, M.S.; Timmerhaus, K.D.; West, R.E. Plant Design and Economics For Chemical
Engineers. Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.
19. “Inorganic Chemical Index.” SRI International Economics Handbook, Economic
Environment Of The Chemical Industry. 2008 Menlo Park, CA: SRI Consulting, 2008.
20. “Labor Index.” Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008.
21. Bryant, C. “Step Change in Cellulosic Ethanol – The Future is Moving Closer.”
Presented at the National Ethanol Conference, San Antonio, TX, 2009.
22. Nguyen, Q.A.; Saddler, J.N. “An Integrated Model for The Technical and Economic
Evaluation of an Enzymatic Biomass Conversion Process.” Bioresource Technology;
Vol. 35(3), 1991; pp. 275-282.
23. Hamelinck, C.N.; van Hooijdonk, G.; Faaij, A.P.C. “Ethanol from Lignocellulosic
Biomass: Techno-Economic Performance in Short-, Middle- and Long-Term.” Biomass
and Bioenergy; Vol. 28, 2005; pp. 384-410.
24. Sendich, E.N.; Laser, M.; Kim, S.; Alizadeh, H.; Laureano-Perez, L.; Dale, B.; Lynd, L.
“Recent Process Improvements for the Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX) Process and
Resulting Reductions in Minimum Ethanol Selling Price.” Bioresource Technology; Vol.
99, 2009; pp. 8429-8435.
30
25. Wingren, A.; Galbe, M.; Zacchi, G. “Techno-Economic Evaluation of Producing Ethanol
from Softwood: Comparison of SSF and SHF and Identification of Bottlenecks.”
Biotechnology Progress; Vol. 19, 2003; pp. 1109-1117.
26. Wingren, A.; Soderstrom, J.; Galbe, M.; Zacchi, G. “Process Considerations and
Economic Evaluation of Two-Step Steam Pretreatment for Production of Fuel Ethanol
from Softwood.” Biotechnology Progress; Vol. 20, 2004; pp. 1421-1429.
27. “Major DOE Biofuels Project Locations.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,
2008. Available at
http://www.energy.gov/media/Major_DOE_Biofuels_Project_Locations.pdf; accessed
January 27, 2010.
31
Appendices
Appendix A - Assumptions for Techno-economic Studies of Biochemical
Conversion Processes

Plant Size, Location, and Construction
• Optimum plant size is regarded as economically feasible plant size, which would be a
plant with capacity of 2000 MT/day (dry feedstock).
• The plant produces EtOH (as product) and electricity (as byproduct).
• The plant is considered to be located in the middle of corn farmland.
• 25% of the land will be tied up in infrastructure (roads and buildings).
• 75% of the farm land plants corn.
• The plant will be designed based on the state of the technology (as of 2007), and it would
be the n
th
plant of its kind. RAND/risk analysis will inflate price from mature n
th
plant to
immature pioneer plant.
• The online time would be 350 days per year (equivalent capacity factor of 96%).
• Construction time of 24 months is considered.
• Startup period would be 25% of the construction time (6 months).
• During this period, an average of 50% production will be achieved with expenditure of
about 75% of variable expenses and 100% of fixed expenses.
Units
• Plant capacity, mass flow, and yields are based on metric tons (MT) per day.
• Feedstock cost and purchased chemicals costs are based on short tons (ST).
• Ethanol sale price is in $/gallon, and byproduct credit (electricity) is in $/kWh.
• Process operating conditions are:
o Temperature in
o
C
o Pressure in bar
o Mass flow rates in MT/day.
Feedstock and Enzymes
• Corn stover (composed of stalks, leaves, cobs, and husks) is considered as feedstock.
o The feedstock will be delivered to the feed handling area of the plant.
o Moisture content in the feedstock is 25% (wet basis).
o Feed composition is assumed to be the same as CAFI II analysis results. Table A-
1 displays feedstock composition.
o Feedstock is delivered in bales.
o The feedstock transportation and management protocol are not considered.
32
o Feed cost is assumed to be $83/MT ($75/dry short ton) at the gate.
• 72 hours of on-site storage (corn stover bales) is considered, and long term storage costs
are not included in the analysis.
• Stover is washed of dirt and metal is removed; no biomass is lost in washing.
• Enzyme will be purchased or produced on-site through purchase/licensing agreements
with enzyme suppliers.
o Enzyme loading is assumed as 31.3 mg protein/g cellulose in original feed.
o Enzyme cost is $507/MT broth when purchased from off-site sources.

Table A-1. Corn Stover Feedstock Composition
Components
Composition
(%)
Components
Composition
(%)
Extractives 8.26 Lignin 10.69
Cellulose 33.43 Ash 5.93
Xylan 22.16 Acetate 5.44
Galactan 1.36 Protein 2.24
Arabinan 4.08
Soluble
Solids
5.83
Mannan 0.58 Moisture 25

Material and Energy Balance
Material Balance
• Reactions and conversions of hemicellulose carbohydrates (arabinan, mannan, galactan)
are assumed to have the same value as xylan in the pretreatment hydrolyzer (depends on
pretreatment).
• A total of 7% of fermenting sugars is assumed to be lost to contamination, which may be
regarded as bad batches (the bad batches are dumped and regarded as loss).
• The total amount of water from the pressure filter (bottom product of the first distillation
column) that is directly recycled is set to be 25% (to minimize contaminant buildup in the
stream).
• Boiler blow down is considered to be 3% of steam production.
• Carbon efficiency can be calculated based on carbohydrate carbon content, as follows:

• Cooling tower windage is 0.1% of the total flow to the tower.
o The tower blow down is 10% of the of the sum of the evaporative loss plus
windage.
• Well water will be used as process makeup water (lost to evaporation, blow down,
windage, in solid waste).

Corbon c¡¡icicncy (%) =
Corbon in Etbonol
Corbon in Biomoss CorbobyJrotc
× 1uu
33
Energy Balance
• Heat loss from the reactor will not be accounted for in energy balance calculations.
• Heat loss from the combustor is accounted for, totaling about 2.2%.
• Electricity will be generated by burning lignin and waste (process waste and pressed
solids from wastewater treatment), which will be used in the plant, and the net surplus
will be sold to grid at a price of $0.054/kW (2007 dollar value).
Equipment Design, Material of Construction, and Costing
Equipment Design
• The reactors will be modeled using experimentally determined conversions of specific
reactions (kinetic expressions will be not used because of the level of their development).
• If the size of any equipment is known to change linearly with the inlet flow, that
information can be used for equipment scaling (a characteristic of the size might be the
heat duty for a heat exchanger if the log-mean temperature difference is known not to
change).
• For some equipment, nothing can be easily related to the size, in which case the unit will
be resized with each process change (for example heat exchangers with varying
temperature profiles; in this case, the heat exchanger area will be calculated each time the
model will be run and the cost will be scaled using the ratio of the new and original
areas).
Material of Construction
• The materials of construction for all equipment (except the pretreatment reactor, flash
tank, and Pneumapress equipment) will be as follows (Delta-T/NREL experience):
o SS316 for flash tank (for the solid-liquid separation equipment)
o Incoloy 825-clad steel for continuous pretreatment reactor and its parts in contact
with acid, and SS316L for most other parts including presteamer.
Costing
• All pumps, tanks, screw conveyors, agitators, heat exchangers, and surge tanks will be
estimated using ICARUS Process Evaluator and NREL database.
• Large vessels (saccharification tank, fermentors, seed hold tanks), boiler feed water
softening equipment, anaerobic and aerobic digesters, and filter press will be estimated
from quotation.
• Smaller vessels (seed fermentor) and coil coolers will be estimated by ICARUS and
NREL database.
• If process changes are made and the equipment size changes, the equipment will be re-
costed following the exponential scaling expression:

*or characteristic linearly related to the size
Ncw Cost = 0riginol Cost _
New size -
0iiginal size -
]
cxp

34

o The scaling exponents are obtained from NREL’s vendor quote database.
• The purchased equipment cost obtained in a particular year (before 2007) will be indexed
to the year of 2007 using the Chemical Engineering Index.
• Installation factors (from Delta-T/NREL experience for aqueous-based process) will be
applied to purchased equipment costs to determine the installation cost (not ICARUS).
Chemical Costing
• Cost of acids and other chemicals, including boiler feed water softening chemical cost,
will be obtained from quotation.
o The cost of the chemicals will also be indexed following Industrial Inorganic
Chemical Index (from SRI) to estimate the cost of the chemicals in the year of
2007.
Operating Cost
• Working capital is assumed to be 15% of fixed capital investment.
o It is assumed that the product will be made and shipped and payment received in
30 days.
• Annual maintenance materials will be 2% of the total installed equipment cost.
• Employee salaries will be indexed, if required, to the year 2007 following the data of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• Salaries of the yard employees will not include benefits and will be covered in the
general overhead category.
o General overhead will be a factor of 60% applied to the total salaries and covers
items such as safety, general engineering, general plant maintenance, payroll
overhead (including benefits), plant security, janitorial and similar services,
phone, light, heat, and plant communications.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
• The process will be designed for zero discharge to a municipal treatment plant in a
steady-state mode, and the treated water will be suitable for recycling to the process.
• Any process upset (sudden increase of solids in the wastewater) will not be considered in
the model.
• Rain and snow run-off, equipment washing, and other non-process waters are assumed to
flow to the municipal wastewater treatment system; other intermittent loads (process
spills) will not be considered in the design.
• No insoluble components (cellulose, xylan) will be included in the chemical-oxygen-
demand (COD) calculations because of uncertainty of their reactivity.
• Biological oxygen demand in the anaerobic digester is assumed to be 70% of the COD.
o COD reduction in both digesters is considered as 99.4%.
35
Greenhouse Emissions and Control
• All of the sulfur entering into the combustor is converted to SO
2
.
o 1% of the generated SO
2
is converted to sulfuric acid.
o Flue gas temp will be kept above the dew point of sulfuric acid.
• Carbon monoxide is assumed to be generated at a rate of 0.31 kg/MWhr.
o Unburned carbon (char) in the ash is low at 1%.
• NO
x
is generated at 0.31 kg/MWhr.
• Baghouse efficiency is taken as 98.8% (from Foster Wheeler Energy Limited experience)
and will control the emission level below new source performance standard limit.
• The nitrogen level in the combined feed to the combustor is similar to coal when
ammonia species are included, but more like untreated biomass when they are not.
o Impact of global warming potential of NOx is small relative to global warming
potential of CO
2
emission from the process.
Cost Analysis
• The total plant investment cost will be determined by applying overhead and contingency
factors (NREL, ConocoPhillips Company experience and literature) to installed
equipment costs.
o 20% (of total direct and indirect cost) contingency is assumed for n
th
plant, and
30% for pioneer plant.
• Warehouse cost is 1.5% of total installed equipment cost, and site development cost is
9% of the installed cost of process equipment areas (A100, A200, A300 and A500)
(Delta-T/NREL/published data).
o The estimates are location sensitive.
• Total installed cost (TIC) includes total installed equipment cost, warehouse cost, and site
development cost.
• Indirect cost involves:
o Engineering and supervision (32% of purchased equipment cost)
o Construction expenses (34% of purchased equipment cost)
o Legal and contractor’s fees (23% of purchased equipment cost).
• Total direct and indirect cost (TD&IC) includes TIC and indirect costs.
• Working capital is assumed as 15% of FCI (FCI is the sum of TD&IC and contingency).
• Total capital investment is the sum of FCI and working capital.
• To determine the product value per gallon of ethanol (PV), a discounted cash flow
analysis will be used (after knowing the major three costs areas: (i) total capital
investment, (ii) variable operating costs, and (iii) fixed operating cost).
36
o A 10% discounted cash flow rate of return will be used over a 20-year plant life.
o The plant is considered 100% equity financed.
• For federal tax return purposes, depreciation will be determined as follows :
o IRS modified accelerated cost recovery system, which includes general
depreciation system, will be followed that allows both the 200% and 150%
declining balance (DB) methods of depreciation.
o This allows the shortest recovery period and the largest deductions.
o According to the IRS, the steam production plant should use a 20-year recovery
period (depreciated over 20 years).
o Any other property not specifically described in the publication should be
depreciated using a 7-year recovery period.
o Property listed with a recovery period less than 10 years will use the
200% DB depreciation method and a 20-year recovery period property
will use the 150% DB depreciation.
o State tax will not be considered for the calculation (because the location of the
plant is not specified).
• Return on investment will be calculated on a per gallon basis. Income tax will be
averaged over the plant life and that average will be calculated on a per gallon basis.

37
Appendix B - Sensitivity Parameters and Values

Table B-1. Sensitivity Parameters for Pretreatment and Saccharification (AREA 200)
Parameters
Dilute Acid (2007 EVD) 2-Stage Dilute acid Hot Water AFEX
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Base Case (50%) Sensitivity (0-100%) Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%) 1
st
Stage 2
nd
Stage 1
st
Stage 2
nd
Stage
Pretreatment
Temperature (
o
C) 190 190-200 190 210 180 190 190-200 108 90-110
Pressure (atm) 11.6 12 18.5 12.6 12.6-15.4 18.7
Retention time (min) 2 1-10 2 15 15-5 5 5
Catalyst (Acid/NH
3
)
conc (%)
1.9 0.71-2.4 1.64 1.80 0.5-2.66 2.6 0 N/A 1.1 0.5-1.3
Solid consistency (%) 29.6 18-29.6% 30 30 12.9 12.9-20 48 20-70
Conversion (%)
Cellulose → Glucose 6.3 6.3-23 6.3 42.4 23 48 0.32 2-2.5 0 N/A
Xylan → Xylose oligomer 2.7 2.7 0 0 N/A 0.5 N/A
Xylan → Xylose 82.5 33-89.7 82.5 14.3 33-89.7 0-41.5 2.4 7.3-25 0 N/A
Saccharification
Conversion (%)
Cellulose → Glucose 91.09 67-97 89.97 65 95.9 75
Xylan → Xylose 57.13 52.4 56.61 63 77.7 55-90

38
Table B-2. Sensitivity Parameters for Overall Process
Parameters
Dilute Acid (2007 EVD) 2-Stage Dilute acid Hot Water AFEX
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Base Case
(50%)
Sensitivity
(0-100%)
Feedstock Cost ($/MT)
a
83 55-110 55 83-110 83 55-110 83 55-110
Pretreatment Reactor Installed
Cost (MM$)
b

23 14-32.7 0.32 0.22-0.62 25.7 20-40
Project Contingency (%) 20 10-30 20 20-30 20 10-30 20 10-30
Installation Factor or Cost (MM$)
Factor 2.58 2.50-3.05 2.59 2.50-3.05 2.05 2-4
Total Installed Equipment Cost 164.1 159-194 156 151-184 211.5 200-275
Enzyme Cost ($/MT broth) 507 256-1460 507 256-1460 507 256-1460
Enzyme loading (mg protein/g
cellulose)
31.3 20-33.3 31.3 20-33.3 31.3 20-33.3 31.3 20-33.3
Value of Excess Electricity/
Byproduct Credit ($/kWh)
0.054 0.03-0.06 0.054 0.03-0.05 0.04 0.03-0.05 0.04 0.03-0.05
a
Feedstock contains 25% moisture.
b
2007 indexed installed equipment cost.

39
Appendix C - Sensitivity Results

Table C-1. Impact of Pretreatment Parameters on PV

Sensitivity
Production
(MMGal/Yr)
PV
Parameter Values ($/Gal)
Change
(%)
a

Dilute Acid Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario
Base Case 53.4 3.40
Pretreatment
High
b

Scenarios
Reactor
temperature
(
o
C)
200.0 53.4 3.40 0
Residence
time (min)
10 53.4 3.93 15.6
Acid
concentration
(%)
2.4 53.4 3.40 0
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
23 53.4 3.42 0.6
Xyl to Xylose
(% conv)
89.7 53.9 3.37 -0.9
Low
b

Scenarios
Residence
time (min)
1 53.4 3.34 -1.8
Solid
consistency
(%)
18.0 53.4 3.47 2.1
Acid
concentration
(%)
0.71 53.4 3.40 0
Xyl to Xylose
(% conv)
33 50.1 3.61 6.2
Saccharification
High
Scenarios
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
97 54.9 3.31 -2.6
Low
Scenarios
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
67 44.6 4.07 19.7
Xylan to
Xylose (%
conv)
52.4 53.3 3.41 0.3
Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario
Base Case 42.5 4.38
1
st
Stage Acid
Pretreatment
(Pretreatment)
High
Scenarios
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
23 47.3 3.93 -10.3
Xylan to
Xylose
(% conv)
89.7 44.4 4.19 -4.3
40

Sensitivity
Production
(MMGal/Yr)
PV
Parameter Values ($/Gal)
Change
(%)
a

Other
hemicellulose
to monomers
(% conv)
90 42.5 4.38 0
Acid
Concentration
(%)
2.66 42.5 4.38 0
Low
Scenarios
Reactor
temperature
(
o
C)
180 42.5 4.37 -0.2
Acid
concentration
(%)
0.5 42.5 4.38 0
Xylan to
Xylose
(% conv)
33 29.5 6.29 43.6
2
nd
Stage Acid
Pretreatment
(Saccharification)
High
Scenarios
Cellulose to
glucose
(% conv)
48 45.7 4.08 -6.8
Xylan to Xylose
(% conv)
41.5 43.9 4.24 -3.2
Acid
concentration
2.6 42.4 4.41 0.7
Low
Scenarios
Xylan to
Xylose
(% conv)
0 41.8 4.45 1.6
Hot Water Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario
Base Case 39.0 4.29
Pretreatment
High
Scenarios

Reactor
temperature
(
o
C)
200 39.0 4.29 0
Residence
time (min)
20 39.0 4.29 0
Solid
consistency
(%)
20.0 39.0 3.84 -10.2
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
2 39.1 4.29 0
Xylan to
Oligomer (%
conv)
60 38.5 4.36 1.6
Xylan to
Xylose (%
conv)
7.3 39.5 4.24 -1.1
Low
Scenarios

Residence
time (min)
5 39.0 4.29 0
Xylan to
oligomer
(% conv)
25 42.9 3.92 -8.4
41

Sensitivity
Production
(MMGal/Yr)
PV
Parameter Values ($/Gal)
Change
(%)
a

Xylan to
Xylose
(% conv)
63 39.6 4.23 -1.4
Saccharification
High
Scenarios
Cell Cellulose
to Glucose
(% conv)
65 29.7 5.61 30.7
Low
Scenarios
Cellulose to
Glucose
(% conv)
65 29.7 5.61 30.7
AFEX — 2007 EVD Scenario
Base Case 46.2 3.69
Pretreatment

High
Scenarios
Reactor
temperature
(
o
C)
110 46.1 3.69 0
Solids
consistency
(%)
70 46.2 4.16 12.7
Xylan to
Oligomer
(%conv)
20 46.2 3.69 0
Ammonia
loading (ratio
to dry stover)
1:0.8 46.2 3.69 0
Low
Scenarios
Reactor
temperature
(
o
C)
80 46.0 3.68 -0.3
Solid
consistency
(%)
20 46.2 3.31 -10.3
Xylan to
Xylose
(%conv)
90 46.9 3.65 -1.1

Ammonia
loading (ratio
to dry stover)
1:1.3 46.2 3.70 0.3
Saccharification
High
Scenarios
Xylan to
Xylose
(%conv)
55 45.8 3.80 3.0
Low
Scenarios
Cellulose to
Glucose
(%conv)
75 43.2 3.87 4.9
a
Percentage change of PV from 2007 EVD scenarios.
b
High and low refer to the value of each parameter with
respect to the base case. Not all parameters were tested at both high and low scenarios.


42
Table C-2. Impact of Overall Process and Economic Parameters on PV
Sensitivity Parameters
Base Case Low High
Value
PV
($/gal)
Value
PV
($/gal)
Value
PV
($/gal)
Feedstock Cost ($/MT) 83 3.40 55 3.04 110 3.77
Pretreatment Reactor (MM$) 23 3.40 14 3.34 32.7 3.47
Installed Equipment Cost (MM$) 164.1 3.40 159 3.38 194.0 3.55
(Corresponding Installation factor) (2.58) (2.5) (3.05)
Enzyme Cost ($/MT of broth) 507 3.40 256 3.05 1460 4.73
Electricity Price ($/kWh) 0.054 3.40 0.06 3.38 0.03 3.50
Enzyme Loading (mg/g protein) 31.3 3.40 20 3.15 33.3 3.45
Contingency (%) 20 3.40 10 3.31 30 3.50

43
Appendix D - Cost Analysis Result Summary

Table D-1. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
UCR Dilute Acid - Corn Stover, Current Case
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.40
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 53.4 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 76.3
Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 108.4
Pretreatment $36,200,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
Saccharification & Fermentation $21,800,000 CSL 16.0
Distillation and Solids Recovery $26,100,000 Cellulase 69.5
Wastewater Treatment $3,500,000 Other Raw Materials 17.8
Storage $3,200,000 Waste Disposal 12.7
Boiler/Turbogenerator $56,100,000 Electricity -21.9
Utilities $6,300,000 Fixed Costs 18.5
Total Installed Equipment Cost $164,100,000 Capital Depreciation 30.5
Average Income Tax 26.7
Added Costs
a
$211,800,000 Average Return on Investment 62.2
(% of TCI) 56% Operating Costs ($/yr)
Working Capital 49,030,000 Feedstock $57,900,000
Total Capital Investment $375,900,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
CSL $8,500,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.07 Cellulase $37,100,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $7.04 Other Raw Matl. Costs $9,500,000
Waste Disposal $6,800,000
Loan Rate N/A Electricity -$11,700,000
Term (years) N/A Fixed Costs $9,900,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.170 Capital Depreciation $16,300,000
Average Income Tax $14,300,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 55.9 Average Return on Investment $33,300,000
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.29 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 4.06
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.23
Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 17.5
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed–LHV (Btu/lb) 2,209
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Boiler Feed–Water Fraction 0.542
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Specific Operating Conditions
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 65% Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.5
Saccharification Time (days) 5.0
Conversion Cellulose-->Glucose 0.9109
Fermentation Time (days) 2.0
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
44
Table D-2. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Processes
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
UCR Dilute Acid - Pretreatment yields based on NREL FY08 SOT
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.60
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 50.8 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 72.5
Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 114.0
Pretreatment $38,000,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
Saccharification & Fermentation $21,800,000 CSL 16.5
Distillation and Solids Recovery $25,700,000 Cellulase 73.1
Wastewater Treatment $5,800,000 Other Raw Materials 18.8
Storage $3,100,000 Waste Disposal 13.0
Boiler/Turbogenerator $57,600,000 Electricity -24.8
Utilities $6,600,000 Fixed Costs 19.8
Total Installed Equipment Cost $169,400,000 Capital Depreciation 33.3
Average Income Tax 29.0
Added Costs
a
$219,100,000 Average Return on Investment 67.5
(% of TCI) 56% Operating Costs ($/yr)
Working Capital 50,670,000 Feedstock $57,900,000
Total Capital Investment $388,500,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
CSL $8,400,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.34 Cellulase $37,100,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $7.65 Other Raw Matl. Costs $9,600,000
Waste Disposal $6,600,000
Loan Rate N/A Electricity -$12,600,000
Term (years) N/A Fixed Costs $10,100,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.169 Capital Depreciation $16,900,000
Average Income Tax $14,700,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 53.1 Average Return on Investment $34,200,000
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.47
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 4.58
Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.39
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical)
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 18.2
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,286
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 62% Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.539
Specific Operating Conditions
Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 35.1
Saccharification Time (days) 5.0
Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.9109
Fermentation Time (days) 2.0
45
Table D-3. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Process
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
Hot Water - Corn Stover, Current Case
Hot Water Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $4.44
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 39.0 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 55.7
Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 148.4
Pretreatment $6,700,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
Saccharification & Fermentation $30,200,000 CSL 28.5
Distillation and Solids Recovery $30,900,000 Cellulase 95.1
Wastewater Treatment $1,900,000 Other Raw Materials 5.1
Storage $3,300,000 Waste Disposal 3.5
Boiler/Turbogenerator $65,800,000 Electricity -29.0
Utilities $6,700,000 Fixed Costs 24.5
Total Installed Equipment Cost $156,300,000 Capital Depreciation 40.2
Average Income Tax 36.3
Added Costs
a
$204,800,000 Average Return on Investment 90.9
(% of TCI) 57% Operating Costs ($/yr)
Working Capital 47,100,000 Feedstock $57,900,000
Total Capital Investment $361,100,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
CSL $11,100,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $4.01 Cellulase $37,100,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $9.26 Other Raw Matl. Costs $2,000,000
Waste Disposal $1,400,000
Loan Rate N/A Electricity -$11,300,000
Term (years) N/A Fixed Costs $9,600,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.181 Capital Depreciation $15,700,000
Average Income Tax $14,200,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 40.8 Average Return on Investment $35,500,000
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $4.27
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 5.37
Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 3.30
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical)
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 40.7
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,354
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 47% Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.529
Specific Operating Conditions
Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.1
Saccharification Time (days) 5.0
Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.8997
Fermentation Time (days) 2.0
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
46
Table D-4. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case)
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Hydrolysis
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $4.38
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 32.8 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 46.9
Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 176.4
Pretreatment $44,900,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
Saccharification & Fermentation $9,700,000 CSL 26.2
Distillation and Solids Recovery $26,700,000 Cellulase 0.0
Wastewater Treatment $4,600,000 Other Raw Materials 32.3
Storage $2,800,000 Waste Disposal 22.0
Boiler/Turbogenerator $66,200,000 Electricity -51.3
Utilities $6,900,000 Fixed Costs 31.0
Total Installed Equipment Cost $172,700,000 Capital Depreciation 51.8
Average Income Tax 45.8
Added Costs
a
$218,300,000 Average Return on Investment 103.5
(% of TCI) 56% Operating Costs ($/yr)
Working Capital (WC) 51,000,000 Feedstock $57,900,000
Total Capital Investment $391,000,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
CSL $8,600,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $5.26 Cellulase $0
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $11.92 Other Raw Matl. Costs $10,600,000
Waste Disposal $7,200,000
Loan Rate N/A Electricity -$16,800,000
Term (years) N/A Fixed Costs $10,200,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.169 Capital Depreciation $17,000,000
Average Income Tax $15,000,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 34.3 Average Return on Investment $34,000,000
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $4.21
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 9.50
Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 3.46
Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 35.4
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,379
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.521
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Specific Operating Conditions
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 40% Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) 2,000
Feed rate (dry tons/day) 2,205
Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) 979
Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) 1,079
Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) 30
Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) 34
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
47
Table D-5. Cost Analysis Result Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case)
AFEX with Saccharification and Cofermentation
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.69
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 46.2 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 66.0
Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 125.3
Pretreatment $30,800,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
CSL 19.4
Saccharification & Fermentation $23,500,000 Cellulase 80.4
Distillation and Solids Recovery $27,500,000 Other Raw Materials 14.1
Wastewater Treatment $1,600,000 Waste Disposal 2.9
Storage $2,800,000 Electricity -36.7
Boiler/Turbogenerator $62,000,000 Fixed Costs 21.6
Utilities $8,400,000 Capital Depreciation 36.4
Total Installed Equipment Cost $167,400,000 Average Income Tax 32.0
Average Return on Investment 73.4
Added Costs
a
$218,600,000 Operating Costs ($/yr)
(% of TCI) 57% Feedstock $57,900,000
Working Capital 50,350,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
Total Capital Investment $386,000,000 CSL $8,900,000
Cellulase $37,100,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.63 Other Raw Matl. Costs $6,500,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $8.36 Waste Disposal $1,400,000
Electricity -$16,900,000
Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $10,000,000
Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $16,800,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.170 Average Income Tax $14,800,000
Average Return on Investment $33,900,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 48.3 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 5.23
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.56 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.57
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 35.9
Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,295
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.538
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Specific Operating Conditions
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) 2,000
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 56% Feed rate (dry tons/day) 2,205
Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) 730
Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) 804
Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) 48
Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) 20
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
48
Table D-6. Cost Analysis Result Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
UCR Dilute Acid - Corn Stover, Current Case
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (On-site Enzyme Production)
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.54
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 47.4 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 67.7
Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 122.1
Pretreatment $36,200,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
On-site Enzyme Production $23,700,000 CSL 19.8
Saccharification & Fermentation $21,800,000 Cellulase 0.0
Distillation and Solids Recovery $25,400,000 Other Raw Materials 20.4
Wastewater Treatment $3,500,000 Waste Disposal 14.3
Storage $2,500,000 Electricity 1.6
Boiler/Turbogenerator $57,200,000 Fixed Costs 22.7
Utilities $6,800,000 Capital Depreciation 39.9
Total Installed Equipment Cost $187,800,000 Average Income Tax 34.0
Average Return on Investment 79.2
Added Costs
a
$246,400,000 Operating Costs ($/yr)
(% of TCI) 57% Feedstock $57,900,000
Working Capital 56,630,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
Total Capital Investment $434,200,000 CSL $9,400,000
Cellulase $0
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.96 Other Raw Matl. Costs $9,700,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $9.16 Waste Disposal $6,800,000
Electricity $800,000
Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $10,700,000
Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $18,900,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.167 Average Income Tax $16,100,000
Average Return on Investment $37,500,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 49.6
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.42 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) -0.30
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 7.63
Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 19.7
Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,239
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.538
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) Specific Operating Conditions
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 82.5 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 0.0
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 106.9 Saccharification Time (days) 5.0
57% Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.9109
Fermentation Time (days) 2.0
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
49
Table D-7. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Pervaporation Purification Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case)
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (Pervaporation Separation)
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.75
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 53.9 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 77.0
Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $10,900,000 Feedstock 107.5
Pretreatment $36,200,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
CSL 15.8
Saccharification & Fermentation $21,900,000 Cellulase 68.9
Distillation and Solids Recovery $70,800,000 Other Raw Materials 18.4
Wastewater Treatment $3,300,000 Waste Disposal 12.6
Storage $3,300,000 Electricity -25.3
Boiler/Turbogenerator $55,900,000 Fixed Costs 21.4
Utilities $7,000,000 Capital Depreciation 40.5
Total Installed Equipment Cost $209,200,000 Average Income Tax 34.1
Average Return on Investment 81.0
Added Costs
a
$226,500,000 Operating Costs ($/yr)
(% of TCI) 52% Feedstock $57,900,000
Working Capital $65,350,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
Total Capital Investment $501,000,000 CSL $8,500,000
Cellulase $37,100,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.88 Other Raw Matl. Costs $9,900,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $8.09 Waste Disposal $6,800,000
Electricity -$13,600,000
Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $11,500,000
Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $21,800,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.192 Average Income Tax $18,400,000
Average Return on Investment $43,600,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 56.4 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 4.68
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.61 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.25
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 11.9
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 2,193
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.543
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Specific Operating Conditions
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 65% Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) 2,000
Feed rate (dry tons/day) 2,205
Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) 626
Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) 690
Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) 30
Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) 20
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.
50
Table D-8. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Processes
Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis
Corn Stover Design Case: 2005 Post Enzyme-Subcontract Case - 90% Cellulose in 7 days @ 1.9X loading
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (Separate C5 & C6 Sugar fermentation)
All Values in 2007$
Product Value $3.67
Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) 55.5 Ethanol at 68°F
Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 79.3
Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon $83
Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10%
Equity Percent of Total Investment 100%
Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol)
Feed Handling $11,400,000 Feedstock 104.3
Pretreatment $34,200,000 Biomass to Boiler 0.0
CSL 33.1
Saccharification & Fermentation $29,600,000 Cellulase 66.9
Distillation and Solids Recovery $27,300,000 Other Raw Materials 35.9
Wastewater Treatment $3,100,000 Waste Disposal 2.6
Storage $5,100,000 Electricity -11.6
Boiler/Turbogenerator $50,900,000 Fixed Costs 18.0
Utilities $6,200,000 Capital Depreciation 30.3
Total Installed Equipment Cost $167,800,000 Average Income Tax 26.0
Average Return on Investment 61.6
Added Costs
a
$218,000,000 Operating Costs ($/yr)
(% of TCI) 57% Feedstock $57,900,000
Working Capital $50,320,000 Biomass to Boiler $0
Total Capital Investment $385,800,000 CSL $18,400,000
Cellulase $37,100,000
Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.02 Other Raw Matl. Costs $19,900,000
Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $6.95 Waste Disposal $1,400,000
Electricity -$6,500,000
Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $10,000,000
Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $16,800,000
Capital Charge Factor 0.170 Average Income Tax $14,400,000
Average Return on Investment $34,200,000
Denatured Fuel Prod. (MMgal / yr) 58.1
Denatured Fuel Min. Sales Price $3.54 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 2.16
Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.739 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.33
Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 19.9
Boiler Feed -- LHV (Btu/lb) 1,489
Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -- Water Fraction 0.547
Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.5 Specific Operating Conditions
Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.9 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.4
Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 67% Saccharification Time (days) 5.0
Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.9109
Fermentation Time (days) 2.0
a
Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal and contractor fees)
and contingency.

