June 2002

NREL/TP-510-32438

Lignocellulosic Biomass to
Ethanol Process Design and
Economics Utilizing Co-Current
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and
Enzymatic Hydrolysis for
Corn Stover

A. Aden, M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, and B. Wallace
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

L. Montague, A. Slayton, and J. Lukas

Harris Group
Seattle, Washington

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

June 2002

NREL/TP-510-32438

Lignocellulosic Biomass to
Ethanol Process Design and
Economics Utilizing Co-Current
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and
Enzymatic Hydrolysis for
Corn Stover

A. Aden, M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, and B. Wallace
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

L. Montague, A. Slayton, and J. Lukas

Harris Group
Seattle, Washington

Prepared under Task No. BFP2.A410

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

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: 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

and overall plant integration. process design and costing for these areas were improved through vendor designs. and that the equipment costs are reasonable and consistent with good engineering practice for plants of this type. and vendor testing in some cases. The process design and economic model are useful for predicting the cost benefits of proposed research. For the non-research areas this means using equipment and process approaches as they are currently used in industrial applications. This report is an update of the ongoing process design and economic analyses at NREL. NREL engaged Delta-T Corporation (Delta-T) to assist in the process design evaluation. We envision updating this process design report at regular intervals. DOE funds both fundamental and applied research in this area and needs a method for predicting cost benefits of many research proposals. process design. NREL performed a complete review and update of the process design and economic model for the biomass-to-ethanol process utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis with simultaneous saccharification (enzymatic) and co-fermentation.07 value are discussed in the report. the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has modeled many potential process designs and estimated the economics of each process during the last 20 years. To that end. all ancillary areas—feed handling. i . In addition to this work.S. The key research targets required to achieve this design and the $1. and other researchers to set priorities on future research with an understanding of potential reductions to the ethanol production cost. Corn stover handling was also investigated to support DOE’s decision to focus on corn stover as a feedstock for lignocellulosic ethanol. published in 1999. ethanol production costs must be below market values for ethanol. product recovery and purification. enzyme costs were adjusted to reflect collaborative work between NREL and enzyme manufacturers (Genencor International and Novozymes Biotech) to provide a delivered enzyme for lignocellulosic feedstocks. Proposed research results can be translated into modifications of the process design. To be economically viable. wastewater treatment (WWT). DOE funded research and other sources.07 per gallon as a goal for 2010. The conceptual design and costs presented here are based on a 2010 plant start-up date. simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation. This included solid/liquid separation and pretreatment reactor design and costing. This report is the culmination of our work and represents an updated process design and cost basis for the process using a corn stover feedstock. costing. and cellulase enzyme production. Since then. DOE has chosen a target ethanol selling price of $1. Working with Harris. NREL has engaged Harris Group (Harris) to perform vendor testing. NREL. lignin combustor and boiler-turbogenerator. and costing of critical equipment identified during earlier work. For the last report1. the purpose being to ensure that the process design incorporates all new data from NREL research. and the economic impact can be assessed. This allows DOE. and utilities—were included. The process design and costing for the lignin combustor and boiler turbogenerator was reviewed by Reaction Engineering Inc. (REI) and Merrick & Company reviewed the wastewater treatment.Abstract The U. Department of Energy (DOE) is promoting the development of ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks as an alternative to conventional petroleum-based transportation fuels. The process design included the core technologies being researched by the DOE: prehydrolysis. the process equipment costing. In addition.

........................................................................20 Overview. and Turbogenerator – Area 800 (PFD-P110-A801-3) .......................................6..............................................................................................................................3 II...2.....8..........................4 II.........................11 Cost of Ethanol as a Function of Plant Size..49 Utilities – Area 900 (PFD-P110-A901-3)........3 Process Overview............................................. I.........................3......20 Pretreatment and Hydrolyzate Conditioning – Area 200 (PFD-P110-A201-3).................................................1 I..3 II......................................................................3..................................................15 Feedstock and its Composition ..............1 Approach.....................46 Combustor..............18 Overview...................6.....................26 Saccharification and Co-Fermentation – Area 300 (PFD-P110-A301-2)..39 Wastewater Treatment – Area 600 (PFD-110-A601-2)..............3 II............3 II.............................2 II..............................................27 Overview.........3......44 Product and Feed Chemical Storage – Area 700 (PFD-P110-A701) .......................................................33 Achieving the Design Case Targets ......................2..... Dehydration...........3 I......................................1...............................................3.......2 II.1 II...............................................5 I......................................18 Cost Estimation.42 Cost Estimation...............................................................................28 Cost Estimation...................................................3................2 II.....................................................7.. Solids......... II..................5...........................6 II...............................................................................................50 ii ........34 Cellulase Enzyme................6...............10 Effect of Distance on Stover Cost.....................................................................3......................................2 II....7......3 II..2 I.....................7..2 II.........9 Table of Contents Introduction..............................................................................................2 II.........................27 Design Basis..................................1 II...........1 I.........................1 II..........................5.........................................3..........................................................................................3.....................................................3 I.22 Cost Estimation.....................1 II.......................................1 II.............47 Cost Estimation....................7 II...........2.............................................................1..........8 II........................................................................ and Solid-Liquid Separation) – Area 500 (PFD-P110-A501-5) .......8......40 Design Basis..................................45 Design Basis...................................5...........................................38 Cost Estimation.........4 II..............................................................................45 Overview............................................................ Boiler............5 II.........................................7 Effect of Plant Size on Collection Distance.............1................................................I...12 Selecting the Right Plant Size.....2 I.......46 Overview..................................................4 II.....................5 Plant Size ...............................................................................18 Design Basis................................................................................36 Product......7 Estimating Corn Stover Costs Today.....................8....3 II.......................20 Design Basis...2.................................2 II.................................3 II...................................................36 Design Basis Description...............................................4 II...........................3 II..............................................................................................................24 Achieving the Design Case.....................2 II........................36 Overview.....................1 II............................................................1 II..................................................................................................................................46 Design Basis.......4 I.............................16 Processing Design and Cost Estimating ..............................40 Overview...........18 Feedstock Storage and Handling – Area 100 (PFD-P110-A101)................................ and Water Recovery (Distillation.1 II........................... Evaporation............45 Cost Estimation..........3.............................................................

..10........................................................................50 Cost Estimation........2 V........................................4 IV................................................82 Air Emissions...................................2 IV....................82 Lignin Gasification and Gas Turbine Power Generation..................6 IV.........................60 Variable Operating Costs...................................................5 IV.....................................52 Carbon Balance...............80 Planned Improvements and Extensions to the Model.....................................52 Water and Carbon Balances and Energy Analysis ...............3 IV....................1................................1 IV....................................................................................................................................................................................1......10........................82 Fermentation pH Control .......................................................................77 Monte Carlo Analysis ...................3 III..........78 Overview...........................................3 III....................6.......................................................................82 Water Balance and Optimization ...........................9...........................................................64 Fixed Operating Costs.......2 II..1 IV........2 IV....................................................................1.........................................................................1 III.......................6...........82 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................74 Energy Production .................................................................................................. V......73 Saccharification and Fermentation Yields and Cost...................4 III.........................3 V......................................53 Energy Analysis ..........................60 Total Project Investment ..4 V...1 II........................................................................10 II..................1 V........71 Sensitivity Analysis .....................83 Physical Properties of Corn Stover ................9.............50 Design Basis.................5 IV....79 Results................................. IV....................3 II......................................1............................................66 The Cost of Sugar .....................1 II...............................................................2 II.......83 Appendix A – NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Description and Summary Appendix B – Individual Equipment Costs Summary Appendix C – Chemical Costs and Sources Appendix D – Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return Summary Appendix E – Process Parameters Appendix F – Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) Appendix G – Changes from the 1999 Design Report Appendix H – Chemical Formulas for Biomass Compounds Appendix I – Physical Property Model and Parameters for Distillation iii ...................................................................................................................................................6 Overview...........................................83 References and Notes............73 Gypsum .............................................72 Pretreatment Yields and Cost.. III....................................................60 Analysis Procedure ..................................3 V...........................1......................................................................... Cost....................................................1 III....................................5 V.................72 Stover Composition...................................................................................II..........................................52 Water Balance...................................................................................................... and Handling ....................................................56 Process Economics..........10......................78 Parameter Estimates............................................................................65 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and the Selling Cost of Ethanol ...........................6...9..........2 III...........................

...... Figure 3.....21 Corrosion Resistance of Incoloy 825 ............................ Figure 4...........76 MESPs for Multiple Residence Times ......................60 Effect of Varying IRR and Equity on Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ............67 Cost Contribution Details from Each Process Area...... Figure 2.............. Figure 12... PFD-P100-A200 ................................. Figure 19................... Figure 20............... Figure 18........41 Process Carbon Balance.............. Figure 8...............81 iv ............................................................................................................................. Figure 16......................... PFD-P110-A600 .......................................15 Pretreatment Process Area Overview......... Figure 15........................81 Histogram of the Total Project Investment ... Figure 22......8 The Effect of Plant Size on Collection Distance ............................10 Hauling Charges for Corn Stover as a Function of Distance.............................. Figure 10.................80 Probability Curve of the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price.......75 MESPs for Multiple Enzyme Loadings.......9 Typical Breakdown of Corn Stover Costs ...76 Histogram of the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ..................................................14 Ethanol Price as a Function of Plant Size and Hauling Cost ($/ton-mile).............................................. PFD-P110-A500 ............................................ Figure 6................... Figure 23................. NREL’s Approach to Process Design and Economic Analysis.. Figure 5........................ Figure 7................... Figure 13..12 Ethanol Cost as a Function of Plant Size for 10% Availability of Corn Acres .13 Ethanol Price as a Function of Plant Size and Percentage of Available Acres .... Figure 17..6 GIS Model Results Showing the Location of 35 2000 MT/d Ethanol Plants in Iowa..................................................55 Process Energy Analysis Based on Higher Heating Value of Biomass Feed58 CFBC/Turbogenerator Energy Balance................................... Figure 9........................71 SSF Yields for Multiple Enzyme Loadings ...........................................................................................37 Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Process Overview...........25 Distillation System Overview................. Figure 11............................................................................................... Figure 14...3 Overall Process.. Figure 21........................................ PFD-P100-A000 ......Figures Figure 1.................................. Figure 24.

........16 Measured Stover Composition Ranges............................................................ Table 14..................................59 Installation Factors....................................................................................... Table 38.......... Table 17........... Table 11.............................................................78 Input Parameter Distribution for Monte Carlo Analysis........................29 Seed Train Specifications .......65 Fixed Operating Costs.............................................73 Summary of Sensitivity Results by Cost Impact . Table 15................. Table 26...........................22 Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions .............................................................. Table 40.......................... Table 5.............................23 Experimental Pretreatment Reactor Conditions................... Table 36... Table 35.............62 Chemical Engineering Purchased Equipment Index .......26 Experimental Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions............................ Table 2.....................79 v ..................... Table 30...... Table 37...................................32 Co-Fermentation Reactions and Conversions..........................54 Feed Stream Carbon Composition .........................................................................70 Mixed Sugar Stream Concentration from Saccharification ..... Table 25............................................31 Co-Fermentation Conditions........63 Total Installed Equipment Costs................................................. Feedstock Composition..44 Boiler Costs........................... Table 29..........63 Total Project Investment (TPI) ......................................................35 Experimental Co-Fermentation Reactions and Conversions ........53 Ethanol Plant Overall Carbon Balance . Table 12.................................................................................................... Table 32...................... Table 9................... Table 34................................................................. Table 28..................................................26 Saccharification Conditions ......................................................... Table 3........ Table 8.................................................49 Ethanol Plant Overall Water Balance . Table 22......... Table 10.........................................................35 Comparison of Sending Evaporator Syrup to the Combustor or WWT ..................................................................................................................... Table 6.....................Tables Table 1...............................62 Additional Cost Factors for Determining Total Project Investment..............34 Experimental Saccharification Reactions and Conversions ......57 Feed Stream Energy Analysis............................................................................ Table 39.32 Co-Fermentation Contamination Loss Reactions ...................................66 Labor Index ........... Table 23............. Table 31....... Table 33....... Table 19....... Table 18............34 Experimental Co-Fermentation Conditions .......................66 Construction Activities and Cash Flow ... Table 27............................................................................................30 Seed Train Reactions and Conversions..................... Table 16............ Table 20.....................................29 Saccharification Reactions and Conversions ....................................69 Discounted Cash Flow Parameters ............................................................ Table 13......... Table 7...................64 Variable Operating Costs........ Table 21.............................................................72 Effect of Pretreatment Yields on Minimum Ethanol Selling Price...33 Experimental Saccharification Conditions .17 Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Conditions .......... Rates and Conversion Costs ..64 Inorganic Chemical Index................. Table 4................................................................................56 Ethanol Plant Overall Energy Analysis ..70 Summary of Yields............... Table 24.

Department of Energy Energy Information Administration Environmental Protection Agency Ethanol Filter Paper Units Foster Wheeler Energy General Depreciation System Geographic Information System Gallons per minute Higher Heating Value Hydroxymethyl Furfural International Filter Paper Units (see FPU) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Internal Rate of Return Internal Revenue Service Lower Heating Value (IRS) Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System Minimum Ethanol Selling Price Million Metric Ton National Renewable Energy Laboratory New Source Performance Standards Oak Ridge National Laboratory Piping and Instrument Diagram Process Development Unit vi .Acronyms ABB ACFM ASPEN ANSI API BFW B/MAP BOD BTU CFBC CFM CIP COD CS CSL CW DAP DB DOE EIA EPA EtOH FPU FWE GDS GIS GPM HHV HMF IFPU IGCC IRR IRS LHV MACRS MESP MM MT NREL NSPS ORNL P&ID PDU ABB Power Generation Systems Actual Cubic Feet per Minute Advanced Simulator for Process Engineering American National Standards Institute American Petroleum Institute Boiler Feed Water Biomass AgriProducts Biochemical Oxygen Demand British Thermal Unit Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Cubic Feet per Minute Clean-in-place Chemical Oxygen Demand Carbon Steel Corn Steep Liquor Cooling Water Diammonium Phosphate Declining Balance U.S.