51
Appendix E - Equipment List and Costs, Installation Factors, and Installed Equipment Costs for Dilute Acid
Pretreatment Processes

Table E-1. Equipment Lists and Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
C-101 2
Bale Transport
Conveyor
98,040 111,111 1.13 $400,000 2000 $800,000 0.6 $862,388 1.62 $1,397,068 $1,862,521
C-102 2
Bale Unwrapping
Conveyor
98,040 111,111 1.13 $150,000 2000 $300,000 0.6 $323,395 1.19 $384,840 $513,056
C-103 1
Belt Press Discharge
Conveyor
98,040 111,111 1.13 $50,000 2000 $50,000 0.6 $53,899 1.89 $101,870 $135,809
C-104 4
Shredder Feed
Conveyor
98,040 111,111 1.13 $60,000 2000 $240,000 0.6 $258,716 1.38 $357,028 $475,978
M-101 2 Truck Scales 98,040 111,111 1.13 $34,000 2000 $68,000 0.6 $73,303 2.47 $181,058 $241,380
M-102 4 1
Truck Unloading
Forklift
98,040 111,111 1.13 $18,000 2000 $90,000 1 $101,999 1 $101,999 $135,982
M-103 4 Bale Moving Forklift 98,040 111,111 1.13 $18,000 2000 $72,000 1 $81,599 1 $81,599 $108,785
M-104 2
Corn Stover Wash
Table
98,040 111,111 1.13 $104,000 2000 $208,000 0.6 $224,221 2.39 $535,888 $714,426
M-105 4 Shredder 98,040 111,111 1.13 $302,000 2000 $1,208,000 0.6 $1,302,205 1.38 $1,797,043 $2,395,754
M-106 1
Concrete
Feedstock-Storage
Slab
98,040 111,111 1.13 $450,655 2000 $450,655 1 $510,738 2.2 $1,123,624 $1,497,976
M-107 1
Polymer Feed
System
98,040 111,111 1.13 $30,000 2000 $30,000 0.6 $32,340 2.28 $73,734 $98,300
P-101 2 1 Wash Table Pump 98,040 111,111 1.13 $20,000 2000 $60,000 0.79 $66,236 3.87 $256,332 $341,732
P-102 2 1 Wash Water Pump 98,040 111,111 1.13 $15,000 2000 $45,000 0.79 $49,677 5.19 $257,822 $343,719
P-103 1 1
Clarifier
Underflow Pump
98,040 111,111 1.13 $6,000 2000 $12,000 0.79 $13,247 13.41 $177,644 $236,828
P-104 1 1
Clarified Water
Pump
98,040 111,111 1.13 $15,000 2000 $30,000 0.79 $33,118 7.07 $234,143 $312,151
P-105 1 1
Belt Press Sump
Pump
98,040 111,111 1.13 $19,000 2000 $38,000 0.79 $41,949 2.92 $122,492 $163,301
S-101 1 Clarifier Thickener 98,040 111,111 1.13 $135,000 2000 $135,000 0.6 $145,528 1.51 $219,747 $292,959
52
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
S-102 1 Belt Press 98,040 111,111 1.13 $100,000 2000 $100,000 0.6 $107,798 1.25 $134,748 $179,641
S-103 1
Magnetic
Separator
159,948 111,111 0.69 $13,863 1998 $13,863 0.6 $11,141 1.3 $14,483 $19,537
T-101 1 Wash Water Tank 98,040 111,111 1.13 $50,000 2000 $50,000 0.51 $53,296 2.8 $149,227 $198,945
T-102 1
Clarifier Thickener
Tank
98,040 111,111 1.13 $135,000 2000 $135,000 0.51 $143,898 3.04 $437,450 $583,192
A100 Subtotal $4,135,518 $4,490,691 1.81 $8,139,839 $10,851,970

A-201 1
In-line Sulfuric
Acid Mixer
55,308 102,884 1.86 $1,900 1997 $1,900 0.48 $2,559 1 $2,559 $3,479
A-205 1
Hydrolyzate Mix
Tank Agitator
358,810 236,880 0.66 $36,000 1997 $36,000 0.51 $29,129 1.2 $34,955 $47,517
A-209 1
Overliming Tank
Agitator
167,050 301,831 1.81 $19,800 1997 $19,800 0.51 $26,773 1.3 $34,805 $47,313
A-224 1
Reacidification
Tank Agitator
167,280 306,440 1.83 $65,200 1997 $65,200 0.51 $88,782 1.2 $106,539 $144,827
A-232 1
Reslurrying Tank
Agitator
358,810 416,118 1.16 $36,000 1997 $36,000 0.51 $38,826 1.2 $46,591 $63,335
C-201 1
Hydrolyzate Screw
Conveyor
225,140 236,880 1.05 $59,400 1997 $59,400 0.78 $61,802 1.3 $80,343 $109,217
C-202 1
Hydrolyzate
Washed Solids
Belt Conveyor
91,633 77,862 0.85 $80,000 2000 $80,000 0.76 $70,686 1.45 $102,495 $136,643
C-225 1
Lime Solids
Feeder
$3,900 1997 $3,900 $3,900 1.3 $5,070 $6,892
H-200 1
Hydrolyzate
Cooler
1,988 2,288 1.15 $45,000 1997 $45,000 0.51 $48,340 2.1 $101,515 $137,997
H-201 2 1
Beer Column Feed
Economizer
12,532 12,217 0.97 $132,800 1997 $398,400 0.68 $391,574 2.1 $822,304 $1,117,823
H-205 1
Pneumapress Vent
Condensor
120 176 1.46 $15,385 2000 $15,385 0.68 $19,940 2.1 $41,874 $55,825
H-244 2 1
Waste Vapor
Condensor
12,532 1,710 0.14 $132,800 1997 $398,400 0.68 $102,824 2.1 $215,931 $293,532
M-202 3
Prehydrolysis/Scre
w Feeder/Reactor
271,313 281,602 1.04 $2,454,982 2000 $7,364,947 0.6 $7,531,285 2.29 $17,246,643 $22,992,607
P-201 1 1 Sulfuric Acid 1,647 8,300 5.04 $4,800 1997 $9,600 0.79 $34,446 2.8 $96,450 $131,112
53
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
Pump
P-205 2 1
Pneumapress Feed
Pump
50,299 42,588 0.85 $15,416 2000 $46,248 0.79 $40,551 3.34 $135,440 $180,563
P-209 1 1
Overlimed
Hydrolyzate Pump
167,050 301,831 1.81 $10,700 1997 $21,400 0.79 $34,149 2.8 $95,617 $129,980
P-211 1 1
Primary Filtrate
Pump
136,350 159,432 1.17 $32,549 2000 $65,098 0.79 $73,659 3.56 $262,225 $349,590
P-213 1 1
Wash Filtrate
Pump
131,530 136,282 1.04 $49,803 2000 $99,606 0.79 $102,438 2.71 $277,607 $370,096
P-222 1 1
Filtered
Hydrolyzate Pump
162,090 292,599 1.81 $10,800 1997 $21,600 0.79 $34,443 2.8 $96,441 $131,099
P-223 1
Lime Unloading
Blower
547 6,117 11.18 $47,600 1998 $47,600 0.5 $159,176 1.4 $222,847 $300,600
P-224 2 1
Saccharification
Feed Pump
358,810 416,118 1.16 $61,368 1998 $184,104 0.7 $204,225 2.8 $571,831 $771,348
P-239 1 1
Reacidified Liquor
Pump
167,280 306,440 1.83 $10,800 1997 $21,600 0.79 $34,845 2.8 $97,567 $132,631
S-205 3 Pneumapress Filter 50,299 42,588 0.85 $1,575,000 2000 $4,725,000 0.6 $4,276,015 1.05 $4,489,816 $5,985,662
S-222 1
Hydroclone &
Rotary Drum Filter
5,195 13,841 2.66 $165,000 1998 $165,000 0.39 $241,801 1.4 $338,521 $456,634
S-227 1
LimeDust Vent
Baghouse
548 6,117 11.16 $32,200 1997 $32,200 1 $359,422 1.5 $539,133 $732,886
T-201 1 Sulfuric Acid Tank 1,647 8,300 5.04 $5,760 1996 $5,760 0.71 $18,160 1.4 $25,423 $34,995
T-203 1 Blowdown Tank 270,300 281,602 1.04 $64,100 1997 $64,100 0.93 $66,589 1.2 $79,907 $108,624
T-205 1
Hydrolyzate
Mixing Tank
358,810 236,880 0.66 $44,800 1997 $44,800 0.71 $33,361 1.2 $40,033 $54,420
T-209 1 Overliming Tank 167,050 301,831 1.81 $71,000 1997 $71,000 0.71 $108,061 1.4 $151,286 $205,654
T-211 1
Primary Filtrate
Tank
136,350 159,432 1.17 $36,000 2000 $36,000 0.71 $40,228 2.45 $98,558 $131,394
T-213 1 Wash Filtrate Tank 131,530 136,282 1.04 $18,000 2000 $18,000 0.71 $18,459 3.68 $67,930 $90,562
T-220 1 Lime Storage Bin 548 6,117 11.16 $69,200 1997 $69,200 0.46 $209,928 1.3 $272,906 $370,983
T-224 1
Reacidification
Tank
167,280 306,440 1.83 $147,800 1997 $147,800 0.51 $201,258 1.2 $241,510 $328,304
T-232 1 Slurrying Tank 358,810 416,118 1.16 $44,800 1997 $44,800 0.71 $49,770 1.2 $59,724 $81,188
54
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
A200 Subtotal
$14,464,84
8
$14,757,407 1.84 $27,102,397 $36,235,330

A-300 12
Ethanol Fermentor
Agitator
$19,676 1996 $236,112 $236,112 1.2 $283,334 $390,002
A-301 1
Seed Hold Tank
Agitator
41,777 40,806 0.98 $12,551 1996 $12,551 0.51 $12,401 1.2 $14,882 $20,484
A-304 2
4th Seed Vessel
Agitator
41,777 40,806 0.98 $11,700 1997 $23,400 0.51 $23,121 1.2 $27,745 $37,716
A-305 2
5th Seed Vessel
Agitator
41,777 40,806 0.98 $10,340 1996 $20,680 0.51 $20,433 1.2 $24,520 $33,751
A-306 2
Beer Surge Tank
Agitator
381,700 429,208 1.12 $48,700 1998 $97,400 0.51 $103,405 1.2 $124,086 $167,381
A-310 30
Saccharification
Tank Agitator
$19,676 1996 $590,280 $590,280 1.2 $708,336 $975,006
F-300 6 Ethanol Fermentor $493,391 1998 $2,960,346 $2,960,346 1.2 $3,552,415 $4,791,884
F-301 2
1st Seed
Fermentor
$14,700 1997 $29,400 $29,400 2.8 $82,320 $111,904
F-302 2
2nd Seed
Fermentor
$32,600 1997 $65,200 $65,200 2.8 $182,560 $248,168
F-303 2
3rd Seed
Fermentor
$81,100 1997 $162,200 $162,200 2.8 $454,160 $617,376
F-304 2
4th Seed
Fermentor
41,777 40,806 0.98 $39,500 1997 $79,000 0.93 $77,291 1.2 $92,749 $126,081
F-305 2
5th Seed
Fermentor
41,777 40,806 0.98 $147,245 1998 $294,490 0.51 $290,978 1.2 $349,174 $471,004
H-300 6 1
Fermentation
Cooler
67,820 129,602 1.91 $4,000 1997 $28,000 0.78 $46,402 2.1 $97,444 $132,463
H-301 1 1
Hydrolyzate
Heater
256 376 1.47 $22,400 2001 $44,800 0.68 $58,229 2.1 $122,282 $162,939
H-302 3
Saccharified Slurry
Cooler
3,765 0 0.00 $25,409 1998 $76,227 0.78 $0 2.1 $0 $0
H-304 1
4th Seed
Fermentor Coil
0.1380 0.2846 2.06 $3,300 1997 $3,300 0.83 $6,017 1.2 $7,220 $9,815
H-305 1
5th Seed
Fermentor Coil
0.1380 0.2846 2.06 $18,800 1997 $18,800 0.98 $38,208 1.2 $45,849 $62,326
H-310 15 1
Saccharification
Cooler
67,820 1,696 0.03 $4,000 1997 $64,000 0.78 $3,603 2.1 $7,566 $10,286
55
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
P-300 6 1
Fermentation
Recirc/Transfer
Pump
67,737 129,602 1.91 $8,000 1997 $56,000 0.79 $93,497 2.8 $261,792 $355,875
P-301 1 1
Seed Hold
Transfer Pump
41,777 40,806 0.98 $22,194 1998 $44,388 0.7 $43,663 1.4 $61,128 $82,457
P-302 2
Seed Transfer
Pump
41,777 40,806 0.98 $54,088 1998 $108,176 0.7 $106,409 1.4 $148,973 $200,951
P-306 1 1
Beer Transfer
Pump
381,701 429,208 1.12 $17,300 1997 $34,600 0.79 $37,960 2.8 $106,287 $144,484
P-310 15 1
Saccharification
Recirc/Transfer
Pump
67,737 1,696 0.03 $8,000 1997 $128,000 0.79 $6,952 2.8 $19,465 $26,461
T-301 1 Seed Hold Tank 41,777 40,806 0.98 $161,593 1998 $161,593 0.51 $159,666 1.2 $191,599 $258,450
T-306 1 Beer Storage Tank 381,700 429,208 1.12 $237,700 1998 $237,700 0.71 $258,345 1.2 $310,014 $418,181
T-310 15
Saccharification
Tank
$493,391 1998 $7,400,865 $7,400,865 1.2 $8,881,038 $11,979,711
A300 Subtotal $12,977,508 $12,830,984 1.3 $16,156,940 $21,835,156
A400 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0

A-530 1
Recycled Water
Tank Agitator
179,446 263,502 1.47 $5,963 1998 $5,963 0.51 $7,254 1.3 $9,430 $12,720
C-501 1
Lignin Wet Cake
Screw
99,199 47,373 0.48 $31,700 1997 $31,700 0.78 $17,811 1.4 $24,936 $33,897
D-501 1 Beer Column 17 20 1.17 $478,100 1998 $478,100 0.68 $531,355 2.1 $1,115,846 $1,505,174
D-502 1
Rectification
Column
56,477 62,095 1.10 $525,800 1996 $525,800 0.68 $560,821 2.1 $1,177,724 $1,621,105
E-501 2
1st Effect
Evaporation
22,278 32,408 1.45 $544,595 1996 $1,089,190 0.68 $1,405,364 2.1 $2,951,265 $4,062,339
E-502 1
2nd Effect
Evaporation
22,278 32,408 1.45 $435,650 1996 $435,650 0.68 $562,112 2.1 $1,180,436 $1,624,839
E-503 2
3rd Effect
Evaporation
22,278 32,408 1.45 $435,650 1996 $871,300 0.68 $1,124,224 2.1 $2,360,871 $3,249,677
H-501 1 1
Beer Column
Reboiler
-
28.3092
-32 1.14 $158,374 1996 $316,748 0.68 $346,704 2.1 $728,079 $1,002,181
56
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
H-502 1
Rectification
Column Reboiler
-3.5547 -4 0.99 $29,600 1997 $29,600 0.68 $29,382 2.1 $61,702 $83,876
H-504 1
Beer Column
Condenser
1.0002 0 0.45 $29,544 1996 $29,544 0.68 $17,260 2.1 $36,246 $49,892
H-505 1
Start-up Rect.
Column Condenser
17.6595 19 1.06 $86,174 1996 $86,174 0.68 $89,788 2.1 $188,555 $259,542
H-512 1 1
Beer Column Feed
Interchanger
909 914 1.01 $19,040 1996 $38,080 0.68 $38,214 2.1 $80,250 $110,462
H-517 1 1
Evaporator
Condenser
24 33 1.35 $121,576 1996 $243,152 0.68 $297,600 2.1 $624,959 $860,240
M-503 1
Molecular Sieve (9
pieces)
20,491 19,052 0.93 $2,700,000 1998 $2,700,000 0.7 $2,565,867 1 $2,565,867 $3,461,120
P-501 1 1
Beer Column
Bottoms Pump
5,053 6,003 1.19 $42,300 1997 $84,600 0.79 $96,938 2.8 $271,425 $368,970
P-503 1 1
Beer Column
Reflux Pump
1.0002 0.4537 0.45 $1,357 1998 $2,714 0.79 $1,454 2.8 $4,070 $5,490
P-504 1 1
Rectification
Column Bottoms
Pump
31,507 36,584 1.16 $4,916 1998 $9,832 0.79 $11,064 2.8 $30,978 $41,787
P-505 1 1
Rectification
Column Reflux
Pump
18 19 1.06 $4,782 1998 $9,564 0.79 $10,030 2.8 $28,084 $37,883
P-511 2 1 1st Effect Pump 278,645 311,140 1.12 $19,700 1997 $59,100 0.79 $64,481 2.8 $180,547 $245,432
P-512 1 1 2nd Effect Pump 91,111 137,819 1.51 $13,900 1997 $27,800 0.79 $38,551 2.8 $107,944 $146,736
P-513 2 1 3rd Effect Pump 48,001 78,409 1.63 $8,000 1997 $24,000 0.79 $35,365 2.8 $99,022 $134,608
P-514 1 1
Evaporator
Condensate Pump
140,220 181,051 1.29 $12,300 1997 $24,600 0.79 $30,104 2.8 $84,290 $114,582
P-515 1
Scrubber Bottoms
Pump
15,377 18,179 1.18 $2,793 1998 $2,793 0.79 $3,188 2.8 $8,926 $12,040
P-530 1 1
Recycled Water
Pump
179,446 263,502 1.47 $10,600 1997 $21,200 0.79 $28,718 2.8 $80,409 $109,306
S-505 4 Pneumapress Filter 26,601 18,737 0.70 $1,418,750 2000 $5,675,000 0.6 $4,598,800 1.04 $4,782,752 $6,376,193
T-503 1
Beer Column
Relfux Drum
1.0002 0 0.45 $11,900 1997 $11,900 0.93 $5,706 2.1 $11,982 $16,288
T-505 1
Rectification
Column Reflux
17.6627 19 1.06 $45,600 1997 $45,600 0.72 $47,621 2.1 $100,005 $135,944
57
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
Drum
T-512 1 Vent Scrubber 18,523 18,916 1.02 $99,000 1998 $99,000 0.78 $100,635 2.1 $211,335 $285,071
T-514 1
Evaporator
Condensate Drum
164,760 181,051 1.10 $37,200 1998 $37,200 0.93 $40,609 2.1 $85,279 $115,034
T-530 1
Recycled Water
Tank
179,446 263,502 1.47 $14,515 1998 $14,515 0.745 $19,325 1.4 $27,055 $36,495
A500 Subtotal $13,030,419 $12,726,345 1.51 $19,220,269 $26,118,926

A-602 1
Equalization Basin
Agitator
188,129 85,599 0.46 $28,400 1997 $28,400 0.51 $19,007 1.2 $22,808 $31,005
A-606 1 Anaerobic Agitator 810,250 401,778 0.50 $30,300 1997 $30,300 0.51 $21,188 1.2 $25,425 $34,562
A-608 16
Aerobic Lagoon
Agitator
812 108 0.13 $31,250 1998 $500,000 0.51 $178,402 1.4 $249,763 $336,908
C-614 1
Aerobic Sludge
Screw
978 112 0.11 $5,700 1997 $5,700 0.78 $1,051 1.4 $1,471 $2,000
H-602 1
Anaerobic
Digestor Feed
Cooler
7,627 3,155 0.41 $128,600 1997 $128,600 0.74 $66,913 2.1 $140,518 $191,017
M-604 1
Nutrient Feed
System
$31,400 1998 $31,400 $31,400 2.58 $81,012 $109,278
M-606 1
Biogas Emergency
Flare
2,572 292 0.11 $20,739 1998 $20,739 0.6 $5,620 1.68 $9,442 $12,737
M-612 1
Filter Precoat
System
$3,000 1998 $3,000 $3,000 1.4 $4,200 $5,665
P-602 1 1
Anaerobic Reactor
Feed Pump
188,129 85,599 0.46 $11,400 1997 $22,800 0.79 $12,240 2.8 $34,271 $46,587
P-606 1 1
Aerobic Digestor
Feed Pump
185,782 85,335 0.46 $10,700 1997 $21,400 0.79 $11,574 2.8 $32,408 $44,055
P-608 1
Aerobic Sludge
Recycle Pump
5,862 679 0.12 $11,100 1997 $11,100 0.79 $2,022 1.4 $2,831 $3,848
P-610 1
Aerobic Sludge
Pump
5,862 679 0.12 $11,100 1997 $11,100 0.79 $2,022 1.4 $2,831 $3,848
P-611 1 1
Aerobic Digestion
Outlet Pump
187,827 85,560 0.46 $10,700 1997 $21,400 0.79 $11,498 2.8 $32,196 $43,766
P-614 1 1
Sludge Filtrate
Recycle Pump
4,885 567 0.12 $6,100 1997 $12,200 0.79 $2,226 2.8 $6,234 $8,474
58
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
P-616 1 1
Treated Water
Pump
181,965 84,881 0.47 $10,600 1997 $21,200 0.79 $11,607 2.8 $32,498 $44,178
S-600 1 Bar Screen 188,129 85,599 0.46 $117,818 1991 $117,818 0.3 $93,028 1.2 $111,634 $162,338
S-614 1 Belt Filter Press 438 58 0.13 $650,223 1998 $650,223 0.72 $151,646 1.8 $272,963 $368,203
T-602 1 Equalization Basin 188,129 85,599 0.46 $350,800 1998 $350,800 0.51 $234,772 1.42 $333,376 $449,694
T-606 1
Anaerobic
Digestor
810,250 401,778 0.50 $881,081 1998 $881,081 0.51 $616,103 1.04 $640,747 $864,309
T-608 1 Aerobic Digestor 19,506,756 8,960,675 0.46 $635,173 1998 $635,173 1 $291,775 1 $291,775 $393,578
T-610 1 Clarifier 185,782 85,335 0.46 $174,385 1998 $174,385 0.51 $117,272 1.96 $229,852 $310,050
A600 Subtotal $3,678,819 $1,884,366 1.36 $2,558,255 $3,466,097

A-701 1
Denaturant In-line
Mixer
19,436 19,838 1.02 $1,900 1997 $1,900 0.48 $1,919 1 $1,919 $2,608
A-720 1
CSL Storage Tank
Agitator
41,777 4,488 0.11 $12,551 1996 $12,551 0.51 $4,023 1.2 $4,828 $6,645
A-760 1
CSL/DAP Day
Tank Agitator
1,400 4,488 3.21 $12,795 2001 $12,795 0.51 $23,177 1.2 $27,813 $37,060
C-755 1 DAP Solids Feeder $3,900 1997 $3,900 $3,900 1.3 $5,070 $6,892
P-701 2 1
Ethanol Product
Pump
18,549 19,052 1.03 $7,500 1997 $22,500 0.79 $22,981 2.8 $64,347 $87,472
P-703 1 1
Sulfuric Acid
Pump
1,647 8,300 5.04 $8,000 1997 $16,000 0.79 $57,411 2.8 $160,750 $218,520
P-704 1 1 Firewater Pump 6,823 7,008 1.03 $18,400 1997 $36,800 0.79 $37,585 2.8 $105,238 $143,059
P-710 1 1 Gasoline Pump 887 786 0.89 $4,500 1997 $9,000 0.79 $8,181 2.8 $22,907 $31,139
P-720 1 1 CSL Pump 2,039 4,488 2.20 $8,800 1997 $17,600 0.79 $32,824 2.8 $91,908 $124,937
P-750 1 1 Cellulase Pump 6,823 8,712 1.28 $18,400 1997 $36,800 0.79 $44,637 2.8 $124,983 $169,900
P-755 1
DAP Unloading
Blower
154 30 0.19 $47,600 1998 $47,600 0.5 $20,922 1.4 $29,291 $39,511
P-760 1 1 CSL/DAP Pump 2,039 4,488 2.20 $8,800 1997 $17,600 0.79 $32,824 2.8 $91,908 $124,937
S-755 1
DAP Vent
Baghouse
548 30 0.05 $32,200 1997 $32,200 1 $1,748 1.5 $2,622 $3,565
59
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
T-701 2
Ethanol Product
Storage Tank
18,549 19,052 1.03 $165,800 1997 $331,600 0.51 $336,159 1.4 $470,623 $639,755
T-703 1
Sulfuric Acid
Storage Tank
1,647 8,300 5.04 $42,500 1997 $42,500 0.51 $96,961 1.2 $116,353 $158,168
T-704 1
Firewater Storage
Tank
6,822 7,008 1.03 $166,100 1997 $166,100 0.51 $168,392 1.4 $235,748 $320,472
T-709 1
Propane Storage
Tank
15 16 1.04 $24,834 2001 $24,834 0.72 $25,580 1.4 $35,812 $47,719
T-710 1
Gasoline Storage
Tank
887 786 0.89 $43,500 1997 $43,500 0.51 $40,902 1.4 $57,262 $77,841
T-720 1 CSL Storage Tank 2,039 4,488 2.20 $88,100 1997 $88,100 0.79 $164,307 1.4 $230,030 $312,699
T-750 2
Cellulase Storage
Tank
9,234 8,712 0.94 $125,900 2001 $251,800 0.79 $240,483 1.4 $336,676 $448,617
T-755 1 DAP Storage Bin 154 30 0.19 $33,384 2001 $33,384 0.44 $16,195 1.3 $21,054 $28,054
T-760 1
CSL/DAP Day
Tank
1,400 4,488 3.21 $30,084 2001 $30,084 0.79 $75,512 1.4 $105,717 $140,866
A700 Subtotal $1,279,148 $1,456,624 1.6 $2,342,860 $3,170,437

H-801 1
Burner
Combustion Air
Preheater
24.0337 13 0.56 $1,049,900 1997 $1,049,900 0.6 $739,305 1.5 $1,108,957 $1,507,493
H-811 1 BFW Preheater 415 226 0.54 $58,400 1997 $58,400 0.68 $38,647 2.1 $81,159 $110,325
M-803 1
Fluidized Bed
Combustion
Reactor
341,270 209,403 0.61 24,900,000 1998
$24,900,00
0
0.75 $17,262,891 1.3 $22,441,758 $30,271,886
M-804 1
Combustion Gas
Baghouse
652,517 450,947 0.69 $2,536,300 1998 $2,536,300 0.58 $2,047,058 1.5 $3,070,587 $4,141,941
M-811 1 Turbine/Generator 281,179 209,403 0.74 10000000 1998
$10,000,00
0
0.71 $8,111,862 1.5 $12,167,793 $16,413,244
M-820 1
Hot Process Water
Softener System
225,889 192,701 0.85 $1,381,300 1999 $1,381,300 0.82 $1,212,546 1.3 $1,576,310 $2,120,311
M-830 1
Hydrazine
Addition Pkg.
229,386 215,880 0.94 $19,000 1994 $19,000 0.6 $18,321 1 $18,321 $26,150
M-832 1
Ammonia
Addition Pkg
229,386 215,880 0.94 $19,000 1994 $19,000 0.6 $18,321 1 $18,321 $26,150
60
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
M-834 1
Phosphate
Addition Pkg.
229,386 215,880 0.94 $19,000 1994 $19,000 0.6 $18,321 1 $18,321 $26,150
P-804 2 Condensate Pump 61,471 136,035 2.21 $7,100 1997 $14,200 0.79 $26,596 2.8 $74,470 $101,233
P-811 2
Turbine
Condensate Pump
39,524 59,037 1.49 $7,800 1997 $15,600 0.79 $21,419 2.8 $59,972 $81,525
P-824 2
Deaerator Feed
Pump
293,605 192,701 0.66 $9,500 1997 $19,000 0.79 $13,623 2.8 $38,145 $51,853
P-826 5 BFW Pump 564,626 215,880 0.38 $52,501 1998 $262,505 0.79 $122,821 2.8 $343,900 $463,890
P-828 2 Blowdown Pump 6,613 6,476 0.98 $5,100 1997 $10,200 0.79 $10,033 2.8 $28,093 $38,189
P-830 1
Hydrazine
Transfer Pump
229,386 215,880 0.94 $5,500 1997 $5,500 0.79 $5,243 2.8 $14,679 $19,955
T-804 1
Condensate
Collection Tank
228,862 136,035 0.59 $7,100 1997 $7,100 0.71 $4,907 1.4 $6,870 $9,339
T-824 1
Condensate Surge
Drum
222,360 192,701 0.87 $49,600 1997 $49,600 0.72 $44,742 1.7 $76,062 $103,397
T-826 1 Deaerator 266,213 215,880 0.81 $165,000 1998 $165,000 0.72 $141,890 2.8 $397,292 $535,911
T-828 1
Blowdown Flash
Drum
6,563 6,476 0.99 $9,200 1997 $9,200 0.72 $9,112 2.8 $25,515 $34,684
T-830 1 Hydrazine Drum 229,386 215,880 0.94 $12,400 1997 $12,400 0.93 $11,720 1.7 $19,923 $27,083
A800 Subtotal $40,553,205 $29,879,378 1.4 $41,586,447 $56,110,709

M-902 1
Cooling Tower
System
147.960
0
105 0.71 $1,659,000 1998 $1,659,000 0.78 $1,265,253 1.2 $1,518,304 $2,048,054
M-904 2 1
Plant Air
Compressor
98,040 111,111 1.13 $278,200 2000 $834,600 0.34 $870,881 1.3 $1,132,145 $1,509,336
M-910 1 CIP System 63 63 1.00 $95,000 1995 $95,000 0.6 $95,036 1.2 $114,043 $157,225
P-902 1 1
Cooling Water
Pump
182900
00
12,447,
929
0.68 $332,300 1997 $664,600 0.79 $490,386 2.8 $1,373,081 $1,866,538
P-912 1 1
Make-up Water
Pump
244,160 211,894 0.87 $10,800 1997 $21,600 0.79 $19,312 2.8 $54,073 $73,506
P-914 2 1
Process Water
Circulating Pump
352,710 254,604 0.72 $11,100 1997 $33,300 0.79 $25,741 2.8 $72,073 $97,975
S-904 1 1
Instrument Air
Dryer
159,950 111,111 0.69 $15,498 1999 $30,996 0.6 $24,910 1.3 $32,383 $43,558
61
Equip-
ment ID
Number
Required
Spares
Nos
Equipment Name
Scaling
Stream
Flow
(Kg/hr)
New
Stream
Flow
Size
Ratio
Original
Equip Cost
(per unit)
Base
Year
Total
Original
Equip Cost
(Req'd &
Spare) in
Base Year
Scaling
Expo-
nent
Scaled Cost in
Base Year
Installa-
tion
Factor
Installed Cost
in Base Year
Installed Cost
in 2007$
T-902 3
Prehydrolysis
Filter Air Receiver
5,259 4,687 0.89 $17,000 2000 $51,000 0.72 $46,942 1.2 $56,331 $75,098
T-904 1 Plant Air Receiver 159,950 111,111 0.69 $13,000 1997 $13,000 0.72 $10,000 1.3 $13,001 $17,673
T-905 4
Product Recovery
Filter Air Receiver
5,700 5,921 1.04 $17,000 2000 $68,000 0.72 $69,887 1.2 $83,865 $111,806
T-914 1
Process Water
Tank
352,710 254,604 0.72 $195,500 1997 $195,500 0.51 $165,560 1.4 $231,784 $315,082
A900 Subtotal $3,666,596 $3,083,909 1.5 $4,681,083 $6,315,850
Equipment Cost $93,786,061 $81,109,704 1.50 $121,788,091 $164,104,477
62

Appendix F - Process Operating Summaries

Table F-1. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 35.1 Total Solids (wt%) 20.1%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0445 Total Solids (wt%) 20.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 4.3%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2956 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 10.0% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.5 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig 0.003 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose 0.099 Cellulose to Glucose 0.9109 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF 0.003 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.21 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose 0.6 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural 0.11 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar 0 Xylan to Xylose 0.5713 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.21 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose 0.6 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF 0.08 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5713 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.21 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose 0.6 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0.08 Galactan to Galactose 0.5713 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.21 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.6 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0.08 Mannan to Mannose 0.5713 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 22,989 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 18,543 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
63
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 131,829 Mannose to Zymo 0
Dilution Water (kg/hr) 52,436 Soluble Sugars From Sacc 44,457 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16,688 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.145 Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 880 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1,955 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose 0.13 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Arabinose 0.2 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Glucose 0.12 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Galactose 0.28 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,095 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 4.7%
Mannose 0
Cellobiose 0.36












64
Table F-2. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (Pilot) Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 35.1 Total Solids (wt%) 20.1%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0445 Total Solids (wt%) 20.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 4.3%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2956 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 10.0% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.5 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig 0.003 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose 0.099 Cellulose to Glucose 0.9109 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF 0.003 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.21 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose 0.6 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural 0.11 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar 0 Xylan to Xylose 0.5713 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.21 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose 0.6 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF 0.08 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5713 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.21 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose 0.6 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0.08 Galactan to Galactose 0.5713 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.21 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.6 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0.08 Mannan to Mannose 0.5713 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 22,989 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 18,543 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Zymo 0
65
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars From Sacc 44,457 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16,688 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 131,829 Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 880 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Dilution Water (kg/hr) 52,436 Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1,955 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Conditioning Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.145 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Xylose 0.13 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,095 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 4.7%
Arabinose 0.2
Glucose 0.12
Galactose 0.28
Mannose 0
Cellobiose 0.36










66
Table F-3. Operating Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) N/A Total Solids (wt%) 19.7%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0443 Total Solids (wt%) 34.2% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 7.1%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2956 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 28.6% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 144.0873 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.5 Pressure (atm) 4.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 0 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Cellulose to Glucolig N/A Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose N/A Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose 0.0626 Cellulose to Glucose N/A Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF 0 Glucolig to Cellobiose N/A Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.0265 Glucolig to Glucose N/A Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose 0.8249 Cellobiose to Glucose N/A Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural 0 Xylan to Oligomer N/A Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar 0 Xylan to Xylose N/A Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.0265 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose N/A Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose 0.8249 Xylan to Tar N/A Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF 0 Arabinan to Oligomer N/A Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.0265 Arabinan to Arabinose N/A Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose 0.8249 Galactan to Oligomer N/A Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0 Galactan to Galactose N/A Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.0265 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose N/A Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.8249 Mannan to Oligomer N/A Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0 Mannan to Mannose N/A Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose N/A Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 0 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 13,600 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 137,458 Mannose to Zymo 0
67
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Conditioning Soluble Sugars From Sacc 33,169 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.183 Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16,462 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 881 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Xylose 0.13 Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1,934 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Arabinose 0.2 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Glucose 0.12 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Galactose 0.28 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Mannose 0 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,159 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 3.1%
Cellobiose 0.36












68
Table F-4. Operating Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Total Solids (wt%) 17.2% Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 33.1 Total Solids (wt%) 16.5%
Total Insoluble Solids (wt%) 12.9% Total Solids (wt%) 16.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 3.9%
Temperature (°C) 190.0 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 9.2% Temperature (°C) 32
Pressure (atm) 12.3 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Conversions: Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Cellulose to Glucolig 0.053 Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucose 0.0032 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to HMF 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Xylan to Oligomer 0.554 Cellulose to Glucose 0.8997 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Xylan to Xylose 0.0239 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Furfural 0 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Tar 0 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Mannan to Oligomer 0.554 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Mannan to Mannose 0.0239 Xylan to Xylose 0.5661 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to HMF 0 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Galactan to Oligomer 0.554 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Galactan to Galactose 0.0239 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5661 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to HMF 0 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.554 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.0239 Galactan to Galactose 0.5661 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Mannan to Mannose 0.5661 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 19,745 Galactose to Zymo 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.05 Other Soluble Solids From PT 18,174 Galactose to Glycerol 0
Glucose to HMF 0.5 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Mannose to HMF 0.5 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
Galactose to HMF 0.5 Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose to Furfural 0.5 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Arabinose to Furfural 0.5 Mannose to Zymo 0
69
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Soluble Sugars From Sacc 47,147 Mannose to Glycerol 0
S/L Separation Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16,357 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) #N/A Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 2,176 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) #N/A Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1,954 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Dilution Water (kg/hr) #N/A Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.000 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,792 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 2.7%
Xylose 0
Arabinose 0
Glucose 0
Galactose 0
Mannose 0
Cellobiose 0











70
Table F-5. Operating Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation

Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0000 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 31.3 Total Solids (wt%) 20.5%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0000 Total Solids (wt%) 20.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 3.6%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.4808 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 11.6% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 108.1302 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 18.7 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to Glucose 0.959 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.5 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose Cellobiose to Glucose 1 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar Xylan to Xylose 0.777 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.5 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer 0.777 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.5 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF Galactan to Galactose 0.777 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural Mannan to Mannose 0.777 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid Soluble Sugars From PT 15,980 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar Other Soluble Solids From PT 21,338 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.33 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0

S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) N/A Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
71
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) N/A Mannose to Zymo 0
Dilution Water (kg/hr) N/A Soluble Sugars From Sacc 50,400 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 19,205 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum #N/A Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 1,962 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 2,242 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose #N/A Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Arabinose #N/A Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Glucose #N/A Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Galactose #N/A Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,242 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 3.9%
Mannose #N/A
Cellobiose #N/A












72
Table F-6. Operating Summary for Separate C5 & C6 Fermentation Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 33.4 Total Solids (wt%) 17.1%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0443 Total Solids (wt%) 16.1% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 3.9%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2968 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 9.4% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.4 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.97
Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.01
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.002
Cellulose to Glucose 0.0626 Cellulose to Glucose 0.9109 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.002
Cellulose to HMF 0 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.005
Xylan to Oligomer 0.0265 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.001
Xylan to Xylose 0.8249 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0
Xylan to Furfural 0 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0
Xylan to Tar 0 Xylan to Xylose 0.5713 Xylose to Glycerol 0
Mannan to Oligomer 0.0265 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0
Mannan to Mannose 0.8249 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0
Mannan to HMF 0 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5713 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0
Galactan to Oligomer 0.0265 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0
Galactan to Galactose 0.8249 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0 Galactan to Galactose 0.5713 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.0265 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.8249 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0 Mannan to Mannose 0.5713 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 10,676 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 20,699 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 137,034 Mannose to Zymo 0
73
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Dilution Water (kg/hr) 67,796 Soluble Sugars From Sacc 39,360 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 20,699 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum #N/A Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 0 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 0 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose 0.018 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Arabinose 0.018 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Glucose 0.006 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Galactose 0.006 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,371 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 4.3%
Mannose 0.006
Cellobiose 0.006












74
Table F-7. Operating Summary for Pervaporation Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation

Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 33.5 Total Solids (wt%) 20.1%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0443 Total Solids (wt%) 20.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 4.2%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2960 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 10.3% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.4 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose 0.0626 Cellulose to Glucose 0.9109 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF 0 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.0265 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose 0.8249 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural 0 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar 0 Xylan to Xylose 0.5713 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.0265 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose 0.8249 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF 0 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5713 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.0265 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose 0.8249 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0 Galactan to Galactose 0.5713 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.0265 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.8249 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0 Mannan to Mannose 0.5713 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 22,739 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 18,576 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 137,371 Mannose to Zymo 0
75
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Dilution Water (kg/hr) 45,921 Soluble Sugars From Sacc 46,152 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16,718 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.174 Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 839 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1,960 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose 0.13 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Arabinose 0.2 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Glucose 0.12 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Galactose 0.28 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,138 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 4.8%
Mannose 0
Cellobiose 0.36












76
Table F-8. Operating Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation
Acid Conc (wt%) 0.0190 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) 0.0 Total Solids (wt%) 20.1%
Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) 0.0442 Total Solids (wt%) 20.0% Insoluble Solids (wt%) 4.7%
Total Solids (wt%) 0.2959 Insoluble Solids (wt%) 10.2% Temperature (°C) 32
Temperature (°C) 190 Temperature (°C) 32 Pressure (atm) 1.0
Pressure (atm) 11.4 Pressure (atm) 1.0 Residence Time (days) 2
Residence Time (min.) Residence Time (days) 5 Conversions:
Conversions: Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol 0.95
Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Cellulose to Glucolig 0 Glucose to Zymo 0.02
Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Cellulose to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Glycerol 0.004
Cellulose to Glucose 0.0626 Cellulose to Glucose 0.9109 Glucose to Succinic Acid 0.006
Cellulose to HMF 0 Glucolig to Cellobiose 0 Glucose to Acetic Acid 0.015
Xylan to Oligomer 0.0265 Glucolig to Glucose 0 Glucose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Xylan to Xylose 0.8249 Cellobiose to Glucose 0 Xylose to Ethanol 0.756
Xylan to Furfural 0 Xylan to Oligomer 0 Xylose to Zymo 0.019
Xylan to Tar 0.085 Xylan to Xylose 0.5713 Xylose to Glycerol 0.003
Mannan to Oligomer 0.0265 Xylose Oligomer to Xylose 0 Xylose to Xylitol 0.046
Mannan to Mannose 0.8249 Xylan to Tar 0 Xylose to Succinic Acid 0.009
Mannan to HMF 0 Arabinan to Oligomer 0.5713 Xylose to Acetic Acid 0.014
Galactan to Oligomer 0.0265 Arabinan to Arabinose 0 Xylose to Lactic Acid 0.002
Galactan to Galactose 0.8249 Galactan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Ethanol 0
Galactan to HMF 0 Galactan to Galactose 0.5713 Arabinose to Zymo 0
Arabinan to Oligomer 0.0265 Galactose Oligomer to Galactose 0 Arabinose to Glycerol 0
Arabinan to Arabinose 0.8249 Mannan to Oligomer 0 Arabinose to Succinic Acid 0
Arabinan to Furfural 0 Mannan to Mannose 0.5713 Arabinose to Acetic Acid 0
Arabinan to Tar 0.085 Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 0 Arabinose to Lactic Acid 0
Acetate to Oligomer 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Galactose to Ethanol 0
Acetate to Acetic Acid 1 Soluble Sugars From PT 20,317 Galactose to Zymo 0
Furfural to Tar 1 Other Soluble Solids From PT 16,259 Galactose to Glycerol 0
HMF to Tar 1 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Succinic Acid 0
Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.1 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Galactose to Acetic Acid 0
S/L Separation Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 545 Galactose to Lactic Acid 0
Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.58 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 2,781 Mannose to Ethanol 0
Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 137,416 Mannose to Zymo 0
77
Pretreatment, cont. Saccharification, cont. Fermentation, cont.
Dilution Water (kg/hr) 19,186 Soluble Sugars From Sacc 41,246 Mannose to Glycerol 0
Conditioning Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 17,136 Mannose to Succinic Acid 0
Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum 0.175 Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 783 Mannose to Acetic Acid 0
Sugar Conversion to TAR: Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 2,003 Mannose to Lactic Acid 0
Xylose 0.13 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0
Arabinose 0.2 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Contamination Loss 7.0%
Glucose 0.12 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0
Galactose 0.28 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2,056 Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 4.5%
Mannose 0
Cellobiose 0.36



78
Appendix G - General Process Description

Area 100
The feedstock handling area receives the corn stover in bales. After being unwrapped, stover is
washed to remove dirt before being passed through a magnetic separator to remove tramp metal
and then conveyed to the shredders for size reduction.
Area 200
In the pretreatment area, biomass undergoes a physical and/or chemical treatment, which allows
for improved exposure of the cellulose during enzymatic hydrolysis. The details of the four
pretreatment processes are discussed under the Pretreatment Variation section of process
variations in the results section.
Area 300
Enzymatic saccharification followed by fermentation of sugars occurs in this area. The
pretreatment hydrolyzate from Area 200 is pumped into 18 parallel saccharification vessels (each
has a capacity of 1 MM gal) where enzyme is added (enzyme loading of 31.3 mg protein/g
cellulose) either from purchased stock preparation or from the on-site enzyme production section
(Area 400). The residence time for saccharification is 5 days. Note that for two-stage dilute acid
treatment, acid is used in place of enzyme to hydrolyze the cellulose and xylan.
A small fraction of the hydrolyzate leaving the saccharification vessel is sent to one of two
sequenced batch fermentation seed vessel trains to be used as a carbon source for the growth of
the fermentative organism, Zymomonas mobilis. Nutrients such as CSL and diammonium
phosphate are also added into the bio-reactors.
The bulk of the hydrolyzate from the saccharification vessels is pumped to one of eight parallel
sequenced batch fermentation reactors, where Zymomonas mobilis is introduced from the seed
reactors. A 2 day residence time is used for fermentation. Vent gas from the fermentors is
scrubbed to collect escaped ethanol in the scrubber and sent to the beer column along with
fermented beer from the fermentors.
Area 500
Ethanol is separated and recovered from water and residual solids in this section. Fermented beer
is distilled in two distillation columns: beer column and rectification column. The beer column
removes dissolved CO
2
and vapor generating a concentrated ethanol stream. The rectification
column purifies the ethanol to about 95 wt% concentration. Nearly all of the remaining water is
removed in a molecular sieve adsorption column. The stillage from the beer column is pumped to
the 1
st
-effect evaporator where water content is reduced, followed by dewatering in a
Pneumapress filter and screw press to separate most of the insoluble solids, comprising mainly
lignin, from the aqueous stream. The liquid fraction from the screw press is concentrated in the
2
nd
- and the 3
rd
-effect evaporators to high concentration syrup of soluble solids. The evaporator
syrup and the dewatered solid fraction from the screw press are used as boiler fuel in the
fluidized bed combustor.
79
Boiler Blowdown
Evaporator Condensate
(435 MT/d)
(155 MT/d)
Equalizing
Basin
T = 35
o
C
P = 1 atm
To Scrubber
(7 MT/d)
Nutrient
Feed
System
(477 MT/d)
Pretreatment Flash
(1073 MT/d)
T = 35
o
C
P = 1 atm
Cooling Tower Blowdown
(379 MT/d)
S/L Sep Vent Condensate
(12 MT/d)
Aerobic
Digester
Air
Vapor to
Atmosphere
(485 MT/d)
Aerobic Digester
Nutrient
(0.7 MT/d)
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Wastewater
(2048 MT/d)
Clarifier
T = 21.1
o
C
P = 1 atm
To Process
Water Inlet
(2037 MT/d)
Sludge To
Combustor
(2.7 MT/d)
S/L
Separation
Water Return
(14 MT/d)
(16 MT/d)
Solid Suspension
To Clarifier
(2053 MT/d)
Area 600
Wastewater is treated in anaerobic and aerobic digesters. In the anaerobic digester, a small
amount of urea, phosphoric acid, and micronutrients are added as nutrients for the anaerobic
organisms. Biogas from the anaerobic digester is used as boiler fuel. The wastewater is further
treated aerobically. It is then held in a clarifying tank where the settled solids are separated from
the water. The solids are dewatered in a belt filter press, with a polymer being added to aid in
dewatering, followed by a screw press. The resulting sludge is used as boiler fuel. The water
from the clarifying tank is recycled as process water.




Figure G-1. Wastewater treatment section (Area 600)


80
Lignin (1137 MT/d)
To Deareator
Steam to Evaporator
Evaporator Syrup
(1882 MT/d)
Digester Solids (3 MT/d)
Biogas (7 MT/d)
Boiler Feed Water (5181 MT/d)
Preheated Air (7794 MT/d)
Blowdown to WWT
(155 MT/d)
Steam to Area 200,
300, 500, 800 & 900
Flue Gas
Generator
To Plant
To Grid
Super heated Steam
Boiler
Turbine
Ash (279 MT/d)
To Stack
(10544 MT/d)
Bag-
house
To Pretreatment Reactor
(906 MT/d)
(2361 MT/d)
(129 MT/d)
(5026 MT/d)
(1630 MT/d)
Area 800
Cogeneration of steam for process heat and electricity occurs in Area 800. Evaporator syrup,
insoluble solids from the Pneumapress, wastewater treatment sludge, and biogas are used as fuel
in the fluidized bed combustor. Superheated steam is generated in the boiler and exits the multi-
stage turbine at three different conditions needed in the process.




















Figure G-2. Steam and power generation section (Area 800)






81
Appendix H - Cost By Area Of Process Scenarios

Table H-1. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost
Purchased
Equipment Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 6.4 6.0 5.3
Pretreatment (Area 200) 38.0 22.4 21.0 18.5
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 21.8 12.9 17.3 15.3
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 25.7 15.1 16.9 14.9
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 5.8 3.4 4.5 4.0
Storage (Area 700) 3.1 1.8 1.9 1.7
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 57.6 24.4 41.4 36.5
Utilities (Area 900) 6.6 3.9 4.3 3.8
Purchased Equipment Cost 113.3 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 169.4 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 337.8
Working Capital (WC) 50.7
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 388.5
Lang Factor 3.43

Table H-2. Costs by Area of the 2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased
Equipment Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 6.3 6.0 5.4
Pretreatment (Area 200) 44.9 26.0 23.5 21.0
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 9.7 5.6 7.2 6.4
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 26.7 15.5 18.1 16.1
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 4.6 2.7 3.5 3.1
Storage (Area 700) 2.8 1.6 1.7 1.5
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 66.2 38.3 47.6 42.5
Utilities (Area 900) 6.9 4.0 4.5 4.0
Purchased Equipment Cost 112.1 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 172.7 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 340.0
Working Capital (WC) 51.0
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 391.0
Lang Factor 3.49

82
Table H-3. Costs by Area of the Hot Water Pretreatment Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 7.0 6.0 5.6
Pretreatment (Area 200) 6.7 4.3 3.9 3.6
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 30.2 19.3 23.4 21.7
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 30.9 19.8 19.4 18.0
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.2
Storage (Area 700) 3.3 2.1 2.1 2.0
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 65.8 42.1 47.3 43.9
Utilities (Area 900) 6.7 4.3 4.3 4.0
Purchased Equipment Cost 107.8 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 156.3 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 314.0
Working Capital (WC) 47.1
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 361.1
Lang Factor 3.35


Table H-4. Costs by Area of the AFEX Pretreatment Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 6.5 6.0 5.3
Pretreatment (Area 200) 30.8 18.4 18.4 16.1
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 23.5 14.0 18.8 16.5
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 27.5 16.4 17.5 15.4
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.0
Storage (Area 700) 2.8 1.7 1.8 1.6
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 62.0 37.0 44.6 39.1
Utilities (Area 900) 8.4 5.0 5.8 5.1
Purchased Equipment Cost 113.9 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 167.4 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 335.6
Working Capital (WC) 50.4
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 386.0
Lang Factor 3.39


83
Table H-5. Costs by Area of the Separate C-5 and C-6 Fermentation Process Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 11.4 6.8 6.2 5.5
Pretreatment (Area 200) 34.2 20.4 18.4 16.4
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 29.6 17.6 23.7 21.1
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 27.3 16.3 17.8 15.8
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 3.1 1.8 2.3 2.0
Storage (Area 700) 5.1 3.0 3.4 3.0
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 50.9 30.3 36.5 32.5
Utilities (Area 900) 6.2 3.7 4.1 3.6
Purchased Equipment Cost 112.4 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 167.8 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 335.4
Working Capital (WC) 50.3
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 385.8
Lang Factor 3.43

Table H-6. Costs by Area of the Pervaporation Process Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 5.2 6.0 3.9
Pretreatment (Area 200) 36.2 17.3 19.7 12.7
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 21.9 10.5 17.4 11.2
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 70.8 33.8 62.9 40.5
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 3.3 1.6 2.4 1.5
Storage (Area 700) 3.3 1.6 2.1 1.4
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 55.9 26.7 40.1 25.8
Utilities (Area 900) 7.0 3.3 4.6 3.0
Purchased Equipment Cost 155.2 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 209.2 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 435.7
Working Capital (WC) 65.4
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 501.0
Lang Factor 3.23

84
Table H-7. Costs by Area of the On-site Enzyme Production Processes Scenario
Cost Areas / Factor
Installed Cost Purchased Equipment
Cost
(MM$) (%) (MM$) (%)
Feedstock Handling (Area 100) 10.9 5.8 6.0 4.7
Pretreatment (Area 200) 36.2 19.3 19.7 15.5
Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) 21.8 11.6 17.3 13.6
On-site Enzyme Production (Area 400) 23.7 12.6 17.9 14.0
Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) 25.3 13.5 16.8 13.2
Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) 3.4 1.9 2.6 2.0
Storage (Area 700) 2.5 1.3 1.6 1.2
Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) 57.2 30.4 41.1 32.3
Utilities (Area 900) 6.8 3.6 4.4 3.5
Purchased Equipment Cost 127.4 100
Total Installed Equipment Cost 187.8 100
Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 377.5
Working Capital (WC) 56.6
Total Capital Investment (TCI) 434.2
Lang Factor 3.41


85
Appendix I - Down Selection Matrix

Table I-1. Process Down-Selection Matrix
C
a
p
it
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
in
g

C
o
s
t
s

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
g
a
l)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
a
t
e

o
f

R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)

R
is
k

P
la
n
t

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

(
%
)

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

Y
ie
ld

(
f
u
e
l)


[
g
a
l
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
o
r

B
u
t
a
n
o
l/

t
o
n

f
e
e
d

s
t
o
c
k
]

C
a
p
a
c
it
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
p
t
im
a
l
P
la
n
t

S
iz
e

(
M
T
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y

o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r

U
s
e
/
D
is
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
M
t
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

G
a
s

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

P
a
r
t
ic
u
la
t
e
s
/
S
o
lid

W
a
s
t
e
s

A
ir

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

W
a
s
t
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

T
o
x
ic
s

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
G
a
s
o
lin
e

E
q
u
iv
a
le
n
t
)

E
n
g
in
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

U
s
e

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

F
u
e
l
T
o
x
ic
it
y

A
b
ilit
y

t
o

M
e
e
t

F
u
e
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
ib
lio
g
r
a
p
h
y
a

N
o
t
e
s

Process Blocks
Ethanol Concentrated
Acid/Fermentation
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
3.24 0.16 1.07 10 48 89.7 93 2000 P
ilo
t

5440 0.658 1

Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute H2SO4); (2) Continuous
Saccharification; and (3)
Cofermentation (hydrolysis &
fermentation units are in series); (4)
Separation/Purification (distillation and
molecular sieve); (5) Water treatment
(treated water recycle to process)
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
2.63 10 91 2000 C
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l/
P
ilo
t

0.628 2
Scenario-I
(Short Term: 5
years, following
pretreatment
and SSF)
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute acid); (2) Hydrolysis
(Enzymatic); (3) Fermentation; (4)
Separation/Purification (distillation &
desiccants)
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
4.53 1.71 12 48 76.2 95.9 5000 C
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l/
P
ilo
t

3
Current
Process
(pretreatment &
SSF)
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute acid); (2a) SSF (simultaneous
sccharification & fermentation); (2b)
with separate fermentation for C5; (3)
Separation/Purification (2-column
distillation); (4) Water treatment
(suspended sludge digester)
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
1.27 1.02 0.88 50 119.5 90.4 634 0.658 4
Feedstock:
Corn
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute H2SO4); (2) Simultaneous
Saccharification and Cofermentation
(glucose & Xylose); and (3)
Separation/Purification (distillation and
molecular sieve); (5) Water treatment
(treated water recycle to process)
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
4.83 1.68 1.45 42 79.2 90.4 957 0.658 5
Feedstock:
Cornstover
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute H2SO4); (2) Simultaneous
Saccharification and Cofermentation
(glucose & Xylose); and (3)
Separation/Purification (distillation and
molecular sieve); (5) Water treatment
(treated water recycle to process)
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
4.91 0.25 1.14 10 36 68 95.9 2000 P
ilo
t

6307 0.661 6
SSCF Base
Case;
Feedstock:
Yellow poplar
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute H2SO4); (2) Simultaneous
sccharification and cofermentation (of
glucose & xylan); (3)
Separation/Purification; (5) Water
treatment (treated water recycle to
process)
86
C
a
p
it
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
in
g

C
o
s
t
s

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
g
a
l)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
a
t
e

o
f

R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)

R
is
k

P
la
n
t

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

(
%
)

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

Y
ie
ld

(
f
u
e
l)


[
g
a
l
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
o
r

B
u
t
a
n
o
l/

t
o
n

f
e
e
d

s
t
o
c
k
]

C
a
p
a
c
it
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
p
t
im
a
l
P
la
n
t

S
iz
e

(
M
T
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y

o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r

U
s
e
/
D
is
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
M
t
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

G
a
s

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

P
a
r
t
ic
u
la
t
e
s
/
S
o
lid

W
a
s
t
e
s

A
ir

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

W
a
s
t
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

T
o
x
ic
s

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
G
a
s
o
lin
e

E
q
u
iv
a
le
n
t
)

E
n
g
in
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

U
s
e

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

F
u
e
l
T
o
x
ic
it
y

A
b
ilit
y

t
o

M
e
e
t

F
u
e
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
ib
lio
g
r
a
p
h
y
a

N
o
t
e
s

Process Blocks
Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
3.85 1.16 10 40 76 95.9 2000 P
ilo
t

6307 0.661 7
SSCF Near
Term;
Feedstock:
Yellow poplar

Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
2.98 0.94 10 42 81 95.9 2000 P
ilo
t

6307 0.661 8
SSCF 2005;
Feedstock:
Yellow poplar

Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
2.37 0.82 10 49 94 95.9 2000 P
ilo
t

6307 0.661 9
SSCF 2010;
Feedstock:
Yellow poplar

Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
2.29 0.76 10 52 99 95.9 2000 P
ilo
t

6307 0.661 10
SSCF 2015;
Feedstock:
Yellow poplar

Ethanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
8.67 1.76 1.25 15 78 33 100 4360 P
ilo
t

11
SHF (TVA
process); High
profit from co-
products:
furfural
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(dilute H2SO4); (2) Hydrolysis
(Enzymatic); (3) Fermentation
(Hexose & Pentose in separate
vessels); (4) Separation/Purification
(distillation); (5) Waste treatment
Ethanol SO2-Steam
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
5.58 0.45 0.98 25 42 78.5 100 500 12
SO2 & NaOH in
2-step
preteratment;
Rate of return
on working
capital
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(SO2, Steam); (2) Hydrolysis
(Enzymatic); (3a) Fermentation, and
(3b) fermentation of C5 sugars in
separate vessels; (4) Seperation; (5)
water treatment
Ethanol SO2-Steam
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
13.61 0.75 5 36 69.6 91.2 586.8 la
b

552 0.624 13
SHF process;
SO2 is used for
pretreatment;
Total
Investment is
1184 MSKR
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam); (2)
Hydrolysis (Enzymatic); (3)
Fermentation; (4)
Separation/Purification (distillation &
drying)
Ethanol SO2-Steam
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
9.18 0.83 5 41 79.2 91.2 586.8 la
b

586 0.618 14
SSF process;
SO2 is used for
pretreatment;
Total
Investment is
910 MSKR
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam); (2) SSF
(Simultaneous Saccharification &
Fermentation); (3)
Separation/Purification (distillation &
drying)
Ethanol SO2-Steam
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
8.63 2.24 6 40 76.8 91.2 600 la
b

0.621 15
SSF process;
SO2 is used for
pretreatment;
One-Step
Pretreatment;
Total
Investment is
847 MSKR
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam); (2) SSF
(Simultaneous Saccharification &
Fermentation; feed batch); (3)
Separation/Purification (2-separate
stripper & rectifier operations)
87
C
a
p
it
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
in
g

C
o
s
t
s

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
g
a
l)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
a
t
e

o
f

R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)

R
is
k

P
la
n
t

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

(
%
)

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

Y
ie
ld

(
f
u
e
l)


[
g
a
l
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
o
r

B
u
t
a
n
o
l/

t
o
n

f
e
e
d

s
t
o
c
k
]

C
a
p
a
c
it
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
p
t
im
a
l
P
la
n
t

S
iz
e

(
M
T
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y

o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r

U
s
e
/
D
is
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
M
t
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

G
a
s

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

P
a
r
t
ic
u
la
t
e
s
/
S
o
lid

W
a
s
t
e
s

A
ir

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

W
a
s
t
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

T
o
x
ic
s

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
G
a
s
o
lin
e

E
q
u
iv
a
le
n
t
)

E
n
g
in
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

U
s
e

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

F
u
e
l
T
o
x
ic
it
y

A
b
ilit
y

t
o

M
e
e
t

F
u
e
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
ib
lio
g
r
a
p
h
y
a

N
o
t
e
s

Process Blocks
Ethanol SO2-Steam
Double
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
8.72 2.24 6 42 80.1 91.2 600 la
b

0.621 16
SSF process;
SO2 is used for
pretreatment;
Two-Step
Pretreatment;
Total
Investment is
847 MSKR
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (2-
step SO2-steam pretreatment: double
pretreatment); (2) SSF (Simultaneous
Saccharification & Fermentation; feed
batch); (3) Separation/Purification (2-
separate stripper & rectifier
operations)
Ethanol AFEX
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
1.95 0.73 12 61 105.3 95.9 5000 L
a
b

17
Advanced
EtOH Rankine
process
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Ammonia fiber expansion, AFEX,
pretreatment - no detoxification); (2)
SSF (simultaneous sccharification &
fermentation); (3)
Separation/Purification (1-column
distillation with heat integration); (4)
Water treatment (attached film
digester)
Ethanol AFEX
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
2.89 0.77 12 61 105.3 95.9 5000 c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
18
Advanced
EtOH-GTCC
Process
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Ammonia fiber expansion, AFEX,
pretreatment- no detoxification); (2)
CBP (consolidated bio-processing); (3)
Separation/Purification (1-column
distillation with heat integration); (4)
Water treatment (attached film
digester)
E thanol Liquid
Hotwater
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
0.99 10 91 2000 c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
0.628 19
Scenario-III
(Long Term:
>20 years,
following
Consolidated
BioProcessing,
CBP)
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(Liquid Hot Water); (2) Consolidated
Bio-Processing; (3)
Separation/Purification (distillation &
desiccants)
Ethanol Steam
Pretreatment/Enzymatic
/ Fermentation
681-
907 1.48 10 91 2000 la
b
/
p
ilo
t

0.628 20
Scenario-II
(Mid Term: 5-
10 years,
following
pretreatment
and SSCF)
Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment
(steam explosion); (2) SSF &
SSCF(Simultaneous saccharification &
fermentation, and simultaneous
saccharification and cofermentation);
(3) Separation/Purification (distillation
& desiccants)
Ethanol Enzymatic /
Fermentation
9.06 1.33 1.1 15 47 79.4 100 15 L
a
b

0.658 21
Scenario-I
(minerals sent
to land fill; No
ethanol from
xylan)
Process Blocks: (1) SSF
(Simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation); (2)
Separation/Purification (distillation and
molecular sieve); (3) Water treatment
Ethanol Enzymatic /
Fermentation
7.70 0.85 1.1 15 55 93.5 100 15 n
o
-
la
b

d
e
m
o

0.658 22
Scenario-II
(90% of
minerals are
recovered and
sent to paper
mill)
Process Blocks: (1) SSF
(Simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation); (2)
Separation/Purification (distillation and
molecular sieve); (3) Water treatment



Butanol Concentrated
Acid / Fermentation

Butanol Dilute Acid
Pretreatment /
Fermentation
44 28.4 la
b

0.957 23
Feedstock:
corn fiber;
dilute H2SO4
hydrolysis
Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis (dilute
H2SO4); (2) Fermentation; (3)
Separation/Purification (distillation)
88
C
a
p
it
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
in
g

C
o
s
t
s

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
g
a
l)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
a
t
e

o
f

R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)

R
is
k

P
la
n
t

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

(
%
)

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

Y
ie
ld

(
f
u
e
l)


[
g
a
l
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
o
r

B
u
t
a
n
o
l/

t
o
n

f
e
e
d

s
t
o
c
k
]

C
a
p
a
c
it
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
p
t
im
a
l
P
la
n
t

S
iz
e

(
M
T
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y

o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r

U
s
e
/
D
is
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
M
t
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

G
a
s

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

P
a
r
t
ic
u
la
t
e
s
/
S
o
lid

W
a
s
t
e
s

A
ir

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

W
a
s
t
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

T
o
x
ic
s

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
G
a
s
o
lin
e

E
q
u
iv
a
le
n
t
)

E
n
g
in
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

U
s
e

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

F
u
e
l
T
o
x
ic
it
y

A
b
ilit
y

t
o

M
e
e
t

F
u
e
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
ib
lio
g
r
a
p
h
y
a

N
o
t
e
s

Process Blocks
Butanol AFEX
Pretreatment /
Enzymatic /
Fermentation

Butanol Hotwater
Pretreatment /
Enzymatic /
Fermentation
65 57.6 L
a
b

0.957 24
Feedstock:
Saccharified
Liquefied
Cornstarch
(SLCS) with
moisture
content of
approximately
60%
Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis
(enzymatic hydrolysis of LCS to
SLCS); (2) Fermentation; (3)
Separation/Purification
Butanol Hotwater
Pretreatment /
Fermentation
60 54 L
a
b

0.957 25
Feedstock:
Liquefied
Cornstarch
(LCS) with
moisture
content of
approximately
60%
Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous
saccharification and Fermentation; (2)
Separation/Purification
Butanol Enzyme /
Fermentation
0.81 0.07 0.74

10-
30 66 89.84 95.9 1469 la
b

0.949 26
Feedstock:
corn (14%
moisture);
Hydrolysis +
Immobilized
Cell
Continuous
Fermentation &
pervaporative
recovery,
ICCFPR
process
Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis
(enzymatic); (2) Fermentation
(contineous); (3)
Separation/Purification (pervaporation
& distillation)
Butanol Fermentation
1.31 0.15 0.81 15 58 5.52 100 2268 la
b

0.957 27
Feedstock:
Whey permeat
(4.5% lactose);
Fibrous Bed
Reactor, FBR;
Process: 2 step
fermentation
Process Blocks: (1) 2-step
Fermentation (i. fermentation of
lactose to butyric acid, ii. Fermentation
of butyric acis to butanil); (3)
Separation/Purification (adsorption,
desorption, distillation);
Butanol Fermentation
57 114 la
b

0.957
Feedstock:
Glucose; 2-
step
fermentation,
FBR
Process Blocks: (1) hydrolysis of
lignocellulosics/starch to fermentable
sugars; (2) 2-step Fermentation of
glucose (i. fermentation of lactose to
butyric acid, ii. Fermentation of butyric
acis to butanil); (3)
Separation/Purification (adsorption,
desorption, distillation);
Butanol Fermentation
2.37 0.22 1.68 20 65 89.79 95.9 1469 P
ilo
t

0.947 28
Feedstock:
corn (14%
moisture)
Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous
saccharification and Fermentation; (2)
Separation/Purification (distillation); (3)
Wastewater treatment (recycling to
process)
Butanol Fermentation
1.00 0.09 0.95

10-
30 66 89.84 95.9 1469 P
ilo
t

0.949 29
Feedstock:
corn (14%
moisture);
Batch
Fermentation &
pervaporative
recovery,
BFPR process
Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous
saccharification and Fermentation; (2)
Separation/Purification (pervaporation
& distillation)
89
C
a
p
it
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
it
u
r
e

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
in
g

C
o
s
t
s

(
x
1
0
6
$
)

F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t

(
$
/
g
a
l)

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
a
t
e

o
f

R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)

R
is
k

P
la
n
t

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

(
%
)

C
a
r
b
o
n

E
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

Y
ie
ld

(
f
u
e
l)


[
g
a
l
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
o
r

B
u
t
a
n
o
l/

t
o
n

f
e
e
d

s
t
o
c
k
]

C
a
p
a
c
it
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
p
t
im
a
l
P
la
n
t

S
iz
e

(
M
T
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y

o
f

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t

W
a
t
e
r

U
s
e
/
D
is
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
M
t
o
n
/
d
a
y
)

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

G
a
s

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

P
a
r
t
ic
u
la
t
e
s
/
S
o
lid

W
a
s
t
e
s

A
ir

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

W
a
s
t
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

T
o
x
ic
s

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
G
a
s
o
lin
e

E
q
u
iv
a
le
n
t
)

E
n
g
in
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

U
s
e

E
m
is
s
io
n
s

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
ib
ilit
y

F
u
e
l
T
o
x
ic
it
y

A
b
ilit
y

t
o

M
e
e
t

F
u
e
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

B
ib
lio
g
r
a
p
h
y
a

N
o
t
e
s

Process Blocks
Butanol Fermentation
0.93 0.08 0.81

10-
30 66 89.84 95.9 1469 P
ilo
t

0.949 30
Feedstock:
corn (14%
moisture); Fed-
batch
Fermentation &
pervaporative
recovery,
FBFPR
process
Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous
saccharification and Fermentation; (2)
Separation/Purification (pervaporation
& distillation)


Zeachem Process



a
Bibliography references:
1. Aden, A., et al. (2002). NREL Report NREL/TP-510-32438.
2. Hamelinck, C.N., et al. (2005). Biomass & Bioenergy, vol. 28, pp. 384-410.
3. Laser, M., et al. (2009). Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining, vol. 3, pp. 195-218.
4. Wallace, R., et al. (2005). NREL Report TP-510-37092.
5. Wallace, R., et al. (2005). NREL Report TP-510-37092.
6. Wooley, R., et al. (1999). NREL Report TP-580-26157.
7. Wooley, R., et al. (1999). NREL Report TP-580-26157.
8. Wooley, R., et al. (1999). NREL Report TP-580-26157.
9. Wooley, R., et al. (1999). NREL Report TP-580-26157.
10. Wooley, R., et al. (1999). NREL Report TP-580-26157.
11. Kaylen, M., et al. (2000). Bioresource Technology, vol. 72, pp. 19-32.
12. Nguyen, Q.A., Saddler, J.N. (1991). Bioresource Technology, vol. 35(3), pp. 275-282.
13. Wingen, A., et al. (2003). Biotechnology Progress, vol. 19(4), pp. 1109-1117.
14. Wingen, A., et al. (2003). Biotechnology Progress, vol. 19(4), pp. 1109-1117.
15. Wingen, A., et al. (2004). Biotechnology Progress, vol. 20(5), pp. 1421-1429.
16. Wingen, A., et al. (2004). Biotechnology Progress, vol. 20(5), pp. 1421-1429.
17. Laser, M., et al. (2009). Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining, vol. 3, pp. 247-270.
18. Laser, M., et al. (2009). Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining, vol. 3, pp. 247-270.
19. Hamelinck, C.N., et al. (2005). Biomass & Bioenergy, vol. 28, pp. 384-410.
20. Hamelinck, C.N., et al. (2005). Biomass & Bioenergy, vol. 28, pp. 384-410.
21. Fan, Z., Lynd, L.R. (2007). Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 30(1), pp. 35-45.
22. Fan, Z., Lynd, L.R. (2007). Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 30(1), pp. 35-45.
23. Ezeji, C.T., et al. (2007). Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 97(6), pp. 1460-1469.
24. Ezeji, C.T., et al. (2007). Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, vol. 34(12), pp. 771-777.
25. Ezeji, C.T., et al. (2007). Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, vol. 34(12), pp. 771-777.
26. Quereshi, N., Blaschek, H.P. (2001). Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 219-226.
27. Ramney, D., Yang, S-T. (2004). Final Report, DOE; Ramey, D., Edward, D. (1998). US Patent No. 5753474; Yang, S-T. (1996). US Patent No. 5563069.
28. Quereshi, N., Blaschek, H.P. (2000). Trans I Chem E, vol. 78(C), pp. 139-144.
29. Quereshi, N., Blaschek, H.P. (2001). Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 219-226.
30. Quereshi, N., Blaschek, H.P. (2001). Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 219-226.






90
Appendix J - Analysis: Cost Growth Variables And Results

Table J-1. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High
Solids Loading) Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Prob-
able
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
6 6 6 PCTNEW 61.4 61.4 61.4
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 3 COMPLEXITY
b
6 6 6
SOLIDS 1 1 1 INCLUSIVENESS 33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant Performance
(%)
22.1 14.7 7.3 Cost Growth (%) 52.6 42.6 32.0

a
New steps/units: Feedstock handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Beer Column, and
Combustor.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation,
Distillation, Steam/Power Generation.

Table J-2. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Hot water Pretreatment Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Prob-
able
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
6 6 6 PCTNEW 53.6 53.6 53.6
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 3 COMPLEXITY
b
6 6 6
SOLIDS 1 1 1 INCLUSIVENESS 33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant Performance
(%)
22.1 14.7 7.3 Cost Growth (%) 55.0 44.9 34.3
a
New steps/units: Feedstock handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Beer Column, and
Combustor.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation,
Distillation, Steam/Power Generation.
91
Table J-3. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Two-Stage Dilute Acid
Pretreatment Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Prob-
able
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
6 6 6 PCTNEW 60.8 60.8 60.8
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 3 COMPLEXITY
b
6 6 6
SOLIDS 1 1 1 INCLUSIVENESS 33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant Performance
(%)
22.1 14.7 7.3 Cost Growth (%) 50.8 42.8 32.2
a
New steps/units: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Beer Column, and
Combustor.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation,
Distillation, Steam/Power Generation.