Standard Cubic Feet per Minute Stainless Steel Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation Short Ton Total Project Investment Volatile Organic Compound Wastewater Treatment vii . Inc.PFD REI SCFM SS SSCF ST TPI VOC WWT Process Flow Diagram Reaction Engineering.

such as product recovery or waste treatment. There are two primary reasons for NREL to investigate the complete process design and economics of lignocellulosic ethanol plants. Introduction The U. to engineering studies of potential processes. Department of Energy (DOE) is promoting the development of ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks as an alternative to conventional petroleum transportation fuels. and operating practices for facilities of this type. Second. including newly researched areas and industry-available process components must be designed and their costs determined. Complete process design and economics are required for such studies because a new proposal in one research area may have a large effect on another process area that is not generally part of the research program. Corn stover handling was also investigated to support DOE’s decision to focus on stover in its efforts to commercialize lignocellulosic ethanol. Once the benchmark case is developed. For the current level of design knowledge. NREL worked with Harris to perform vendor testing. to co-funding initial biomass-to-ethanol demonstration and production facilities. To improve the plant cost estimates that affect the absolute cost of ethanol production. and estimating costs for the process designs. process design. the proposed research and its anticipated results are translated into a new design. the absolute cost is required. construction. several areas were identified that required more extensive study. At the conclusion of these efforts. Delta-T worked with NREL process engineers in 1998-99 to review all the process design and equipment costs (with the exclusion of wastewater treatment and the combustor-boiler system. as well as by universities and private industry. This research is being conducted by various national laboratories.S. we are making the best possible attempt to develop cost estimates that are consistent with applicable engineering.I. which were reviewed by Merrick Engineering2 and Reaction Engineering. the economics (the anticipated results of proposed research) are determined. However. and this new information is compared to the benchmark case. This included solid/liquid separation equipment and pretreatment reactors. An absolute cost is also needed to study the potential ethanol market penetration of the lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process. The impact on other areas of the process can have a significant impact on the economics of the proposed research. Working with Harris. Inc. First. corrosion testing. to be able to compare the economics of ethanol with other fuels. Thus. including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). process design and costing for these areas was 1 . Following this process for several proposed research projects allows DOE to make funding decisions based on which projects have the greatest potential to lower the cost of ethanol production. and costing of critical equipment identified from the earlier work. reviewing. we consider the capital cost estimate to be at the conceptual level. only relative cost differences are important. To do so. In reviewing and establishing research directions. Programs being sponsored by DOE range from fundamental and applied research for developing better cellulose hydrolysis enzymes and ethanol-fermenting organisms. this investigation allows us to develop an absolute cost of the production of ethanol based on process and plant design assumptions. NREL contracts with companies such as Harris Group (Harris) and Delta-T Corporation (Delta-T) to assist in preparing. respectively). As a result of the NREL/Delta-T work. this effort helps to direct research by developing a benchmarking case for the current conceptual process design. the complete process. Therefore. Engineering and construction companies and operating companies are generally conducting the engineering work. the first design report was published1.3 [REI].

The purpose is to ensure that the process design incorporates all new data from NREL research. DOE partnered with the two largest enzyme manufacturers in the world (Genencor International and Novozymes Biotech) to reduce the cost of cellulase enzymes by a factor of 10. It is assumed that these companies will produce the enzymes and sell them to ethanol producers. For the non-research areas this means using equipment and process approaches as they are currently being used in industrial applications. 2 . To be economically viable. and that the equipment costs are reasonable and consistent with good engineering practice for plants of this type. We envision that this conceptual process design will be updated via an on-going process.07 value are discussed in the report. the ethanol plant will no longer be responsible for enzyme production but will purchase them from off-site. DOE has chosen a target ethanol selling price of $1.improved. At the same time. DOE funded research and other sources. The conceptual design and costs presented here are based on a 2010 plant start-up date.07 per gallon as a goal for 2010. and that reports will be released at regular intervals. This report is the culmination of this work and represents an updated process design and cost basis for the process using a corn stover feedstock. Therefore. ethanol production costs must be below market values for ethanol. The key research targets required to achieve this design and the $1.

NREL's Approach to Process Design and Economic Analysis The first step to any conceptual process design is to develop a set of process flow diagrams (PFDs).I. Using the arrangement of the equipment shown. Feed Handling. Appendix F contains the PFDs developed for this study.g. 457 streams (247 material and 210 heat or work). Consulting on Process Configuration Rigorous Material & Energy Balance ASPEN Plus Software Estimates of Other Commercial Technology Outside Engineering Studies. a mass and energy balance was developed within an ASPEN Plus4 model. e. Process Flow Diagrams Engineering Co. The individual unit models are thermodynamically consistent and can be either rigorous (for example. Separations DOE/NREL Sponsored Research Results ICARUS Cost Estimation Software Capital & Project Cost Estimation Vendor Equipment Cost Quotations Engineering Co.1 Approach Developing a model that describes the chemical conversion process and its economics requires information from many different arenas. 63 components. The overall model is thermodynamically rigorous and uses physical properties that are included in the ASPEN modeling software as well as property data developed at NREL5. This model consists of 164 unit operation blocks. Figure 1 describes the approach used here for modeling the conversion of biomass to ethanol. but because of the level of development of the 3 .. Cost Estimations Discounted Cash Flow Economic Model Minimum Ethanol Selling Price Figure 1. The reactors could be modeled with kinetic expressions. the simulation of the distillation) or simple. and 82 control blocks.

the cost was determined by scaling based on the new size or other valid size related characteristic. such as products from the biomass-derived sugars that will have a significantly higher profit margin than 4 . Generally these related characteristics are easier to calculate and give the same result as resizing the equipment each time. Using the following exponential scaling expression. so it must be resized with each process change. Harris. are translated to process designs and the cost of ethanol production is evaluated. This type of model still satisfies the rigorous mass and energy balance. These projections are only as good as the estimation of the future technology developments. are typically modeled with fixed solids removal and liquid retention (in the solids stream) data from vendor tests. In this case. Another characteristic of the size might be the heat duty for a heat exchanger if the log-mean temperature difference is known not to change. niche products will emerge. Heat exchangers with varying temperature profiles are one example.  New Size *  New Cost = Original Cost    Original Size *    * or characteristic linearly related to the size exp If the size of the equipment is known to change linearly with the inlet flow. we developed specifications for each piece of equipment. If process changes are made and the equipment size changes. Even though one aim of this work was to develop the absolute cost of ethanol for comparison to other fuels. such as Garrett. Scenarios. For some equipment. or from a standard reference. it should be noted that ethanol and possibly electricity are the only products of these conceptual process designs. Using the PFDs and the mass and energy balance information from the ASPEN model. It is likely that smaller volume. using a set discount rate. Once the scaled. based on technologies that might be developed after several years of research. The chemical formulas for atypical compounds (not included in the ASPEN modeling software) are listed in Appendix H. they were modeled as experimentally determined conversions of specific reactions. we developed individual purchased equipment and installation costs. that information can be used for scaling. we applied overhead and contingency factors to determine a total plant investment cost. installed equipment costs were determined. especially for uncommon equipment such as pretreatment reactors. These costs reflect the base case for which the equipment was designed. Development of alternative designs is very useful in evaluating research proposals. along with the plant operating expenses (generally developed from the ASPEN model) was used in a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the cost of ethanol production. Finally. The equipment specifications (and cost estimate) are detailed in the NREL process database (see Appendix A). The scaling exponent (exp) was obtained from vendor quotes (if two quotes at different sizes were obtained). Other unit operations. Equipment costs were obtained from vendor quotations when possible. For the analysis done here. nothing can be easily related to the size. the ethanol production cost is the primary value used to compare designs. That cost.6 The installation costs were primarily taken from Delta-T’s experience and are explained in more detail in the process economics section (Section III). the heat exchanger area is calculated each time the model is run and the cost is scaled using the ratio of the new and original areas. within each equipment specification.experimental data. the equipment is not generally re-costed in detail. such as liquid-solid separations.

and husks). The biogas (high in methane) from anaerobic digestion is sent to the combustor for energy recovery. using waste heat. most of the cellulose and xylose will have been converted to ethanol. In this area. co-location with existing producers of ethanol. lignin combustion. Enzymatic hydrolysis (or saccharification) coupled with co-fermentation (A300) of the detoxified hydrolyzate slurry is carried out in continuous hydrolysis tanks and anaerobic fermentation tanks in series. A mixture of nearly azeotropic water and ethanol is purified to pure ethanol using vapor-phase molecular sieve. Product recovery (A500) involves distilling the beer to separate the ethanol from the water and residual solids. The majority of the process steam demand is in the pretreatment reactor and distillation areas. Separation with washing removes the acid from the solids for neutralization. along with other wastewater. The resulting beer is sent to product recovery. A purchased cellulase enzyme preparation is added to the hydrolyzate in the hydrolysis tanks that are maintained at a temperature to optimize the enzyme’s activity. Likewise. the biomass is treated with dilute sulfuric acid catalyst at a high temperature for a short time. cobs. along with other nutrients. The evaporated condensate is returned to the process and the concentrated syrup is sent to the combustor. From there the biomass is conveyed to pretreatment and detoxification (A200). After several days of separate and combined saccharification and co­ fermentation. or some other equally synergistic product slate will likely reduce the cost of ethanol. is delivered to the feed handling area (A100) for storage and size reduction. The cellulose will continue to be hydrolyzed. Part of the evaporator condensate. although at a slower rate. leaves. the process produces excess steam that is converted to electricity for use in the plant and for sale to the grid. product storage. 5 . In all.fuel-grade ethanol. The process design also includes feedstock handling and storage. The inoculum. The feedstock. the concentrated syrup from the evaporator. and biogas from anaerobic digestion are combusted in a fluidized bed combustor (A800) to produce high-pressure steam for electricity production and process heat. Detoxification is applied only to the liquid portion of the hydrolysis stream. The solids from distillation. Concentration of the distillation bottoms liquid is performed by evaporation. Solids from the distillation bottoms are separated and sent to the boiler. is treated by anaerobic and aerobic digestion (A600). I. liberating the hemicellulose sugars and other compounds. When these other products and their selling prices are figured into the analysis. Overliming is required to remove compounds liberated in the pretreatment that are toxic to the fermenting organism. power. The treated water is suitable for recycling and is returned to the process.2 Process Overview The process being analyzed here can be described as using co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis of the lignocellulosic biomass with enzymatic saccharification of the remaining cellulose and co­ fermentation of the resulting glucose and xylose to ethanol. just as the cost of gasoline is reduced by the sale of other petroleum refinery products. at the lower temperature. product purification. Generally. and all other required utilities. the process is divided into eight areas (see Figure 2). the cost of ethanol may decrease. is added to the first ethanol fermenter along with the partially saccharified slurry at a reduced temperature. in this case corn stover (comprised of stalks. The fermenting organism Zymomonas mobilis is first grown in a series of progressively larger batch anaerobic fermentations to make enough cells to inoculate the main fermenters. wastewater treatment.

Overall Process.Figure 2. PFD-P110-A000 6 .

Collection distance for a plant is highly site specific.920 short tons (1 ST is 2000 lb) per day to one of 9. This concept is sometimes termed “economies of scale”. for Iowa farmers using low or no till practices and who are producing corn continuously on their land. An exponent of 1 would mean linear scaling is taking place. This requires understanding both the cost of feedstock transportation and the effect of plant size on capital and fixed operating costs for the ethanol plant.3 Plant Size In establishing the appropriate size of a plant.I. but a simple analysis can be done to understand the range of plant sizes for which overall costs and the impact of feedstock transport are minimal. environmental flows and costs for collection and transportation of corn stover in the state of Iowa (Figure 3). Economies of scale diminish when the equipment is as large as possible and multiple pieces of equipment become necessary. In this report. In 1991.000 kg) or 1. The premise of this study was that the maximum amount of stover that could be collected should be constrained by soil erosion considerations.205 ST) per day of corn stover. assuming an additional $2/ton transport costs for the larger plant size. On average. researchers at ORNL used a GIS model known as ORIBUS to estimate energy demands.8 As part of that study.1 with an exponent of around 0.000 MT per day is appropriate in the current design for converting corn stover to ethanol. the farther out it must go to get it. ORIBUS was used to estimate transportation costs for a total of 35 potential ethanol plants sized to handle 2. Put quite simply. An analysis of the effects of stover removal on soil erosion found that. Though the life cycle study of corn stover-derived ethanol in Iowa did not look at the effect of locating plants of different sizes. an average of two metric tons (MT) per acre of stover can be removed without causing erosion rates to exceed USDA’s tolerable soil loss limits. we have repeated that analysis in a more rigorous way to see if a plant size of 2. Savings resulting from economies of scale (see discussion in section I. capital cost for equipment increases as a function of size or throughput according to the power law equation shown in section I. in the process industries.000 ST).090 MT (10.000 MT (2. NREL first evaluated the size of an ethanol plant for our standard design by looking at the trade off between economies of scale and increased cost of delivering feedstock. per unit of output.1 Effect of Plant Size on Collection Distance NREL and ORNL recently completed a life cycle analysis of corn stover-derived ethanol. we can use the results of this study to calibrate a much simpler analysis of stover transportation costs in order to understand the trade-offs of transportation costs and savings due to economies of scale.750 metric tons (1 MT is 1.6.1) are offset by increased costs for feedstock transportation. the more feedstock a plant demands. An exponent less than 1 means that the capital cost per unit size decreases as the equipment becomes larger.3.7 That study compared a plant size of around 1. I. 7 . we must consider the effects of a number of tradeoffs. This means that. the cost of capital can drop dramatically for larger scale operations.

we do not assume that all of the farms around the ethanol plant will want or be able to participate in the collection and sale of their corn stover.75. We assume that 25% of the land is tied up in infrastructure (e. Even so.g. GIS Model results showing the location of 35 2000 MT/d ethanol plants in Iowa For this analysis. not all of the land on a farm is available for planting crops. The area of this circle is a function of the residue that can be collected per acre. Furthermore. Thus. increases as the size of the plant increases. Flandincrops is taken to be 0. We estimate the collection distance as the radius of a circle around the plant within which the stover is purchased. Favailableacres is a parameter we vary in the analysis. 8 . the fraction of surrounding farmland from which stover can be collected and the fraction of farmland dedicated to crops (versus infrastructure): Areacollection = (Dstover/(Ystover*Favailableacres*Flandincrops) Where: Areacollection is the circle of collection around the plant Dstover is the annual demand for stover by an ethanol plant Ystover is MT stover collected per acre per year Favailableacres is the fraction of total farmland from which stover can be collected Flandincrops is the fraction of surrounding farmland containing crops The last two items warrant further explanation. In this simplified analysis we presume that the plant is located in the middle of corn farmland. Thus. obviously.. leaving 75% of the farm acres actually planted in corn. roads and buildings).Figure 3. which. we need to estimate the distance traveled to collect corn stover.