Table J-4. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for AFEX Pretreatment Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Prob-
able
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
7 7 7 PCTNEW 60.38 60.38 60.38
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 2 COMPLEXITY
b
7 7 7
SOLIDS 1 1 1 INCLUSIVENESS 33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant Performance
(%)
12.4 5.0 1.7 Cost Growth (%) 51.8 41.8 31.2
a
New steps/units: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Ammonia Separation,
Beer Column, and Combustor.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification,
Cofermentation, Ammonia recovery, Distillation, Steam/Power Generation.

92
Table J-5. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for On-Site Enzyme Production
Processes
Plant Performance (Equation 1) Cost Growth (Equation 2)
Variables
Values
Variables
Values
Opti-
mistic
Most
Prob-
able
Pessi-
mistic
Opti-
mistic
Most
Probable
Pessi-
mistic
NEWSTEPS
a
7 7 7 PCTNEW 66.9 66.9 66.9
BALEQS 50 40 30 IMPURITIES 0 3 5
WASTE 1 2 3 COMPLEXITY
b
7 7 7
SOLIDS 1 1 1 INCLUSIVENESS 33 0 0

PROJECT
DEFINITION
6 6 7
Plant Performance
(%)
12.4 5.0 0 Cost Growth (%) 49.9 39.8 29.2
a
New steps/units: Feedstock handling, Pretreatment, Saccharification, Cofermentation, Beer Column,
Combustor, and Enzyme Production.
b
Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling, Pretreatment,
Saccharification, Cofermentation, Distillation, Steam/Power Generation, and Enzyme Production.

Table J-6. PV from Cost Growth Analysis for Various Process Scenarios
Cost Item
Cost Growth (Pioneer Plant)
a

Most Probable Optimistic Pessimistic
Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes (Pilot)
PV ($/Gal) 6.11 5.27 7.59
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 913.9 750.1 1,198.8
Lang Factor 8.06 6.62 10.58
Hot Water Pretreatment Processes
PV ($/Gal) 7.32 6.41 8.87
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 808.3 619.0 1,042.5
Lang Factor 7.50 6.21 9.67
2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes
PV ($/Gal) 8.36 7.10 10.56
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 916.2 752.6 1,200.2
Lang Factor 8.17 6.71 10.70
AFEX Pretreatment Processes
PV ($/Gal) 6.84 5.85 8.41
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 925.2 756.5 1,221.7
Lang Factor 8.12 6.64 10.72
On-site Enzyme Production Processes
PV ($/Gal) 7.21 6.04 9.21
Total Capital Investment (MM$) 1,088.1 881.4 1460.9
Lang Factor 8.54 6.92 11.47
a
30% contingency is used for pioneer plant cost analysis.
F1147-E(10/2008)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
June 2010
2. REPORT TYPE
Technical report
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochemical Scenarios for Production
of Cellulosic Ethanol
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
DE-AC36-08-GO28308
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)
F. Kabir Kazi, J. Fortman, R. Anex, G. Kothandaraman, D. Hsu,
A, Aden, and A. Dutta
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
NREL/TP-6A2-46588
5e. TASK NUMBER
BB07.7510
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NREL/TP-6A2-46588
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
NREL
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)
A techno-economic analysis on the production of cellulosic ethanol by fermentation was conducted to understand the
viability of liquid biofuel production processes within the next 5-8 years. Initially, 35 technologies were reviewed, then
a two-step down selection was performed to choose scenarios to be evaluated in a more detailed economic analysis.
The lignocellulosic ethanol process was selected because it is well studied and portions of the process have been
tested at pilot scales. Seven process variations were selected and examined in detail. Process designs were
constrained to public data published in 2007 or earlier, without projecting for future process improvements. Economic
analysis was performed for an 'nth plant' (mature technology) to obtain total investment and product value (PV).
Sensitivity analysis was performed on PV to assess the impact of variations in process and economic parameters.
Results show that the modeled dilute acid pretreatment process without any downstream process variation had the
lowest PV of $3.40/gal of ethanol ($5.15/gallon of gasoline equivalent) in 2007 dollars. Sensitivity analysis shows that
PV is most sensitive to feedstock and enzyme costs.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
cellulosic ethanol; biofuels; product value; fermentation; biochemical; feedstock; enzyme; process design; economic
analysis; dilute acid pretreatment
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
UL
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT
Unclassified
b. ABSTRACT
Unclassified
c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochemical Scenarios for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol
F. Kabir Kazi, J. Fortman, and R. Anex
Iowa State University

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-46588 June 2010

G. Kothandaraman

ConocoPhillips Company

D. Hsu, A. Aden, and A. Dutta
Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Foreword
The purpose of this techno-economic analysis is to compare a set of biofuel conversion technologies selected for their promise and near-term technical viability. Every effort has been made to make this comparison on an equivalent basis using common assumptions. The process design and parameter value choices underlying this analysis are based on public domain literature only. For these reasons, the results are not indicative of potential performance. Rather they are meant to represent the most likely performance given the current state of public knowledge.

iii

List of Acronyms
AFEX ASPEN BTU CAFI COD DB EtOH EVD FCI FPU GGE IRS MACRS PV MM MT NREL SSCF SSF ST TD&IC TCI ammonia fiber explosion (or expansion) Advanced Simulator For Process Engineering (software) British thermal unit Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation chemical oxygen demand declining balance (depreciation) ethanol experimentally validated data fixed capital investment filter paper units gallons of gasoline equivalent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modified accelerated cost recovery system product value million metric ton National Renewable Energy Laboratory simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation simultaneous saccharification and fermentation short ton total direct and indirect costs total capital investment

iv

Executive Summary
A techno-economic analysis on the production of cellulosic ethanol by fermentation was conducted to understand the viability of liquid biofuel production processes within the next 5-8 years. Initially, 35 technologies were reviewed and a matrix was prepared considering economics, technological soundness and maturity, environmental aspects, process performance, and technical and economic risks. Then, a two-step down selection was performed to choose scenarios to be evaluated in a more detailed economic analysis. In the first screening, the lignocellulosic ethanol process was selected because it is well studied and portions of the process have been tested at pilot scales. In the second screening, seven scenarios of process variations were selected: four variations involved pretreatment (dilute acid, two-stage dilute acid, hot water, and ammonia fiber explosion) and three variations involved downstream processes (pervaporation, separate 5-carbon and 6-carbon sugar fermentation, and on-site enzyme production). Each of these scenarios was examined in detail. Given the time needed for design, construction, and startup of large process plants, plants operating in the 5-8 year timeframe would likely need to be based on recent experimental data. For this work, process designs were constrained to public data published in 2007 or earlier, without projecting for future process improvements. Economic analysis was performed for an “nth plant” (mature technology) to obtain total investment and product value (PV) (defined as value of the product needed for a net present value of zero with a 10% internal rate of return). The final selection among the scenarios was performed primarily based on the PV. Sensitivity analysis was performed on PV to assess the impact of variations in process and economic parameters. Results show that the modeled dilute acid pretreatment process without any downstream process variation had the lowest PV of $3.40/gal of ethanol (which is $5.15/gallon of gasoline equivalent, GGE) in 2007 dollars. Sensitivity analysis shows that PV is most sensitive to feedstock and enzyme costs. The cellulosic ethanol process is a new technology, for which a pioneer plant is expected to be significantly more expensive than the nth plant. To assess the impact of technology maturity on pioneer plant cost, a cost growth analysis was performed following a method documented in a RAND Corporation report. This methodology attempts to incorporate added expenses and startup time for a new process. There is some subjectivity in choosing the parameters for the pioneer plant analysis, so a range of parameters was used to estimate pioneer plant costs for three scenarios: optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic. The PV obtained from cost-growth analysis is substantially larger for a pioneer plant, increasing from $3.40/gal (which is $5.15/GGE), before including added expenses, to $5.01/gal ($7.59/GGE), $5.76/gal ($8.72/GGE), and $7.08/gal ($10.71/GGE) for the optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic scenarios, respectively. The PV obtained from the 2007 published data is much higher than the market gasoline price. Also, published technological data may not be adequate to accurately project a competitive PV from a commercial plant of 2000 MT/day capacity. However, this analysis identifies some of the more cost intensive operations and areas. The current process can only reach approximately 4.5% ethanol in the fermentor beer, which is a third of what grain ethanol plants are achieving today. The analysis also assumed an enzyme price as $0.69/gal of ethanol produced. Based on this analysis, we believe that high-performance enzymes at a cheaper price are required and that more research is needed to achieve higher ethanol concentration in the fermentor for this process to compete in the current energy market. v

..............Sensitivity Parameters and Values .....................Table of Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................... and Installed Equipment Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ....................................................................................3 Process Description and Flow Diagram ........................ vii List of Tables ......................................................34 Operating Cost ............................................39 Appendix D ........ 1 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Appendices ..........................................13 Pioneer Plant Analysis .........................18 Sensitivity Analysis ...............................................Cost Analysis Result Summary ...............................51 vi .....................Sensitivity Results ......................................................................................................1 Project Assumptions ..................................................................................31 Material and Energy Balance ...........................................................................................................................35 Cost Analysis ..........Equipment List and Costs.............................................................................. vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Hot Water Pretreatment ......................................10 On-Site Enzyme Production ..............................................................................................................................................................34 Greenhouse Emissions and Control .................................................................................................................................................4 Process Variations..................................................................................................................................................................................14 nth Plant Cost Analysis ...........................................34 Wastewater Treatment Plant .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Dilute Acid Pretreatment .................................................................................8 AFEX Pretreatment ............................................................................................................37 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................................................31 Plant Size............................................................... 18 Summary of the Down-Selection Process.................................................................32 Equipment Design..........................................................................................Assumptions for Techno-economic Studies of Biochemical Conversion Processes ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ...................31 Units ........... Installation Factors............................................... and Construction .........................................................9 Ethanol Separation Using Pervaporation ........... 31 Appendix A .......13 Methodology for Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for nth Plant ......................................................................33 Chemical Costing .............................................................................. v Table of Contents .. Location.....12 Methodology for Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusions ............. and Costing .........................................................................................................................................................................21 Pioneer Plant Analysis Results .................................................................................................................35 Appendix B ..........................................................................................43 Appendix E .................................................................................................................................24 Comparison with Previous Studies......... iii List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................5 Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment ..........................31 Feedstock and Enzymes ........................................................................................................................... vii Methodology ................................................................ Material of Construction..............................8 Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation ....................................................... 27 References ...................................

.....................................Appendix F .............................Analysis: Cost Growth Variables And Results ........................ 19 Table 4................................ Pioneer Plant Analysis Results for the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario .............................................. .................................... Product Value for Various Pretreatment and Downstream Process Variations.81 Appendix I ....... Wastewater treatment section (Area 600) ..... Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Processes ..........90 List of Figures Figure 1..78 Appendix H ................................... 43 Table D-2............................................................... Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes.................... Process flow diagram for base case pretreatment....... 11 Figure 9............................ 80 List of Tables Table 1............... 5 Figure 2...................................................Process Operating Summaries ................. 44 vii .................................................... 20 Table 5............. Hot water pretreatment process flow diagram........................................................................... 18 Table 3....Cost By Area Of Process Scenarios .. 23 Figure 14................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4............ Impact of overall process/economic parameters on PV (dilute acid pretreatment)............ 6 Figure 3..................................................................................................................... Impact of saccharification parameters on PV ..................................................................................................................................... On-site enzyme production process flow diagram ................................................ enzymatic hydrolysis...... 12 Figure 10................................ 79 Figure G-2. 25 Figure G-1......................................................... Impact of Pretreatment Parameters on PV ................................... Pervaporation separation process ....... Comparison of Dilute Acid Pretreatment Results from Lab...................................... Corn Stover Feedstock Composition .............85 Appendix J .............. and fermentation .................. 8 Figure 6....... 32 Table B-1............................................................. 16 Table 2. 38 Table C-1..................... Ethanol cost estimations from previous techno-economic studies..................................62 Appendix G . Overall process block diagram of a typical cellulosic ethanol process plant (based on NREL’s 2002 design report and modified to 2007 EVD) ...General Process Description ............................................................. Process flow diagram for dilute acid pretreatment ......... 39 Table C-2.................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12......................................................... 22 Figure 13................ Sensitivity Parameters for Pretreatment and Saccharification (AREA 200) ............ 42 Table D-1............and Pilot-Scale Data ....... AFEX process flow diagram .... Impact of Overall Process and Economic Parameters on PV ............ 7 Figure 5............... Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ............. Separate C5 and C6 fermentation configuration ............ Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario ............................................ Process flow diagram for two-stage dilute acid pretreatment/hydrolysis and fermentation ........ Base case distillation configuration .......................................................... Steam and power generation section (Area 800) ..... Impact of pretreatment parameters on PV ............ 10 Figure 8.... 9 Figure 7............................................ 24 Table A-1.........Down Selection Matrix..................... 37 Table B-2................................................ Sensitivity Parameters for Overall Process ............................ 13 Figure 11.............................

.............. 85 Table J-1................. Operating Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Processes .. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Hot water Pretreatment Processes .......................... Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes............... 47 Table D-6......................... 72 Table F-7............ 90 Table J-2........ Operating Summary for Separate C5 & C6 Fermentation Processes........................................................................ Cost Analysis Result Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Process ................................................ Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for AFEX Pretreatment Processes .................. 66 Table F-4....... Costs by Area of the Pervaporation Process Scenario ...... PV from Cost Growth Analysis for Various Process Scenarios .... Operating Summary for Pervaporation Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ............................................ Operating Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes ............... 90 Table J-3........... Equipment Lists and Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes ........ Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (Pilot) Processes............ 64 Table F-3..................................... 82 Table H-5.....Table D-3.......... 81 Table H-3..... 92 viii ...... 45 Table D-5................... 91 Table J-4................ Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Scenario ....... Cost Analysis Result Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes .................. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids Loading) Processes ... 68 Table F-5.............. Costs by Area of the AFEX Pretreatment Scenario .......................... 49 Table D-8........... Cost Analysis Result Summary for Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Processes ................................................. 83 Table H-7............................................... 74 Table F-8................................... 70 Table F-6......... 83 Table H-6.............. Costs by Area of the Hot Water Pretreatment Scenario ............................................... Costs by Area of the Separate C-5 and C-6 Fermentation Process Scenario ............... 62 Table F-2....... 84 Table I-1........ Operating Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes .... 76 Table H-1..... Costs by Area of the 2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Scenario ......................................... Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for On-Site Enzyme Production Processes ........................................................................................ 92 Table J-6......... 91 Table J-5.......... 48 Table D-7. 82 Table H-4................................................................................................................ Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes .......................... 81 Table H-2................................. Costs by Area of the On-site Enzyme Production Processes Scenario ........... Cost Analysis Result Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes ................................. Operating Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes ... 50 Table E-1.... Process Down-Selection Matrix........................... Cost Analysis Result Summary for Pervaporation Purification Processes.................................................................................... 51 Table F-1....................

and startup of a plant. They started with a review of various biochemical processes published in journals and reports and then applied two steps of screening to make the final selection. the technologies with the greatest overall promise in the 5-8 year timeframe. Both butanol and ethanol processes were initially considered. and published data on butanol-producing organisms indicate low yields relative to ethanol production. the plant would likely need to be designed based on current data because of the time needed for design. This evaluation was conducted using past models. Major process and economic parameters such as feedstock. many matrix entries were qualitative. level of technology development. and uncertainty criteria to determine. If quantitative numbers were available for the matrix. capacity factor. and internal rate of return were included in the matrix. at a high level. 1 . operating cost. yield. It was also conducted through publicly available literature in 2007. capital expenditure. However. These parameters cover the major process aspects that reflect the overall economics of the processes. only ethanol technologies were adopted for analysis. environmental performance. Butanol has properties such as higher energy density and immiscibility with water that may make it a better transportation fuel. For a plant to be operating at commercial levels in this timeframe. complexity of the process.Methodology The objective of this study was to select a biochemical conversion process from published literature to produce a second generation liquid biofuel from lignocellulosic biomass. The cost analysis is performed assuming nth plant technology (mature technology) and then subjected to cost growth analysis for a pioneer plant. The following steps explain the basic methodology for performing the techno-economic analysis: • • • • • • • Search literature for technologies under consideration Perform down selection with criteria to narrow to a few scenarios Design process models using AspenPlus process simulation using available experimental data Size and cost equipment using traditional methods such as literature references and vendor quotations Determine project investments and perform discounted cash flow analysis Adjust sensitivity parameters and document results Perform pioneer plant cost growth and performance analysis. they were used. butanol production processes are currently at the lab scale or very early pilot stage of development. A matrix of techno-economic studies was developed for “down selecting” the most promising fuels and processes. Each technology option was evaluated based on economic and technical feasibility. if they existed. Therefore. construction. The studies involved several steps defining the objective and scope of the project. But since the technologies are not mature. Summary of the Down-Selection Process Thirty-five biochemical fuel production technologies were initially selected for consideration (Table I-1).

The three downstream technologies—parallel fermentation of C5 and C6 sugars. All together. Hot water pretreatment. seven scenarios were examined: • • • Dilute Acid Pretreatment Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Hot Water Pretreatment 2 . 6]. Two-stage dilute acid pretreatments are also based on bench-scale experiments [5. and pervaporation—were compared to a base case using dilute acid pretreatment. Twostage dilute acid is a pretreatment that eliminates the need for enzymes for saccharification. concentrated acid. In addition. The pretreatment processes selected for further analysis were: 1. We therefore chose to include parallel fermentations of C5 and C6 sugars for comparison with the baseline fermentation. Based on the results of these studies. 2. and ammonia-recycle-percolation pretreatment were rejected as less attractive due to the high costs associated with the processes. Another variation considered was parallel fermentation of 5-carbon (C5) and 6-carbon (C6) sugars. Among those process variations selected for further study was the production of enzymes on-site using hydrolyzate as a carbon source. Current cofermentative organisms do not have high ethanol yields and are not highly robust to system variations. process variations in combination with pretreatment that may offer attractive system performance were also considered. one major source of uncertainty in the other pretreatments. Ammonia Fiber Explosion (or Expansion) (AFEX) 3. AFEX. Dilute acid is a pretreatment technology that showed promise in the original CAFI study [1. 3]. SO2-steam. 2] and serves as the base technology for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) cellulosic ethanol design report [4]. Hot water pretreatment has low capital investment requirements.Ethanol-producing processes were categorized by pretreatment method. and hot water pretreatment conversions are based on bench-scale experiments from CAFI [3]. On-site enzyme production may be cheaper by precluding the use of stabilizers and other additives that are needed when enzymes are purchased. Single-stage dilute acid. Substantial research has been done on biomass pretreatment for biochemical conversion at the bench scale by the Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI) projects [1. lime. on-site enzyme production. Another technology that was considered worthy of further analysis was the use of pervaporation instead of the beer distillation column to separate ethanol and potentially allow higher titer and substrate utilization in the fermentor. Acid pretreatment (single-stage dilute and two-stage dilute) 2. AFEX is a pretreatment that does not require as much water as other pretreatments. Pervaporation also has the advantage of lower steam and utility requirements than a distillation column.

construction. This cost was calculated based on the cost of producing enzyme on-site using hydrolyzate. The feedstock contains 25% moisture and the composition is assumed to be the same as that obtained in CAFI II feedstock analysis (Table A-1). experimentally validated data (2007 EVD) and equipment prices (indexed). and mass flow rates (in MT/day). The plant initiates operation in 5-8 years. pressure (in bar). • • • • • • • 3 .69/gallon of ethanol. and startup [8]. The scope of the work was to determine the product value of cellulosic ethanol for a plant operating in the 5-8 year timeframe. and the complete list is provided in Appendix A. Purchased enzyme cost from off-site source is $507/MT ($460/ST) of broth of 10% protein used at a loading of 31. This cost comes to $0. and yields are reported in metric tons (MT). • • • • • • The plant capacity is 2000 MT/day. The processes use 2007 lab-scale. plant capacity. The processes use corn stover as feedstock.3 mg protein per gram cellulose in the feed. Adopted units: cost of all purchased chemicals and feedstocks. Operating conditions: temperature (in oC). Plant life is 20 years. for nth plant. The major assumptions are highlighted below. respectively. Contingency factor and working capital are 20% of total direct and indirect costs (TD&IC) and 15% of fixed capital investment (FCI). Plant capacity factor is 96% (350 on-stream days/year). For a plant to be operating at commercial levels in this timeframe. This timeframe was chosen because of the renewable fuel standard volumes mandated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [7]. the plant would likely need to be designed based on current data as large process plant projects typically take more than four years for design. Project Assumptions For each down-selected process a common list of assumptions on process operations and economic analysis was made. The plant is 100% equity financed.• • • • AFEX Pretreatment On-site Enzyme Production with Dilute Acid Pretreatment Ethanol Separation using Pervaporation with Dilute Acid Pretreatment Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation with Dilute Acid Pretreatment. Plant depreciation is calculated following the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) over 7 years for the main plant and 20 years for the cogeneration area. Feedstock cost is $83/dry MT ($75/dry ST).

2007 EVD conversion data are obtained from NREL research [9]. Current technological data are used in the simulation and described as the 2007 experimentally validated data (2007 EVD).Process Description and Flow Diagram The different scenarios detailed above were generated by modifying the NREL 2002 production process [4]. Two-stage dilute acid data are based on available literature [5. data for AFEX and hot water 2007 EVD are obtained from CAFI II research [1. In the pretreatment area. 3]. 2. Appendix G contains a general description of the process steps that have not been altered from previous NREL studies. The AspenPlus Process Simulator is used in process modeling. comprises nine sections as shown in Figure 1 and listed below. 6]. • • • • • • • • • Feed Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment and Detoxification (Area 200) Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation (Area 300) On-site Enzyme Production (Area 400) Product Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Pretreatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Burner/Boiler Turbo-Generator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) sections. For all other areas. 4 . The overall process block diagram is shown in Figure 1. Operating conditions of the major unit operations of each area and mass flow rates are included in Figure 1. modified from NREL’s 2002 design report [4]. Dilute acid pretreatment data are taken from both CAFI II and NREL research. Appendix F contains details of operating conditions for the major process steps. The basic cellulosic ethanol production process.

46 bar) is added to maintain a temperature of around 100°C. P = 1. In order to reduce toxicity to the fermentation organisms downstream.ACID (199 MT/d) WASH WATER (755 MT/d) STEAM (1205 MT/d) LIME (147 MT/day) WASHED & SHREDDED STOVER (3085 MT/d) To CLARIFIER AIR IN (112 MT/d) AIR OUT (118 MT/d) ENZYME (209 MT/d) NUTRIENTS (109 MT/d) AREA 100 FEEDSTOCK 2667 MT/d (25% Moisture) (T = 20 oC. where low pressure steam (163°C. 11. 13.17 bar) is added as shown in Figure 2.9 wt% of the liquid phase in the reactor. Results from the seven process variations are shown in Table 2 of the Results and Discussion section. is added to the reactor at a rate necessary to achieve 1. a liming step is added to neutralize excess H2SO4 in the hydrolyzate. P=1.6 bar. P = 1. (485 MT/d) AIR (477 MT/d) NUTRIENTS (1MT/d) (379 MT/d) COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN AREA 600 WASTEWATER TREATMENT (T=21. Dilute Acid Pretreatment Table F-1 includes a summary of the dilute acid operating conditions and model parameters.5 bar) COMBUSTION AIR (7794 MT/d) AREA 700 BOILER FEED WATER (5181 MT/d) UTILITIES STORAGE ELECTRICITY ASH (297 MT/d) STEAM (5026 MT/d) Figure 1.0 bar in the blow-down tank. The presteamer allows a portion of the pretreatment heat requirement to be met with low pressure steam.1 oC. P=1. Overall process block diagram of a typical cellulosic ethanol process plant (based on NREL’s 2002 design report and modified to 2007 EVD) Process Variations This section includes a description of each of the process scenarios. The biomass slurry is then flashed to 1. The solid fraction is separated from the slurry in a Pneumapress pressure filter. 4. P = 13.89 bar) TREATED WASTEWATER (2037 MT/d) STILL SOLIDS (1137 MT/day) EVAP SYRUP (1882 MT/day) VAPOR TO ATMOSPHERE (37937 MT/d) AREA 900 MAKEUP WATER (50854 MT/d) WATER RETURN (7754 MT/d) TO PROCESS DIGESTOR SOLIDS (3 MT/day) ANAEROBIC CH4 (7 MT/day) AREA 800 BURNER/BOILER TURBOGENERATOR (T=510 oC. and 2 minutes. and residence time are maintained at 190°C. P=97. respectively. diluted with process water.01 bar) AREA 200 PRETREATMENT & CONDITIONING HYDRO-LYZATE (9987 MT/d) AREA 300 SACCHARIFICATION & CO-FERMENTATION (T = 32 oC. Sulfuric acid. The biomass from Area 100 is fed by a screw feeder to the presteamer.17 bar) RECYCLE COND (2381 MT/d) RECYCLE WATER (4393 MT/d) (10301 MT/d) (440 MT/d) GYPSUM (332MT/d) VAPOR TO ATM. The biomass then enters the pretreatment reactor.01 bar) FEED HANDLING (T = 190 oC. 5 EtOH PRODUCT (457 MT/day) (155 MT/d) GAS TO STACK (10544 MT/d) (436 MT/d) SCRUBBER BOTTOM .01 bar) WASTE WATER (1085 MT/d) EVAPORATOR CONDENSATE (435 MT/d) RECYCLE WATER (2037 MT/d) BROTH VENT WATER (2361 MT/d) VENT (445 MT/d) AREA 500 DISTILLATION DEHYDRATION SCRUBBER EVAPORATOR AIR OUT (148 MT/d) RECYCLE WATER (1530 MT/d) AIR IN (142 MT/d) BOILER BLOWDOWN (T=100 oC. where high pressure steam (268°C. pressure. The reactor temperature.

the first stage solubilizes most of the hemicellulose. P=11. The gypsum is separated from the slurry in a two-step process. with the first being a hydrocyclone and the second being a rotary drum filter.01 bar ACID (111 MT/day) RECYCLE WATER (1096 MT/day) TO AREA 300 (SACCHARIFICATION) (9987 MT/day) RESLURRY TANK T=57 C. The residence time in the overliming tank is 1 hour.59% conc) BLOWDOWN TANK SHREDDED & WASHED STOVER (from A-100) (3085 MT/day. 54% solids) T=101 oC. The slurry is pumped to a second tank where additional H2SO4 is added to reduce the pH to 4. The conditioned hydrolyzate is mixed with the solid biomass fraction from which it was previously separated in the Pneumapress pressure filter. Two-stage dilute acid conversion data were taken from literature for softwood and assumed to be similar for corn stover [5. In the two-stage dilute acid pretreatment process.01 bar o CONDITIONED LIQUID GYPSUM (332 MT/day) GYPSUM SEPARATION Figure 2. and the resulting slurry is ready for enzymatic hydrolysis. which allows the gypsum crystals to grow to an adequate size for solid/liquid separation. The reaction of lime and H2SO4 forms gypsum.Solid lime is added to the overliming tank along with the aqueous fraction from the Pneumapress to raise the pH to 10. P=1. This contrasts with the dilute acid pretreatment process. Mass balance and operating conditions of the major unit operations are shown in the flow diagrams (Figures 3 and 4). which is separated from the hydrolyzate as solid cake. 3.5.01 bar RECYCLE WATER (3297 MT/day) VENT (to A-800) (129 MT/day) LIME HANDLING LIGNOCELLULOSICS / HYDROLYSATE SCREW CONVEYOR T=190 oC. P=1. 6]. Mass balance and operating conditions of major unit operations are shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 2). just as in the dilute acid pretreatment process. 6 LIME (147 MT/day) . The residence time in the second tank is 4 hours.6 bar S/L SEPARATION SOLIDS (1868 MT/day) STEAM (1205 MT/day) PREHYDROLYSIS REACTOR LIQUID (7097 MT/day) OVERLIMING NEUTRALIZATION T=50 oC. Process flow diagram for dilute acid pretreatment Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment An operating summary of the two-stage dilute acid pretreatment is provided in Table F-2. In the second stage. RECYCLED CONDENSATE VENT (to WWT) (1073 MT/day) VENT AIR (112 MT/day) LIME HOPPER CAR ACID ACID STORAGE ACID SOLUTION (2469 MT/day. a higher concentration of acid is added to hydrolyze the cellulose and remaining hemicellulose (Figure 3). where enzymes are used to hydrolyze the cellulose (Figure 4). P=1.

7 MT/d) TO SCRUBBER (29 MT/d) T=32°C P=1. Process flow diagram for base case pretreatment.INOCULUM CORN STEEP LIQUOR (5 MT/d) DIAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE (0.7 bar ACID-TREATED FEED (1875 MT/d) 2ND STAGE ACID OVERLIMING TANK DILUTION RECYCLE (8297 MT/d) BEER STORAGE TANK 7% contamination TO A500 DISTILLATION (10080 MT/d) FERMENTOR CORN STEEP LIQUOR (104 MT/d) WASTEWATER TREATMENT (351 MT/d) GYPSUM (34 MT/d) Figure 3.7 MT/d) To Scrubber (46 MT/d) Seed Fermentor Inoculum (979 MT/d) To Scrubber (394 MT/d) Scrubber Bottoms (436 MT/d) Enzyme (209 MT/d) To Seed Fermentor (1020 MT/d) Detoxified Hydrolysate (9987 MT/d) Saccharification Tank T = 32 oC P = 1 atm To Fermentor (9176 MT/d) CSL (103 MT/d) Ethanol Fermentor T = 32 oC P = 1 atm To Beer Tank Beer Storage Tank To Distillation (10301 MT/d) Figure 4. and fermentation 7 . Process flow diagram for two-stage dilute acid pretreatment/hydrolysis and fermentation CSL (5 MT/d) DAP (0.01 bar T=210°C P=18.01 bar TO SCRUBBER (247 MT/d) SEED FERMENTOR DILUTE SULFURIC ACID (373 MT/d) T=32°C P=1. enzymatic hydrolysis.

condensed. causing the fibers to explode and increasing the access of enzymes to cellulose. The chopped and washed biomass from Area 100 is mixed with recycled hot water from Area 500.43 bar) o T=65 oC P=12. P=1. The residence time in the pretreatment reactor is 5 minutes. the biomass is treated with liquid anhydrous ammonia under high pressure (17. The pressure is rapidly released.2 bar) and 60°C for about 5 minutes [10]. 8 (13051 MT/d) .7 bar and the temperature is held constant at 190°C. The reactor pressure is maintained at 12. Mass flow rates and operating conditions of reactor and major units are shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 5).4% solids) VENT (0 MT/d) STEAM BLOWDOWN TANK PREHYDROLYSIS REACTOR SCREW CONVEYOR (T = C. 54.4 bar LIGNOCELLULOSICS / HYDROLYSATE CONDENSATE CONDENSATE (9973 MT/day) AMMONIA (SACCHARIFICATION) AMMONIA NEUTRALIZER (13083 MT/d) AMMONIA (32 MT/day) T=80 oC. Most of the ammonia is recovered from the blow-down tank.23 bar Figure 5. SHREDDED & WASHED STOVER (from A-100) (3078 MT/day. The slurry is fed to a plug flow pretreatment reactor.0 bar in the flash tank. Recovered ammonia vapor is then compressed. P=17. The xylose and cellulose pretreatment yields are shown in Table F-3.01 bar TO AREA 300 AMMONIA TANK T=20 oC. The pretreated biomass is slurried into a holding tank to be sent to Area 300 for enzymatic hydrolysis (Figure 6). Hot water pretreatment process flow diagram AFEX Pretreatment A summary of operating parameters for AFEX pretreatment can be found in Table F-4. Residual ammonia is recovered from the solids by a flash followed by fractionation from other volatiles.Hot Water Pretreatment Table F-3 contains a summary of model parameters for hot water pretreatment. Ammonia is added to the reactor to neutralize acetic acid formed during the pretreatment process. The slurry is then cooled to 65°C and flashed to 1. and recycled back into the AFEX reactor [10]. In the AFEX pretreatment process. P = 12.

AFEX process flow diagram Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Separate solid and liquid processing (C6 and C5 sugars respectively) takes advantage of enhanced yields where xylose is fermented separately using Zymomonas mobilis and glucose is fermented separately with yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Saccharomyces pastorianus).67 MT/day 3201. based on work by Dutta et al.80 MT/day HOLDING TANK Figure 6. [11].17 MT/day 1736.91 MT/day AFEX REACTOR Lignocellulosics/ Hydrolysate AMMONIA RECOVERY Recycle Water (8061 MT/day) Biomass Slurry (2401.5% Solids) Condensate 121.26 MT/day) To Recycle (Acid/Other Volatiles/Water) 839.25 MT/day) To Area 300 (Saccharification) (10461. Table F-5 contains a summary of operating parameters for the separate C5 and C6 fermentation scenario.84 MT/d SCREW CONVEYOR FLASH DRUM Steam 1. 9 Ammonia Vapor 897.2 MT/day AMMONIA STORAGE Shredded Stover 3078.Liquid Ammonia Compressed Ammonia 1610.84 MT/day 4138. The process shown in Figure 7 attempts to mitigate the water issue by using the product stream from the liquor (xylose) fermentation to dilute the stream prior to saccharification.5 MT/day Lignocellulosics/ Hydrolysate 4851. The additional water increases ethanol recovery costs. This avoids the issue of lower xylose to ethanol yields seen in the current cofermenting organisms. One disadvantage of separate processing is that more water is needed to dilute the solids stream because the best yields are achieved at low solids loading.79 MT/day AMMONIA RECYCLE COMPRESSOR Ammonia Vent 713.78 MT/day Liquid Ammonia 40.55 MT/d (53.1 MT/day BLOWDOWN TANK .