. this 50-mile radius corresponds to the 2. In the future.S.2 ST) per acre. 50% access represents a scenario in which farmers split their land between soybean and corn production. assuming a maximum yield of 2 MT per acre (as found in the Iowa life cycle study). As a rough rule of thumb. 100% access represents a scenario in which all farmers are practicing no till. For the 10% availability scenario. or any where in the U. but this is not a near term scenario. The Effect of Plant Size on Collection Distance In the near term. 120 100 Radius of Collection (Miles) 10% of available acres 80 60 50% of available acres 40 20 100% of available acres 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Plant Size (MT stover per day) Figure 4. environmental and agronomic benefits of new tilling practices that lead to stover collection. This is a highly unlikely scenario. 9 .Figure 4 shows the radius of collection around the plant for different levels of access to acres for collection. it is very possible that farmers could be convinced of the financial. the 10% availability scenario is closer to reality. we have assumed that plants would likely not collect corn stover outside of a 50-mile radius around the plant. Rather than using a rule of thumb to determine the limits of plant size and collection radius. it makes more sense to base the plant size on the cost of collection. which we address in the following sections. and farmers using more intensive tilling practices will not be able to sustainably remove stover from their fields. and are willing to sell their stover. Low till and no till practices do not represent a very substantial percentage of tilling practices for corn production in Iowa.000 MT per day design we have been using for our process design. growing corn continuously. This scenario is also not very realistic because the corn-soybean rotations will not likely permit sustainable collection at a level of 2 MT (2.

with each new plant located to collect the lowest cost stover supplies. Typical Breakdown of Corn Stover Costs These costs represent a specific set of conditions that correspond to the scenario of 100% availability of acres. The average costs for transportation and baling costs are somewhat inflated in this analysis because they include costs for the last plants able to collect stover in Iowa. this corresponds to a profit of $22 per acre. we have documented experience with such collection schemes. This payment is above and beyond the cost of stover collection. Baling and staging. In the GIS analysis done for the life cycle study. at $29 per dry MT ($26 per dry ST).000 MT per day plants were located in sequence.2 ST per acre). based on an analysis done by ORNL for our corn stover life cycle analysis: Total Delivered Stover Cost = $62 per dry MT ($56 per dry ST) Transport 23% Farmer Premium 18% K fertilizer 4% N fertilizer 6% P fertilizer 2% Bale and Stage 47% Figure 5. We know that such an approach will not suffice as the industry develops. maximum levels of stover removal. The last few plants have to go 10 . represents almost half the cost of delivered feedstock. but it does reflect the costs that we can anticipate for farmers collecting stover today. For a yield of 2 MT per acre (2. Transportation cost in this scenario is $14 per dry MT ($13 per dry ST).3. individual 2. assuming that stover would be collected in a second pass through the field after the grain has been harvested. and. Furthermore. more importantly. as shown in Figure 3. The analysis includes the payment of a premium to farmers of $11 per dry MT ($10 per dry ST).2 Estimating Corn Stover Costs Today Collecting biomass for the plant has two main sources of direct costs: • • The cost of baling and staging stover at the edge of the field The cost of transportation from the farm to the plant gate In the past two years. with all costs averaged across a total of 35 Iowa facilities processing 2. potassium and phosphorous contained in the removed stover. Added fertilizer costs amount to around $8 per dry MT ($7 per dry ST).000 MT per day. Informal discussions with the farm community suggest that $20 per acre is the likely threshold above which farmers would accept the risk and added work of collecting and selling their residue.9 Figure 5 shows the relative contribution of the sources of costs for stover collection and delivery.I. Oak Ridge National Lab has been quantifying the cost of collecting corn stover assuming the use of existing equipment. Note that we have also included costs for added fertilizer requirements associated with the loss of nitrogen.

but assume that the cost of added fertilizer cost is hidden in the premium payment. single pass) techniques. I. The cost of stover collection presented here serve as a reasonable basis for testing the sensitivity of ethanol cost to plant size. This design is built on a series of assumptions tied to the successful achievement of research and development goals for the conversion technology.3 Effect of Distance on Stover Cost The only “real life” experience with transporting corn stover that has been documented in the published literature comes from the efforts by Biomass Agricultural Products (BMAP. Some estimates include no net payment to the farmer. We have not yet developed cost-based targets for reducing the cost of feedstock collection and transport. It is important to note that the feedstock costs shown in this section are not the same as the nominal cost used in the process design economic analysis presented at the end of this report. One reason why these added costs for fertilizer and farmer premium have not been addressed is that there is tremendous uncertainty in these estimates. Nitrogen fertilizer cost.much farther to obtain stover. The composition data used to estimate fertilizer loss is sparse. is hard to get a handle on. That is because these costs include a premium paid to the farmer on top of the cost of collection and increased fertilizer application rates. we have assumed that the nominal cost of corn stover will be reduced to around $33 per dry MT ($30 per dry ST) through improved collection (e.9 11 . but should not be regarded as an accurate assessment of corn stover collection costs.g. while others include premiums. in particular. and they must collect stover from the least cost effective sources of residue. As a placeholder in the process economics presented here.3. One final note about the cost of feedstock—the costs shown here are significantly higher than cost previously reported in the literature. LLC) in Harlan Iowa.

In this analysis we used a capital cost scaling exponent of 0. Those costs are shown in Figure 6.000 MT per day design).4 Cost of Ethanol as Function of Plant Size The last piece of information required to conduct the analysis for choosing plant size requires estimates of the annualized cost and non-feedstock related operating costs of the plant.00 $12.000 MT per day design with an equation that recalculates annualized cost as a function of size using the power law type of equation for scale factor discussed earlier. I. BMAP established a pricing structure for corn stover that included hauler costs as a function of radial distance from the plant.51 $12.00 $14. To do this. The linear relationship between cost and distance reported by BMAP is then substituted to predict a total cost of delivered corn stover that is a function of distance from the plant.3.00 $10. we use the cost breakdown for stover shown in Figure 5. we need to be able to take into account the effect of plant size (economies of scale). which was calculated by rigorously modeling 2 different plant sizes and determining the exponent from each plant’s capital cost and feed rate10.58 Hauler Cost ($/MT) $15.7. excluding the transportation cost.71 $6.00 $16. But. 12 . In our evaluation of the trade-off of the costs of collection and the effect of plant size. Hauling Charges for Corn Stover as a Function of Distance In their collection study.00 $0 to 15 16-30 31-50 50-100 Radius from Plant (mi) $9.00 $2.$18.65 Figure 6. We use the costs as reported in the section on process economics later in this report (which are based on a 2.00 $4.00 $6. we need to substitute the annualized costs calculated for the 2.00 $8.

000 to 4.06 is achieved at a plant size between 6.00 $0.10 per gallon up to a plant size of 10. An increase in plant size from 2. it is possible to increase the range of optimal plant designs.60 $0.13 of these savings. Thus. as shown in Figure 8. This figure demonstrates the nature of the trade-off quite clearly. For the case of full access to stover on surrounding corn acres.00 0 2000 4000 6000 10% access to surrounding corn acres 8000 10000 12000 Plant Size (MT stover per day) Figure 7.000 MT per day design show rapidly increasing costs. Plant sizes below the 2.40 $1.000 MT per day range. But the increased cost of feedstock for the 10. but more likely near term. increasing 13 .20 $0.19 per gallon. savings that seem well worth capturing. is a good choice for the minimum plant size. savings in cost due to increased plant size top out at $0. As more acres of corn become available for stover collection.000 to 10. scenario of collecting stover from only 10% of the corn acres around the conversion facility.60 Min Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) Feedstock Cost Non Feedstock Cost $1. When available acres are increased from 10 to 25%. suggesting that the 2. with no additional cost savings realized above that size. under the assumed conditions. the net savings of $0.80 Total Cost $1.000 MT per day plant. In this scenario. Ethanol Cost as a Function of Plant Size for 10% Availability of Corn Acres Figure 7 shows the minimum selling price for ethanol as a function of plant size for the conservative. the optimal minimum plant size is in the 2.000 and 8.80 $0.000 MT per day. The non-feedstock and feedstock-related cost components are plotted along with the total cost.000 MT per day design eliminates $0. for the conservative scenario of collecting stover from 10% of the corn acres around a conversion plant. The non-feedstock cost curve reflects the conventional wisdom of economies of scale.000 MT per day.40 $0.000 MT per day reduces non-feedstock costs by $0.$1.20 $1.

00 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Plant Size (MT stover per day) 10% 25% 50% 100% Figure 8. Ethanol Price as a Function of Plant Size and % of Available Acres Another important factor impacting the cost of delivering feedstock is the cost per ton-mile.000 to 8.000 to 10.70 Min Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) $1. The largest cost for hauling is in labor. as it impacts the maximum speed for haulers.000 to 5.20 $1.50 $1.000 MT per day (versus 2. This cost is affected by the bulk density of the stover bales.80 $1. At twice the our estimated cost per ton-mile. A 50% increase in hauling cost per ton-mile reduces the range of optimum plant sizes to 2.000 MT per day. the lion’s share of these savings are achieved by the time you reach a plant size of 8. Road infrastructure can be very important. the range of optimal plant sizes not only shrinks to a maximum of around 3.000 MT per day for the 1x cost per ton-mile).plant size from 2. however.60 $1.16 per gallon.000 MT per day. the maximum number of bales per load and the road infrastructure itself. Lower bulk density and lower load capacity will increase the number of trips needed to deliver stover.000 MT per day can realize savings of $0. which increases inversely as speed limit drops. $1. but higher plant sizes actually see significant increases in the minimum ethanol selling price.10 $1.30 $1.40 $1. Figure 9 shows the effect of the cost per ton-mile in the case of 10% access to surrounding corn acres. 14 .

$1.80 10% access to surrounding corn acres

$1.70
Min Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal)

$1.60

2.0x
$1.50

$1.40

1.5x

$1.30

1.0x

$1.20

$1.10

$1.00 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Plant Size (MT stover per day)

Figure 9. Ethanol Price as a Function of Plant Size and Hauling Cost ($/ton-mile) I.3.5 Selecting the Right Plant Size

The analysis presented here illustrates the need to understand and improve the technology and logistics of corn stover collection. Still, even when we consider a wide range of possible collection scenarios, we see that the minimum plant size of 2,000 MT per day holds reasonably well. Changes in assumptions about collection, however, can significantly impact the range of plant sizes over which it may be possible to realize cost savings. But the maximum plant size is unlikely to be above 8,000 MT per day. A more likely range for designs is 2,000 to 4,000 MT per day. It bears repeating that the cost estimates for stover used in this plant size analysis do not correspond to the nominal feedstock costs assumed in the detailed process design and economics summarized in this report. For the purposes of the process design, we used a nominal cost of $33 per MT ($30 per ST); meaning that we implicitly assume that research going on at Oak Ridge National Lab and at USDA will lead to considerable cost reductions. The estimate of stover cost shown in this section is higher than previously reported stover costs, developed by Oak Ridge National Lab. ORNL has reported costs of $38 to $55 per MT of stover.11 At a delivered cost of $55 per MT, ORNL reports that almost all of the potential stover supply becomes available. In addition, the perspective of our studies is that of “nth” plants using high-volume biomass sources. We assume that these plants are located in the best locations for access to these feedstocks. In the near term, many of the pioneer plants will rely on niche feedstocks, which are

15

often spread out over much larger distances. Such plants may indeed be much smaller in size than our base case design assumes. I.4 Feedstock and its Composition

The feedstock chosen for the process design has a significant impact on the overall analysis. The type of feedstock used will have a large effect on the feedstock-handling portion of the process, and the composition will certainly have an impact on how much ethanol is produced. The feedstock used for this analysis was corn stover; Table 1 shows the composition used. This composition is an average of the analyses of nine samples from two multi-ton batches of corn stover NREL received from Biomass AgriProducts (B/MAP) for use in lab and pilot studies12. A feedstock analysis was converted to components that are used in the ASPEN model and normalized to 100%. In general, the component analysis of carbohydrates was used directly; other soluble compounds were combined under “extractives”. The unknown soluble solids component was used to normalize the composition to 100%; its heat of formation is calculated to balance the reported heating value of the feedstock with the calculated component heating values.
Table 1. Feedstock Composition
12

Component % Dry Basis Glucan 37.4 Xylan 21.1 Lignin 18.0 Ash 5.2 Acetate* 2.9 Protein 3.1 Extractives 4.7 Arabinan 2.9 Galactan 2.0 Mannan 1.6 Unknown Soluble Solids** 1.1 Moisture 15.0 *Acetate represents the acetate groups present in the hemicellulose polymer. They are generally converted to acetic acid in the prehydrolysis reactor. **Unknown soluble solids are calculated by difference to close the mass balance. Corn stover can vary in its composition and moisture content due to corn variety, region, weather, soil type, and harvesting and storage practices. NREL is working to bracket this variability and understand its effect on the process. Recent preliminary studies on corn variety13 and stover storage effects14,15 provide a larger range of data; the major constituents’ ranges are shown in Table 2.

16

Table 2. Measured Stover Composition Ranges

Component Glucan Xylan Lignin

B/MAP batches12 36.1-39.1 19.3-23.3 17.2-18.9

Variety Studies13

Storage Studies14, 15 29-41 16-27.5 14-30 33.3 +/-2.8 19.5 +/-2.8 21.1 +/-0.8

35.6-38.3 19.8-23.0 Not reported

The mass balance data on corn stover presented here is preliminary and provides an estimate of its performance. We expect that as more research data on stover becomes available we will be able to make the process model more robust, tailoring its unique conversion reactions in the process to account for stover compositional effects.

17

The database is described and partially summarized in Appendix A. The on-line time is 96%.039 kg/hr (216. Individual equipment information (costs. which allows for a little more than two weeks of downtime. The washed stover is then conveyed past a magnetic separator to remove tramp metal. and weigh around 545 kg (1.1 Feedstock Storage and Handling – Area 100 (PFD-P110-A101) Overview Corn stover bales are received by the plant on truck trailers.352 MT per day [2. The bales are received at the plant from off-site storage on large truck trailers.200 lb). Generally. longer start-ups. From there. Some bales are sent to on-site storage while others are taken directly to the conveyors. sparing) is listed in Appendix B. we extrapolated current experimental results to take into account anticipated technology advances over the next 1 or 2 years of continued research (these extrapolations are noted in the text). and other costs associated with first-of-a-kind plants are not included.594 ST per day]) feedstock at 15% moisture. Finally. The unwrapped bales are conveyed to a wash table. and may also be wrapped in plastic film to protect the bale from weather. The underflow from the clarifier is then dewatered in a belt press. the bales are conveyed to an automatic unwrapping system that cuts away the plastic wrapping and/or net surrounding the bales. The corn stover bales are wrapped with plastic net to ensure they don’t break apart when handled.178 lb/hr. This means that additional costs for risk financing. and the conceptual design applies equally to either shape. Because most of the wash water is recycled through this system. which contains all engineering calculations and results from any vendors or costing programs. which both breaks up bales and washes dirt and grit from the corn stover. As the trucks are received. In some cases.II. Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) are contained in Appendix F. Round bales are approximately 70 inches in diameter.2 Design Basis The as-received corn stover feed requirement for the plant is 98. number of units. The wash water is pumped to the clarifier where clean water is drawn off and recycled back to the wash tables. the fresh water requirement is low. This was considered reasonable for an “nth” operating plant. 5 ft long.1.1. II. The cost estimate is based on the assumption that this is the “nth” plant. after which it is introduced to primary and secondary shredders where the material is reduced in size.1 II. More details of the design and cost estimation can be found in the NREL process engineering equipment database. Square bales are typically 4 ft x 4 ft x 8 ft and weigh between 545 and 681 kg (1. Dirty wash water is recycled and cleaned utilizing a clarifier-thickener system. the data used for design have been demonstrated in the laboratory or pilot plant. they are weighed and unloaded by forklifts. II. It is possible that washing and sizing requirements may be reduced as we learn how sensitive the process is to dirt and particle size for stover. 2. meaning that several plants using this same technology will have already been built and are operating. The bales are either square or round.200 and 1. the washed and milled stover is conveyed to prehydrolysis. 18 . Process Design and Cost Estimating The following sections describe in detail the process design and cost estimation for a biomass-toethanol process based on core technology developed by NREL.500 lb).

the Harris design was altered to accept 17 round bales per truck instead of the original 30 bales per truck.2 MT (28 ST) of stover per hour. Without experience using this washing concept for corn stover. We feel that this information is the best currently available for baled stover transport. the estimated moisture content of the shredded stover is 30%40%. Washing the stover prior to cutting or shredding minimizes the amount of moisture that is absorbed by the product. Thus. Individual propane canisters are refilled at bulk storage on-site. holidays.5 inches long. A concrete slab is used because of the volume of traffic required to deliver the large amount of corn stover required. long-term storage is required to provide feed to the plant year-round. as well as reduce the stover’s exposure to dirt. all eight forklifts are used to move feed from short-term storage. four to unload trucks and four to draw bales from short-term storage. This washes dirt and grit from the product and allows water to drain from the stover. with a first-in. However. The wash tables break the bales with a spreader bar and pull the stover up a 45° incline using metal teeth attached to a drag chain. uses trailers that hold a maximum of 17 round bales9. first-out inventory management strategy. Bales travel to one of two bale unwrapping stations (C-102). and when normal direct delivery of material into the process is interrupted. Each shredder is sized to process 25. but the shredders were specified to produce material that is a maximum of 1. The wash table design was taken from the sugar cane processing industry where they wash the sugar cane prior to processing. This size has not yet been optimized for prehydrolysis of corn stover. Eight forklifts were deemed necessary to satisfy this schedule. When trucks are not being unloaded. Long-term storage will likely consist of 400-500 acres of uncovered piled rows of bales at a location (or multiple locations) reasonably close to the ethanol plant.082 MT 19 . A concrete slab will minimize the amount of standing water in the storage area. the current stover harvesting operation in Harlan. trucks are received twelve hours daily. Bales and surrounding access ways as well as the transport conveyors will be on a concrete slab. This stored material will be rotated continuously. In the projected design. Bales are also reclaimed from short-term storage by forklifts (M-103) and loaded onto the bale transport conveyors.2 MT (10 ST). The stored material provides a short-term supply for weekends.Since corn stover is only harvested for a short period each year. Iowa. Water is sprayed on the corn stover as it is conveyed up the incline. The original stover handling design from Harris16 stated that each truck would hold 30 bales. and this is the number used by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in their feedstock logistics work. To satisfy plant and storage requirements. six days a week. Each truck trailer holds 17 round bales. or 9. The washed stover is then discharged onto a conveyor (C-104) and passes a magnetic separator (S-103) to remove tramp metal prior to shredding. with seven bales being unloaded every minute. The stover is introduced to a primary shredder and then a secondary shredder (M-105). A 24 ft wide cane table can typically handle up to 4. the plant must receive 24 trucks every hour. which reduces the stover to the proper size for prehydrolysis. Unwrapped bales are transported to wash tables (M-104). which is significantly below the weight limit for road considerations. On-site short-term storage is provided equivalent to 72 hours of production at an outside storage area. Each forklift is capable of operating with a 33-lb propane tank for an 8-hour shift. which are sized to handle 90 bales each per hour. After the trucks are weighed on the scales (M101) the bales are off-loaded by propane-fueled forklifts (M-102) and are placed directly onto two lines of bale transport conveyors (C-101) or in the short-term storage area.

concrete) based on their experience. These conditions also solubilize some of the lignin in the feedstock and “expose” the cellulose for subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis. Since stover is less dense than cane. or sugar cane processing industries. Finland. Because most of the water is recycled to a wash water tank (T-101) and back to the wash tables. as they can be toxic to downstream fermentation microorganisms. Cross Wrap. Manual bale unwrapping is feasible but would be too labor intensive for an operation of this size. The amount of fresh water make-up will depend upon the belt-press efficiency and the absorption capacity of the stover. OY. 2. fresh water consumption is approximately 43. shredders. wash tables. The automatic unwrapping station is the only equipment that has not yet been commercially applied. and much of the furfural and HMF (see Figure 10). arabinose. has bale-wrapping systems for plastic film and has developed some de-baling technology. estimated the bale unwrapping equipment cost for an “nth” plant. Underflow from the thickener is dewatered in a belt press (S-102). or 4% of the total wash water. Cross Wrap OY.3 Cost Estimation Harris obtained vendor cost estimates for the forklifts.1 Pretreatment and Hydrolyzate Conditioning – Area 200 (PFD-P110-A201-3) Overview The pretreatment and hydrolyzate conditioning process area converts.2. Removing these heterocyclic aldehydes is beneficial.1. Approximately 1% of the wash water is expected to evaporate from the open wash system (11. a small portion of the water leaves with the topsoil and stover fines. Each table is capable of spraying approximately 568 m3/hr (2.500 ST) per day of cane. In addition.(4. The other 3% of the wash water consumed is mostly absorbed by the stover. eight forklift operators each shift are envisioned to unload trucks and maintain the feedstock supply to the process. and galactose. The actual wash water requirement for stover has not been determined. Glucan in the hemicellulose and a small portion of the cellulose are converted to glucose. Due to the bale handling. This is disposed of via land application to nearby fields. by hydrolysis reactions. most of the hemicellulose portion of the feedstock to soluble sugars .2 II. Most of the equipment specified has been used in commercial straw. a portion of the acetic acid. Degradation products of pentose sugars (primarily furfural) and hexose sugars (primarily hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF)) are also formed. This conversion is accomplished using dilute sulfuric acid and high temperature. II. corn stover. The dewatered underflow is primarily topsoil and corn stover fines. 568 m3/hr was used in the design. acetic acid is liberated from the hemicellulose hydrolysis. more water can be used by adding more or larger spray nozzles. conveyors. mannose. the hydrolyzate liquid and solids are flash cooled.400 kg/hr).000 kg/hr. II. which vaporizes a large amount of water. clarifier-thickener. T-102) to remove solids with the help of a polymer. and belt press.primarily xylose. Dirty wash water is recycled through a clarifier-thickener (S-101. 20 .000 MT per day is a reasonable size for a 24 ft wide machine. but this must be modified for stover bales wrapped with plastic net and film. tank. Following the pretreatment reactor. Harris estimated the other equipment costs (pumps.500 gpm) of wash water.

Pretreatment Process Area Overview.Figure 10. PFD-P110-A200 21 .

” or raised to pH 10 (by adding lime) and held for a period of time. which is used in pulping. The presteamer17 is fed by a set of screw conveyors with variable frequency drives to vary the feed rate as the process may dictate. from the solids. Inc. The presteamer was designed for a maximum 20-minute residence time. blow tank.5) until the mixture (the total water. II. maintaining the pressure in the reactor. Three reactor trains (each including a presteamer. The discharge from the presteamer is a variable-frequency screw conveyor leading to a blow tank.1 atm (177 psia) 30% 22 . A plug is formed in the screw.1% sulfuric acid. The blow tank is used as a seal between the presteamer and the reactor.In addition to flash removal of aldehydes. the solids are washed and pressed to separate the liquid portion of the hydrolyzate. shredded corn stover is fed to pretreatment and first steamed with low-pressure steam in a presteamer to about 100°C (see PFD-P110-A201). This steam removes non­ condensables that can take up space in the reactor and allows about one-third of the total prehydrolysis reaction heat requirement to be satisfied by low-pressure steam. The total stover mixture now constitutes 30% insoluble solids. The original Anco-Eaglin quote was for a 10-minute residence time. The blow tank has a live bottom screw to feed the material to the reactor. The reactor is brought up to temperature by direct injection of 13 atm (191 psia) (192°C saturation temperature and 76°C superheat) turbine extraction steam. Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Conditions Acid Concentration Residence Time Temperature Pressure Solids in the Reactor 1. acid is added to the reactor. The steam acts as a motive force to pull the material into the reactor. The liquid is then “overlimed. The time could be shorter. Neutralization and precipitation of gypsum follow the overliming step. described the steam injection as a venturi-like arrangement.1 atm (177 psia) pressure and 190°C. containing sulfuric acid. After the stover is steamed. The reactor also has paddles on an interior center shaft to help move the material. Anco-Eaglin. The presteamer is a horizontal vessel with paddles on an interior center shaft to move the stover. Heat losses from the reactor were not accounted for in the energy balance calculations. The close-pitch flights in the discharge screw compact the material so that it acts as a seal coming out of the vessel. Because of the large vessel fill percentage. Anco-Eaglin’s experience is that proper mixing and cooking can be achieved with this fill percentage. the reactor cost was adjusted for the shorter target residence time of 2 minutes. Table 3 summarizes the conditions in the pretreatment reactor. the manufacturer. (AncoEaglin). Concentrated sulfuric acid is diluted with evaporator condensate (see Section II.2 Design Basis The washed. reactor) are used. including steam and acid) in the reactor is 1. fewer vessels are required. Table 3. The pretreatment reactor (M-202) operates at 12. The horizontal reactor vessel is designed to be 95% full with 10 minutes of residence time. Steam is injected into the screw to pressurize it on the way to the reactor. depending on the particle size.1% 2 minutes 190°C 12.2. NREL and other pretreatment research groups are studying the operability of a continuous reactor at short residence times. The gypsum is filtered out and the hydrolyzate is mixed with the solids (cellulose) and dilution water before being sent to saccharification and co-fermentation (Area 300).

The condensed flash vapor is sent to wastewater treatment (Area 600). the loss of acetic acid in the vapor will be over estimated.0 0. During this exchange. maximizing the solid content of the cake on the filter. Those tests also showed that 95%-96% cake washing efficiencies are possible in two wash cycles with a wash water to feed mass ratio of 0.8% of the acetic acid and 61% of the furfural and HMF are removed. galactan) are assumed to have the same reactions and conversions as xylan. The liquids are separated from the solids to facilitate conditioning of the liquid portion to reduce toxicity of the stream to downstream fermentation.58. The flash vapor. is used to preheat the beer column feed in H-201.07 0. If the vapor phase dimerization of acetic acid is not accounted for.7 psia) in T-203.007 0.000 kg/hr (117. near 55% insoluble solids with 99. mannan. Acetic acid creates dimers in the vapor phase and this equation of state properly accounts for them. Very high cake solids levels and cake washing efficiencies are advantages to using this equipment. Table 4. about 53. the hydrolyzate slurry with 21% insoluble solids is conveyed to a Pneumapress pressure filter (S-205) to separate the solids and the liquids (see PFD-P110-202). Bench scale testing19 has shown that dry cakes. are possible with this unit. The flash vapor is modeled with the Hayden and O’Connell18 equation of state to specifically model the vaporization of acetic acid. belt filter press.5% insoluble solids recovery. The cycle times of this batch unit are 23 .000 lb/hr) of essentially 100°C steam. The Pneumapress. The other hemicellulose carbohydrates (arabinan. In this flash.05 The exiting material from the pretreatment reactor is flash cooled to 1 atm (14.90 0.007 0. two makes of decanter centrifuges and several types of filters (filter press.025 0. The conversion value is the fraction of reactant converted to product. and solubles with minimal wash water. 7. a pressure belt filter press.Table 4 summarizes the resulting reactions and the conversions that take place in the pretreatment hydrolyzer. Fraction Converted to Product 0. The Pneumapress pressure filter provides automated batch liquid-solid separation by forcing compressed air (125 psig) through the biomass slurry and filter media to displace liquid. provided the best recovery of solids. the beer column feed is heated to 95°C and the entire flash vapor from T-203 is condensed. Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions Reaction Reactant (Glucan)n + n H2O Glucan → n Glucose + m H 2O Glucan (Glucan)n → m Glucose Oligomer + ½n H2O Glucan (Glucan)n → ½n Cellobiose + n H2O Xylan (Xylan)n → n Xylose + m H 2O Xylan (Xylan)n → m Xylose Oligomer + + 2n H2O Xylan (Xylan)n → n Furfural Acetate Acetate → Acetic Acid Lignin (Lignin)n → n Soluble Lignin Glucose and xylose oligomers are sugars bound in soluble oligomer form.05 1. After a residence time of 15 minutes in the flash tank. pressure filter). Harris considered different types of solid-liquid separation equipment19.