01 bar (5671 MT/d) (6739 MT/d) LIGNOCELLULOSICS / HYDROLYSATE To WWT (11 MT/d) NEUTRALIZATION TANK (1860 MT/d) STEAM (1217 MT/d) PREHYDROLYSIS REACTOR To SCRUBBER (134 MT/d) LIQUID (7083 MT/d) DAP (0.6 bar H2SO4 (100%) (203 MT/d) S/L SEPARATION T=63 oC.01 bar WATER (209 MT/d) To BEER STORAGE TANK (11075 MT/d) C-5 Sugar Fermentor T = 32 oC P = 1. 10 . The separation of CO2 is assumed to be easier than what is modeled here.4% solids) BLOWDOWN TANK T=101 oC. Because pervaporation does not involve a large heat input. a flash tank is added to separate out CO2 at 110°C and a heat exchanger cools the stream to 41°C.01 bar RECYCLE WATER (1627 MT/d) CSL To SCRUBBER (304 MT/d) (114 MT/d) YEAST (16 MT/d) SEPAR ATOR SEPARATOR (923 MT/d) (9180 MT/d) Seed Fermentor CSL (5 MT/d) (929 MT/d) REACIDIFICATION TANK (11379 MT/d) T=32 oC P=1. 54.63% conc) SHREDDED & WASHED STOVER (from A-100) (3079 MT/d. the pervaporation variation modifies the distillation section of the dilute acid model by inserting a pervaporation system in place of the beer column (Figure 9). A summary of operating parameters for the pervaporation separation scenario is located in Table F-6. with a replacement needed every five years at a cost of $100/m2 [13]. P=11. gaseous permeate output on the other side.01bar C-6 Sugar Fermentor T = 32 oC P = 1. P=1. so neither the capital nor utility costs of the flash tank and heat exchanger are included in the economic analysis. 3. Separate C5 and C6 fermentation configuration Ethanol Separation Using Pervaporation Pervaporation refers to separation using a membrane with liquid feed on one side and a lowpressure. In contrast to the base case distillation configuration (Figure 8). The membrane system costs $200/m2 in 1999 dollars. the beer column also serves to separate carbon dioxide from the ethanol stream.01 bar RECYCLE WATER (3289 MT/d) SEPAR ATOR T=30 oC.9%) (319 MT/d) ACID ACID STORAGE ACID SOLUTION (2443 MT/d. the process could save on costs associated with the heat and steam needed for the reboiler of a conventional distillation column. In the pervaporation model.01 bar (11249 MT/d) T = 32 oC P = 1. P=1. The separation factors and material fluxes are based on literature [12]. Components in the liquid feed preferentially permeate through the membrane and then evaporate into the gaseous phase. The pervaporation system output is calculated from a separation factor and a total material flux needed to achieve the same separation as in the beer column [12]. In the base case dilute acid model.RECYCLED CONDENSATE VENT (to WWT) (1068 MT/d) VENT (to A-800) (118 MT/day) AIR (112 MT/d) NH4OH (61. P=1.01 bar CSL (93 MT/d) (912 MT/d) SEPAR ATOR Saccharification/ Fermentor (9315 MT/d) (8310 MT/d) Figure 7.7 MT/d) To SCRUBBER (17 MT/d) (7402 MT/d) SCREW CONVEYOR T=190 oC.

Base case distillation configuration 11 .5% EtOH (457 MT/d) To Scrubber (14 MT/d) 93% EtOH (612 MT/d) Molecular Sieve P-378 From Beer Storage (10301 MT/d) Regenerant (155 MT/d) Rectification Bottom to Pneuma Press (878 MT/d) To A-200 (Pneuma Press) Beer Storage Tank (1335 MT/d) Rectification Column Vapor (1484 MT/d) Vapor (1435 MT/d) Evaporator Condensate (1426 MT/d) (8951 MT/d) CIP CIP CIP Steam 1st Effect Evaporator Liquor (7467 MT/d) Condensate 2nd Effect Evaporator (4743 MT/d) Condensate (1484 MT/d) 2nd Effect Evaporator Condensate (1435 MT/d) To Combustor Vapor Entrainment (6 MT/d) (3308 MT/d) (1882 MT/d) S/L Separation Solids to Combustor (1137 MT/d) To A200 (1581 MT/d) Figure 8.99.

This work was based on a design report by NREL in 1999 [14]. where a fraction of the stream is used for the growth of Trichoderma reesei inoculums in seed bioreactors. Trichoderma reesei (a fungal strain) is used for on-site cellulase enzyme production. 12 .3% EtOH (461 MT/d) 92% EtOH (617 MT/d) Molecular Sieve P-358 Regenerant (156 MT/d) From Beer Storage (10637 MT/d) Pervaporation 31% EtOH (1475 MT/d) Rectification Column Rectification Bottom to Pneuma Press (1014 MT/d) To A-200 (Pneuma Press) Evaporator Condensate (1483 MT/d) Vapor (1537 MT/d) Vapor (1495 MT/d) (9162 MT/d) CIP CIP CIP Steam 1st Effect Evaporator Liquor (7625 MT/d) Condensate 2nd Effect Evaporator Condensate (1537 MT/d) 2nd Effect Evaporator Condensate (1495 MT/d) To Combustor Vapor Entrainment (6 MT/d) (4876 MT/d) (3381 MT/d) (1898 MT/d) S/L Separation Solids to Combustor (1118 MT/d) To A200 (1625 MT/d) Figure 9. and β-glucosidase enzymes.99. The remainder is pumped into the jacketed aerobic bioreactors where inocula are added from the seed bioreactors to produce enzymes. exoglucanases. oxygen is supplied by an air compressor. To control foam formation. Pervaporation separation process On-Site Enzyme Production Table F-7 contains a summary of the on-site enzyme production operating parameters. Corn steep liquor and other trace nutrients are also added to the reactors. In the present case. Cellulase enzyme is a mixture of endoglucanases. A portion of the conditioned pretreated biomass from Area 200 is pumped to Area 400. corn oil is added into the bioreactors. On-site enzyme production (Area 400) is modeled as a variation to the baseline dilute acid process model (where enzyme is assumed to be purchased from suppliers). Mass flow rates and process conditions of major unit operations are shown in Figure 10. Ammonia is used to control pH and to provide additional fixed nitrogen to the fungus.

bench-scale data.3 MT/d) AIR (873 MT/d) VENT (895 MT/d) AMMONIA/SO2 (6 MT/d) SEED REACTOR T=28 C. The process design is assumed to become the nth plant.DILUTE DETOXIFIED HYDROLYZATE (118 MT/d) CSL (1 MT/d) AMMONIA/SO2 (0.68 bar DETOXIFIED HYDROLYZATE AND LIGNOCELLULOSIC (1358 MT/d) ANTIFOAM CELLULASE FERMENTOR CSL NUTRIENTS T=20 oC. P=1. These uncertainties are accounted for in the cost growth analysis for a pioneer plant using the risk analysis methodology developed by RAND [15. This is a major assumption for a process that is still early in its development. However. However. The details of the cost estimation for the nth plant and the cost growth analysis for the pioneer plant are discussed in the following subsections. and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. the CAFI group. the nth plant analysis was chosen to provide an analysis parallel to analyses done by different groups. including NREL.01 bar CELLULASE TO AREA-300 (1306 MT/d) MEDIA PREPARATION TANK ANTIFOAM TANK Figure 10. P=1.01 bar T=20 oC.7 MT/d) T=28 oC. Pinch analysis is performed to optimize energy balances. On-site enzyme production process flow diagram Methodology for Economic Analysis The base case cost estimation and analysis is performed assuming the plant is an nth plant design. The 13 . because of the new technological elements of cellulosic ethanol production there are a number of engineering design and performance uncertainties. operating at the reported yields from experimental. Methodology for Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for nth Plant Mass and energy balances for each of the seven selected process variations are performed by AspenPlus Process Simulator.6 MT/d) (8. and when an nth plant for cellulosic ethanol becomes commercial. P=1.01 bar o AIR (12085 MT/d) VENT (11396 MT/d) COMPRESSOR AIR AIR (11212 MT/d) CSL/NUTRIENTS (19. P=1. it may not look like this design. 16]. This means that a similar plant was previously constructed and operated without unexpected delays in startup and capacity loss.

and third years. and 23% of purchased equipment cost. following IRS MACRS. This methodology considers two sources of production cost growth in pioneer plants: less than expected plant performance and low capital cost estimation. FCI is the sum of TD&IC and contingency. Total installed cost (TIC) is defined as the sum of total installed equipment cost. from AspenPlus simulations. nutrients) and fixed operating costs (employee salaries. respectively. and working capital is 15% of fixed capital investment (FCI). variable costs (such as process chemicals. Contingency is assumed to be 20% of TD&IC. of RAND Corporation [15]. The product value (PV) of ethanol is calculated by iterating to reach a net present value of $0 with a 10% internal rate of return. the same number of employees is required for the same plant capacity. respectively. Equation 1 estimates pioneer plant performance as a percentage of design capacity in the second 6 months after startup.stream flow rates. and the plant life is 20 years. and 32% in the first. and legal and contractor’s fees are assumed to be 32%. Individual equipment is scaled and the scaled cost is estimated following exponential correlations as described in Appendix A. NREL estimated the required number of employees and their salaries in their 2002 design report [4]. The manufacturing costs include raw materials costs (such as corn stover). The chemical and nutrients costs are obtained from NREL’s previous quotes from suppliers and are indexed to 2007 dollar values following the Inorganic Chemical Index of the SRI International Economics Handbook. For the present cost analysis. insurance. 14 . and the total capital investment is the sum of FCI and working capital. and the salaries are indexed to 2007 dollar values following the labor index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [20]. Engineering and supervision costs. construction expenses. with modified terminologies. The costs for most of the equipment are obtained from previous vendor quotes obtained by NREL. The project is assumed to be 100% equity financed and internal rate of return is 10%. [18]. In the present study. 60%. The feedstock cost is assumed to be $83/dry MT ($75/dry ST) (Appendix A). 34%. Pioneer Plant Analysis The pioneer plant analysis is performed using a method developed by Merrow et al. Separate installation factors are used for each of the unit operations to obtain individual installed equipment costs. overhead. Total direct and indirect costs (TD&IC) is the sum of total installed cost and indirect costs. The cost analysis is performed following NREL’s approach [4] and that found in Peters et al. Economic Environment of the Chemical Industry [19]. the process and steam generation plants are assumed to depreciate in 7 and 20 years. the capital investment is spread over 3 years at a rate of 8%. These sources are regressed with two multi-factor ordinary least squares correlations to estimate the unexpected reduced plant performance (Equation 1) and capital cost growth (Equation 2) associated with pioneer plants. respectively. The scaled cost is then indexed to a year 2007 dollar value using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [17]. second. warehouse. The installation factors are obtained from the vendors who provided equipment quotes. and site development costs. are used to size unit operations. and maintenance). In the present analysis. enzyme.

69×NEWSTEPS + 0. (Eq. Most major equipment is defined and examination of site begins at this point.00297×PCTNEW – 0. soils and hydrology data. For the present studies C1 is assumed to be 0.91×SOLIDS Where. The amount of work involved here depends on how much information is already available from previous project experience. Equation 2 estimates the capital cost growth.12196 – 0. and so forth) and site-specific information (on-site and off-site unit configurations. equipment need. A numerical value is assigned to define the level of engineering completed at the time of estimation. COMPLEXITY ≡ The number of continuously linked process steps. otherwise it’s 0. Cost Growth = 1.12×WASTE – 17. if two of these factors have been rigorously considered. The RAND report also mentions that some weight is given to rigorous theoretical models.06361 if the design is at pre-development/exploratory or research and development stage and 0.33×BALEQS – 4. The value ranges from 0 to 5. and process flow conditions. If the process handles solids then the value is 1. 2) . basic plant layout. defined as the ratio of estimated to actual costs. BALEQS ≡ The percentage of mass and energy balance equations used in plant design that are validated with commercial-scale data. prestartup inventory cost. with 0 being given to processes with no impurity buildup or corrosion issues. and environmental requirements) is completed here.04011 if the design is in commercial or pre-commercial stage. WASTE ≡ Potential problems that may be associated with waste handling. 1) NEWSTEPS ≡ The number of steps in the process that have not been proven commercially. SOLIDS: The scale used is 0 or 1.02125×IMPURITIES – 0.00111×INCLUSIVENESS – C1×PROJECT DEFINITION Where. For example. Often some critical level of engineering (heat and mass balances.01137×COMPLEXITY + 0. and land purchase.06361. INCLUSIVENESS ≡ The percentage of three factors: pre-startup personnel costs. A 0-5 scale is used.77 – 9. IMPURITIES: Represents the potential process issues that may arise due to impurity buildup from recycle streams or problems due to equipment corrosion. the variable would be given a value of 67%.Plant Performance = 85. C1: C1 is 0. health and safety requirements. with 0 meaning no waste handling issues and 5 meaning significant waste handling issues. PCTNEW ≡ The installed cost of all commercially undemonstrated equipment as percentage of total installed equipment cost. following the 15 (Eq. PROJECT DEFINITION: Includes commitment of funds to define the plant scope.

Cost growth analysis for all seven process variations was performed. and pessimistic. resulting in a value of 6 for NEWSTEPS. the selection justification is discussed below.10 14. and 30 for optimistic. For all other process variations. 40. saccharification.76 61. Table 1.26 Cost Growth 0. respectively. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling. Pretreatment.level of completeness: (1) engineering completed. most probable. (2) preliminary or limited work. Saccharification. beer column. and pessimistic scenarios.32 Performance (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock Handling. The wastewater contains a small amount of furfural that may not be degraded by the anaerobic or aerobic treatments used in the model. and (4) not used in the cost estimation at all. Some of the steps and units are being used commercially. Saccharification. (2) moderate or extensive engineering. The range of values given to project definition is 2 (for maximum definition) to 8 (for no definition). a value for site-specific information is assigned by the following: (1) definitive or completed work. and the fluidized bed combustor (for converting lignin to heat and power). and Combustor.42 0. cofermentation. There was some subjectivity in choosing the parameters for the pioneer plant analysis. so the BALEQS variable is assigned a value of 50.76 0 6 33 6 3 6 0 6 Pessimistic 61. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Values Optimistic 6 50 1 1 Most Probable 6 40 2 1 Pessimistic 6 30 3 1 Cost Growth (Equation 2) Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Values OptiMost mistic Probable 61. For the dilute acid pretreatment process the selected variable values of Equations 1-2 are shown in Table 1. respectively. Cofermentation. Beer Column. the operations considered new steps/units are feedstock handling. (3) limited engineering.68 7.76 5 6 0 7 Plant 22. The WASTE variable was assigned a value of 2 for the most probable case. pretreatment. and (4) screening design stage. (3) assumed or implicit analysis. most probable. Similarly. 16 . so a range of parameters was used to estimate pioneer plant costs for three scenarios: optimistic.53 0. the variable values are shown in Appendix J. Pretreatment. Cofermentation. Values of 1 and 3 were assigned for the optimistic and pessimistic cases. Justification of Correlation Variable Value Selection for Plant Performance (Equation 1) For all three scenarios. meaning that an additional chemical treatment may be necessary. No additional complications with waste are foreseen. Distillation. and Steam/Power Generation.

obtained from Equation 2 (Table 1). to obtain an estimate for the pioneer plant TCI. distillation. Some of the degradation products inhibit the saccharification and fermentation process. The assigned variable values are used in Equation 2 to calculate the percentage of cost growth as shown in Table 1. which include feedstock handling. a value of 6 is assigned for most probable and optimistic cases for the variable PROJECT DEFINITION and the pessimistic case is assigned a 5. So. to account for additional construction uncertainties. The base case nth plant TCI is divided by the cost growth. saccharification. Some level of engineering has been completed.These variable values are used in Equation 1 to calculate the percentage of Plant Performance for the three cases (Table 1). pretreatment. for the optimistic scenario a value of 33% is assigned for the variable INCLUSIVENESS. respectively. For the optimistic and pessimistic cases the assigned values are 0 and 5. is multiplied by the first year ethanol sales to account for the reduced production of a pioneer plant. so none of the site-specific information has been procured. Therefore. the value for the variable COMPLEXITY is assigned as 6 for all three cases. Some of the initial plant inventory is included in the base case cost estimate. although it is not validated in a commercial plant. A plant site has not been chosen. obtained from Equation 1 (Table 1). pretreatment area. compared with 20% for an nth plant. Therefore. The process design has six continuously linked process steps. Justification of Correlation Variable Value Selection for Cost Growth (Equation 2) The feedstock handling area. and buildup of those inhibitors in the process may result in yield loss. and fluidized bed combustor are selected as new technologies/units to calculate the parameter PCTNEW for all three of the cases. 17 . cofermentation. For the discounted cash flow analysis. the assigned value for the variable IMPURITIES is 3. and steam/power generation. beer column. For the most probable case. The plant performance. saccharification. The contingency factor is increased to 30%. plant performance is increased by 20% per year until design capacity is reached. The value of 0% is assigned for both pessimistic and most probable cases. cofermentation.

4 (179.15 million.1) 32.3 (288.1) Electricity Export ($MM/Yr) 11.2 (174.95) 4.54 434 188 47.44 (1. The installed equipment cost and TCI for all four pretreatment scenarios are in the range of $156-$173 million and $361-$391 million.75 (0.3 16.8 Production (256.21) 3. c Values in parentheses are in $/liter. and estimated PV for each of the process variations are shown in Table 2.60/gal to $4.000 for hot water pretreatment.0) 65. which is $3. Each pretreatment process has some variation in yield (47-76 gal/MT) with dilute acid pretreatment being the highest. and those for other pretreatment processes are in the range of $3.38 (1.2) 50.3) (0.8) 53. whereas pretreatment reactors for dilute acid and AFEX pretreatment processes are $22.5 (274. byproduct credit.9) 55. with hot water pretreatment being the lowest and two-stage dilute acid pretreatment being the highest.4 (202.8 (177. respectively.7) 76.40/gal.7 12.Results and Discussion nth Plant Cost Analysis Ethanol yield.8 (192.0 (147.3) 79. The yield from two-stage dilute acid pretreatment is lowest (46. total project investment.9 (203.69 (0. Table 2.4) -0.7 3.8 (124.99 million and $9.60 (0.9 (291.90) 3. which drives the PV as high as $4.3 (300) Ethanol Production (MM Gal/Yr)b 53.9 (249.7) 46.99) 3.2) 39.5) 55. b Values in parentheses are in MM liter/year.8) 72. The dilute acid pretreatment process requires long retention time for 18 .97) 3.97) On-site Enzyme 67.5 Product Value ($/Gal)c 3.94) a Values in parentheses are in liter/MT. total installed equipment cost.8 gal/MT) and the process requires higher TCI ($391 million). The reason for lower installed equipment cost for hot water is because it uses a relatively simple horizontal tubular pretreatment reactor.38/gal. respectively. Product Value for Various Pretreatment and Downstream Process Variations Process Variations Dilute Acid Pretreatment (base case) Dilute Acid Pretreatment (high solids) Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Hot Water Pretreatment AFEX Pretreatment PervaporationDistillation Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Total Capital Investment ($MM) 376 389 391 361 386 501 386 Total Installed Equipment Cost ($MM) 164 169 173 156 167 209 168 Ethanol Yield (Gal/MT)a 76.8 11.67 (0.8 (211. The installed cost of the tubular reactor is $311. The lowest PV among all process variations is from the dilute acid pretreatment scenario.5 (210.16) 4.5) 46.9 13.40 (0.6 16.6 6.44/gal.

costs for other scenarios are given in Appendix H.5 169.40 76.8 388.1 326.8 375. For the comparison of pretreatment technologies. Table 3 presents a summary comparison of the results from the dilute acid pretreatment models. Table 3.overliming. Among these.60 72. The expensive areas of the dilute acid pretreatment scenario are the pretreatment.4 337.43 Solids Loading PV ($/gal) Ethanol Yield (gal/MT) Installed Equipment Cost (MM$) Fixed Capital Investment (MM$) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor The PV of the model using high solids loading is $0.3 164.and Pilot-Scale Data Base Case (2007 EVD) 25% 3.44 High Solids 40% 3. a process model was developed using data from experiments conducted at NREL at higher solids loading (40%). In order to understand how process scale-up may impact ethanol production cost. the AFEX pretreatment process has additional expensive unit operations (such as the ammonia compressor) that increase the total installed equipment cost to slightly more than that of dilute acid pretreatment processes.5 3. saccharification and fermentation. distillation and solids recovery. and boiler and turbo-generator sections. lab-scale experimental data at low solids loading (25%) were used in the model [3]. This is primarily due to the decreased ethanol production caused by lower yields of monosaccharides at higher solids loadings.20/gal higher than that of the base case model. 19 . Although the AFEX reactor cost is lower than the dilute acid pretreatment reactor. The costs of each process area for the dilute acid pretreatment scenario are presented in Table 4. which requires large expensive vessels. Comparison of Dilute Acid Pretreatment Results from Lab. the boiler and turbogenerator section is the most expensive area.9 3. accounting for 56% of the total installed equipment costs.

The PV is higher for the on-site case than for the off-site case because the off-site case’s enzyme cost was determined after increasing the feedstock in order to produce the same amount of ethanol.0 40.0 19.2 56. Ethanol yield in the dilute acid pretreatment process with cofermentation is 76.3 4. This comparison does not include costs of stabilizing chemicals 20 .1 2.9 3. The cost differential comes from the high capital cost of the pervaporation membrane.0 15.9 36.8 15.1 6.5 3.6 22. The PV from the pervaporation scenario is $3.7 gal/MT).2 109. and 0. which reduces the overall plant capacity by 6 MMGal of ethanol per year. 0.3 164. which is higher than the PV for the base case process (dilute acid pretreatment process.5 18. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario Cost Areas/Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification and Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factora a Installed Cost (MM$) 10.8 36.9 (%) 6.54/gal.8 26. The PV from the on-site enzyme production process is $3. It is assumed that Trichoderma reesei is the enzyme-producing fungal strain.14/gal higher than the base case dilute acid pretreatment process.1 13.8 49. It was thought that separate C5 and C6 sugar fermentation using selective yeast might reduce the PV because of higher yields (79. and productivity are 600 FPU/g protein.1 326.44 The Lang factor is calculated by dividing TCI by the total purchased equipment cost. This increase in scale provided some economic benefit. the PV is 8% higher than the base case scenario because of increased capital costs primarily due to the additional fermentation vessels required.75/gal.0 34.Table 4.125 g protein/L-hr. The cost of the enzyme is affected by a lower electricity credit than the base case.4 1.7 17. This is because of high electricity consumption by the compressor supplying air to the enzyme production bioreactors that leads to lower net excess electricity and lower ethanol yield (67. The specific activity of enzyme.2 21. $3.8 100 3. part of the feedstock (hydrolyzate from Area 200) is diverted to enzyme production.40/gal).1 3.33 g protein/g cellulose and xylose.3 17.2 3.6 2. yield.8 100 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6. respectively.9 2. However. which is not well developed commercially.0 375. In the on-site enzyme production process.8 2.3 15.3 gal/MT).3 5.3 gal/MT. It was also thought that on-site enzyme production might provide economic advantages over purchasing enzymes because it eliminates the need to use stabilizing chemicals and to concentrate the enzyme broth prior to transportation.2 2. which is $0.

Figure 11. retention time. When the retention time of the dilute acid pretreatment reactor is increased from 2 to 10 minutes. This analysis showed the impact of process operation parameters including operating temperature. Xylose and cellulose conversions in the pretreatment reactor of the two-stage dilute acid scenario showed significant impact on PV. respectively. the comparison of an on-site case helps demonstrate what yields and electricity tradeoffs occur when enzyme is produced on-site. And when the solid consistency in the hot water pretreatment reactor is increased from 13% to 20%. an increase in PV of 16% is observed (Figure 11). acid concentrations. However.associated with purchased enzymes. Impact of pretreatment parameters on PV 21 .5% (2007 EVD) to 33%. and xylan and cellulose conversions. so the enzyme cost continues to be uncertain. Sensitivity Analysis Process-specific sensitivity analysis of pretreatment and saccharification operations was performed on all pretreatment process scenarios. the PV increases by 6%. and yields on PV.3% to 23%. When the conversion of xylan to xylose in the pretreatment reactor is reduced from 82. The PV increased by 44% and is reduced by 10% when xylan to xylose conversion is reduced from 82. respectively).5% to 33% and cellulose to glucose conversion is increased from 6. PV is most sensitive to pretreatment solid consistency. The impact of other pretreatment parameters on PV is not so significant. retention time. The results are shown in Figures 11 and 12 (the detailed parameter values and results are tabulated in Table B-1 and Table C-1. the PV is reduced by 10%.

the PV increased by 31% when the cellulose to glucose conversion was reduced from 90% to 65%. Impact of saccharification parameters on PV A sensitivity analysis for the major economic assumptions was performed on the dilute acid pretreatment process to test the robustness of the estimated PV. For the hot water scenario. cellulose to glucose conversions showed significant impact on PV for all scenarios (Figure 12. 22 . and byproduct (electricity) credit. The feedstock cost and enzyme price have the dominant impact on PV. Enzyme loading. installation factor (or corresponding installed equipment cost). the PV increased by 20% when the cellulose to glucose conversion was reduced from 91% to 67%. contingency factor. respectively). respectively). The impact on PV for the hot water pretreatment scenario was much higher. The selected sensitivity parameters were feedstock cost. Results are shown in Figure 13 (the detailed parameter values and results are tabulated in Table B-2 and Table C-2.Among the saccharification parameters. enzyme cost (for purchased enzymes). and the total installed equipment cost showed moderate impact on PV. Figure 12. For the dilute acid pretreatment process. enzyme loading. contingency factor. the detailed parameter values and results are tabulated in Table B-1 and Table C-1.

8 FPU/g cellulose) to 20 mg protein/g cellulose (equivalent to 12 FPU/g cellulose). Impact of overall process/economic parameters on PV (dilute acid pretreatment) When feedstock cost was increased from $83/dry MT (base case scenario) to $110/dry MT.1 (corresponding weighted average installed factor of 2.65 $7. the PV was reduced by 7%. oxygen requirement.65 $5. PV ($/GGE) Figure 13. a 10% decrease in PV was observed. A recent Novozymes presentation estimated enzyme costs in 2009 to be around $1– $2/gal of ethanol.04 $/kWh) Installed Equipment Cost (159 : 164 : 194 MM$) _ Pretreatment Reactor (23. Sensitivity analysis on total installed equipment cost was also performed. When the enzyme loading was reduced from 31. protein yield. 23 . It may be important to further study the on-site enzyme production process with emphasis on microbial strain.15 $5. Contingency factor showed a similar impact on PV. PV increased by 11%. When enzyme cost was reduced to $256/MT (equivalent to $0. specific activity. When the installed equipment cost was increased from $MM164.58 for the base case scenario) to $MM194 (corresponding installed factor of 3. The enzyme loading in the saccharification reactor showed some impact on PV.65 $6.15 $7.3 mg protein/g cellulose (equivalent to 20 FPU/g cellulose).05 obtained from Peters and Timmerhaus [18]).06 : 0.3 mg/g protein) Enzyme Cost (256 : 507 : 1460 $/MT of broth) Feedstock Cost (55 : 83 : 110 $/MT) $4. + 25% MM$) Contingency (10 : 20 : 30 % TPI) Enzyme Loading (20 : 31.15 $6.3 : 33. The impact of other parameters such as reactor cost and electricity price on PV was not significant. PV increased by 38% to $4.Electricity Price (0.054 : 0. and overall process area optimization.35/gal of ethanol produced). and this range is included in the sensitivity analysis [21].3 to 33.15 $4. residence time. The current study is limited to publicly available data on those important parameters.65 Product Value.70/gal when enzyme cost was increased from $507/MT broth to $1460/MT (equivalent to $2. the PV increased by 4%. the PV increased by 1% when the loading was increased from 31. The exact cost of cellulase enzymes for large scale needs is not yet publicly available.00/gal of ethanol produced).3 mg protein/g cellulose (equivalent to 18.

and that for the optimistic and pessimistic cases is $5. The cost growth analysis shows that the TCI and Lang factor increased significantly from the base case nth plant. 47%.08/gal. The PV for the most probable. optimistic.08 1. which are an increase of 136% from the base case nth plant values.Pioneer Plant Analysis Results Table 5 shows the pioneer-plant PV results for all three cases. the TCI and Lang factor are MM$886.01 674 727 6.4 and 8.01/gal and $7. and pessimistic cases is 69%. Table 5.65 24 . and 108% more.11 Optimistic 5. Pioneer Plant Analysis Results for the Dilute Acid Pretreatment Process Scenario Cost Item PV ($/gal) Fixed Capital Investment (MM$) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor Cost Growth (Pioneer Plant) Most Probable 5. For the most probable cost growth scenario. respectively.65 Pessimistic 7. respectively. The PV for the most-probable case is $5. respectively.76/gal.164 10.76 833 886 8. than the PV estimated for the nth plant.111 1.11.

Comparison with Previous Studies The results of this study deviate considerably from a number of previous techno-economic analyses of cellulosic ethanol production. Ethanol cost estimations from previous techno-economic studies. The solid line on the plot represents the PV for the dilute acid pretreatment scenario using the model developed in this study as a function of feedstock price. and an explanation of the most significant of these factors is discussed here. (7) SSCF. After updating the feedstock and ethanol prices to 2007 dollars. Figure 14 presents a plot of estimated ethanol prices from seven previous studies as a function of feedstock price. and long-term (20+ years) technology implementation. (1) Short term technology—Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). much of the difference from previous studies can be explained by the clear correlation that exists between feedstock price and ethanol price. The ethanol and feedstock prices were updated to 2007 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. rate of return. middle-term (10–15 years). The assumptions for the short-term estimate—including feedstock input.32/gal ethanol (EtOH) compared to 25 . (5) SSF. Figure 14. all of the studies except that of Nguyen and Saddler [22] remain lower than the line derived from this study. (6) CBP. which is approximately $0. However. The most significant difference from this study is the nonfeedstock operating cost. it also deviates from the trend of other studies. However. (4) Separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF). and the TCI (updated to 2007 dollars) is nearly equal as well. The study by Hamelinck et al. The three ethanol price estimates are for short-term (5 years from time of study). [23] represents a significant outlier from the apparent correlation between feedstock price and ethanol price. and reaction conversions—are quite similar to those used in this study. There are many contributing factors to this deviation. (2) Middle term technology—Simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation (SSCF). (3) Long term technology— Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP). The short-term estimate is closest to the time frame considered in this study.

The higher ethanol price estimate of $1. Wingren et al. This is partly due to lower costs for corn steep liquor. [23]. For example. 26 . it contributes significantly to the discrepancy between the current study and previous studies. 30%. 4] are approximately 30%. and other raw materials. this factor results in lower capital and operating costs by combining enzymatic saccharification and fermentation. the enzyme prices used in the prior studies of Wingren et al.03/gal is from a model using simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation (SSCF). [24] is also slightly lower than the apparent correlation of feedstock and ethanol price. 26. cellulase. The lowest estimate in that study assumes the use of consolidated bioprocessing.68/gal. (2004). [25. This factor accounts for most of the discrepancy between ethanol price estimates. The enzyme cost used in this study is much higher than that used in other studies. SSCF is a more advanced technology than was considered in this study. and 17% of the price used in this study. (2003). The ethanol price from the study published by Sendich et al. which may have contributed to lower capital and operating costs of pretreatment. A new AFEX pretreatment scheme was also employed. and Aden et al. Because enzyme cost is such a significant fraction of the PV. respectively.$1. which is an advanced technology also modeled in the long-term estimate from Hamelinck et al.

Conclusions The present study is based on published technological and economical data that in many ways lacks specifics and details. In our studies. Department of Energy has funded 10 pioneer plant projects producing biofuels using a biochemical pathway [27]. The U. The major strength of the technology is its pre-commercial maturity. Several pilot-scale cellulosic ethanol plants are in development today. technological and economic data from these pilot and demo plants are not publically available for use in this study.5% of ethanol concentration in the fermented beer.8 FPU/g of cellulose. The current feedstock cost is assumed to be $83/MT. The published data in 2007 shows that the technology can reach 4. which may limit the plant locations to certain areas. which is approximately one-third of what commercial grain ethanol plants are achieving. and these improvements would likely decrease PV for a project being designed today. Published improvements in process technology since 2007 have not been considered in this work. Sensitivity analysis on those assumptions was performed.70/gal of ethanol produced and its loading is 18. and their impact on TCI and PV was wide. It is important to critically estimate the feedstock cost. 27 . cellulase price is assumed to be nearly $0. However. The enzyme and feedstock costs are two major cost contributors. a list of assumptions was developed. the cost is likely to be location sensitive.S. The high cost of enzymes represents a significant opportunity to reduce the PV through improved biotechnology. The studies identify the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. Thus. However.

2005. 2019-2025. Dale.T. A. 28 . Slayton. Aden. Report No. Golden... 561-576.A. 5. M. L.E. Santa Monica.A. R-3215-PSSP/RC. F. Tucker. June 1986..P.References 1. J. A. K. 9.” Bioresource Technology... 2014-2018. Myers. 26(1). CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory..” Biotechnology Progress. Vol.W. pp. 10. N. 2009. Elander.pdf. Devey.. T. “Two-Stage Dilute-Acid Pretreatment of Softwoods.” Bioresource Technology. 2. 2002. Golden. 96. Ladish. R... Wallace. T. K. 11. Schell. J. H. Ibsen. 3. pp.. 2008. 7.. A. 2004.. M. Dutta. Vol. “Process and Economic Analysis of Pretreatment Technologies.. J. Alizadeh... 96. Vol. Ibsen. Report.. Neeves. D. 96(18). Neeves. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Shangraw.. 4. NREL/TP-510-43205. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden.T.P. NREL/TP-510-32438. Lee. 2005.. Public Law 110-140. Report No. 2026-2032. 6. Wyman.F. Lignocellulosic Biomass-to-Ethanol Process Design and Economics Using Two-Stage Dilute Acid Hydrolysis. Elander. “Comparative Sugar Recovery Data from Laboratory Scale Application of Leading Pretreatment Technologies to Corn Stover.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr. Hayashi.. Likes.1002/btpr. F. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Sheehan. “Comparison of Biochemical Conversion Process Configurations for the Production of Cellulosic Ethanol. Ruth... R. Dale. T. Ibsen.. Biochemical Production of Ethanol from Corn Stover: 2007 State of Technology Model. Alternative Pretreatment (CAFI)—Inital Data And Economic Analysis.E. “Optimization of the Ammonia Fiber Explosion (AFEX) Treatment Parameters for Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover.311.gov/cgibin/getdoc..access. pp. 2000. K. 84-86.R. pp. Dowe. Eggeman. C. 2000. 2005. Keller. Eddy. Holtzapple. B. A. Aden. Eggeman. Golden. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at http://frwebgate. 8. Teymouri. 121.. Aden.R. Montague. M. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. DOI: 10.. Understanding Process Plant Schedule Slippate and Startup Costs. C.E. Nguyen. pp. Report.” Bioresource Technology.. Vol. B...gpo. 64-72. M. F. R. L. Report No.. Laureano-Perez. B. R. K. Elander.txt. 1491. Jechura. Y. M. A. Q. K.Y.. CA: RAND Corp.” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology.

” Chemical Engineering. Report No. Technical Memo. 22.12. “Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. CA: SRI Consulting. Golden. Peters.” SRI International Economics Handbook. Hsu. K. RAND/R-2569-DOE.. W.” Biomass and Bioenergy. “Recent Process Improvements for the Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX) Process and Resulting Reductions in Minimum Ethanol Selling Price. 2008. C. “An Integrated Model for The Technical and Economic Evaluation of an Enzymatic Biomass Conversion Process.S.. San Antonio. Sendich.. 8429-8435. B.. K. A.N. Q. November 2008. 2009..A. Kim. Ibsen. 2009. Vol. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.” Bioresource Technology. L. 29 . M.. McAloon. M. 2000. 13.. S. NREL/TP-580-26157.C. Vol.D. Lynd.N. NREL Technical Memo. Golden. 2005. Vol. Phillips. van Hooijdonk. Timmerhaus. 23. 20.” Bioresource Technology.S. K. O’Brien. 16. 99.J. H. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. R. 18. 28. Process Economics of Pervaporation Membrane Separation of Ethanol and Water in the Biochemical Design Report. 384-410. 24. Understanding Cost Growth and Performance Shortfalls in Pioneer Process Plants. 1991. 14. Hamelinck... 15. 2008 Menlo Park. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ruth. Middle. Bryant. “Step Change in Cellulosic Ethanol – The Future is Moving Closer. Plant Design and Economics For Chemical Engineers. Dale. R. L. pp.. B.W. DC: U. Laureano-Perez.J.” Washington. E. G. pp. Golden. D. “Inorganic Chemical Index. (1981).P.. M. Wallace. Wooley. C. Report No. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios. H. 2008. Vol. CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Alizadeh. Faaij. Nguyen.N. L. A. 35(3). 19. J. 105-111.and Long-Term. Santa Monica. 17. J. Galvez. A. Merrow.. TX.. 166(1). 21.E.. 1981. “Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass: Techno-Economic Performance in Short-. Majdeski.. Myers. West. Roth. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. C.E. Fifth Edition. 2003..” Journal of Membrane Science. D. pp. 1999. 2004.H. Economic Environment Of The Chemical Industry. 2008. Sheehan. Laser. 275-282. Cost Estimation for a Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Pioneer Plant. “Labor Index..E. “Ethanol Production by Continuous Fermentation-Pervaporation: A Preliminary Economic Analysis.... Saddler. CA: The Rand Corporation.” Presented at the National Ethanol Conference.

.. A. pp. 1421-1429. 27. A. Galbe. 2010. 2003.S.25.gov/media/Major_DOE_Biofuels_Project_Locations. M. G. accessed January 27. J.” Washington.. Galbe. 26. Vol. Wingren. DC: U. Vol. Available at http://www. Zacchi. 30 . G.” Biotechnology Progress. Soderstrom.” Biotechnology Progress.energy. 2004.. pp.pdf. 1109-1117. Wingren. “Techno-Economic Evaluation of Producing Ethanol from Softwood: Comparison of SSF and SHF and Identification of Bottlenecks. Department of Energy. Zacchi. 19.. M. “Major DOE Biofuels Project Locations. “Process Considerations and Economic Evaluation of Two-Step Steam Pretreatment for Production of Fuel Ethanol from Softwood. 2008. 20.

• • • • • The plant produces EtOH (as product) and electricity (as byproduct). o Feedstock is delivered in bales. Construction time of 24 months is considered. leaves. • • • Feedstock cost and purchased chemicals costs are based on short tons (ST). and byproduct credit (electricity) is in $/kWh. Process operating conditions are: o Temperature in oC o Pressure in bar o Mass flow rates in MT/day. cobs. mass flow. o The feedstock transportation and management protocol are not considered. The plant will be designed based on the state of the technology (as of 2007). The plant is considered to be located in the middle of corn farmland. During this period. o The feedstock will be delivered to the feed handling area of the plant. 31 . RAND/risk analysis will inflate price from mature nth plant to immature pioneer plant. Location. • • • • Units • Plant capacity. which would be a plant with capacity of 2000 MT/day (dry feedstock). 75% of the farm land plants corn. and it would be the nth plant of its kind. and yields are based on metric tons (MT) per day. The online time would be 350 days per year (equivalent capacity factor of 96%). o Feed composition is assumed to be the same as CAFI II analysis results. Feedstock and Enzymes • Corn stover (composed of stalks. Ethanol sale price is in $/gallon. an average of 50% production will be achieved with expenditure of about 75% of variable expenses and 100% of fixed expenses.Appendices Appendix A . and Construction • Optimum plant size is regarded as economically feasible plant size. 25% of the land will be tied up in infrastructure (roads and buildings).Assumptions for Techno-economic Studies of Biochemical Conversion Processes Plant Size. Table A1 displays feedstock composition. o Moisture content in the feedstock is 25% (wet basis). and husks) is considered as feedstock. Startup period would be 25% of the construction time (6 months).

which may be regarded as bad batches (the bad batches are dumped and regarded as loss). • Well water will be used as process makeup water (lost to evaporation. 32 . Boiler blow down is considered to be 3% of steam production. no biomass is lost in washing. Stover is washed of dirt and metal is removed. Enzyme will be purchased or produced on-site through purchase/licensing agreements with enzyme suppliers. o The tower blow down is 10% of the of the sum of the evaporative loss plus windage. Table A-1. and long term storage costs are not included in the analysis.o Feed cost is assumed to be $83/MT ($75/dry short ton) at the gate. windage.26 33.69 5. o Enzyme loading is assumed as 31. • • A total of 7% of fermenting sugars is assumed to be lost to contamination. galactan) are assumed to have the same value as xylan in the pretreatment hydrolyzer (depends on pretreatment).1% of the total flow to the tower.83 25 Material and Energy Balance Material Balance • Reactions and conversions of hemicellulose carbohydrates (arabinan. blow down. • • • 72 hours of on-site storage (corn stover bales) is considered. o Enzyme cost is $507/MT broth when purchased from off-site sources.58 Components Lignin Ash Acetate Protein Soluble Solids Moisture Composition (%) 10. Carbon efficiency can be calculated based on carbohydrate carbon content. mannan.43 22. as follows: % 100 • • • Cooling tower windage is 0.36 4. Corn Stover Feedstock Composition Components Extractives Cellulose Xylan Galactan Arabinan Mannan Composition (%) 8.93 5.08 0. The total amount of water from the pressure filter (bottom product of the first distillation column) that is directly recycled is set to be 25% (to minimize contaminant buildup in the stream).24 5.3 mg protein/g cellulose in original feed.16 1.44 2. in solid waste).

Costing • All pumps. • Material of Construction • The materials of construction for all equipment (except the pretreatment reactor. and Pneumapress equipment) will be as follows (Delta-T/NREL experience): o SS316 for flash tank (for the solid-liquid separation equipment) o Incoloy 825-clad steel for continuous pretreatment reactor and its parts in contact with acid. heat exchangers. • If the size of any equipment is known to change linearly with the inlet flow. For some equipment. Electricity will be generated by burning lignin and waste (process waste and pressed solids from wastewater treatment).054/kW (2007 dollar value). flash tank. fermentors. that information can be used for equipment scaling (a characteristic of the size might be the heat duty for a heat exchanger if the log-mean temperature difference is known not to change). totaling about 2. If process changes are made and the equipment size changes.2%. and filter press will be estimated from quotation. the heat exchanger area will be calculated each time the model will be run and the cost will be scaled using the ratio of the new and original areas). • Large vessels (saccharification tank.Energy Balance • Heat loss from the reactor will not be accounted for in energy balance calculations. Equipment Design. the equipment will be recosted following the exponential scaling expression: Cost New size Original size • • *or characteristic linearly related to the size 33 . agitators. screw conveyors. and surge tanks will be estimated using ICARUS Process Evaluator and NREL database. in which case the unit will be resized with each process change (for example heat exchangers with varying temperature profiles. Material of Construction. anaerobic and aerobic digesters. • • Heat loss from the combustor is accounted for. which will be used in the plant. boiler feed water softening equipment. and SS316L for most other parts including presteamer. in this case. Smaller vessels (seed fermentor) and coil coolers will be estimated by ICARUS and NREL database. tanks. nothing can be easily related to the size. and the net surplus will be sold to grid at a price of $0. and Costing Equipment Design • The reactors will be modeled using experimentally determined conversions of specific reactions (kinetic expressions will be not used because of the level of their development). seed hold tanks).

heat. Employee salaries will be indexed. o The cost of the chemicals will also be indexed following Industrial Inorganic Chemical Index (from SRI) to estimate the cost of the chemicals in the year of 2007. plant security. general engineering. xylan) will be included in the chemical-oxygendemand (COD) calculations because of uncertainty of their reactivity. • • • Annual maintenance materials will be 2% of the total installed equipment cost. will be obtained from quotation. light. and the treated water will be suitable for recycling to the process. Wastewater Treatment Plant • The process will be designed for zero discharge to a municipal treatment plant in a steady-state mode. Biological oxygen demand in the anaerobic digester is assumed to be 70% of the COD. Rain and snow run-off. other intermittent loads (process spills) will not be considered in the design.4%. o COD reduction in both digesters is considered as 99. • • Any process upset (sudden increase of solids in the wastewater) will not be considered in the model. to the year 2007 following the data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. o General overhead will be a factor of 60% applied to the total salaries and covers items such as safety. including boiler feed water softening chemical cost. No insoluble components (cellulose. Installation factors (from Delta-T/NREL experience for aqueous-based process) will be applied to purchased equipment costs to determine the installation cost (not ICARUS). Chemical Costing • Cost of acids and other chemicals. janitorial and similar services. • • The purchased equipment cost obtained in a particular year (before 2007) will be indexed to the year of 2007 using the Chemical Engineering Index. and other non-process waters are assumed to flow to the municipal wastewater treatment system. Operating Cost • Working capital is assumed to be 15% of fixed capital investment. • • 34 . and plant communications. if required. phone. o It is assumed that the product will be made and shipped and payment received in 30 days. equipment washing. Salaries of the yard employees will not include benefits and will be covered in the general overhead category. payroll overhead (including benefits).o The scaling exponents are obtained from NREL’s vendor quote database. general plant maintenance.

The nitrogen level in the combined feed to the combustor is similar to coal when ammonia species are included. a discounted cash flow analysis will be used (after knowing the major three costs areas: (i) total capital investment. and site development cost. Indirect cost involves: o Engineering and supervision (32% of purchased equipment cost) o Construction expenses (34% of purchased equipment cost) o Legal and contractor’s fees (23% of purchased equipment cost). and (iii) fixed operating cost). • • • • o Flue gas temp will be kept above the dew point of sulfuric acid. and site development cost is 9% of the installed cost of process equipment areas (A100. warehouse cost. ConocoPhillips Company experience and literature) to installed equipment costs. Carbon monoxide is assumed to be generated at a rate of 0. Total capital investment is the sum of FCI and working capital. o Unburned carbon (char) in the ash is low at 1%. Cost Analysis • The total plant investment cost will be determined by applying overhead and contingency factors (NREL. but more like untreated biomass when they are not. A300 and A500) (Delta-T/NREL/published data). • • Total installed cost (TIC) includes total installed equipment cost. To determine the product value per gallon of ethanol (PV). NOx is generated at 0.31 kg/MWhr. 35 .5% of total installed equipment cost.Greenhouse Emissions and Control • All of the sulfur entering into the combustor is converted to SO2. • Warehouse cost is 1.31 kg/MWhr. (ii) variable operating costs. A200. o 1% of the generated SO2 is converted to sulfuric acid. • • • • Total direct and indirect cost (TD&IC) includes TIC and indirect costs. Working capital is assumed as 15% of FCI (FCI is the sum of TD&IC and contingency).8% (from Foster Wheeler Energy Limited experience) and will control the emission level below new source performance standard limit. o Impact of global warming potential of NOx is small relative to global warming potential of CO2 emission from the process. Baghouse efficiency is taken as 98. and 30% for pioneer plant. o The estimates are location sensitive. o 20% (of total direct and indirect cost) contingency is assumed for nth plant.

depreciation will be determined as follows : o IRS modified accelerated cost recovery system. o Property listed with a recovery period less than 10 years will use the 200% DB depreciation method and a 20-year recovery period property will use the 150% DB depreciation. which includes general depreciation system. o State tax will not be considered for the calculation (because the location of the plant is not specified). o This allows the shortest recovery period and the largest deductions. • Return on investment will be calculated on a per gallon basis. Income tax will be averaged over the plant life and that average will be calculated on a per gallon basis.o A 10% discounted cash flow rate of return will be used over a 20-year plant life. will be followed that allows both the 200% and 150% declining balance (DB) methods of depreciation. • For federal tax return purposes. o Any other property not specifically described in the publication should be depreciated using a 7-year recovery period. 36 . o According to the IRS. the steam production plant should use a 20-year recovery period (depreciated over 20 years). o The plant is considered 100% equity financed.

9-20 2-2.6% 6.7 Sensitivity (0-100%) 90-110 5 0.80 30 42.Sensitivity Parameters and Values Table B-1.66 37 .7 82.32 0 2.4 2-Stage Dilute acid Base Case (50%) 1st Stage 2nd Stage 190 12 2 1.5 N/A 7.7 48 0-41.3 2.6 0 12.13 190-200 1-10 0.5 Sensitivity (0-100%) 1st Stage 2nd Stage 180 Hot Water Base Case (50%) 190 12.5-2.97 56.1 48 0 0.3-23 33-89.5 210 18.9 29.3 23 33-89.4 0 14. Sensitivity Parameters for Pretreatment and Saccharification (AREA 200) Parameters Pretreatment Temperature (oC) Pressure (atm) Retention time (min) Catalyst (Acid/NH3) conc (%) Solid consistency (%) Conversion (%) Cellulose → Glucose Xylan → Xylose oligomer Xylan → Xylose Saccharification Conversion (%) Cellulose → Glucose Xylan → Xylose Dilute Acid (2007 EVD) Base Case Sensitivity (50%) (0-100%) 190 11.5 0 95.5-1.3 2.6 6.71-2.3 20-70 N/A N/A N/A 75 55-90 0.09 57.7 82.9 77.5 1.3-25 65 63 AFEX Base Case (50%) 108 18.7 5 1.6 15 2.6 2 1.9 0.5 91.7 67-97 52.4 15-5 N/A 12.4 18-29.6-15.64 30 6.61 Sensitivity (0-100%) 190-200 12.4 89.Appendix B .

03-0.59 156 507 20-33.50-3.3 0.Table B-2.3 0.5 507 31.3 0.3 cellulose) Value of Excess Electricity/ 0.05 31.7 Cost (MM$)b Project Contingency (%) 20 10-30 20 Installation Factor or Cost (MM$) Factor 2.22-0.03-0.32 20 2.03-0.054 0.50-3.05 Total Installed Equipment Cost 164.04 Sensitivity (0-100%) 55-110 0.05 151-184 256-1460 20-33. 38 .06 0.04 Sensitivity (0-100%) 55-110 20-40 10-30 2-4 200-275 256-1460 20-33. Sensitivity Parameters for Overall Process Dilute Acid (2007 EVD) Parameters Base Case (50%) Sensitivity (0-100%) 2-Stage Dilute acid Base Case (50%) Sensitivity (0-100%) 83-110 20-30 Hot Water Base Case (50%) 83 0.3 31.7 20 2.3 0.1 159-194 Enzyme Cost ($/MT broth) 507 256-1460 Enzyme loading (mg protein/g 31.62 10-30 2.054 Byproduct Credit ($/kWh) a Feedstock contains 25% moisture.05 211.3 20-33.03-0.3 0.05 Feedstock Cost ($/MT)a 83 55-110 55 Pretreatment Reactor Installed 23 14-32. b 2007 indexed installed equipment cost.05 AFEX Base Case (50%) 83 25.58 2.

0 0.3 High Scenarios 39 .31 4.37 3.6 0 0.61 3.93 3.40 3.2 -2.71 33 97 67 52.4 53.4 4.6 53. Impact of Pretreatment Parameters on PV Sensitivity Parameter Production Values (MMGal/Yr) PV ($/Gal) Change (%)a Dilute Acid Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario Base Case Reactor temperature (oC) Residence time (min) Acid concentration (%) Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Xyl to Xylose (% conv) Residence time (min) Solid consistency (%) Acid concentration (%) Xyl to Xylose (% conv) Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Xylan to Xylose (% conv) 200.93 4.38 3.4 53.4 53.0 10 2.40 3.6 19.4 53.7 47.3 -4.4 50.47 3.5 Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Xylan to Xylose (% conv) 23 89.8 2.19 -10.9 44.42 3.7 1 18.4 53.40 3.3 44.40 3.4 53.7 0.9 53.07 3.9 -1.3 Highb Scenarios Pretreatment Lowb Scenarios High Scenarios Saccharification Low Scenarios Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario Base Case 1 Stage Acid Pretreatment (Pretreatment) st 42.6 -0.4 53.4 23 89.41 0 15.34 3.1 54.1 0 6.Sensitivity Results Table C-1.3 3.Appendix C .4 53.

5 39.5 33 48 41.29 3.38 Change (%)a 0 2.4 High Scenarios Pretreatment Low Scenarios 40 .5 42.0 200 20 20.0 42.37 4.7 43.41 4.8 4.7 1.29 3.0 39.45 0 -0.1 0 -8.3 5 25 39.29 4.08 4.5 PV ($/Gal) 4.2 0 1.6 2nd Stage Acid Pretreatment (Saccharification) Hot Water Pretreatment — 2007 EVD Scenario Base Case Reactor temperature (oC) Residence time (min) Solid consistency (%) Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Xylan to Oligomer (% conv) Xylan to Xylose (% conv) Residence time (min) Xylan to oligomer (% conv) 39.6 -6.0 39.66 180 0.5 29.0 39.38 6.29 4.6 0 42.0 2 60 7.5 2.5 45.38 4.2 0 43.24 4.9 42.8 -3.29 4.29 4.24 4.5 42.92 0 0 -10.4 41.2 0.6 -1.5 39.9 4.Sensitivity Parameter Other hemicellulose to monomers (% conv) Acid Concentration (%) Reactor temperature (oC) Acid Low concentration Scenarios (%) Xylan to Xylose (% conv) Cellulose to glucose (% conv) High Xylan to Xylose Scenarios (% conv) Acid concentration Xylan to Low Xylose Scenarios (% conv) Production Values (MMGal/Yr) 90 42.84 4.36 4.1 38.

7 Saccharification High Scenarios Low Scenarios AFEX — 2007 EVD Scenario 46.9 Scenarios (%conv) a Percentage change of PV from 2007 EVD scenarios.2 3.23 5.2 3.1 3.4 30. Base Case 41 .3 46.65 -1.2 3.68 -0.0 Scenarios (%conv) Saccharification Cellulose to Low Glucose 75 43.69 Reactor temperature 110 46.2 3.31 -10.8 3.6 29.7 29. b High and low refer to the value of each parameter with respect to the base case.3 (oC) Solid consistency 20 46.1 (%conv) Ammonia loading (ratio 1:1.16 12.70 0.3 (%) Low Scenarios Xylan to Xylose 90 46.7 30.69 0 (oC) Solids consistency 70 46.87 4.7 PV ($/Gal) 4. Not all parameters were tested at both high and low scenarios.2 3.Sensitivity Parameter Xylan to Xylose (% conv) Cell Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Cellulose to Glucose (% conv) Production Values (MMGal/Yr) 63 65 65 39.61 5.7 (%) High Xylan to Scenarios Oligomer 20 46.3 to dry stover) Xylan to High Xylose 55 45.9 3.80 3.0 3.8 46.2 3.69 0 (%conv) Ammonia Pretreatment loading (ratio 1:0.2 4.69 0 to dry stover) Reactor temperature 80 46.61 Change (%)a -1.

73 3.38 3.3 3.34 3.40 164.5) 256 0.15 3.40 31.1 3.50 3.40 (2.45 3.77 3.03 33.04 3.3 30 PV ($/gal) 3.054 3.40 0.05) 1460 0.0 (3.55 4.05 3.Table C-2.50 42 .38 3.40 23 3.40 20 3. Impact of Overall Process and Economic Parameters on PV Sensitivity Parameters Feedstock Cost ($/MT) Pretreatment Reactor (MM$) Installed Equipment Cost (MM$) (Corresponding Installation factor) Enzyme Cost ($/MT of broth) Electricity Price ($/kWh) Enzyme Loading (mg/g protein) Contingency (%) Base Case PV Value ($/gal) 83 3.31 High Value 110 32.7 194.58) 507 3.47 3.06 20 10 PV ($/gal) 3.40 Low Value 55 14 159 (2.

000 Denatured Fuel Prod.000 Utilities $6.300.000 Feedstock $57.739 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.5 Average Income Tax 26. (MMgal / yr) 55. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis UCR Dilute Acid .000 43 .800.5 Saccharification Time (days) 5.23 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 17.0 CSL 16.200.900.500.100.9109 Fermentation Time (days) 2.000 Loan Rate N/A Electricity -$11.300.5 Boiler Feed–Water Fraction 0.9 Specific Operating Conditions Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 65% Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.3 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 108.000 Average Return on Investment 62.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 Total Capital Investment $375.542 Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.4 Ethanol at 68°F 76.000 Pretreatment $36. Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $10.000 Waste Disposal $6.000 CSL $8.29 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 4.000 Average Income Tax $14.04 Other Raw Matl.500. construction expenses.500.9 Average Return on Investment $33.200.Appendix D .800.06 Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.Cost Analysis Result Summary Table D-1.800.300.000 Boiler/Turbogenerator $56.209 Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.100.000 Distillation and Solids Recovery $26.7 a Added Costs $211.Corn Stover.170 Capital Depreciation $16.000 Saccharification & Fermentation $21.000 Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $7.300.000 Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.0 a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.7 Electricity -21.0 Conversion Cellulose-->Glucose 0.5 Other Raw Materials 17.900.100.5 Capital Depreciation 30.000 Term (years) N/A Fixed Costs $9.0 Cellulase 69.5 Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed–LHV (Btu/lb) 2.9 Fixed Costs 18. Current Case Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation All Values in 2007$ $3.000 Storage $3.900. Costs $9.4 Biomass to Boiler 0.000 Denatured Fuel Min.000 Total Installed Equipment Cost $164.000 Capital Charge Factor 0.40 53.8 Waste Disposal 12.700. Sales Price $3.2 (% of TCI) 56% Operating Costs ($/yr) Working Capital 49.900.030.000 Wastewater Treatment $3.100. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.07 Cellulase $37.

58 2.000 56% 50. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $10.34 $7.739 82.800.169 53.0 CSL 16.000 $3.000 $388.539 35.Pretreatment yields based on NREL FY08 SOT Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation All Values in 2007$ Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal.9109 2.0 Electricity -24.000 Fixed Costs $10.2 2.900.000 Cellulase $37.800.8 Capital Depreciation 33.5 Cellulase 73.5 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 114.600.000. 44 .000 Storage $3.200.3 Average Income Tax 29.0 0.600.100.47 $0.000 Average Return on Investment $34.1 5.286 0.000 Wastewater Treatment $5.100.000 Added Costsa (% of TCI) Working Capital Total Capital Investment Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.700.000 Distillation and Solids Recovery $25.000 Capital Depreciation $16.0 Average Return on Investment 67.100.5 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock $57.5 106.400.Table D-2.Water Fraction Specific Operating Conditions Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) Saccharification Time (days) Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose Fermentation Time (days) a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $8.000 Waste Disposal $6.8 Waste Disposal 13.LHV (Btu/lb) Boiler Feed -. Costs $9.1 $3.670.9 62% $3.000 Utilities $6.39 18.500. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.1 Other Raw Materials 18. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) $219.65 N/A N/A 0.8 Ethanol at 68°F 72.60 50.000 Average Income Tax $14.400.8 Fixed Costs 19.600.000 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 4.000 Boiler/Turbogenerator $57.000 Other Raw Matl.000 Pretreatment $38.000 Saccharification & Fermentation $21. construction expenses.000 Electricity -$12.0 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) Boiler Feed -.0 Biomass to Boiler 0.000 Total Installed Equipment Cost $169.900. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis UCR Dilute Acid .600.900.700.100. (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min.600.

000 Total Installed Equipment Cost $156.354 Boiler Feed -.000 Average Return on Investment $35. construction expenses.0 a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.700.600.000 Average Income Tax $14.Corn Stover.739 82.000 57% 47.8 $4.000 Utilities $6. Current Case Hot Water Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation All Values in 2007$ Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal.800. Costs $2.300.5 106.1 Waste Disposal 3.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $11. 45 .37 3.300.0 Ethanol at 68°F 55.500.5 Capital Depreciation 40.0 CSL 28.700.Water Fraction 0.000 Cellulase $37.0 Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.700.000 Wastewater Treatment $1.9 47% $4.8997 Fermentation Time (days) 2. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.900.000 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 5.2 Average Income Tax 36.01 $9.000 Added Costsa (% of TCI) Working Capital Total Capital Investment Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.000 Fixed Costs $9.300.529 Specific Operating Conditions Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.200. (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min.900.181 40.3 Average Return on Investment 90.1 Other Raw Materials 5.100.000 Boiler/Turbogenerator $65.Table D-3.100.000 Other Raw Matl.7 Boiler Feed -.100. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) $204.000 Distillation and Solids Recovery $30.100.000 Waste Disposal $1. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $10.000 $4.LHV (Btu/lb) 2.400.30 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 40.200.0 Fixed Costs 24. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Process Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Hot Water .5 Cellulase 95.4 Biomass to Boiler 0.800.9 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock $57.000 Capital Depreciation $15.900.44 39.26 N/A N/A 0.1 Saccharification Time (days) 5.900.5 Electricity -29.000 Saccharification & Fermentation $30.000 Storage $3.000 $361.000 Pretreatment $6.7 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 148.000.27 $0.000 Electricity -$11.

Costs $10.900.300.900.4 2.Water Fraction Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $218.3 Fixed Costs 31.000.079 30 34 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -.000 Added Costsa (% of TCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.LHV (Btu/lb) Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.000 Boiler/Turbogenerator $66.800.000 Saccharification & Fermentation $9.200.50 3.521 2.26 $11.21 $0.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $8.8 Average Income Tax 45.2 Cellulase 0.200.000 Total Installed Equipment Cost $172.46 35.0 Capital Depreciation 51.900.000 Average Return on Investment $34.3 Waste Disposal 22.169 34.38 32.0 Electricity -51.000 Average Income Tax $15.205 979 1. (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min.700.5 Boiler Feed -.Table D-4. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case) Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Hydrolysis All Values in 2007$ Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal. construction expenses.600.000 Wastewater Treatment $4. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $10.000.000.800.000 2.200.8 Average Return on Investment 103.000 Distillation and Solids Recovery $26.700.700.000 $391.000 Fixed Costs $10.9 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 176.000.000 Pretreatment $44. 46 .000 Capital Depreciation $17.000 9.8 Ethanol at 68°F 46.0 Other Raw Materials 32.739 $4.9 Specific Operating Conditions Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 40% Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) Feed rate (dry tons/day) Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.000.000 Utilities $6.92 N/A N/A 0.3 $4.600.5 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock $57.000 Waste Disposal $7.0 CSL 26.600.4 Biomass to Boiler 0.000 Cellulase $0 Other Raw Matl. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.000 Electricity -$16.000 56% 51.900.000 $5.000 Storage $2.379 0.

900.600.000.36 Waste Disposal $1.800.000 Feedstock 125.900.3 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 5.739 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 35.900.4 Saccharification & Fermentation $23.400.9 Boiler Feed -.170 Average Income Tax $14.800.000.0 Total Installed Equipment Cost $167.000 Operating Costs ($/yr) (% of TCI) 57% Feedstock $57.800. / Year) 46. Costs $6.900.500.5 Specific Operating Conditions Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $8.295 Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -.0 CSL 19.2 Ethanol at 68°F Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 66.4 Added Costsa $218.100.000 Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $8.Water Fraction 0.000 Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 56% Feed rate (dry tons/day) 2.000 Capital Charge Factor 0.9 Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) 2.Table D-5. (MMgal / yr) 48.000 Fixed Costs 21.3 Pretreatment $30.000.205 Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) 730 Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) 804 Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) 48 Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) 20 a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision. 47 .4 Distillation and Solids Recovery $27.600.23 Denatured Fuel Min. Cost Analysis Result Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case) AFEX with Saccharification and Cofermentation All Values in 2007$ Product Value $3.500.000 Cellulase 80.000 Capital Depreciation 36.000 Total Capital Investment $386.6 Utilities $8.000 Other Raw Materials 14. Sales Price $3.000 Waste Disposal 2.400.4 Average Income Tax 32.000 Denatured Fuel Prod.350.500.900.9 Storage $2.000 Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $16.LHV (Btu/lb) 2. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.000 Average Return on Investment $33.63 Other Raw Matl.000 Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $10.1 Wastewater Treatment $1.538 Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.400.0 Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton $83 Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10% Equity Percent of Total Investment 100% Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feed Handling $10.000 Biomass to Boiler 0.000 Working Capital 50. construction expenses.57 Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.69 Ethanol Production (MM Gal.000 Electricity -$16.000 Cellulase $37.000 Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.56 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.000 Average Return on Investment 73.800.7 Boiler/Turbogenerator $62.000 Electricity -36.

000 Pretreatment $36.000 Waste Disposal $6.1 Biomass to Boiler 0.000 57% 56.400.800.000 $434.739 $3.700.000 Storage $2.000 Capital Depreciation $18.2 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock $57.800. 48 .0 0.239 0.54 47.000 Cellulase $0 Other Raw Matl.Water Fraction Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) Specific Operating Conditions Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 82.16 N/A N/A 0.0 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) Boiler Feed -.538 0.63 19.000 -0.400.6 Fixed Costs 22.000 Added Costsa (% of TCI) Working Capital Total Capital Investment Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.9109 2.900.Table D-6.100.30 7.7 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 122.900.000 Distillation and Solids Recovery $25.8 Cellulase 0.4 Waste Disposal 14. construction expenses.000 Boiler/Turbogenerator $57.0 CSL 19.800. Cost Analysis Result Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis UCR Dilute Acid .500. legal and contractor fees) and contingency. Costs $9.200.9 Saccharification Time (days) 57% Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose Fermentation Time (days) a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.0 Average Return on Investment 79. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry Metric Ton Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $10.9 Average Income Tax 34.000 Average Return on Investment $37.700.200.500.000 Utilities $6.167 49.000 On-site Enzyme Production $23.96 $9.000 Average Income Tax $16.000 Wastewater Treatment $3. (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min.4 Ethanol at 68°F 67.0 5.500.3 Electricity 1.LHV (Btu/lb) Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -.200.000 Electricity $800.630.000 Saccharification & Fermentation $21. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $246.700.7 Capital Depreciation 39.400.000 $3.800.0 Other Raw Materials 20. Current Case Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (On-site Enzyme Production) All Values in 2007$ Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal.5 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 106.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $9.900.000 Total Installed Equipment Cost $187.000 Fixed Costs $10.7 2.42 $0.6 $3.Corn Stover.

5 Pretreatment $36.0 a Added Costs $226.9 Ethanol at 68°F Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) 77.000 Working Capital $65.000 Fixed Costs 21.900.500.4 Wastewater Treatment $3.900.75 Ethanol Production (MM Gal.4 Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 4.205 Lignin Residue (dry tonnes/day) 626 Lignin Residue (dry tons/day) 690 Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) 30 Saccharification Total Solids (wt%) 20 a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.0 Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon $83 Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) 10% Equity Percent of Total Investment 100% Capital Costs Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feed Handling $10.000 Cellulase $37.100.800.000 Term (years) N/A Capital Depreciation $21.000 Feed rate (dry tons/day) 2.4 Utilities $7.000.600.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $8.300.5 Average Income Tax 34.000 Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon $8.800.8 Saccharification & Fermentation $21.000 Cellulase 68.000 Waste Disposal 12.000 Capital Charge Factor 0.9 Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -.9 Distillation and Solids Recovery $70.6 Storage $3.900. Sales Price $3. construction expenses.000 Biomass to Boiler 0.1 Total Installed Equipment Cost $209.900.000 Total Capital Investment $501.000 Loan Rate N/A Fixed Costs $11.000 Operating Costs ($/yr) (% of TCI) 52% Feedstock $57.000 Electricity -25. Costs $9. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Pervaporation Purification Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Corn Stover Design Report Case: 2020 Market Target Case (2002 Design Report Target Case) Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (Pervaporation Separation) All Values in 2007$ Product Value $3.400.000 Average Return on Investment 81.800.000 Other Raw Materials 18.193 Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.900.000 Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon $3.09 Waste Disposal $6.Water Fraction 0.000 Feedstock 107.500. (MMgal / yr) 56.68 Denatured Fuel Min. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.739 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 11.000 Denatured Fuel Prod.500.600.200.000 Electricity -$13.3 Boiler/Turbogenerator $55.000 Average Return on Investment $43.000.88 Other Raw Matl.Table D-7.000 Capital Depreciation 40.61 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.192 Average Income Tax $18.5 Boiler Feed -.LHV (Btu/lb) 2.300.543 Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106. 49 .9 Specific Operating Conditions Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 65% Feed rate (dry tonnes/day) 2.350.0 CSL 15. / Year) 53.25 Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) $0.200.

900.16 Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) 2.9 Waste Disposal 2.LHV (Btu/lb) 1.Table D-8.900.02 $6.000 $6.000 Installed Equipment Cost/Annual Gallon Total Project Investment/Annual Gallon Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.000 Electricity -$6.000 Average Return on Investment $34. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) 2. legal and contractor fees) and contingency.000.95 N/A N/A 0.000 $167.400.67 55.0 Conversion Cellulose --> Glucose 0.9109 Fermentation Time (days) 2.000 $3.400.200.6 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock $57.000 $50.300. construction expenses.000 $27.0 Average Return on Investment 61.0 CSL 33.400.000 Waste Disposal $1.33 Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) 19.000 Capital Depreciation $16.900.9 Boiler Feed -.6 Electricity -11.000 Other Raw Matl.6 Fixed Costs 18.5 Ethanol at 68°F 79.600.400.54 $0.000.500.489 Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Boiler Feed -.5 Specific Operating Conditions Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) 106.000 Biomass to Boiler $0 CSL $18.0 Capital Depreciation 30.200.000 Pretreatment $34.000 $3.000 57% $50.800.9 Other Raw Materials 35.547 Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) 82.000 Saccharification & Fermentation Distillation and Solids Recovery Wastewater Treatment Storage Boiler/Turbogenerator Utilities Total Installed Equipment Cost Added Costsa (% of TCI) Working Capital Total Capital Investment $29.800.000 Cellulase $37.3 $83 10% 100% Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock 104.000 $385.3 Biomass to Boiler 0.200.Water Fraction 0.000 $5.000 $218. 50 .170 58.100.100. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry Metric Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry MetricTon Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling $11.000 Average Income Tax $14.739 $3.90% Cellulose in 7 days @ 1. Cost Analysis Result Summary for Separate C5 and C6 Fermentation Processes Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Corn Stover Design Case: 2005 Post Enzyme-Subcontract Case . (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min. Costs $19.3 Average Income Tax 26.1 Cellulase 66.0 a Added costs include indirect costs (engineering and supervision.9X loading Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Cofermentation (Separate C5 & C6 Sugar fermentation) All Values in 2007$ Product Value Ethanol Production (MM Gal.100.800.000 Fixed Costs $10.320.4 Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) 67% Saccharification Time (days) 5.1 $3.9 Enzyme Loading (mg/g cellulose) 33.