Product liquor to be conditioned is pumped from both the primary filtrate tank and the wash filtrate tank to a heat exchanger (H-200) where it is cooled to 50°C using cooling water. based on 24 .5 in tank T-224 and held for four hours. After the separation step the material is overlimed (see PFD-P110-A203). the conditioned hydrolyzate liquid is recombined with hydrolyzate solids (which were separated in S-205) in Tank T-232 (see PFD-P110-A202).5 atm (140 psia) to the Pneumapress filters. screw conveyors.3 Cost Estimation All pumps. This long residence time allows the resulting gypsum crystals to form to a size that can be readily separated by hydrocyclone and rotary drum filtration in series. having a suspended solids concentration that is capable of being fed to the Pneumapress. The resulting slurry. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the air are combusted. The air is sent through a condenser to remove water and other condensables and then to the combustor as combustion air. gypsum can be handled as a dry solid. Filtrate from the final washing flows into the primary filtrate tank (T-211). The filtration is assumed to remove 99. is run at that temperature. The liquid is then adjusted to the fermentation pH of 4. flash tank (T-203) and Pneumapress equipment is 304SS.22 At 80% solids.2. This approach was recommended by vendors and is typical of dewatering equipment used in the utility flue gas desulfurization industry to achieve high gypsum solids concentrations commercially. again based on Delta-T’s experience. Lime is added in tank T-209 to raise the pH to 10.5% of the precipitated gypsum and the solids are assumed to contain 20% liquid. the cake is washed with recycle water (stream 252) and air is blown through it to displace the liquor. The final cake is conveyed off of the Pneumapress onto a transport conveyor and into the slurrying tank (T-232) where it is mixed with conditioned hydrolyzate liquor and additional recycle water.21 Agitation power for T-224 was set at 98.23 The material of construction for all equipment except the pretreatment reactor (M-202). The Pneumapress filter was also cost competitive with the other types of separation equipment. The residence time in this tank is minimal (15 minutes) just long enough to afford good mixing. The cake is then washed with liquor that is pumped from the primary filtrate tank (T-211).5 W/m3 (0. tanks. II.5 W/m3 (0.5 hp/1000 gal). the agitation for this application is assumed to be 98. which is primarily water. Pretreated slurry is pumped from the blowdown tank into the hydrolyzate mixing tank (T-205) and mixed with recycled filtrate liquor (from tank T-213) to reduce the insoluble solids in the slurry to a pumpable level. The agitation for this application is assumed to be 394 W/m3 (2 hp/1000 gal) based on the experience of Delta-T. The temperature of 50°C was chosen because the next unit operation. overliming. approximately 10%.5 hp/1000 gal). and agitators for this section were estimated using the ICARUS Process Evaluator. Condensate is sent to wastewater treatment. The filtrate flows to the wash filtrate tank (T-213). After the gypsum is filtered.20 Based on the experience of Delta-T. Finally. The residence time in T-209 is one hour to allow for the overliming “reactions” to occur. Liquor from the wash filtrate tank is also used to dilute the pretreated slurry.typically quite short (<10 minutes). That diluted slurry is pumped into the Pneumapress. pH-adjusted. and properly diluted. The plant air compressor provides air at 9. The cyclic operation of the Pneumapress pressure filter system is as follows. is pumped to fermentation (Area 300). building pressure in the Pneumapress and pushing filtrate through the filter. now conditioned. Filtrate from that cycle also flows into the wash filtrate tank (T-213).

Three Pneumapress units are required to accommodate the process flowrate. the corrosion resistance is reduced. The material of construction of the flash tank is SS316 because additional acid resistance at temperatures higher than 100°C is necessary. Harris obtained quotes for the continuous pretreatment reactors from Anco-Eaglin. Figure 11 shows the effect of temperature and acid concentration on corrosion rate for Incoloy 825. Anco-Eaglin felt the cost estimate provided reflected an nth plant cost because it was based on similarly designed equipment currently in service. the corrosion rate at the target pretreatment conditions is expected to be less than 20 mils per year (a mil is a thousandth of an inch).the experience of Delta-T.5 wt% Sulfuric Acid 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Temperature (°C) Figure 11. NREL engineers have developed a spreadsheet-based model to predict general corrosion rates in acid and temperature environments for various alloys. it can provide guidance when considering metallurgy for varying conditions. Stainless steel (316L) was assumed for most other reactor parts including the presteamer. For solid Incoloy 825.5 wt% Sulfuric Acid 0. Harris recommended mostly SS316 for the solid-liquid separation equipment in contact with the process. 100 Unsatisfactory Corrosion Resistance 10 Satisfactory Corrosion Resistance Corrosion Rate (mpy) 1 0. based on corrosion data generated by Intercorr of Houston via Harris17. Inc.1 Good Corrosion Resistance 1. Corrosion Resistance of Incoloy 825 The cost estimate for the liquid solid separators S-205 and S-222 are based on vendor quotations from Pneumapress and Komline Sanderson respectively. As either parameter increases. This includes vessel paddles and shafts. which is considered satisfactory resistance.24 While not rigorous. based on sets of corrosion data from various corrosion studies performed in the last several years. The construction materials were assumed to be Incoloy 825-clad steel for all parts in contact with acid. 25 .

mannan and galactan) was assumed the same as xylan for the design case. Experimental Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Reactions and Conversions Reaction (Glucan)n (Glucan)n (Glucan)n (Xylan)n (Xylan)n (Xylan)n Acetate (Lignin)n + + + + + + n H2O m H 2O ½n H2O n H2O m H 2O → n Glucose → m Glucose Oligomer → ½n Cellobiose → n Xylose → m Xylose Oligomer → n Furfural → Acetic Acid → n Soluble Lignin Reactant Glucan Glucan Glucan Xylan Xylan Xylan Acetate Lignin Fraction Converted to Product Steam Design Sunds Gun26 Case Reactor25 0. or hemicellulase activity in the enzyme preparation.0675 0.0 Not Reported 0.7 atm (142 psia) 19% 12.05 1. High or low carbon closure is typically caused by imprecision in the experimental and analytical methods. Scale-up of these conditions to a continuous horizontal reactor is underway in addition to running these conditions in the vertical one dry ton per day Sunds reactor.16% 6.90 0.007 0.2 minutes 179°C Steam Gun26 1. the total carbon recovery was approximately 105%. or the creation of degradation products that are not identified in the analysis.1% 2 minutes 190°C 9.07 0. continuous Sunds vertical reactor and conditions that produced higher yields from the 4L steam gun.2. The design case conditions and conversions for the reactor are based on the experimental runs in the Sunds and the 4L steam gun. The measured values were taken from experiments conducted at the conditions in Table 5.126 0. Conversion of the minor hemicellulose carbohydrates (arabinan. Table 6. Table 5.008 0.4 Achieving the Design Case Table 5 lists conditions that have produced good yields from NREL’s 1 ton per day. Lignin solubilization and solids loading values are based on recent runs in the Sunds pilot reactor27. The Anco-Eaglin reactor is a horizontal configuration with a throughput 26 .0 0. The xylose oligomers may be reduced via optimization of the pretreatment conditions.081 0.006 0. For the Sunds run.159 1. a hold tank.03 0. This carbon recovery is slightly higher than previous experiments but is within a standard range of carbon mass balance closure of 90 to 105%.0 0.837 0.029 0.1 atm (177 psia) 37 – 47% Table 6 summarizes the resulting reactions and the conversions for the experimental runs in each reactor.0 0.025 0.638 Not Reported 0. Experimental Pretreatment Hydrolyzer Conditions Acid Concentration Residence Time 125 Temperature Pressure Solids in the Reactor Sunds Reactor25 1.675 0. so about 5% more carbon was measured in the product streams than in the feed stream.II.007 0.05 + 2n H2O Glucose and xylose oligomers are sugars bound in soluble oligomer form.

These reactions detoxify the hydrolyzate and the detoxification is more efficient at higher pH. so minimum concentrations may be necessary for efficient sugar uptake. Overliming was originally designed to limit the calcium concentration in solution to organismtolerant levels. One of the biggest challenges in overliming at an industrial scale will be accurate pH control. This collection is comprised of: (1) endoglucanases. Data from these three reactors will be used to understand and predict conversion rates as a function of size and configuration in addition to process parameters like temperature. The cellulase enzyme and diluted. allowing it to hydrolyze highly 27 . Understanding how the reaction kinetics change with different reactors sizes and with configuration is important to know when the pretreatment has been scaled up adequately that accurate prediction is possible at larger scales.29 We now know that controlling calcium concentrations is not the only advantage of overliming. The mechanism of detoxification by overliming is not completely understood. detoxified hydrolyzate are continuously added to a train of five 1million gallon vessels. Research is currently under way to determine if the overliming process is removing. Measurements using pH membrane probes are affected by temperature and the presence of dissolved organic compounds (sugars and lignin). The procedure varies in the literature but always includes an adjustment of pH. as much as 30% of the glucose may be lost to HMF and other side reactions. Investigations into the specific functional groups involved in this detoxification are being performed under a NREL subcontract. or a combination of all of these. and a hot filtration. Area 200) to ethanol. In many organisms calcium is involved in membrane transport. and fermentation of the resulting glucose and other sugars (from the dilute acid pretreatment of hemicellulose. Enzyme systems that condense lignin or processes that remove very low molecular weight lignin are possible alternatives. a temperature increase. separately from the fermentation. While Anco has not previously worked with corn stover. or changing the form of a component. Overliming also appears to catalyze condensation reactions in lignin-derived compounds. The natural buffering capacity of hydrolyzates causes neutralization reactions to be slow. Hydrolysis. (2) exoglucanases. occurs first. which attack the ends of cellulose fibers.3. By pH 11.of about 700 dry MT per day for one unit. Overliming is a temperature and pH treatment designed to aid the conversion of hydrolyzate sugars to ethanol during fermentation28.1 Saccharification and Co-Fermentation–Area 300 (PFD-P110-A301-2) Overview Two different operations are performed in this process area—saccharification of the cellulose to glucose using cellulase enzymes. or saccharification. Cellulase enzyme is actually a collection of enzymes. adding.3 II. The enzyme used to saccharify the cellulose is purchased from an enzyme manufacturer. Several factors increase the probability of overshooting pH endpoints during overliming. a hold at temperature for 15 to 30 minutes. they are pursuing opportunities to do so. The separate saccharification step enables operation of the saccharification step at an elevated temperature to take advantage of increased enzyme activity and reduce the time and amount of enzyme required. which attack randomly along the cellulose fiber to reduce polymer size rapidly. We hope to use knowledge of the actual chemical reactions involved in lignin detoxification to guide selection of alternatives to overliming that do not require lime addition and gypsum removal. II.

30 The most common organism used to produce cellulase industrially is Trichoderma reesei. the enzyme will still continue to hydrolyze cellulose. It is assumed that mannose and galactose sugars are also fermented in this design. DOE is funding this important work. Finally. mobilis must be “grown” in a seed fermentation train of vessels in this process area. which hydrolyzes cellobiose to glucose. the recombinant Z. such as Z. A heat exchanger (H-301) heats the 51°C hydrolyzate slurry exiting the re-acidification tank (T-224) to 65°C. because although the temperature in the fermentation tanks will be lower by necessity because of the ethanologen’s thermal tolerance.2 Design Basis Detoxified and diluted hydrolyzate fed to the saccharification vessels is about 20% total solids33 (soluble and insoluble solids) including the dilution that will occur when the cellulase stream is mixed in. mobilis. Target conditions. and (3) β-glucosidase. Saccharification takes place in five 950. which will improve the economic viability of biomass conversion. the actual split of time between saccharification and fermentation (actually simultaneous saccharification and fermentation) is not known. mobilis will ferment glucose and xylose to ethanol. nutrients. but it is likely that some time in an SSF mode will be needed to reach 90% hydrolysis yields. take advantage of improved thermal tolerance to reduce the required time and loading. to utilize additional sugars. including bacteria in ruminant and termite guts and white rot fungus. For fermentation. they are summarized in Table 7. Several research institutions32 are genetically engineering strains. The result of each seed batch is used as the inoculum for the next size seed increment. The tanks are cooled using a pump-around loop that consists of a centrifugal pump (P-310) and heat exchanger (H-310). the seed inoculum. developed with the enzyme manufacturers. The total residence time is estimated at 36 hours. This form of Z. the two largest enzyme manufacturers in the world are developing more cost effective cellulase enzymes. The enzyme loading is determined by the amount of cellulose present in the hydrolyzate and the target hydrolysis conversion level with the combined residence time of the saccharification tanks and the fermenters. or are identifying naturally occurring organisms that metabolize hemicellulosic sugars. For this design case.crystalline cellulose. and saccharified slurry are added to a train of continuous fermentors. Saccharified slurry and nutrients are combined with an initial seed inoculum (grown in the laboratory) in a very small vessel. The Z. the saccharification temperature.000-gal vessels (see PFD-P110-A302). Several bacteria and fungi naturally produce these enzymes. using low-pressure steam. II. This series of scale-ups is continued until the last step is large enough to support the production fermentation. cellulase is fed at the rate of 12 international filter paper units (IFPU) per gram of cellulose assuming an enzyme concentration of 50 FPU/mL34. 28 . mobilis bacterium31 is used as the biocatalyst. Because the cellulase enzyme is still being developed. It is really a simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) configuration at this point.3. The number of fermentors will be about five 1-million gallon vessels in a train or line. Genencor International and Novozymes Biotech. The resulting ethanol broth is collected in a beer well (storage tank) before it is pumped to distillation. The heat exchanger is cooled with cooling water.

08 m3 (19. 29 . all of which can inhibit ethanologens at higher concentrations.012 0. If three trains were used.000 gal).7. the seed volume to be produced each day is 870 m3 (230.000 gal). All of the cellulose hydrolysis is modeled to take place in the saccharification vessels until there is a better understanding of how much hydrolysis will occur at the fermentation conditions.000 gal) each 5 1 12 FPU/g cellulose Table 8 lists the reactions and conversions taking place in saccharification. Table 8.90 1. The batch time for each step is 24 hr.000 gal) every 12 hr. the maximum size seed fermenter is 727 m3 (192. but because there would be three trains it would be more costly. The total amount of saccharified slurry split off to seed production is 10%. Saccharification Conditions Temperature Initial Saccharification Solids Level Residence Time Size of Vessels Number of Vessels Number of Continuous Trains Cellulase Loading 65°C 20% total solids 1. 200. Train B will then complete its final stage of fermentation 12 hours later. 7. The required inoculum volume has been experimentally determined to be 10%.0 Saccharified slurry is cooled (H-302) to 41°C and a portion is sent to the seed production area.700 m3/day (2.5% of furfural and HMF combined. The saccharified slurry contains 12.36 Delta-T Corporation decided two trains would be optimal using an assumed turn-around time for each seed fermenter of 12 hr. Based on the production flow of about 8. Each batch must be 655 m3 (173. and 20 gallons).200.596 m3 (950.000 gal). Table 9 summarizes the seed train design specifications. The seed train is operated in a batch mode (see PFD-P110-A301). Considering a 90% working volume. Scaling down by a factor of 10 for each smaller stage results in four additional seed fermenters of 72. 2000. Train A is again complete and the cycle continues.3 million gallons/day). Saccharification Reactions and Conversions Reaction (Glucan)n (Glucan)n (Glucan)n Cellobiose → n Glucose Oligomer → ½n Cellobiose → n Glucose → 2 Glucose Reactant Glucan Glucan Glucan Cellobiose + + + ½n H2O n H2O H2O Fraction Converted to Product 0. the maximum volume would be only 435 m3 (115.35 both for the seed train and the production train.000 gal) to satisfy the 12-hr period that is skipped.8. or 435 m3 (115. Train A will complete its fifth stage of fermentation at 180 hours.04 0. The stream contains about 1% acetic acid and less than 0. 24 hours after that.6.Table 7. 0. and 0. Using these conditions.6% sugars including 7% glucose and 4% xylose.5 days 3.

Full mass balances have not been attempted for conditions that favor cell growth as they would in the seed train38.Table 9.67 g/L fermentation broth The two largest seed fermenters are large tanks (F-304 and F-305) with internal cooling coils (H304 and H-305) and agitators (A-304 and A-305) that are costed separately.3 hp/1000 gal) for F-304. 30 . Seed Train Specifications 33. The agitators were sized based on Delta-T’s experience with similar systems. The coil size was calculated using a tank coil correlation from Kern37. The well water is then used as make-up water to the process. 3. Table 10 gives the reactions and conversions used in the seed fermentations to describe the microorganism growth and sugar metabolism. The three smaller seed fermenters (F-301-3) are designed as packagejacketed. Well water at 13°C.7 kW (5 hp) for F-302. ICARUS23 was used to estimate the agitation powers of 0.5% 0. and 18.6 kW (25 hp) for the F-303.1 hp/1000 gal) for the largest fermenter (F-305) and 60 W/m3 (0.000 gal) 0. The small fermenters are package units (agitator and jacket included).75 kW (1 hp) for F-301. agitated reactors.35.36 Inoculum Level Batch Time Fermenter Turn-Around Time Number of Trains Number of Fermenter Stages Maximum Fermenter Volume (F-305) Corn Steep Liquor (CSL) Level Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) Level 10% of total 24 hr 12 hr 2 5 727 m3 (173. supplemented with cooling water is used to maintain the fermenters at 41°C. The design numbers for agitation were 20 W/m3 (0.

4 H2O + 0.835 CSL → 5 Z. The usage rates for these nutrients are the same as used in laboratory fermentations. five vessels are required for this residence time and are arranged in a continuous train. mobilis + 2 H2O + 0.009 3 Xylose + 5 CO2 → 5 Succinic Acid + 2. This SSCF aspect is not modeled.018 DAP + O2 Glucose 0. A rotary lobe pump (P-301) is then used to continuously feed the seed to the production fermentation train.80 3 Xylose + 5 CO2 → 5 Ethanol + 0.006 Glucose + 2 CO2 → 2 Succinic Acid + O2 Glucose Glucose 0. but perhaps enhanced by the removal of glucose. Fraction Converted to Product38 0.046 Xylose + H2O → Xylitol Xylose 0.015 → 3 Acetic Acid Glucose Glucose 0.5 O2 2 Xylose Xylose 0.Table 10. Co-fermentation is conducted in 950.5 hr).5 O2 Xylose 0. Seed Train Reactions and Conversions Reaction Glucose Glucose Reactant + 2 CO2 Glucose → 2 Ethanol Glucose + CSL + → 6 Z. The total residence time is estimated at 36 hours for the sugar fermentation. Two pumps are required because this is the largest rotary lobe pump available from Waukesha Pump Company.002 → 2 Lactic Acid Xylose 0.000-gal vessels (see PFD-P110-A302).014 → 5 Acetic Acid 3 Xylose Xylose 0.003 → 5 Glycerol + 9. The seed hold tank (T-301) is sized to hold 20% more than the fifth seed reactor (F-305). however the stoichiometry used to model the reactions has not been experimentally verified. Table 11 summarizes the conditions in the fermentation vessels.25 O2 Xylose 0.3 O2 0. mobilis + 2. A rotary lobe pump is used to avoid damaging the microorganisms by pump sheer.90 0.04 31 . It is expected that saccharification will continue in the fermentors. mobilis growth.04 Xylose + 0.015 DAP 3 Xylose + 5 H2O + 2. slowed by the lower temperature.004 Glucose + 2 H2O → 2 Glycerol Glucose 0. Two high-capacity transfer pumps are used (P-302) to transfer the seed to the seed hold tank (T301) in a timely fashion (approximately 2.5 O2 Xylose 0.002 → 5 Lactic Acid Corn steep liquor (CSL) and Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) are both nitrogen sources required for Z. In all.

5 O2 Xylose 0.046 Xylose + → Xylitol Xylose 0.Table 11.02 0. however the stoichiometry used to model the reactions has not been experimentally verified.835 CSL + 0.3 O2 Fraction Converted to Product 0.25%39. and galactose) is assumed to have the same reactions and conversions as xylose.95 0.41 This is modeled as a side stream (bypassing fermentation) where sugars are reacted to form lactic acid. Co-Fermentation Reactions and Conversions Reaction Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose 3 Xylose Xylose → 2 Ethanol → 6 Z.5 O2 2 Xylose Xylose 0.000 gal) each 5 1 10% 0.002 → 5 Lactic Acid Corn steep liquor (CSL) and Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) are both nitrogen sources required for Z.014 → 5 Acetic Acid 3 Xylose Xylose 0. In addition to fermenting sugars to ethanol. mobilis growth.25% 0.33 g/L40. mobilis + 2 CO2 + 2. Fermentation of the other hemicellulosic sugars (arabinose.4 H2O + O2 + O2 Reactant Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Xylose Xylose + + + CSL + 0. and Diammonium Phosphate (DAP).018 DAP 2 H2O 2 CO2 + 0.85 0. The usage rates for these nutrients are the same as used in laboratory fermentations.002 0. sugars are converted to other products because of the presence of contaminating organisms. A total of 3% of the sugars available for fermentation are assumed lost to contamination. Co-Fermentation Conditions Organism Temperature Initial Fermentation Solids Level Residence Time Size of Vessels Number of Vessels Number of Continuous Trains Inoculum Level Corn Steep Liquor (CSL) Level Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) Level Zymomonas mobilis strain 41°C 20% total solids 1.33 g/L fermentation broth Inoculum from the seed train at a ratio of 1/10th of the hydrolyzate is fed along with corn steep liquor. mobilis → → → → → → 2 Glycerol 2 Succinic Acid 3 Acetic Acid 2 Lactic Acid 5 Ethanol 5 Z.25 O2 32 .003 → 5 Glycerol + 0. This allows the model to simply assign a percent 0.004 0. Table 12. added as a nutrient at a rate of 0. Table 12 lists the reactions and conversions in fermentation.5 days 3.596 m3 (950.5 O2 Xylose 0.015 DAP 5 H2O H2O 5 CO2 + 5 CO2 + 2 H2O + 0. mannose.009 3 Xylose + → 5 Succinic Acid + 2.015 0.006 0. added as a nutrient at a rate of 0.019 + 3 Xylose + + 2.

When the well water is not sufficient for complete cooling. F-300. and H-302) were costed by Delta-T from previous jobs. The effective ethanol concentration in the fermentation train is 5. We used ICARUS to estimate the smaller agitators (A-304. With a residence time of four hours (recommended by Vogelbusch42). In the case of H-300.) quotes that Delta-T had obtained for a different project. II.0 1. H-301. We estimated all centrifugal pumps for this section using the ICARUS23 cost estimation software. a beer well (T-306) collects the fermented beer and scrubber bottoms. The cost for the major agitators. Table 13 shows the only contamination reactions. for the larger vessels (saccharification tanks. The other. A-305). This minimizes additional structural steel required for top-mounted agitator supports.0 1. and F-303) were estimated with ICARUS as jacketed. The seed fermenter coil coolers (H-304 and H-305) were costed with ICARUS. F-305. this tank allows for some surge capacity between fermentation and distillation. medium-size tanks (F-304. Table 13.0 The fermenters are cooled using a pump-around loop that consists of a centrifugal pump P-300 and heat exchanger. A-310) and other large applications (A-301. These quotes were scaled using a scaling exponent from Garrett6 to fit the size required here. were based on vendor (Lightnin Corp. The smaller seed fermenters (F-301. T-306) were estimated with ICARUS as stand-alone tanks. F-302. Co-Fermentation Contamination Loss Reactions 41 Reaction Glucose 3 Xylose 3 Arabinose Galactose Mannose → → → → → 2 Lactic Acid 5 Lactic Acid 5 Lactic Acid 2 Lactic Acid 2 Lactic Acid Reactant Glucose Xylose Arabinose Galactose Mannose Fraction Converted to Product 1. fermenters and seed hold tank (T-310. it is supplemented by cooling water.0 1. those for the larger fermenters (A-300.7%.3 Cost Estimation In general.3. The large agitators are side-mounted. At the end of the fermentation train. Costs of the rotary lobe pumps (P-301 and P-302) were obtained as verbal quotations from Waukesha Pump Company. the cost from ICARUS was exactly the same as Delta-T’s number and is used here.loss to contamination and the conversions in the fermentor model do not have to be adjusted. 33 . and T-301)). Several plate and frame heat exchangers in this area (H-300.0 1. The heat exchanger is generally cooled with well water at 13°C. the material of construction for all equipment in this section is 304SS. agitated packaged units. a minor amount of this is entrained in the CO2 vent stream. We obtained a quotation from Chattanooga Boiler and Tank Co. A-306). which is the most cost-effective material for the fermentation service. H-300.

Table 15. Table 14. and has been run successfully to grow yeast for several campaigns. each lasting several weeks.90 0.5 days 3596 m3 (950.04 0.012 0. Experimental Saccharification Reactions and Conversions Reaction (Glucan)n (Glucan)n (Glucan)n Cellobiose → n Glucose Oligomer → ½n Cellobiose → n Glucose → 2 Glucose Reactant Glucan Glucan Glucan Cellobiose + + + ½n H2O n H2O H2O Fraction Converted to Product Design Case Experimental43 0. The research to date has been with SSCF at lab scale to test enzyme activity. The 90% cellulose to glucose yield has been achieved at 15 FPU/g cellulose in an SSCF mode and is considered achievable at a lower enzyme loading of an optimized enzyme. This fermentation is reported because no fully mass-balanced fermentations using pretreated corn stover have been run to date.II. The experimental conditions are from a yellow poplar run.0 1. These conversions are used in the design case. 34 .04 0.0 The seed train in NREL’s pilot plant is similar to that outlined in the design. since the optimized enzymes are not yet available. Table 16 summarizes the experimental and design case conditions for co-fermentation.4 Achieving the Design Case Table 14 summarizes the experimental and design case conditions for the saccharification area.000 gal) each 5 1 12 FPU/g cellulose Table 15 shows the reactions and experimental saccharification conversions for corn stover as measured using NREL’s SSF experimental protocols. Experimental Saccharification Conditions Mode Temperature Initial Saccharification Solids Level Residence Time Size of Vessels Number of Vessels Number of Continuous Trains Cellulase Loading Experimental43 SSF 32°C 6% cellulose 7 days Shake flask N/A N/A 15 FPU/g cellulose Design Case Saccharification 65°C 22% total solids 1.90 1.3.012 0. A separate saccharification step will allow better use of temperature to optimize enzyme performance.

003 0.835 CSL + 0. Organism development is a crucial activity in enabling fermentation of not only xylose at + 0.02 0.015 0.019 0.014 0.015 DAP + 5 H2O + H2O + 5 CO2 + 5 CO2 + 2 H2O + 0.25% (clarified) 0.5 days 3596 m3 (950. mobilis growth.5 O2 Xylose 0.5 O2 → 5 Succinic Acid 2 Xylose Xylose 0.Table 16.046 Xylose → Xylitol Xylose Not measured 0.25 O2 35 .015 0.3 O2 Fraction Converted to Product Design Experimental44 Case 0. mobilis + 2 CO2 + 2.002 → 5 Lactic Acid Corn steep liquor (CSL) and Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) are both nitrogen sources required for Z.000 gal) each 5 1 10% 0.004 Not measured 0.014 → 5 Acetic Acid 3 Xylose Xylose 0.85 0. so the conversion was lowered slightly in the model. however the stoichiometry used to model the reactions has not been experimentally verified. Table 17.33 g/L fermentation broth Table 17 shows experimentally measured fermentation yields for glucose and xylose from the yellow poplar run44 and the design case conversions.25% 0. However.902 0.002 0.4 H2O + O2 + O2 Reactant Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Xylose Xylose + CSL + 0. Experimental Co-Fermentation Reactions and Conversions Reaction Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose Glucose 3 Xylose Xylose → 2 Ethanol → 6 Z.009 3 Xylose + 2.018 DAP + 2 H2O + 2 CO2 + 0. mobilis → → → → → → 2 Glycerol 2 Succinic Acid 3 Acetic Acid 2 Lactic Acid 5 Ethanol 5 Z.6% 7 days ~800 mL working volume fermenters N/A N/A 0. High glucose and xylose to ethanol yields been achieved on yellow poplar feedstock using Z.5 O2 Xylose 0.002 0.95 0.004 0. Experimental Co-Fermentation Conditions Mode Organism Temperature Initial Fermentation Solids Level Residence Time Size of Vessels Number of Vessels Number of Continuous Trains Inoculum Level Corn Steep Liquor (CSL) Level Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) Level Experimental44 SSCF Zymomonas mobilis 39676-pZB4L 32°C 12. mobilis metabolism are also listed. The conversions of sugars to other products resulting from Z. mobilis in the laboratory.046 0.02 0.003 → 5 Glycerol + 0.33 g/L fermentation broth Design Case Co-fermentation Zymomonas mobilis strain 41°C 20% 1.006 0. an engineered organism may not achieve a xylose to ethanol yield that high in a less controlled fermentation.95 0.002 0.019 3 Xylose + 2.5 OD ~ 10% 0. The usage rates for these nutrients are the same as used in laboratory fermentations.

particularly acetic acid. The insoluble solids are dewatered by a Pneumapress pressure filter and sent to the combustor (Area 800). and the second concentrates the ethanol to a near azeotropic composition (see Figure 12). or inorganic compounds in the biomass end up in this stream. may also be a key activity in strain development. recovering nearly all of the ethanol. Solids. This cost was developed from our current collaborations with enzyme manufacturers to develop commercially available enzyme preparations for lignocellulosic biomass. The bottoms from the first distillation contain all the unconverted insoluble and dissolved solids. II. The scrubber effluent is fed to the first distillation column along with the fermentation beer. Organic salts like ammonium acetate or lactate. Recycling too much of this material can result in levels of ionic strength and osmotic pressures that can be detrimental to the fermenting organism’s efficiency. this recycle can be limited to as little as 10% of the centrifuge filtrate stream to minimize this effect. mannose and galactose. minimizing the load to wastewater treatment.17 per gallon of cellulose-derived ethanol. and Solid-Liquid Separation) – Area 500 (PFD-P110-A501-5) Overview Distillation and molecular sieve adsorption are used to recover ethanol from the raw fermentation beer and produce 99. but also the other sugars including the minor hemicellulose sugars: arabinose. Regeneration of the adsorption columns requires that an ethanol water mixture be recycled to distillation for recovery. II. an evaporator is included in the process. If the cellulose to ethanol yield is improved. It will be produced on-site through licensing agreements with enzyme suppliers. the overall cost of enzyme decreases.5% ethanol. the evaporator concentrates the dissolved solids into a syrup that can be sent to the combustor. which was used for enzyme production in the 1999 hardwood design1. If the xylose to ethanol yield is improved.5 II.high levels. This equates to $0. and Water Recovery (Distillation. Fermentation vents (containing mostly CO2. Dehydration. both values will change. and the evaporated condensate is used as relatively clean recycle water to the process.5. removes the dissolved CO2 and most of the water. Enzyme will instead be purchased at an estimated cost of $0. For the water that is not recycled. Distillation is accomplished in two columns—the first. Evaporation. Tolerance to compounds in the hydrolyzate. but the cost per gallon of cellulose-derived ethanol stays constant.1 Product. All the water from the nearly azeotropic mixture is removed by vapor phase molecular sieve adsorption. corn steep liquor components not utilized by the organism. The total amount of the water from the pressure filter that is directly recycled is set at 25%. called the beer column.4 Cellulase Enzyme Area 400. 36 . In a typical grain-to-ethanol facility. but also some ethanol) as well as the beer column vent are scrubbed in a water scrubber.10 per gallon of ethanol. Because the amount of stillage water that can be recycled is limited. The liquid from the pressure filter that is not recycled is concentrated in a multiple effect evaporator using waste heat from the distillation. has been removed. The concentrated syrup from the evaporator is mixed with the solids being sent to the combustor.