Equipment Lists and Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Equip.000 $60.395 $53.809 $475.000 $68.000 $19.000 $302.822 $177.92 1.862.000 $18.111 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $400.151 $163.000 $50.028 $181. and Installed Equipment Costs for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Table E-1.497.340 $66.13 1.51 $1.111 111.040 98.000 $50.870 $357.302.040 98.899 $258.000 $60.111 111.000 $30.000 $38.118 $41.89 1.19 13.6 0.492 $219.111 111.111 111.040 98.043 $1.62 1.068 $384.247 $33.13 1.785 $714.888 $1.2 2.38 2.87 5.000 $300.000 $90.6 0.300 $341.000 $18.624 $73.000 $72.6 1 0.828 $312.Equipment List and Costs.38 2.000 $1.79 0.111 111.040 98.982 $108.528 1.6 0.040 98.6 0.123.521 $513.040 98.13 1.111 111.734 $256.040 98.000 $45.13 1.738 $32.797.040 98.000 $15.28 3.111 111.79 0.000 $150.599 $224.13 51 .111 111.000 $208.13 1.040 98.978 $241.058 $101.19 1.236 $49.000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $800.13 1.000 $12.221 $1.111 111.Appendix E .07 2.380 $135.111 111.47 1 1 2.6 $862.41 7.13 1.426 $2.205 $510.111 111.13 1.6 0.79 0.13 1.999 $81.6 1 1 0.716 $73.056 $135.39 1.111 111.13 1.000 $104.949 $145.6 0.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Bale Transport Conveyor Bale Unwrapping Conveyor Belt Press Discharge Conveyor Shredder Feed Conveyor Truck Scales Truck Unloading Forklift Bale Moving Forklift Corn Stover Wash Table Shredder Concrete Feedstock-Storage Slab Polymer Feed System Wash Table Pump Wash Water Pump Clarifier Underflow Pump Clarified Water Pump Belt Press Sump Pump Clarifier Thickener Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 98.040 98.000 $450.208. Installation Factors.000 $450.13 1.040 98.719 $236.000 $6.13 1.000 $135.388 $323.13 1.000 Scaling InstallaScaled Cost in Installed Cost Installed Cost Expotion Base Year in Base Year in 2007$ nent Factor 0.040 98.000 $20.000 $15.395.644 $234.000 $240.13 1.111 111.301 $292.754 $1.111 111.655 $30.959 C-101 C-102 C-103 C-104 M-101 M-102 M-103 M-104 M-105 M-106 M-107 P-101 P-102 P-103 P-104 P-105 S-101 2 2 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 $135.040 98.999 $81.747 $1.040 98.040 98.732 $343.79 0.976 $98.000 $34.332 $257.397.111 111.13 1.599 $535.303 $101.677 $13.040 New Stream Flow 111.13 1.111 111.79 0.840 $101.655 $30.143 $122.040 98.

16 1.000 $3.51 $107.192 $10.798 $11.13 1.112 S-102 S-103 T-101 T-102 A100 A-201 A-205 A-209 A-224 A-232 C-201 C-202 C-225 H-200 H-201 H-205 H-244 M-202 P-201 1 1 1 1 Belt Press Magnetic Separator Wash Water Tank Clarifier Thickener Tank 1.304 $41.824 $7.800 $15.898 $4.805 $106.000 Subtotal 2000 1998 2000 2000 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $100.884 236.839 $2.68 0.335 $109.400 $80.000 $13.000 $3.6 0.900 $45.117.531.45 1.992.982 $4.364.000 $135.483 $149.111 111.2 1.3 2.900 $36.800 $65.66 1.446 1.8 3.300 1.800 $2.217 $136.48 0.3 2.773 $88.118 236.931 $17.1 2.862 1.050 167.51 0.607 $131.440 416.537 $198.69 1.800 $65.1 2.246.140 91.385 $398.280 358.14 1.000 $132.78 0.79 $48.988 12.000 $19.495 $5.217 176 1.900 0.51 0.800 52 .874 $215.227 $437.863 $50.945 $583.997 $1.515 $822.823 $55.343 $102.454.29 2.308 358.827 $63.450 $179.574 $19.040 New Stream Flow 111.3 1.040 159.13 0.000 $59.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 98.46 0.05 0.691 0.518 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.831 306.532 271.51 0.1 2.863 $50.385 $132.04 5.288 12.000 $13.200 $36.802 $70.04 1.710 281.Equip.810 167.748 $14.000 $59.129 $26.141 $53.900 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2000 1997 1997 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 $1.25 1.591 $80.400 $7.2 1.8 $134.782 $38.51 0.76 $2.68 0.643 $96.68 0.450 $8.532 $22.970 $3.070 $101.81 1.532 120 12.947 $9.948 98.940 $102.000 $135.559 $34.139.111 111.517 $47.400 $80.643 $6.633 102.559 $29.1 2.539 $46.810 225.602 8.000 $19.647 2.851.111 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $100.296 $143.641 $19.15 0.6 0.51 0.81 1 1.400 $15.880 301.313 1.2 1.83 1.955 $34.13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 In-line Sulfuric Acid Mixer Hydrolyzate Mix Tank Agitator Overliming Tank Agitator Reacidification Tank Agitator Reslurrying Tank Agitator Hydrolyzate Screw Conveyor Hydrolyzate Washed Solids Belt Conveyor Lime Solids Feeder Hydrolyzate Cooler Beer Column Feed Economizer Pneumapress Vent Condensor Waste Vapor Condensor Prehydrolysis/Scre w Feeder/Reactor Sulfuric Acid 55.880 77.892 $137.200 $36.111 111.04 $45.040 98.900 $36.85 $1.000 $4.826 $61.313 $144.825 $293.135.686 $3.3 1.6 0.51 0.479 $47.490.97 1.000 $398.86 0.600 1.340 $391.285 $34.

118 306.440 42.258 $49.5 0.000 $36.432 136.510 $59.83 0.647 270.93 0.79 0.79 0.459 $209.18 1.724 $180.438 $34.588 301.46 0.800 $71.098 $99.200 $147.000 $69.228 $18.133 $25.368 $10.17 1.800 2000 1997 2000 2000 1997 1998 1998 1997 2000 1998 1997 1996 1997 1997 1997 2000 2000 1997 1997 1997 0.118 0.033 $151.558 $67.606 $21.4 1.631 $5.441 $222.050 136.394 $90.590 $370.299 5.71 0.980 $349.423 $79.800 $44.659 $102.985.188 53 .725.280 50.79 0.575.200 $147.050 136.34 2.68 1.599 6.907 $40.607 $96.81 1.71 $40.117 306.348 $132.71 0.56 2.4 1.000 $165.299 167.700 $32.04 0.617 $262.000 $165.8 1.71 0.8 2.400 $65.800 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 50.04 1.361 $108.440 $95.2 1.71 0.000 $18.930 $272.276.85 1.2 1.104 $21.845 $4.7 0.05 1.117 8.280 358.600 $61.3 1.928 $201.654 $131.600 $771.549 $49.880 301.440 416.563 $129.061 $40.51 0.489.79 0.000 $32.176 $204.04 1.800 $1.8 3.420 $205.2 1.160 $66.85 2.4 2.600 $184.562 $370.350 131.16 1.71 2.2 $135.443 $159.200 $5.66 11.760 $64.282 292.600 $47.000 $18.248 $21.300 358.8 1.810 167.Equip.760 $64.662 $456.589 $33.530 548 167.282 6.886 $34.000 $69.096 $131.300 281.810 167.816 $338.551 $34.432 136.416 $10.5 1.995 $108.45 3.100 $44.422 $18.286 $98.350 131.79 0.602 236.567 $4.117 416.83 1.04 11.600 $4.000 $32.530 162.100 $44.225 $34.810 42.015 $241.81 11.149 $73.521 $539.000 $36.831 $97.099 $300.624 $54.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Pump P-205 P-209 P-211 P-213 P-222 P-223 P-224 P-239 S-205 S-222 S-227 T-201 T-203 T-205 T-209 T-211 T-213 T-220 T-224 T-232 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pneumapress Feed Pump Overlimed Hydrolyzate Pump Primary Filtrate Pump Wash Filtrate Pump Filtered Hydrolyzate Pump Lime Unloading Blower Saccharification Feed Pump Reacidified Liquor Pump Pneumapress Filter Hydroclone & Rotary Drum Filter LimeDust Vent Baghouse Sulfuric Acid Tank Blowdown Tank Hydrolyzate Mixing Tank Overliming Tank Primary Filtrate Tank Wash Filtrate Tank Lime Storage Bin Reacidification Tank Slurrying Tank Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) New Stream Flow Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $46.39 1 0.847 $571.17 1.16 5.71 0.800 $44.906 $241.16 1.16 $15.81 1.304 $81.841 6.225 $277.634 $732.800 $47.195 548 1.79 0.66 1.800 $71.588 13.983 $328.831 159.831 159.770 3.4 2.6 0.803 $10.200 $5.801 $359.090 547 358.

2 1.849 $7.751 $167.904 $248.777 41.Equip.407 1.8 2.086 $708.51 0.346 $29.168 $617.602 376 0 0.777 41.84 $27.551 $11.83 0.700 $32.716 $33.227 $3.400 $25.696 0.84 8 $236.93 0.391 $14.2 1.560 $454.78 $77.444 $122.006 $4.245 $4.000 1996 1996 1997 1996 1998 1996 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 2001 1998 1997 1997 1997 $236.000 $44.98 0.600 $81.06 2.1380 0.2 1.2846 0.882 $27.820 40.47 0.98 0.2 1.91 1.2 1.1 1.68 0.220 $45.960.433 $103.291 $290.229 $0 $6.566 $390.2 2.884 $111.000 $294.2 1.174 $97.51 0.8 1.017 $38.300 $18.700 40.815 $62.800 $76.800 $64.98 1.121 $20.98 1.745 $24.400 $65.806 429.400 $20.081 $471.346 $29.98 0.680 $97.280 $2.336 $3.960.402 $58.286 54 .78 0.551 $23.777 381.500 $147.401 $23.200 0.326 $10.98 0.400 $590.51 $12.400 $65.464.806 40.2 1.490 $28.2 2.376 $126.8 2.1380 67.676 41.2846 1.765 0.1 2.405 $590.004 $132.112 $12.463 $162.800 $4.320 $182.757.002 $20.06 0.334 $14.300 $18.112 0.235.102.415 $82.397 $36.603 1.381 $975.160 $92.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) New Stream Flow Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) Subtotal A200 Ethanol Fermentor Agitator Seed Hold Tank Agitator 4th Seed Vessel Agitator 5th Seed Vessel Agitator Beer Surge Tank Agitator Saccharification Tank Agitator Ethanol Fermentor 1st Seed Fermentor 2nd Seed Fermentor 3rd Seed Fermentor 4th Seed Fermentor 5th Seed Fermentor Fermentation Cooler Hydrolyzate Heater Saccharified Slurry Cooler 4th Seed Fermentor Coil 5th Seed Fermentor Coil Saccharification Cooler Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $14.1 $283.51 0.777 41.978 $46.2 2.820 256 3.200 $162.700 $10.208 0.806 40.749 $349.100 41.282 $0 $7.700 $19.340 $48.200 $79.484 $37.1 2.552.200 $162.330 A-300 A-301 A-304 A-305 A-306 A-310 F-300 F-301 F-302 F-303 F-304 F-305 H-300 H-301 H-302 H-304 H-305 H-310 12 1 2 2 2 30 6 2 2 2 2 2 6 1 3 1 1 15 1 1 1 $19.2 1.000 $22.00 2.520 $124.000 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent $14.51 0.409 $3.208 $3.806 40.791.777 67.78 0.676 $493.939 $0 $9.03 $39.280 $2.806 129.12 $12.

960 $6.300 $8.963 $31.115.724 $2.593 $237.3 1.593 $237.68 0.650 $871.8 2.1 2.450 $418.865 $12.10 1.940 $0 $355.865 $12.68 0.254 $17.4 1.000 $161.100 $525.345 $7.502 47.677 $1.650 $158.711 $21.177.374 1998 1997 1998 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 $5.278 28.408 -32 1.079 $12.181 $11.835.951.720 $33.79 0.45 1.78 0.224 $346.98 1.811 $531.112 $1.68 0.951 $144.8 1.47 0.806 429.45 1.408 32.700 $478.792 $61.666 $258.663 $106.800 $544.446 99.391 Subtotal Subtotal 1997 1998 1998 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 0.088 $17.176 $34.465 $191.806 429.875 $82.45 1.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Fermentation Recirc/Transfer Pump Seed Hold Transfer Pump Seed Transfer Pump Beer Transfer Pump Saccharification Recirc/Transfer Pump Seed Hold Tank Beer Storage Tank Saccharification Tank Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 67.508 $0 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent P-300 P-301 P-302 P-306 P-310 T-301 T-306 T-310 A300 A400 6 1 2 1 15 1 1 15 1 1 129.1 2.062.777 381.278 22.737 41.881.12 $8.03 0.68 0.002.089.1 2.830.777 381.3092 263.265 $1.1 2.14 $5.100 $525.4 2.Equip.68 $7.199 17 56.979.79 0.038 $16.436 $2.400.701 67.095 32.71 $93.409 $37.1 2.287 $19.806 40.700 $478.897 $1.17 1.388 $108.51 0.194 $54.505.977.300 $316.7 0.484 $26.8 1.4 2.105 $4.208 1.7 0.48 1.963 $31.839 $3.600 $128.952 $159.360.364 $562.497 $43.91 0.1 $9.2 1.400.249.984 $0 2.174 $1.700 $7.408 32.700 New Stream Flow Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $56.98 0.181 55 .777 41.405.737 41.700 $493.355 $560.79 0.800 $1.2 1.696 40.704 1.51 0.624.621.208 1.180.650 $435.000 $161.373 20 62.871 $728.278 22.156.000 $22.936 $1.68 0.457 $200.12 0.2 1.430 $24.595 $435.602 40.156 $0 1 1 A-530 C-501 D-501 D-502 E-501 E-502 E-503 H-501 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Recycled Water Tank Agitator Lignin Wet Cake Screw Beer Column Rectification Column 1st Effect Evaporation 2nd Effect Evaporation 3rd Effect Evaporation Beer Column Reboiler 179.599 $310.98 1.821 $1.128 $148.477 22.973 $106.846 $1.000 $44.3 $261.748 0.190 $435.124.339 $1.461 $258.014 $8.

600 1997 1996 1996 1996 1996 1998 1997 1998 1998 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 2000 1997 1997 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $29.600 $2.926 $80.246 $188.45 1.100 $27.174 $38.064 $10.12 1.7 0.542 $110.8 2.876 $49.8 2.425 $4.93 1.867 $96.600 $1.582 $12.454 $11.490 $41.01 1.152 $2.600 $2.053 1.214 $297.565.377 179.700.564 $59.782 $19.1 2.584 19 311.900 $45.06 56 .959 $2.193 $16.565.446 26.787 $37.104 $3.188 $28.18 1.070 $30.052 6.030 $64.576 $2.601 1.8 2.003 0.79 0.752 $11.750 $11.51 1.000 $11.120 $368.000 $12.79 0.544 $86.68 0.8 2.1 2.79 0.260 $89.79 0.080 $243.001 140.507 18 278.892 $259.0002 17.288 $135.8 2.736 $134.481 $38.675.418.45 1.491 5.6 0.1 1 2.72 $29.900 $45.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Rectification Column Reboiler Beer Column Condenser Start-up Rect.600 $2.29 1.040 $121.6595 909 24 20.000 $24.544 $86.978 $28.000 $42.45 1.306 $6.1 2.376.040 $109.357 $4.022 $84.04 2.702 $36.782.409 $4.8 2.800 $5.70 0.714 $9.79 0.608 $114.4537 36.174 $19.220 15.68 0.547 $107.8 2.432 $146. Column Condenser Beer Column Feed Interchanger Evaporator Condenser Molecular Sieve (9 pieces) Beer Column Bottoms Pump Beer Column Reflux Pump Rectification Column Bottoms Pump Rectification Column Reflux Pump 1st Effect Pump 2nd Effect Pump 3rd Effect Pump Evaporator Condensate Pump Scrubber Bottoms Pump Recycled Water Pump Pneumapress Filter Beer Column Relfux Drum Rectification Column Reflux Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) -3.06 1.555 $80.1 2.19 0.179 263.240 $3.290 $8.111 48.0002 17.300 $1.700 $13.68 0.1 2.600 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.35 0.99 0.79 0.382 $17.06 1.1 $61.944 H-502 H-504 H-505 H-512 H-517 M-503 P-501 P-503 P-504 P-505 P-511 P-512 P-513 P-514 P-515 P-530 S-505 T-503 T-505 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.461.621 2.63 1.79 0.462 $860.300 $2.944 $99.93 0.788 $38.867 $271.68 0.68 0.832 $9.47 0.600 $29.600 $29.551 $35.598.8 2.250 $624.5547 1.365 $30.982 $100.737 0 19 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $29.051 18.970 $5.718 $4.0002 31.Equip.16 1.200 $5.6627 New Stream Flow -4 0 19 914 33 19.938 $1.502 18.883 $245.79 0.000 $84.916 $4.8 2.645 91.005 $83.8 1.409 181.819 78.79 0.800 $24.79 0.140 137.900 $8.706 $47.793 $21.084 $180.793 $10.700.

118.572 292 0.560 567 0.848 $43.574 $2.250 812 978 7.400 $10.782 5.498 $2.518 $81.402 $1.79 $12.030.93 0.02 1.100 $11.745 $100.47 $99.196 $6.4 1.46 0.4 2.600 $31.502 1.68 1.1 1.6 $5.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Drum T-512 T-514 T-530 A500 Equalization Basin Agitator Anaerobic Agitator Aerobic Lagoon Agitator Aerobic Sludge Screw Anaerobic Digestor Feed Cooler Nutrient Feed System Biogas Emergency Flare Filter Precoat System Anaerobic Reactor Feed Pump Aerobic Digestor Feed Pump Aerobic Sludge Recycle Pump Aerobic Sludge Pump Aerobic Digestion Outlet Pump Sludge Filtrate Recycle Pump 1 1 1 Vent Scrubber Evaporator Condensate Drum Recycled Water Tank Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) New Stream Flow Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $99.442 $4.279 $27.Equip.400 $30.000 $191.726.240 $11.78 0.908 $2.862 5.000 $22.471 $140.11 $20.599 401.8 2.778 108 112 3.600 $31.051 263.700 $128.913 $31.79 0.635 $40.700 $11.300 $500.13 0.79 0.495 $26.50 0.12 0.4 2.055 $19.188 $178.446 18.916 181.46 0.515 Subtotal 1998 1998 1998 0.739 $3.700 $6.155 0.022 $11.808 $25.051 $66.665 $46.2 1.200 0.862 187.74 $19.620 $3.071 $115.12 0.79 0.926 A-602 A-606 A-608 C-614 H-602 M-604 M-606 M-612 P-602 P-606 P-608 P-610 P-611 P-614 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 188.8 2.100 0.000 188.005 $34.271 $32.000 $5.000 0.11 0.400 $30.335 679 679 85.017 $109.763 $1.055 $3.51 0.2 1.46 0.587 $44.100 $21.226 57 .58 1.562 $336.10 1.8 $22.848 $3.034 $36.200 $14.1 2.599 85.100 $10.79 0.400 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 $28.46 0.400 $20.78 0.700 $128.022 $2.766 $8.4 1.200 $14.000 $37.8 1.129 185.1 2.885 85.827 4.250 $5.474 2.627 85.278 $12.400 $11.831 $32.325 $12.51 0.4 1.419 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 18.012 $9.79 0.400 $12.400 1.800 $21.737 $5.515 $13.269 $285.425 $249.234 $31.51 0.129 810.007 $21.000 $37.335 $85.831 $2.12 $11.41 $28.200 $34.609 $19.408 $2.220.300 $31.739 $3.51 $211.345 2.523 164.100 $11.760 179.4 2.

3 0.937 $3.678.272 $1.800 $881.472 $218.21 $1.488 4.200 0.599 401.291 $91.881 85.750 $105.506.772 $616.960.747 $291.466.059 $31.800 $32.558.8 2.694 $864.646 $234.900 $39.181 $32.081 $635.8 1.028 $151.255 $44.04 1.824 $44.129 438 188.965 188.238 $22.039 6.400 19.907 $91.488 8.081 $635.551 $12.139 $124.500 $8.03 5.819 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.900 $22.900 $12.585 $8.608 $6.800 $9.05 $7.46 0.13 0.2 1.48 0.823 887 2.79 0.981 $57.052 8.813 $5.436 41.Equip.309 $393.19 2.203 $449.200 0.300 7.645 $37.250 New Stream Flow 84.000 $17.42 1.89 2.79 0.908 $124.919 $4.008 786 4.647 6.511 $124.4 2.900 1 1.8 2.79 0.919 $4.8 2.8 1.177 $3.79 0.607 $93.223 $350.376 $640.778 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $10.565 18.600 $117.599 58 85.600 $36.5 0.500 $8.937 $169.8 2.983 $29.36 $32.000 $36.748 58 .637 $20.385 $3.922 $32.824 $1.173 $174.800 $881.400 $47.03 0.79 0.060 $6.20 1.600 $8.712 30 4.520 $143.50 0.050 $3.79 0.47 0.51 1 0.51 0.097 P-616 S-600 S-614 T-602 T-606 T-608 T-610 A600 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.023 $23.400 $4.500 $16.96 1.775 $229.335 A-701 A-720 A-760 C-755 P-701 P-703 P-704 P-710 P-720 P-750 P-755 P-760 S-755 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Denaturant In-line Mixer CSL Storage Tank Agitator CSL/DAP Day Tank Agitator DAP Solids Feeder Ethanol Product Pump Sulfuric Acid Pump Firewater Pump Gasoline Pump CSL Pump Cellulase Pump DAP Unloading Blower CSL/DAP Pump DAP Vent Baghouse 19.578 $310.884.2 1.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Treated Water Pump Bar Screen Belt Filter Press Equalization Basin Anaerobic Digestor Aerobic Digestor Clarifier Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 181.385 Subtotal 1997 1991 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $21.72 0.777 1.178 $162.103 $291.51 0.411 $37.173 $174.02 0.8 1.963 $333.800 $18.3 2.8 1.488 30 1.46 0.600 $32.675 185.79 0.551 $12.46 0.818 $650.79 1 $22.8 2.04 1 1.000 $18.818 $650.338 $368.775 $117.51 $1.795 $3.549 1.634 $272.892 $87.51 $11.46 19.347 $160.366 2.2 1.20 0.908 $2.200 $117.756 8.498 $111.070 $64.488 1.28 0.852 $2.782 85.795 $3.828 $27.800 $47.900 1997 1996 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 $1.900 $12.11 3.5 $1.129 810.622 $2.838 4.823 154 2.223 $350.039 548 19.600 $17.

472 $47.386 229.141.900 $33.71 0.941 $16.170.4 1.400 New Stream Flow 19.3 1.300 7.6 0.167.488 8.008 16 786 4.234 154 1.21 H-801 H-811 M-803 M-804 M-811 M-820 M-830 M-832 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Burner Combustion Air Preheater BFW Preheater Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor Combustion Gas Baghouse Turbine/Generator Hot Process Water Softener System Hydrazine Addition Pkg.4 1.483 $16.262.51 0.384 $30.03 1.058 $8.403 192.049.61 0.04 1.441.6 $739.89 2.437 T-701 T-703 T-704 T-709 T-710 T-720 T-750 T-755 T-760 A700 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.4 1.300 $19.321 $1.886 $4.325 $30.084 Subtotal 1997 1997 1997 2001 1997 1997 2001 2001 2001 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $331.100 $125.03 5.04 0.85 0.900 $58.834 $43.386 13 226 209.676 $21.5 1.748 $35.353 $235.159 $96.800 $42.179 225.413.20 0.307 $240.94 0.889 229.054 $105.549 1.758 $3.812 $57.507.536.755 $158.580 $40.54 0.4 1.51 0.100 $24.400 24.4 1.900.403 450.Equip.860 $639.74 0.1 1.270 652.79 0.6 $470.717 $2.79 0.800 $33.546 $18.070.120.834 $43.049.841 $312.000 $2.300 $19.712 30 4.536. Ammonia Addition Pkg 24.500 $88.647 6.384 $30.866 $3.244 $2.75 0.56 0.342.159 $22.51 0.624 1.822 15 887 2.000 $19.00 0 $2.100 $251.150 $26.047.617 $28.880 215.699 $448.400 $24.6 0.647 $17.587 $12.108.68 0.00 0 $1.321 1.271.488 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $165.000 0.111.902 $164.381.5 2.030 $336.3 1.623 $116.94 $1.880 0.148 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.000 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1999 1994 1994 $1.456.381.862 $1.3 1 1 $1.517 281.5 1.0337 415 341.701 215.150 59 .493 $110.69 0.392 $25.052 8.262 $230.900 $58.900.279.500 $166.4 1.000 $19.82 0.305 $38.500 $88.100 $24.2 1.72 0.300 10000000 $1.000.51 0.94 0.512 $1.039 9.576.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Ethanol Product Storage Tank Sulfuric Acid Storage Tank Firewater Storage Tank Propane Storage Tank Gasoline Storage Tank CSL Storage Tank Cellulase Storage Tank DAP Storage Bin CSL/DAP Day Tank Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 18.310 $18.168 $320.300 $10.4 1.054 $140.19 3.891 $2.600 $42.947 209.79 $336.961 $168.321 $18.084 $1.793 $1.195 $75.957 $81.500 $166.321 $18.719 $77.311 $26.58 0.212.44 0.

386 New Stream Flow 215.035 59.4 1.083 $56.073 $72.100 $49.741 $24.553.093 $14.397 $535.525 $51.6 0.709 $2.062 $397.900 $28.613 229.336 $157.600 $165.604 111.110.200 $12.000 $834.2 2.378 0.72 0.800 $9.145 $343.8 1.34 0.200 $95.000 $9.99 0.538 $73.000 $7.6 $1.894 254.950 105 111.501 $5.79 0.93 $18.7 1.509.623 $122.720 $29.94 2.8 2.98 0.853 $463.000 $278.476 215.035 192.111 0.8 2.312 $25.586.8 2.000 $664.910 1 2.000 $332.87 0.600 $19.383 $26.79 0.87 0.524 293.304 $1.66 0.471 39.4 1.881 $95.701 215.205 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.49 0.923 $41.626 6.253 $870.975 $43.69 $1.679 $6.100 $5.419 $13.265.470 $59.321 $26.890 $38.8 1.2 1.100 $49.8 2.373.225 $1.72 0.300 $10.043 $1.78 0.160 352.386 61.243 $4.955 $9.605 564.111 63 12.500 $7.036 $490.79 0.037 192.72 0.8 2.563 229.972 $38.600 $165.Equip.400 Subtotal 1994 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $19.360 266.505 $10.145 $114.100 $15.71 1.339 $103.200 $5.500 $7.79 0.79 0.879.94 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cooling Tower System Plant Air Compressor CIP System Cooling Water Pump Make-up Water Pump Process Water Circulating Pump Instrument Air Dryer 147.600 $21.498 1998 2000 1995 1997 1997 1997 1999 $1.960 0 98.000 $9.7 2.500 $52.862 222.710 159.292 $25.558 M-834 P-804 P-811 P-824 P-826 P-828 P-830 T-804 T-824 T-826 T-828 T-830 A800 M-902 M-904 M-910 P-902 P-912 P-914 S-904 1 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.600 $95.300 $30.112 $11. Condensate Pump Turbine Condensate Pump Deaerator Feed Pump BFW Pump Blowdown Pump Hydrazine Transfer Pump Condensate Collection Tank Condensate Surge Drum Deaerator Blowdown Flash Drum Hydrazine Drum Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 229.506 $97.81 0.233 $81.890 $9.13 1.386 $19.073 $32. 929 211.321 $74.3 1.684 $27.8 1.996 60 .081 $54.659.8 2.880 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $19.880 6.79 0.386 228.742 $141.515 $19.100 $7.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Phosphate Addition Pkg.79 0.870 $76.000 $262.040 63 182900 00 244.150 $101.880 136.476 215.200 $12.72 0.59 0.21 1.048.600 $33.447 $1.71 0.821 $10.701 215.3 $18.213 6.054 $1.659.800 $11.8 2.38 0.00 0.880 136.400 $40.033 $5.518.596 $21.911 $34.79 0.907 $44.000 $14.79 0.880 6.132.200 $15.68 0.94 0.189 $19.447.8 2.866.

000 $69.111 5.710 New Stream Flow 4.51 $46.700 352.673 $111.000 $17.687 111.89 0.921 254.2 1.098 $17.259 159.50 $56.Number Spares Equipment Name ment ID Required Nos Prehydrolysis Filter Air Receiver Plant Air Receiver Product Recovery Filter Air Receiver Process Water Tank Scaling Stream Flow (Kg/hr) 5.083 $75.788.72 $121.806 $315.000 $68.2 1.000 $13.Equip.315.500 Subtotal Equipment Cost 2000 1997 2000 1997 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Year $51.331 $13.909 $81.850 T-902 T-904 T-905 T-914 A900 3 1 4 1 0.950 5.604 Size Ratio Original Base Equip Cost Year (per unit) $17.083.666.000 $13.000 $195.681.596 $93.109.704 1.04 0.784 $4.72 0.001 $83.061 InstallaScaling Installed Cost Installed Cost Scaled Cost in tion Expoin Base Year in 2007$ Base Year Factor nent 0.5 1.560 $3.091 $164.477 61 .69 1.082 $6.104.786.942 $10.000 $195.865 $231.887 $165.4 1.72 0.500 $3.3 1.72 0.

Appendix F .0% 32 1.11 0 0.95 0.015 0.2956 190 11.014 0.5713 0 0 0.02 0.6 0.6 0.5713 0 0 0.21 0.0445 0.009 0.003 0.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.002 0.1% 4.6 0.019 0.006 0.21 0.6 0.Process Operating Summaries Table F-1.046 0.099 0.21 0.0 2 0.08 0.5713 0 22.543 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid 20.3% 32 1. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.0190 0.0 5 0 0 0.756 0.5713 0 0 0.21 0.1 20.004 0.003 0 0.989 18.08 0 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.003 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 .0% 10.1 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 35.9109 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.

Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL 0 0 44.829 52.7% 63 . cont.688 880 1.13 0.457 16.58 131.955 0 0 0 2.12 0.2 0.0% 4.36 Saccharification.28 0 0. cont.145 0.436 0.095 Fermentation. Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. cont.Pretreatment. S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose 0.

0% 32 1.6 0.0 2 0.6 0.02 0.11 0 0.099 0.756 0.3% 32 1.21 0.6 0.21 0.003 0.0445 0.989 Other Soluble Solids From PT 18.9109 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.015 0.5713 0 0 0.009 0.002 0.95 0.Table F-2. Operating Summary for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (Pilot) Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.08 0 0 1 1 1 0.006 0.08 0.2956 190 11.003 0.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin 0.21 0.1 20.014 0.0% 10.003 0 0.1 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose 35.019 0.08 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT 22.21 0.046 0.543 Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase 0 Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase 0 Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase 0 Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0 64 .6 0.5713 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 20.5713 0 0 0.5 0.0190 0.5713 0 0 0.1% 4.0 5 0 0 0.

Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 7. cont.Pretreatment.58 131. S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose 0.12 0.829 52.36 Saccharification. Soluble Sugars From Sacc 44. cont.13 0.457 Other Soluble Solids From Sacc 16.145 0.436 0.0% 4.955 Soluble Sugars From DAP 0 Other Soluble Solids From DAP 0 Soluble Sugars From CSL 0 Other Soluble Solids From CSL 2.7% 65 .2 0.28 0 0. cont.688 Soluble Sugars From Seed Train 880 Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train 1.095 Fermentation.

8249 0 0 0.0265 0.1% 32 1.0626 0 0. Operating Summary for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.8249 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.756 0.0190 0.2956 190 11.0443 0.02 0.458 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase N/A 34.0 2 0.8249 0 0.006 0.009 0.Table F-3.002 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 .8249 0 0.5 0 0 0.014 0.0873 4.6% 144.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 0.1 0.046 0.0265 0.0265 0.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 13.95 0.7% 7.2% 28.58 137.004 0.019 0.600 0 0 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 19.0265 0.003 0.015 0.

934 0 0 0 2. Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL 33.183 0.462 881 1.0% 3.1% 67 .12 0.Pretreatment.2 0.28 0 0.13 0. cont. Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 7. cont.36 Saccharification.159 Fermentation. Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose 0.169 16. cont.

5 0. Operating Summary for Hot Water Pretreatment Processes Pretreatment Total Solids (wt%) Total Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin Glucose to HMF Mannose to HMF Galactose to HMF Xylose to Furfural Arabinose to Furfural 17.0032 0 0.0 5 0 0 0.014 0.9% 190.0239 0 0 0.0% 9.554 0.0 12.174 0 0 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 16.5 0.0239 0 0.05 0.5 0.004 0.5661 0 0 0.02 0.0 2 0.0239 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.019 0.015 0.2% 32 1.0239 0 0.554 0.554 0.554 0.009 0.046 0.5% 3.5661 0 0 0.Table F-4.3 0.5 0.006 0.756 0.95 0.8997 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.053 0 0.1 16.9% 32 1.2% 12.5661 0 19.003 0.745 18.5 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 33.5661 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 .

954 0 0 0 2.0% 2.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saccharification. cont.147 16.792 Fermentation. S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.176 1. Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 7.7% 69 .Pretreatment. Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL 47. cont. cont.357 2.

014 0.Table F-5.1302 18.0 2 0.959 0 0 1 0 0.6% 32 1.95 0.5 0.777 0 0 0.980 21.004 0.777 0 0 0.3 20.046 0.0000 0.02 0.777 0 15.338 0 0 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol 20.5% 3.777 0 0 0.0% 11.5 0.33 N/A 70 .756 0.7 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 31.5 0.009 0.5 0.6% 32 1.002 0.4808 108.003 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) 0.0 5 0 0 0.019 0. Operating Summary for AFEX Pretreatment Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.015 0.0000 0.

Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL 50.0% 3. cont.242 Fermentation.962 2. Mannose to Zymo Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 0 7.205 1. Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose N/A N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Saccharification. cont.9% 71 .Pretreatment.242 0 0 0 2.400 19. cont.

0190 0.8249 0 0.002 0.005 0.Table F-6.0265 0.4% 32 1.4 0 0 0.8249 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.0443 0.5713 0 0 0.676 20.97 0.699 0 0 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 17.5713 0 10.1% 3.0 2 0.1 0.01 0.5713 0 0 0.0265 0.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 0.9109 0 0 0 0 0.2968 190 11.58 137.002 0.034 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 33.0 5 0 0 0.8249 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 .1% 9. Operating Summary for Separate C5 & C6 Fermentation Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.5713 0 0 0.0626 0 0.0265 0.4 16.0265 0.8249 0 0.9% 32 1.