Figure 12. Distillation System Overview. PFD-P110-A500 37 .

the rectification column (PFD-P100A502).5 ft) in diameter. Over 99% of the ethanol fed is removed as a 39. but the general arrangement is given on PFD-P110-A503. A flow rate of about 0.05% w/w ethanol. The reflux ratio required is 3:1. The design basis is >98% ethanol adsorption in the vents and venting no more than 36.2 m (4 ft) in diameter. The column above Tray 44 is 3. The specifics of the design of this unit are proprietary to Delta-T. is fed on Tray 19 (from the top).7% of the water originally entering distillation. and 4% water. while removing about 90% of the water to the bottoms. suggested by Vogelbusch42 to allow for cleaning due to the high-fouling service. specifically New Source Performance Standards criteria. An ancillary condenser (H-505) is supplied for start-up. Nutter V-grid trays are used for this purpose. about 0.2:1 to obtain a vapor overhead mixture of 92.3% w/w ethanol and is sent to the beer well for feeding to D-501.60 m3/min (158 gpm) of well water is used.5% w/w ethanol and a bottoms composition of 0. The D501 vapor is fed on Tray 44 (from the top) and the recycle from adsorption. All the CO2 and only 0. Saturated vapor from the distillation is first superheated and fed to one of two adsorption columns.2% of the ethanol are vented here. The resulting effluent is 1.37 m (14. A spare reboiler. the 38 . Both columns (D-501 and D-502) are operated below 2 atm (30 psia) overhead pressure. and it recovers 99. The overheads are vented to the scrubber and contain 83.5% of the ethanol with four theoretical stages and 7. Reflux for this distillation is supplied by interchange with the evaporator (E-501). This feed to the beer column (PFD-P110-A501) is then further heated by heat exchange with the bottoms from the beer column in H-512. The ethanol is removed as a vapor side draw from the column and fed directly to the rectification column (D-502). As mentioned in Section II. The beer column (D-501) operates in a mode to remove the CO2 and as little ethanol as possible overhead. Only 0. This column uses 60 Nutter V-Grid trays at a slightly higher efficiency of 57%. Overhead vapor from D-502 is fed to the Delta-T molecular sieve adsorption unit (M-503).61 m (24 in.1% of the ethanol from fermentation is lost in the bottoms.1. The 99. A forced circulation reboiler is used in an effort to accommodate the solids present in the bottoms. Heat is supplied to the column in a thermosyphon reboiler (H-502) with low-pressure (4. The adsorption column removes 95% of the water and a small portion of ethanol. 12% ethanol. This separation (D-501) is accomplished with 32 actual trays at 48% efficiency with the feed entering on the fourth tray from the top. In addition.5 m (11. This relatively low pressure keeps the reboiler temperature down and minimizes fouling. is included in the design.4% w/w mixture with water vapor side draw from the column at actual tray 8. The tray spacing is 0. Heat is supplied to a forced recirculation reboiler (H-501) by low-pressure (4.4 atm [65 psia]) steam. The required reflux ratio is 3.3 MT (40 ST) per year of VOC for air pollution considerations. This is a packed column using Jaeger Tri-Pack plastic packing.6 m (25 ft) of packing.7% CO2.7% of the ethanol fed is lost in the bottoms stream.3 ft). all ethanol-containing vents are collected and sent through a water scrubber (T-512). These trays have been found to tolerate the solids well and have a relatively good efficiency.5% water in the feed to the adsorption column represents only 0.2 Design Basis Beer from the fermentation area is first preheated with flash vapor from the pretreatment reactor (H-201). below Tray 44 it is 1.5. While one bed is adsorbing water.5% pure ethanol vapor is cooled by heat exchange against regenerate condensate and finally condensed and pumped to storage.4 atm [65 psia]) steam. Most of the ethanol vented (99%) will be recovered and recycled via the vent scrubber.) and the column diameter is 4. The vapor side draw from D-501 is fed directly to D-502.II.5. which is higher in ethanol (72% w/w versus 40% w/w). The composition of 7.

Of the total feed to the evaporator/separation system. otherwise its operation is as described in Section II. PFDP110-A504).3 Cost Estimation The material of construction for equipment in the distillation area is generally 304SS.5. Manual acid cleaning.other is regenerating.5% remains as syrup. The clean-in-place system services the equipment that handles stillage (beer column bottoms) by flushing with a hot caustic solution and recirculating the solution until heat transfer surfaces are clean. Passing a very small slipstream of pure ethanol vapor back through the loaded bed while a vacuum is applied carries out regeneration. so the flow of very low-pressure steam to the evaporator is set to achieve this level. No washing is used in this application of the Pneumapress.2. 10. PFD-P110A505) and the filtrate is returned to the second evaporator effect (E-502).5% is removed as a wet cake in the pressure filter. reflux drums. The final syrup (evaporator bottoms) is 60% water. Pneumapress Filter Corporation provided quotes for the pressure filters via Harris. In the second effect. Delta-T estimates that 60% water is the maximum dissolved solids level that can be achieved without rapid fouling of the evaporator. The water is stripped off the adsorbent. 39 .7 atm [25 psia]). This effect is heated by both condensing the reflux vapor to the rectification column (D-502) and by adding very low-pressure steam (1. the slurry is cooled from 117°C to 87°C. The final vapor is condensed in H-517.2. The pressures of the first and second effects were adjusted to make all five evaporators the same size: two units each are used for the first and third effects and one unit for the second effect. This dual heating is accomplished using a split tubesheet evaporator that prevents the steam from mixing with the reflux. The cost of the first evaporator effect (E-501) was increased by 25% to account for the complexity of two vapor feeds. Delta-T provided the quote for the molecular sieve package since they are a vendor of that equipment. and the thermosyphon reboiler (H-502) were costed using ICARUS23. The frequency for this cleaning depends on the operating conditions. 11. II. 44% (33% of the total evaporation) of the water entering is evaporated. The pumps. and 61% is evaporated. Appendix I contains a discussion of the physical property model and parameters used for distillation. which must be performed occasionally. About 24% (35% of the total evaporation) of the water entering this first effect is evaporated. and the mixture is condensed and returned to the rectification column (D-502). This syrup is mixed with the solids from the Pneumapress and sent to the combustor for disposal. removes mineral scales. The slurry is sent to the Pneumapress (S-505. The pressure of the third effect is set by the need to easily condense the evaporator vapor with cooling water at 0. the beer column (D-501) bottoms are sent to the first effect evaporator (E-501. Finally. Delta-T used information and experience gained in other projects to cost the rest of the equipment. In addition. We used a correlation from Aersten and Street45 to size the thermosyphon reboiler. which is a more suitable temperature for liquid-solid separation. Air from the Pneumapress is sent to the combustor as combustion air. A third stage of evaporation (E-502) is used to evaporate 76% of the remaining water (32% of the total water evaporated). The system uses high circulation pumps to minimize fouling on the heat transfer surfaces caused by solids adhering to or plating out on the hot surfaces. 17% is recycled back to the process as recycle water.21 atm (3 psia) or 64°C.

and the non-recycled evaporator condensate) is initially screened to remove large particles. They investigated all of the process wastewaters. It shows that the plant wastewater (condensed pretreatment flash vapor. which are collected in a hopper and sent to a landfill. cooling tower blowdown. CIP waste. In 1998.II. boiler blowdown. Screening is followed by anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion to digest organic matter in the stream. That waste treatment scheme is standard within the current ethanol industry and facilities in the 1-5 million gallons (4-19 million liters) per day range can be obtained as “off-the-shelf” units from vendors. Merrick developed a map showing all the streams entering WWT and used that map for guidance in selecting the best treatment method for each. Figure 13 is a simplified flow diagram of the WWT design chosen. Anaerobic digestion produces a biogas stream that is rich in methane so it is fed to the combustor. and estimated costs for this section. Merrick recommended the screening / anaerobic digestion / aerobic digestion scheme for all of them. The sludge is also burned in the combustor.6. condensate from the hydrolyzate Pneumapress vent. After reviewing the flow rates and waste strength of the remaining wastewater streams. the wastewater treatment section was thoroughly studied by Merrick Engineering2. That improvement cut the loading to WWT dramatically. During their investigation of process streams. Aerobic digestion produces a relatively clean water stream for reuse in the process as well as a sludge that is primarily composed of cell mass. Merrick recommended an integrated evaporation and water recycle design that was implemented by NREL and Delta-T engineers into the process design (see Area 500). 40 .6 II.1 Wastewater Treatment (WWT) – Area 600 (PFD-P110-A601-2) Overview The wastewater treatment section treats process water for reuse to reduce the plant makeup water requirement. selected the design.

Figure 13. PFD-P110-A600 41 . Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Process Overview.

Although insoluble components such as cellulose and xylan may be converted in anaerobic digestion they are not converted within the model making the estimate slightly conservative.6. 90% of each organic component is converted to methane and carbon dioxide. and other non-process wastewater are assumed to flow to the municipal wastewater treatment system. upsets (including unusual suspended solids) are not modeled. The cooled stream then flows to the anaerobic digester. nitrous oxide. and the non-recycled evaporator condensate are mixed together (stream 612) and flow through a bar screen (S-600) to an equalization basin (T602). and treatment of the resulting wastewater is not accounted for in this design. technologies are available that may increase the methane fraction. so ammonium has been kept in the COD calculation46. urea and micronutrients) are added per kilogram of COD to provide other nutrients the anaerobic organisms require. Biogas from the digester contains approximately 75% methane and 25% carbon dioxide on a dry molar basis. It is assumed to be 70% of the COD. The anaerobic digesters are sized for a conversion rate of 12 g COD per L digester volume per day.010 kW) or 2. During standard operation. Methane is produced from that organic matter at its maximum yield of 350 L per kg COD removed (0.g. The total chemical oxygen demand (COD) is calculated for the stream entering anaerobic digestion (613) and is approximately 1. Other intermittent loads (e. boiler blowdown. the gas will flow to the combustor providing about 17. 42 .6% of the total fuel load supplied to the combustor. The biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a better predictor of efficacy of anaerobic digestion but it cannot be directly related to composition. Carbon dioxide is also produced at a molar ratio of 1 mole carbon dioxide produced per 3 moles methane produced.II.1 MMBTU/hr (5. Cell mass is produced at a yield of 30 g cell mass for each 1 kg COD that is removed resulting in a 93% removal of COD. all sulfates entering anaerobic digestion are converted to hydrogen sulfide. Finally. condensate from the hydrolyzate Pneumapress vent. Since ASPEN Plus is a steady state modeling program. from process spills) were not considered in the design. The flows and loadings to WWT will not be at steady state either.229 kg/kg at 25°C). No insoluble components are included in the COD calculation because of uncertainty of their reactivity. Merrick reports that ammonium ions are not converted in anaerobic digestion (although they are in aerobic digestion) and recommends that they not be included in this first COD calculation. Rain and snow run-off. the calculated COD is within 5% of the experimentally measured COD and the ammonium flowrate is low. Condensed pretreatment flash vapor. The majority of the wastewater in the basin is condensate so it is too warm for biological treatment. equipment washing. so the equalization basin (T-602) is designed for a steady-state residence time of over 7 hours allowing dampening of flow problems downstream. cooling tower blowdown. Within anaerobic digestion.2 Design Basis Merrick considered several alternate approaches and determined that screening followed by anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion was the best method for all streams to be treated2. so it is pumped through a heat exchanger (H-602) and cooled to 35°C. CIP waste. the methane fraction may vary from 50% to 90%.. COD is defined as the amount of oxygen that would be necessary to combust all soluble organic components within the stream to carbon dioxide. An emergency biogas flare is designed into the process to burn the biogas in case of a process upset in the combustor. Thirty-seven grams of nutrients (primarily caustic with some phosphoric acid. and water and is used to determine residence time and nutrient requirements for digestion. Depending upon the complexity of the feed.600 kg/hr (equivalent to 16 g/L). However.

Because the evaporator syrup from area A500 contains 60% water. With a 93% reduction of the COD in anaerobic digestion followed by 90% reduction of the remaining COD in aerobic digestion. and sulfur dioxide in stoichiometric amounts. This would increase the hydraulic and organic load to WWT. we considered sending the evaporator syrup to wastewater treatment.4%. Another alternative is to send the distillation bottoms to WWT and removed the evaporators.e. sending it to the combustor might not be the most economical alternative.55 g COD per liter lagoon volume per day and the aerators are sized to provide 50% more oxygen to the lagoon than is required by the COD.7 g / kg COD entering aerobic digestion. nitrous oxide.1 g/L and is mixed with process make-up water and recycled to the process (cooling tower. Most of the sludge is recycled to the clarifier to keep the aerobic lagoons’ cell mass loading high.. CIP.The liquid from the anaerobic digester is pumped to aerobic lagoons with floating aerators. polymer is added to the filter press at a rate of 1. The remaining 30% is modeled to produce cell mass on a mass basis (i. The pressed solids are primarily cell mass and are conveyed to the combustor for disposal..g. is separated from the clean liquor. however it would also decrease the load to (and therefore cost of) the combustor. Filtrate from the filter press is recycled to the aerobic lagoons for additional treatment. The aerobic lagoons are sized for a conversion rate of 0. the atoms do not necessarily balance but the mass does). The results of a comparison of these two options against the design case of sending the syrup to the combustor are shown in Table 18. The fully digested material is pumped to a clarifier (T-610) where the insoluble material. carbon dioxide. etc). the total COD reduction is 99. In the aerobic lagoons 90% of the remaining soluble organic matter is converted with 60% producing water. As an alternative. If higher value disposal options can be found (e. sale as fertilizer) those will be preferable. To assist in dewatering. The remaining portion is filtered using a belt filter press (S-614) to remove most of the water from the solids. 43 . The clean water has a COD of about 0. which are costly. consisting primarily of cell mass.