Pretreatment, cont. Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose

67,796 #N/A 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006

Saccharification, cont. Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL

39,360 20,699 0 0 0 0 0 2,371

Fermentation, cont. Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%)

0 0 0 0 7.0% 4.3%

73

Table F-7. Operating Summary for Pervaporation Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 0.0190 0.0443 0.2960 190 11.4 0 0 0.0626 0 0.0265 0.8249 0 0 0.0265 0.8249 0 0.0265 0.8249 0 0.0265 0.8249 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.1 0.58 137,371 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 33.5 20.0% 10.3% 32 1.0 5 0 0 0.9109 0 0 0 0 0.5713 0 0 0.5713 0 0 0.5713 0 0 0.5713 0 22,739 18,576 0 0 0 0 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 20.1% 4.2% 32 1.0 2 0.95 0.02 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.002 0.756 0.019 0.003 0.046 0.009 0.014 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

74

Pretreatment, cont. Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose

45,921 0.174 0.13 0.2 0.12 0.28 0 0.36

Saccharification, cont. Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL

46,152 16,718 839 1,960 0 0 0 2,138

Fermentation, cont. Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%)

0 0 0 0 7.0% 4.8%

75

1 0.5713 0 0 0.317 16.0265 0.95 0.416 Saccharification Enzyme Loading (mg/g cell) Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Glucolig to Cellobiose Glucolig to Glucose Cellobiose to Glucose Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylose Oligomer to Xylose Xylan to Tar Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactose Oligomer to Galactose Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannose Oligomer to Mannose Sugar & Solids Flow Rates (kg/hr) Soluble Sugars From PT Other Soluble Solids From PT Soluble Sugars in Purchased Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Purchased Cellulase Soluble Sugars in Produced Cellulase Other Sol Solids in Produced Cellulase 0.8249 0 0.5713 0 20.) Conversions: Cellulose to Glucolig Cellulose to Cellobiose Cellulose to Glucose Cellulose to HMF Xylan to Oligomer Xylan to Xylose Xylan to Furfural Xylan to Tar Mannan to Oligomer Mannan to Mannose Mannan to HMF Galactan to Oligomer Galactan to Galactose Galactan to HMF Arabinan to Oligomer Arabinan to Arabinose Arabinan to Furfural Arabinan to Tar Acetate to Oligomer Acetate to Acetic Acid Furfural to Tar HMF to Tar Lignin to Soluble Lignin S/L Separation Water/Hydrolyzate Ratio (kg/kg) Water to S/L Separator (kg/hr) 0.085 0 1 1 1 0.4 0 0 0.756 0. Operating Summary for On-site Enzyme Production Processes Pretreatment Acid Conc (wt%) Acid Loading (g acid/g dry biomass) Total Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (min.0 2 0.1% 4.0626 0 0.0265 0.2959 190 11.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 .02 0.009 0.002 0.046 0.0 20.085 0.004 0.003 0.2% 32 1.0% 10.0265 0.58 137.019 0.9109 0 0 0 0 0.7% 32 1.0190 0.015 0.Table F-8.006 0.5713 0 0 0.5713 0 0 0.8249 0 0.8249 0 0.781 Fermentation Total Solids (wt%) Insoluble Solids (wt%) Temperature (°C) Pressure (atm) Residence Time (days) Conversions: Glucose to Ethanol Glucose to Zymo Glucose to Glycerol Glucose to Succinic Acid Glucose to Acetic Acid Glucose to Lactic Acid Xylose to Ethanol Xylose to Zymo Xylose to Glycerol Xylose to Xylitol Xylose to Succinic Acid Xylose to Acetic Acid Xylose to Lactic Acid Arabinose to Ethanol Arabinose to Zymo Arabinose to Glycerol Arabinose to Succinic Acid Arabinose to Acetic Acid Arabinose to Lactic Acid Galactose to Ethanol Galactose to Zymo Galactose to Glycerol Galactose to Succinic Acid Galactose to Acetic Acid Galactose to Lactic Acid Mannose to Ethanol Mannose to Zymo 20.014 0.259 0 0 545 2.0442 0.0 5 0 0 0.8249 0 0.0265 0.

5% 77 . cont.Pretreatment. Mannose to Glycerol Mannose to Succinic Acid Mannose to Acetic Acid Mannose to Lactic Acid Contamination Loss Ethanol Out of Fermenters (wt%) 0 0 0 0 7. cont.246 17.175 0.13 0.36 Saccharification.003 0 0 0 2. Soluble Sugars From Sacc Other Soluble Solids From Sacc Soluble Sugars From Seed Train Other Soluble Solids From Seed Train Soluble Sugars From DAP Other Soluble Solids From DAP Soluble Sugars From CSL Other Soluble Solids From CSL 41. cont.28 0 0.12 0.136 783 2.0% 4.2 0. Dilution Water (kg/hr) Conditioning Ca(OH)2 to Gypsum Sugar Conversion to TAR: Xylose Arabinose Glucose Galactose Mannose Cellobiose 19.186 0.056 Fermentation.

3 mg protein/g cellulose) either from purchased stock preparation or from the on-site enzyme production section (Area 400).and the 3rd-effect evaporators to high concentration syrup of soluble solids. biomass undergoes a physical and/or chemical treatment. 78 .General Process Description Area 100 The feedstock handling area receives the corn stover in bales. A small fraction of the hydrolyzate leaving the saccharification vessel is sent to one of two sequenced batch fermentation seed vessel trains to be used as a carbon source for the growth of the fermentative organism. Area 300 Enzymatic saccharification followed by fermentation of sugars occurs in this area. The details of the four pretreatment processes are discussed under the Pretreatment Variation section of process variations in the results section. Area 200 In the pretreatment area. followed by dewatering in a Pneumapress filter and screw press to separate most of the insoluble solids. The rectification column purifies the ethanol to about 95 wt% concentration. A 2 day residence time is used for fermentation. Zymomonas mobilis. Nutrients such as CSL and diammonium phosphate are also added into the bio-reactors. from the aqueous stream. which allows for improved exposure of the cellulose during enzymatic hydrolysis. Nearly all of the remaining water is removed in a molecular sieve adsorption column. Vent gas from the fermentors is scrubbed to collect escaped ethanol in the scrubber and sent to the beer column along with fermented beer from the fermentors.Appendix G . acid is used in place of enzyme to hydrolyze the cellulose and xylan. The liquid fraction from the screw press is concentrated in the 2nd. Note that for two-stage dilute acid treatment. The pretreatment hydrolyzate from Area 200 is pumped into 18 parallel saccharification vessels (each has a capacity of 1 MM gal) where enzyme is added (enzyme loading of 31. The stillage from the beer column is pumped to the 1st-effect evaporator where water content is reduced. Area 500 Ethanol is separated and recovered from water and residual solids in this section. Fermented beer is distilled in two distillation columns: beer column and rectification column. The residence time for saccharification is 5 days. comprising mainly lignin. After being unwrapped. where Zymomonas mobilis is introduced from the seed reactors. stover is washed to remove dirt before being passed through a magnetic separator to remove tramp metal and then conveyed to the shredders for size reduction. The beer column removes dissolved CO2 and vapor generating a concentrated ethanol stream. The evaporator syrup and the dewatered solid fraction from the screw press are used as boiler fuel in the fluidized bed combustor. The bulk of the hydrolyzate from the saccharification vessels is pumped to one of eight parallel sequenced batch fermentation reactors.

7 MT/d) To Scrubber (7 MT/d) S/L Sep Vent Condensate (12 MT/d) Evaporator Condensate (435 MT/d) Pretreatment Flash (1073 MT/d) Boiler Blowdown (155 MT/d) Cooling Tower Blowdown (379 MT/d) Aerobic Digester Wastewater T = 35 oC P = 1 atm Wastewater (2048 MT/d) Air (477 MT/d) Vapor to Atmosphere (485 MT/d) Equalizing Basin T = 35 oC P = 1 atm Aerobic Digester To Clarifier (2053 MT/d) Clarifier T = 21. followed by a screw press. phosphoric acid. The solids are dewatered in a belt filter press. It is then held in a clarifying tank where the settled solids are separated from the water. In the anaerobic digester.Area 600 Wastewater is treated in anaerobic and aerobic digesters. The wastewater is further treated aerobically. Biogas from the anaerobic digester is used as boiler fuel. The resulting sludge is used as boiler fuel. Wastewater treatment section (Area 600) 79 .7 MT/d) Figure G-1. with a polymer being added to aid in dewatering. a small amount of urea. and micronutrients are added as nutrients for the anaerobic organisms. Nutrient Feed System Nutrient (0.1 oC P = 1 atm To Process Water Inlet (2037 MT/d) Solid Suspension (16 MT/d) Water Return (14 MT/d) S/L Separation Sludge To Combustor (2. The water from the clarifying tank is recycled as process water.

Superheated steam is generated in the boiler and exits the multistage turbine at three different conditions needed in the process. 500. Flue Gas To Stack Baghouse (10544 MT/d) Boiler Feed Water (5181 MT/d) Preheated Air (7794 MT/d) Biogas (7 MT/d) Digester Solids (3 MT/d) Evaporator Syrup (1882 MT/d) Lignin (1137 MT/d) To Plant Ash (279 MT/d) Steam to Evaporator (129 MT/d) Steam to Area 200. wastewater treatment sludge. Steam and power generation section (Area 800) 80 . 300. insoluble solids from the Pneumapress. Evaporator syrup.Area 800 Cogeneration of steam for process heat and electricity occurs in Area 800. and biogas are used as fuel in the fluidized bed combustor. 800 & 900 (1630 MT/d) Super heated Steam (5026 MT/d) Boiler Turbine Generator To Grid Blowdown to WWT (155 MT/d) To Deareator (2361 MT/d) To Pretreatment Reactor (906 MT/d) Figure G-2.

7 340.7 36.1 3.8 100 Table H-2.4 22.Cost By Area Of Process Scenarios Table H-1.43 100 Installed Cost (MM$) 10.7 26.5 3. Costs by Area of the Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids) Scenario Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 169.0 21.9 38.8 50.9 (%) 6.4 337.5 42.9 15.7 5.9 44.6 15.1 5.3 16.4 16.5 1.7 4.5 15.6 38.3 5.6 6.5 7.5 3.0 1.5 4.5 1. Costs by Area of the 2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 172.1 3.6 (%) 6.1 1.7 1.8 66.9 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.4 3.0 21.2 6.8 3.4 12.0 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.6 2.7 388.2 18.Appendix H .8 24.9 41.0 5.3 18.9 4.9 9.4 21.0 3.3 26.0 100 81 .3 113.5 112.0 51.4 4.7 47.3 14.3 4.0 391.5 2.0 17.4 1.0 6.6 4.0 23.1 57.9 4.1 3.49 100 (MM$) 10.8 25.

9 23.2 2.3 16.8 17.7 (%) 7.8 5.1 3.8 113.3 107.0 47.0 16.0 5. Costs by Area of the AFEX Pretreatment Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 167.4 386.0 18.1 47.2 2.0 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.5 18.3 314.7 37.6 50.0 4.8 1.39 100 (MM$) 10.0 3.3 2.4 14.9 5.4 1.4 18.4 1.5 27.5 15.0 1.8 23.9 6.6 39.7 30.0 1.3 4.4 (%) 6.6 5.3 65.6 3.9 1.1 42.8 6.6 21.1 16.0 1.0 3.0 8.1 361.1 1.3 19.8 62.35 100 (MM$) 10.5 1.3 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.0 100 Table H-4.4 19.8 44.9 3.6 2.0 43.9 4.5 1.1 4. Costs by Area of the Hot Water Pretreatment Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 156.3 19.2 30.9 30.Table H-3.4 1.4 335.7 18.1 100 82 .1 5.

43 Table H-6.8 3.7 11.0 19.2 3.4 62.0 32.5 1.5 4.6 100 83 .7 65.7 3.4 36.2 21.1 40.6 16.6 27.0 30.4 17.3 3.3 3.3 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.3 3.6 1.0 100 100 (MM$) 11.4 34.5 3.Table H-5.3 385.5 33.6 155.1 5.4 5.8 20.2 40.4 21.0 3.0 3.9 70.8 3.9 6.3 1.7 17. Costs by Area of the Separate C-5 and C-6 Fermentation Process Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 167.23 100 (MM$) 10.5 1.2 435.8 3.6 26.2 29.4 2.9 12.2 17.9 2.2 18. Costs by Area of the Pervaporation Process Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 209.4 501.9 7.5 16.9 36.4 50.8 1.8 335.0 (%) 5.8 2.3 10.8 3.1 50.3 55.1 4.1 112.1 15.7 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.8 2.4 25.7 17.3 3.2 (%) 6.4 23.

5 1.6 434.7 15.8 19.3 30.7 25.3 3.7 17.5 56.6 14.8 2.9 1.8 23.3 3.6 Purchased Equipment Cost (MM$) (%) 6.9 36.5 100 84 .2 2.4 3.9 16.41 100 (MM$) 10.4 127.0 1.6 12.2 3.4 2.8 (%) 5.0 19.4 4.2 6.5 57.6 13.1 4.Table H-7.5 13.6 1.2 32.2 21.3 11. Costs by Area of the On-site Enzyme Production Processes Scenario Installed Cost Cost Areas / Factor Feedstock Handling (Area 100) Pretreatment (Area 200) Saccharification & Fermentation (Area 300) On-site Enzyme Production (Area 400) Distillation and Solids Recovery (Area 500) Wastewater Treatment (Area 600) Storage (Area 700) Boiler/Turbogenerator (Area 800) Utilities (Area 900) Purchased Equipment Cost Total Installed Equipment Cost Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) Working Capital (WC) Total Capital Investment (TCI) Lang Factor 187.8 377.6 41.0 13.3 17.

14 10 36 68 95.4 957 1. (2) Simultaneous sccharification and cofermentation (of glucose & xylan).27 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 4.45 42 79. (4) Separation/Purification (distillation & desiccants) Feedstock: Corn 0. and (3) Separation/Purification (distillation and molecular sieve).16 1.4 634 1.68 1. (2) Simultaneous Saccharification and Cofermentation (glucose & Xylose). (2) Simultaneous Saccharification and Cofermentation (glucose & Xylose).Down Selection Matrix Table I-1. (5) Water treatment (treated water recycle to process) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute H2SO4).9 5000 10 91 2000 Commercial/Pilot Commercial/Pilot Scenario-I (Short Term: 5 years.658 4 Feedstock: Cornstover 0. and (3) Separation/Purification (distillation and molecular sieve).9 2000 1. (5) Water treatment (treated water recycle to process) Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 3. (5) Water treatment (treated water recycle to process) Pilot 85 . (4) Separation/Purification (distillation and molecular sieve).25 1. (4) Water treatment (suspended sludge digester) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute H2SO4).88 50 119.83 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 4. (3) Separation/Purification (2-column distillation).2 90. following pretreatment and SSF) 0. (2b) with separate fermentation for C5.628 2 Current Process (pretreatment & SSF) 3 Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute acid).5 90. (5) Water treatment (treated water recycle to process) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute H2SO4).Appendix I .661 6 Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute acid).07 10 48 89. (2a) SSF (simultaneous sccharification & fermentation). (2) Continuous Saccharification.63 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 4. (3) Fermentation. Process Down-Selection Matrix Water Use/Discharge (Mton/day) Process Yield (fuel) [gal Ethanol or Butanol/ ton feed stock] Optimal Plant Size (MTon/day) Ability to Meet Fuel Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions Capital Expenditure (x10 $) Internal Rate of Return (%) Infrastructure Compatibility Energy Content (Gasoline Equivalent) Particulates/Solid Wastes Technology Development 6 Operating Costs (x10 $) Complexity of Process 6 Engine Compatibility Plant Efficiency (%) Carbon Efficiency Waste Treatment Fuel Cost ($/gal) Capacity Factor Process Blocks Bibliography a Use Emissions Air Emissions Fuel Toxicity Toxics Ethanol Concentrated Acid/Fermentation Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute H2SO4). (3) Separation/Purification.53 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 1.2 95.02 0.71 12 48 76.7 93 2000 Pilot 5440 0.658 1 Notes Risk Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 2.658 5 SSCF Base Case. (2) Hydrolysis (Enzymatic). and (3) Cofermentation (hydrolysis & fermentation units are in series).91 0.24 0. Feedstock: Yellow poplar 6307 0.

SO2 is used for pretreatment.37 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 2. (2) Hydrolysis (Enzymatic). (3a) Fermentation.82 10 49 94 95.9 2000 Pilot Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 6307 0.76 1. SO2 is used for pretreatment.661 8 SSCF 2010.621 15 86 Notes Risk . Feedstock: Yellow poplar 6307 0. Feedstock: Yellow poplar 6307 0.61 Ethanol SO2-Steam Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 9. (2) Hydrolysis (Enzymatic).85 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 2.83 5 41 79.8 lab 586 0.76 10 52 99 95.75 5 36 69.63 2. Feedstock: Yellow poplar 6307 0. Total Investment is 910 MSKR SSF process.6 91.2 600 lab 0. (3) Fermentation.661 10 SHF (TVA process).16 10 40 76 95.58 Ethanol SO2-Steam Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 13. High profit from coproducts: furfural SO2 & NaOH in 2-step preteratment. (4) Separation/Purification (distillation). (3) Separation/Purification (2-separate stripper & rectifier operations) 0.5 100 500 12 0. One-Step Pretreatment.9 2000 Pilot SSCF 2005.9 2000 0. (3) Separation/Purification (distillation & drying) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam). (2) Hydrolysis (Enzymatic).98 25 42 78. and (3b) fermentation of C5 sugars in separate vessels.94 10 42 81 95. (3) Fermentation (Hexose & Pentose in separate vessels). Total Investment is 1184 MSKR SSF process.9 2000 1. Total Investment is 847 MSKR Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (dilute H2SO4).2 586.624 13 0.25 15 78 33 100 4360 Pilot Pilot Pilot 11 0.18 0. Rate of return on working capital SHF process.29 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 8. (5) Waste treatment Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (SO2.67 Ethanol SO2-Steam Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 5.45 1.2 586.661 9 SSCF 2015. (5) water treatment Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam).Water Use/Discharge (Mton/day) Process Yield (fuel) [gal Ethanol or Butanol/ ton feed stock] Optimal Plant Size (MTon/day) Ability to Meet Fuel Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions Capital Expenditure (x10 $) Internal Rate of Return (%) Infrastructure Compatibility Energy Content (Gasoline Equivalent) Particulates/Solid Wastes Technology Development 6 Operating Costs (x10 $) Complexity of Process 6 Engine Compatibility Plant Efficiency (%) Carbon Efficiency Waste Treatment Fuel Cost ($/gal) Capacity Factor Process Blocks Bibliography a Use Emissions Air Emissions Fuel Toxicity Toxics 3. (4) Separation/Purification (distillation & drying) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Stake Tech: SO2 & Steam). (2) SSF (Simultaneous Saccharification & Fermentation. (4) Seperation. (2) SSF (Simultaneous Saccharification & Fermentation). Steam). feed batch).618 14 Ethanol SO2-Steam Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 8.8 91.2 91. Feedstock: Yellow poplar 0.98 Ethanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 2.661 7 SSCF Near Term.8 lab 552 0.24 6 40 76. SO2 is used for pretreatment.

24 6 42 80.5 100 15 1. (4) Water treatment (attached film digester) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Liquid Hot Water).1 15 55 93. (3) Water treatment Process Blocks: (1) SSF (Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation).1 15 47 79. (3) Separation/Purification (1-column distillation with heat integration). (2) SSF (Simultaneous Saccharification & Fermentation. (2) Separation/Purification (distillation and molecular sieve).89 E thanol Liquid Hotwater Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 0.33 1.621 16 SSF process. (2) Fermentation.9 5000 conceptual Ethanol AFEX Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation Advanced EtOH-GTCC Process 18 0. (3) Separation/Purification (1-column distillation with heat integration).658 22 44 28.628 20 Ethanol Enzymatic / Fermentation 9.48 10 91 2000 lab/pilot conceptual 0.73 12 61 105.77 12 61 105.no detoxification). (2) SSF (simultaneous sccharification & fermentation).1 91. (3) Separation/Purification (distillation) 87 . AFEX.Water Use/Discharge (Mton/day) Process Yield (fuel) [gal Ethanol or Butanol/ ton feed stock] Optimal Plant Size (MTon/day) Ability to Meet Fuel Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions Capital Expenditure (x10 $) Internal Rate of Return (%) Infrastructure Compatibility Energy Content (Gasoline Equivalent) Particulates/Solid Wastes Technology Development 6 Operating Costs (x10 $) Complexity of Process 6 Engine Compatibility Plant Efficiency (%) Carbon Efficiency Waste Treatment Fuel Cost ($/gal) Capacity Factor Process Blocks Bibliography a Use Emissions Air Emissions Fuel Toxicity Toxics Ethanol SO2-Steam Double Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 8.658 21 no-lab demo 0. pretreatment. (3) Separation/Purification (distillation & desiccants) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (steam explosion). following pretreatment and SSCF) Scenario-I (minerals sent to land fill. AFEX. (2) Consolidated Bio-Processing. (2) CBP (consolidated bio-processing). (2) Separation/Purification (distillation and molecular sieve).no detoxification). Two-Step Pretreatment.9 5000 Lab 17 Advanced EtOH Rankine process 2. pretreatment . CBP) Scenario-II (Mid Term: 510 years.628 19 Scenario-III (Long Term: >20 years. (3) Separation/Purification (2separate stripper & rectifier operations) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Ammonia fiber expansion. (4) Water treatment (attached film digester) Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (Ammonia fiber expansion. (3) Water treatment Ethanol AFEX Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 1.3 95.957 23 Feedstock: corn fiber. feed batch).4 100 15 Lab 0.70 Butanol Concentrated Acid / Fermentation Butanol Dilute Acid Pretreatment / Fermentation 0.85 1.2 600 lab 0.99 Ethanol Steam Pretreatment/Enzymatic / Fermentation 10 91 2000 0.72 2. No ethanol from xylan) Scenario-II (90% of minerals are recovered and sent to paper mill) 681907 1. dilute H2SO4 hydrolysis Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis (dilute H2SO4).95 0.4 lab 0. SO2 is used for pretreatment. (3) Separation/Purification (distillation & desiccants) Process Blocks: (1) SSF (Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation). (2) SSF & SSCF(Simultaneous saccharification & fermentation. and simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation).06 Ethanol Enzymatic / Fermentation 7. following Consolidated BioProcessing. Total Investment is 847 MSKR Notes Risk Process Blocks: (1) Pretreatment (2step SO2-steam pretreatment: double pretreatment).3 95.

949 26 Butanol Fermentation 1.68 20 65 89. Process Blocks: (1) hydrolysis of lignocellulosics/starch to fermentable sugars.95 66 89. (2) Separation/Purification (distillation).957 25 Butanol Enzyme / Fermentation 0.Water Use/Discharge (Mton/day) Process Yield (fuel) [gal Ethanol or Butanol/ ton feed stock] Optimal Plant Size (MTon/day) Ability to Meet Fuel Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions Capital Expenditure (x10 $) Internal Rate of Return (%) Infrastructure Compatibility Energy Content (Gasoline Equivalent) Particulates/Solid Wastes Technology Development 6 Operating Costs (x10 $) Complexity of Process 6 Engine Compatibility Plant Efficiency (%) Carbon Efficiency Waste Treatment Fuel Cost ($/gal) Capacity Factor Process Blocks Bibliography a Use Emissions Air Emissions Fuel Toxicity Toxics Butanol AFEX Pretreatment / Enzymatic / Fermentation Butanol Hotwater Pretreatment / Enzymatic / Fermentation 65 57.947 28 Feedstock: corn (14% moisture). Batch Fermentation & pervaporative recovery.9 1469 0.74 1030 66 89. desorption. FBR Notes Risk Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis (enzymatic hydrolysis of LCS to SLCS). Fermentation of butyric acis to butanil). 2step fermentation. distillation). ii.31 0. distillation). ICCFPR process Feedstock: Whey permeat (4.52 100 2268 lab 0. Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous saccharification and Fermentation. (3) Separation/Purification (pervaporation & distillation) lab Process Blocks: (1) 2-step Fermentation (i. (2) Separation/Purification Process Blocks: (1) Hydrolysis (enzymatic).957 27 Feedstock: Saccharified Liquefied Cornstarch (SLCS) with moisture content of approximately 60% Feedstock: Liquefied Cornstarch (LCS) with moisture content of approximately 60% Feedstock: corn (14% moisture). Hydrolysis + Immobilized Cell Continuous Fermentation & pervaporative recovery. Fibrous Bed Reactor.15 0. fermentation of lactose to butyric acid. (2) 2-step Fermentation of glucose (i. (3) Separation/Purification (adsorption. (2) Fermentation (contineous). (3) Separation/Purification Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous saccharification and Fermentation. (2) Fermentation.9 1469 Pilot Butanol Fermentation 1030 Pilot Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous saccharification and Fermentation.957 24 Butanol Hotwater Pretreatment / Fermentation 60 54 Lab 0.949 29 88 .00 0. BFPR process Butanol Fermentation 2.07 0.84 95. ii.5% lactose). (2) Separation/Purification (pervaporation & distillation) 1. (3) Separation/Purification (adsorption.6 Lab 0. (3) Wastewater treatment (recycling to process) Butanol Fermentation 57 114 lab 0.84 95.81 15 58 5. FBR.79 95. Process: 2 step fermentation Feedstock: Glucose.37 0.81 0.09 0. fermentation of lactose to butyric acid.957 Feedstock: corn (14% moisture) 0.22 1. Fermentation of butyric acis to butanil).9 1469 0. desorption.

N. 1460-1469. 1109-1117. (2009).. Wingen. Quereshi. Bioresource Technology. pp. Wooley. 28. Kaylen. M. (1999). R. (2004). (2003).08 0. (2009). S-T.N. 24. (2001). Wingen. pp. (2003). Wooley. Laser. DOE.R. vol. et al. 6. vol. 28. vol. (2007). 384-410. D. Wingen. (2005). D. pp. 3. A. (2007). Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology.93 Zeachem Process a 0. M.. (1996).. NREL Report TP-510-37092.. C. NREL Report TP-580-26157. Z.. 78(C). Aden... et al. 20. D. NREL Report TP-510-37092. Edward. A.. pp. 28..P. 384-410. (1991). Fan. 195-218. A. 72. pp. (2005). 20(5). 26. Fan. Ezeji. vol. 35-45. 19(4). 30. Q. M. et al. Saddler. Trans I Chem E. 17.. Biotechnology Progress.. 24.81 66 89. 18. et al. 97(6). 5753474. vol. 247-270. Biomass & Bioenergy. Blaschek. vol. 5.P. US Patent No. Ramey. 22. 12. 771-777. Bioresource Technology. 1421-1429.. 27. et al.... pp. R.9 1469 0. Biotechnology Progress.T. FBFPR process Notes Risk Process Blocks: (1) Simultaneous saccharification and Fermentation. 35(3). C. Blaschek. vol. 34(12). R. (2000). Yang. vol. 21. 13. pp. Hamelinck. pp. et al. NREL Report TP-580-26157. 19. 219-226. (2005). (2007). Z.T. Biotechnology Progress. A. et al. Yang. Hamelinck. Laser. H.. Nguyen.. L.P.. pp. et al. pp. C. Quereshi.Water Use/Discharge (Mton/day) Process Yield (fuel) [gal Ethanol or Butanol/ ton feed stock] Optimal Plant Size (MTon/day) Ability to Meet Fuel Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions Capital Expenditure (x10 $) Internal Rate of Return (%) Infrastructure Compatibility Energy Content (Gasoline Equivalent) Particulates/Solid Wastes Technology Development 6 Operating Costs (x10 $) Complexity of Process 6 Engine Compatibility Plant Efficiency (%) Carbon Efficiency Waste Treatment Fuel Cost ($/gal) Capacity Factor Process Blocks Bibliography a Use Emissions Air Emissions Fuel Toxicity Toxics Butanol Fermentation 1030 0. Pilot 89 . (2002). Fedbatch Fermentation & pervaporative recovery. Lynd. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. R. Ezeji. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. A. C. 9. (2005). (1999). Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining. Biomass & Bioenergy. R. Wallace. et al.. vol. 15. 19(4). vol. 25. 7. (1999). C.949 30 Feedstock: corn (14% moisture). 2. vol. Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining. 771-777.. Blaschek. vol. Lynd. pp. S-T. 20(5). 16. H. et al. Quereshi. N. 219-226. 3.. 23. (2009). 19-32.. et al. Hamelinck. 11. 35-45. 3. Wooley.N. pp. Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining.. pp. pp. 1421-1429. 29.A. (2004). et al. NREL Report TP-580-26157. (2007). pp. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. N. 3. (1999). 24. 24. et al. vol.. Blaschek. (2) Separation/Purification (pervaporation & distillation) Bibliography references: 1. Ezeji. Wooley. 14. et al. 10. et al. vol.. (1999). 4.. vol. Biotechnology Progress.. H. et al. et al. Quereshi. 247-270.. et al. Wallace.. N. N. 275-282. C. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. et al. (2001). 34(12). 8. vol. pp. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. vol. pp. (2004). et al. 1109-1117.84 95. pp. Wooley.P. M. 219-226. NREL Report TP-580-26157. Biomass & Bioenergy. vol. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. R. 384-410. Laser. et al.. R. pp.T. US Patent No. vol. (1998). (2005). NREL Report NREL/TP-510-32438. et al. pp. J. vol. pp. H..N. vol. 28. Wingen. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. NREL Report TP-580-26157. (2007).R. 5563069. Final Report. (2001). Ramney. 30(1). L. 30(1). 139-144. (2000).

and Combustor. and Combustor. Table J-2. Beer Column. Pretreatment.4 5 6 0 7 Plant Performance 22. Saccharification.1 14. Cofermentation. Distillation.3 Cost Growth (%) 52.7 7.9 34. Saccharification. Pretreatment.7 7.6 5 6 0 7 Plant Performance 22. Pretreatment.6 42.Analysis: Cost Growth Variables And Results Table J-1. Cofermentation.6 32. Distillation. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Dilute Acid Pretreatment (High Solids Loading) Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Values Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Optimistic 6 50 1 1 Most Probable 6 40 2 1 Pessimistic 6 30 3 1 Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Cost Growth (Equation 2) Values Optimistic 61. Saccharification.3 (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock handling.4 0 6 33 6 Most Probable 61.Appendix J . 90 . Cofermentation.6 3 6 0 6 Pessimistic 53. Steam/Power Generation. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling. Pretreatment.4 3 6 0 6 Pessimistic 61. Steam/Power Generation. Saccharification.3 Cost Growth (%) 55. Cofermentation.0 44. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Hot water Pretreatment Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Values Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Optimistic 6 50 1 1 Most Probable 6 40 2 1 Pessimistic 6 30 3 1 Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Cost Growth (Equation 2) Values Optimistic 53.1 14.0 (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock handling.6 0 6 33 6 Most Probable 53. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling. Beer Column.

Ammonia Separation.4 5. Saccharification.2 (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock Handling.8 31. and Combustor.38 0 7 33 6 Most Probable 60. Cofermentation. Beer Column.8 0 6 33 6 Most Probable 60.2 (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock Handling. Distillation. Pretreatment. Steam/Power Generation.38 5 7 0 7 Plant Performance 12.7 7. Table J-4.8 3 6 0 6 Pessimistic 60. Saccharification. Ammonia recovery.7 Cost Growth (%) 51. 91 . Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for Two-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Values Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Optimistic 6 50 1 1 Most Probable 6 40 2 1 Pessimistic 6 30 3 1 Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Cost Growth (Equation 2) Values Optimistic 60. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling. Distillation. Cofermentation.8 42. Beer Column.8 5 6 0 7 Plant Performance 22.Table J-3. Pretreatment. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling.1 14. Cofermentation. Pretreatment.3 Cost Growth (%) 50.0 1. and Combustor. Saccharification. Steam/Power Generation.8 41. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for AFEX Pretreatment Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Values Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Optimistic 7 50 1 1 Most Probable 7 40 2 1 Pessimistic 7 30 2 1 Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Cost Growth (Equation 2) Values Optimistic 60.8 32. Cofermentation. Saccharification.38 3 7 0 6 Pessimistic 60. Pretreatment.

41 619.2 10.21 1. and Enzyme Production.92 Pessimistic 7. Saccharification.17 6.62 6. Pretreatment. PV from Cost Growth Analysis for Various Process Scenarios Cost Item Cost Growth (Pioneer Plant)a Most Probable 6.21 1460.5 6.9 11.21 7.06 7.11 913.9 5 7 0 7 29.27 750.58 8.1 Optimistic 5.87 1.2 8.2 8.9 8.6 6. Distillation. Pretreatment.9 39. Cofermentation.3 7.200.8 (%) a New steps/units: Feedstock handling.47 Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes (Pilot) PV ($/Gal) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor Hot Water Pretreatment Processes PV ($/Gal) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor PV ($/Gal) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor AFEX Pretreatment Processes PV ($/Gal) Total Capital Investment (MM$) Lang Factor PV ($/Gal) Total Capital Investment (MM$) 2-Stage Dilute Acid Pretreatment Processes On-site Enzyme Production Processes Lang Factor 8.042.72 9.32 808. Cofermentation.0 6.4 5.8 10. 92 .10 752. Combustor.0 0 Cost Growth (%) 49.59 1.088.12 7.71 5.84 925. b Continuously linked steps: Feedstock Handling. Steam/Power Generation.2 Plant Performance 12.5 9.Table J-5.56 1.9 3 7 0 6 Pessimistic 66.67 10.64 6.198.4 6.7 10.41 1.50 8. Saccharification.1 6.85 756. Beer Column. Table J-6.04 881.9 0 7 33 6 Most Probable 66.54 a 30% contingency is used for pioneer plant cost analysis.70 8. and Enzyme Production.221. Plant Performance and Cost Growth Variables for On-Site Enzyme Production Processes Plant Performance (Equation 1) Values Variables NEWSTEPSa BALEQS WASTE SOLIDS Optimistic 7 50 1 1 Most Probable 7 40 2 1 Pessimistic 7 30 3 1 Variables PCTNEW IMPURITIES COMPLEXITYb INCLUSIVENESS PROJECT DEFINITION Cost Growth (Equation 2) Values Optimistic 66.36 916.

J. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. THIS PAGE 17. biofuels. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. Z39. Initially. SUBJECT TERMS 16. fermentation. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. CO 80401-3393 NREL/TP-6A2-46588 9. NUMBER OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES 19a. enzyme. process design. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Kabir Kazi. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) NREL 11. Kothandaraman. TASK NUMBER F. Results show that the modeled dilute acid pretreatment process without any downstream process variation had the lowest PV of $3. and A. AUTHOR(S) 5d.To) 4. and completing and reviewing the collection of information.15/gallon of gasoline equivalent) in 2007 dollars. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. dilute acid pretreatment b. Dutta NREL/TP-6A2-46588 BB07. Anex. DATES COVERED (From .18 Unclassified UL F1147-E(10/2008) . LIMITATION 18.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. VA 22161 13. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. A. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law. 1. Sensitivity analysis was performed on PV to assess the impact of variations in process and economic parameters. Sensitivity analysis shows that PV is most sensitive to feedstock and enzyme costs. then a two-step down selection was performed to choose scenarios to be evaluated in a more detailed economic analysis. R. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. Aden. 35 technologies were reviewed. product value. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev.S. gathering and maintaining the data needed. searching existing data sources. without projecting for future process improvements. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biochemical Scenarios for Production of Cellulosic Ethanol TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. including the time for reviewing instructions. The lignocellulosic ethanol process was selected because it is well studied and portions of the process have been tested at pilot scales. to Department of Defense. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT National Technical Information Service U. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 12.40/gal of ethanol ($5. feedstock. G. biochemical. GRANT NUMBER DE-AC36-08-GO28308 5c. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information.7510 5f. Golden. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. REPORT TYPE June 2010 Technical report 3. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) A techno-economic analysis on the production of cellulosic ethanol by fermentation was conducted to understand the viability of liquid biofuel production processes within the next 5-8 years. economic analysis. REPORT Unclassified Unclassified c. ABSTRACT 15. Hsu. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. including suggestions for reducing the burden. cellulosic ethanol. no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Fortman. Seven process variations were selected and examined in detail. Economic analysis was performed for an 'nth plant' (mature technology) to obtain total investment and product value (PV). Process designs were constrained to public data published in 2007 or earlier. D.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->