8 I0203I_wwt_2 Change from Design Case +$0.7 $113.0 11.Table 18.9 14. Without evaporators. This comparison shows that the overall economics as measured by the cost of ethanol production are most favorable when the syrup is sent to the boiler.95 +$0.14 +$0.6 -$3.3 $38. This stream would have solubles and suspended solids in it (that were previously removed by the evaporators).07 $1.6 $13. but the annual operating costs were $0.0 10.03 +$0. eliminating them reduced the capital costs by over $3MM.1 $3.4 I0203I Destination of Evaporator Syrup WWT Change WWT with no from the evaporators Design Case $1.4 38.9 2. the treated wastewater would be used for recycle water. The primary equipment costs in this area are the anaerobic digesters. polymer-lined lagoons.2 10.98 +$5.6 As expected.1 14.3 $4.98MM greater because more WWT chemicals were required. One other impact of removing the evaporators is the loss of clean recycle water.8 $3. The anaerobic digester cost was taken from a quote developed by Chattanooga Boiler and Tank Company for the SS304 fermentation vessels.7 $113.4 $193. II.9 $21. because less electricity was generated when the solids in the syrup were no longer combusted.8 26. aerobic lagoons.6. and the belt filter press.10 6.3 Cost Estimation All cost estimations for this area were taken from the Merrick report2. Thus.88 $14. Comparison of Sending Evaporator Syrup to the Combustor or WWT Combustor (Design Case) Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) Total Operating Costs (cents/gal): Other Raw Materials Waste Disposal Electricity Fixed Costs Capital Depreciation Average Income Tax Average Return on Investment Operating Costs ($MM/yr) Capital Cost Breakdown ($MM): Distillation and Solids Recovery WWT Boiler/Turbogenerator Utilities Total Equipment Cost Total Project Investment Model $1.3 $203 I0203I_wwt1 6. It went up even further when the evaporators were taken out of the process altogether.5 $36.3 10.5 $4. however. which could adversely affect process conversions and equipment efficiency.4 $118. but more importantly.7 $197.9 -7. Merrick quoted the aerobic lagoons as fieldexcavated.5 2.9 -9.4 25.85 $21.9 14. the cost of wastewater treatment went up considerably when syrup was introduced. 44 .9 -6. The belt filter press was costed according to a scaled quote from Phoenix Biosystems.4 37.6 25.9 $10.9 10.3 38.07 5. The evaporator condensate (stream 534A) has no solids and few other impurities (1%).9 2.3 10.6 $35. the capital savings from removing the evaporators does not overcome the added operating costs plus lost revenue. The capital costs were lowest for the case where no evaporators were included.

7 II. Feed chemicals stored in this area include CSL. via rail car.7. 2. The tank (T-704) is of carbon steel construction.2 million gal) in two 2. and surge tanks.270 m3 (600.500 gal) based on a 7-day storage time. The storage time is 5 days or a 273 m3 (72.000 gal) carbon steel tanks. SS316 is the industry standard for ambient temperature sulfuric acid. Propane fuel for the forklifts is delivered in 7. The tanks are stainless steel (SS304) construction. Using a flow rate of 568 m3/hr (2. which corresponds to about 72 m3 (19. CSL would likely be supplied by rail car.000 gallons47 for products such as corn syrup.000 gal) trucks.1 Product and Feed Chemical Storage – Area 700 (PFD-P110-A701) Overview This portion of the plant provides for the bulk storage of chemicals used in the process and product ethanol. The DAP storage bin (T-755) was sized at 40 m3 (10. The usage rate of 4 MT per day will require solids handling and storage equipment similar to that for the lime in Area 200. The storage time is set at 4 days in two 500 m3 (130. the 45 . which fuels the forklift. resins.ICARUS23 was used to cost the remaining equipment including pumps.000 gal) tank supplies 4 hr of operating time.000 to 30. The CSL/DAP mixture is then pumped to fermentation seed production and ethanol production. Liquid cellulase enzyme is received from an enzyme producer either on-site or close-by. which allows enzyme lots to be kept separate and identified. and petroleum. Therefore. heat exchangers.6 m3 (2. Therefore.000 gal) tank (T-720). Based on Delta-T’s experience we used 5 days of storage for sulfuric acid (T-703). probably pellets.270 m3 (600.000 and 25.540 m3 (1. and gasoline (used as a denaturant for the product ethanol). A 33-lb propane tank.7. II. fertilizers. From the storage bin. DAP is fed into a day tank (T-760) where it is mixed with CSL.2 Design Basis Ethanol product storage is based on Delta-T’s experience with fuel ethanol production facilities. oils. cellulase enzyme. propane (for feedstock handling forklifts). sulfuric acid. The tank is stainless steel (SS304) construction. The recommended amount of storage (T-701) corresponds to 7 days of production or 4. 3 tank cars of CSL would be needed every 5 days. lasts approximately 8 hours according to the vendor48. Corn steep liquor (CSL) is a nutrient source for fermentation seed growth and ethanol production. II.000 gal). Water for fire suppression is also stored here.000 gal) tanks (T-750). Storage of the biomass feedstock is handled in Section A100 of the process.500 gpm) of fire-fighting water (similar to another Delta-T project of about the same size). Standard rail tank car capacities range from 8. Stainless steel (SS316) is used as the material of construction because of the corrosive nature of sulfuric acid.000 gallons with typical loads between 20. Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) comes in solid form.

P-710) or filling process day tanks (P-703 and P-720).600 gal) tank (T-710).1 Combustor. defined as the percentage of the feed heat that is converted to steam heat. Reaction Engineering Inc. (REI)3 investigated the combined system of combustor. Three primary fuel streams (post-distillate solids. The post-distillate solids’ moisture content leaving the Pneumapress is 45%. Carbon steel is used for this tank.8. A 13 m3 (3.3 Cost Estimation We used ICARUS to estimate the cost for all equipment in this section23. and boiler feedwater pumps. baghouse. and turbogenerator subsystem is to burn various by-product streams for steam and electricity generation. boiler. Boiler efficiency. or 241 m3 (63. boiler. and Turbogenerator – Area 800 (PFD-P110-A801-3) Overview The purpose of the combustor. The pumps in this section are generally sized for quickly loading trucks (P-701. The remaining steam is condensed with cooling water and returned to the boiler feedwater system along with condensate from the various heat exchangers in the process. which are landfilled. Boiler. and generates additional revenue through sales of excess electricity. Treated well water is used as makeup to replace steam used in direct injection.771 kg/hr (407. Flue gas from the combustor preheats the entering combustion air then enters a baghouse to remove particulates.approximate consumption rate of propane for 8 forklifts is 0. II. Treated water enters the heat exchanger circuit in the combustor and is evaporated and superheated to 510°C (950°F) and 86 atm (1265 psia) producing 184.022 ft3/min (33 lb/hr). The biogas and syrup enter the combustor at 4% and 60% moisture. They contacted several vendors to obtain cost and operating information to identify a system suitable for the available fuel streams and steam requirements. All of the lignin and some of the cellulose and hemicellulose from the feedstock will remain unconverted through the hydrolysis process. Anaerobic digestion of the remaining wastewater produces a biogas high in methane. Five percent gasoline (v/v) is added to the ethanol.8 II. and turbogenerator. II. reduces solid waste disposal costs.420 lb/hr) of steam. A fan moves air into the combustion chamber. The majority of wastewater from the process is concentrated to a syrup high in soluble solids. REI also obtained quotes for support equipment including a deaerator. respectively. A 7-day storage time is used for the gasoline as for ethanol. Steam is extracted from the turbine at three different conditions for injection into the pretreatment reactor and heat exchange in distillation and evaporation. and evaporator syrup) are fed to a Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor (CFBC). This tank is pressurized to 250 psig. The gas is exhausted through a stack. 46 . is 68% (see Figure 16). biogas. The small amount of waste biomass (sludge) from wastewater treatment is also sent to the combustor. Burning these by-product streams to generate steam and electricity allows the plant to be self sufficient in energy.500 gpm). The firewater pump is sized for 568 m3/hr (2.7. A multistage turbine and generator are used to generate electricity. The moisture of the combined feed to the combustor is 52%.435 gal) tank (T-709) gives about 15 days of storage. Gasoline is used as a denaturant for the ethanol being loaded for transportation away from the plant. Aerobic digestion produces a small amount of waste biomass (sludge). Other pumps are sized per the process requirements.

Another option. which consists of a multistage turbine with extraction ports. However. the drum dryer is no longer required. and preheated with steam to 177°C. CFBCs have little unburned carbon in the ash. is being studied at NREL.179 Btu/lb). FWE did state that a low-pressure system might be costeffective because the lower materials cost may pay for the cost of added piping on the steam side. FWE declined to quote on this system. The turbogenerator (M-811). Foster Wheeler Energy (FWE)3 confirmed the Radian design49 of a circulating fluidized bed combustor (CFBC) (M-803). citing it as non-standard due to the low operating pressure available to move the water/steam over the heating surfaces. since the Pneumapress pressure filter is capable of drying the post-distillate solids more efficiently than the centrifuge previously in the design.322 kcal/kg (4.000-2. but they did not provide a cost estimate. and sewage sludge in place of fossil fuels. scale removal. pulping wastes. When combined with maintaining a high solids content in the syrup. NREL engineers originally envisioned a lower pressure system. Because of heightened interest in using biomass. the combined feed in this process has significantly less ash and could require supplementing the bed with sand to keep an adequate bed level. The total energy (on a higher heating value basis) to the combustor in the combined feed streams is 178 MMkcal/hr (706 MMBtu/hr). Blending the wet feed with dry material or adding auxiliary fuel to maintain the combustion temperature are more traditional methods. however. and the hot flue gas can be used to preheat the combustion air (H-801).Makeup water and condensate are softened. Boiler blowdown is 3% of steam production.8. gasification of the waste streams to produce steam and electricity. A Lower Heating Value (LHV) of 1. deaerated.2 Design Basis The design of the combustor/boiler/turbogenerator system is changed somewhat from an earlier design by Radian Corporation49. Foster Wheeler Energy (FWE) suggested maximum feed moisture of 50%. which improves the boiler efficiency. generator.389 kcal/kg (2. primarily due to the various combinations of combustor designs and feeds being used. The solids contribute 59% of this energy and the syrup contributes 37%. this flexibility is more expensive than a grate or pile combustor. The combined feed to the combustor has a LHV of 2. Parameters for emissions and efficiency losses were supplied by FWE. Two drawbacks to these units are the high power requirement for circulation and the potential for erosion due to high particulate velocities. The previous design included a drum dryer that used the hot flue gas to reduce the moisture in the solids. Gasification has the potential to produce enough steam and larger amounts of electricity through an integrated combined cycle (gas and steam turbine) system than conventional combustion with only a steam turbine. There is a wide range of values reported. producing lower pressure steam 47 . This type of combustor is suitable for varying feeds and feed characteristics. Compared to coal.3 discusses the energy balance of the steam cycle. and condenser is the other main portion of this section. Because the steam pressure required by the process is not high (13 atm [191 psia]). Chemicals for pH control. and oxygen removal are added. Because the bed material is returned to the combustor after the cyclone. After further study.10.500 BTU/lb) is considered a minimum for maintaining combustion3. new methods of handling higher moisture feeds are being developed such as in-bed drying and staged combustion51. drying the solids helps to ensure a stable combustion bed temperature and improved boiler efficiency.111-1. II. Section II. other sources50 suggest 60% is acceptable.

All of the emissions are below the current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limits53 so no control measures other than the baghouse were added to the process. The boiler feedwater pumps (P-826) produce 98 atm (1445 psia) of pressure and require 709 kW (951 hp) of power.5 psia). which can pit the boiler surfaces.3 Unburned carbon (char) in the ash is low at 1%. ABB Power Generation Systems (ABB) provided cost. efficiency. Phosphate is also added to control the formation of scale in the steam drum. however. Baghouse efficiency of 98.2 lb/MMBtu). when asked about the low-pressure boiler discussed above. stating “for larger turbines of 8000 kW upward steam inlet pressure has little effect on capital costs over the range 200-1600 psig”. neutralization of sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide is assumed to be generated at a rate of 0. All of the sulfur into the combustor is converted to sulfur dioxide. 327°F]).7 MW that is sold to the grid. Pollutant generation values were taken from information provided by FWE. Liquid hydrazine (T-830. if it is needed to control sulfur dioxide to a stricter standard. Per ABB. higher-pressure systems supply more electricity on a power per capital cost basis. the turbine efficiency was set at 85%. Hamon Research-Cottrell.and electricity. came to the same conclusion. 1% of the generated sulfur dioxide is converted to sulfuric acid. a deaerator (T-826) to remove air and other non-condensables. V. stated that the lower pressure option did not allow the most cost effective turbine system. the control systems’ costs are low compared to the replacement cost of the boiler or its components. can be purchased for about $6 per ton for quarter-inch particle size. respectively. pH. 239°F]) for process needs. Pollutant flow rates are calculated from the generation rates discussed below and the higher heating value of the combustion feed stream.1 atm (1. and hardness control systems were designed by Badger52 and follow conventional practice54. Sulfur comes from wastewater treatment (hydrogen sulfide). and the ratio of makeup to condensate in the feedwater. surge tanks and pumps. 514°F]). Ammonia. metallurgy of the boiler. which volatizes with the steam. One induced draft fan was used to move the flue gas from the combustor cyclone through the baghouse. The process uses 11. The oxygen.31 kg/MWhr (0. which were used in the model3.4 atm (164°C [65 psia. 60% at 4. The power usage estimate for the baghouse (M-804) cleaners (176 kW [236 hp]) was obtained from the vendor. The remaining steam (9%) is condensed at 0. For this design.44 lb/MMBtu). Carbon monoxide is assumed to be generated at a rate of 0. leaving 18. a total of 30.8% was taken from information supplied by the vendor. The boiler feed water (BFW) system includes a softener (M-820) for the makeup and condensate water. and design information. output flows. Putsche confirmed the FWE and ABB design parameters using an ASPEN combustor/boiler model showing good correlation of efficiencies. Limestone. ABB representatives.3 The amount of sulfur in the combustor feed streams is higher than untreated biomass.4 MW of power is generated from the system. and is present in the proteins within the cellulase and biomass entering the boiler with the pressure filter and spent biomass solids. PFD-P110-A804) is injected into the deaerator to remove oxygen.52 working with Turbodyne. The amount of water treatment necessary depends on the incoming water quality.68 kg/MWhr (0. The current system contains some redundancy.7 MW. Badger. but lower than most coals. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the steam is extracted from the turbine at 13 atm (268°C [191 psia. and 3% at 1. is added to control the pH and reduce the corrosive nature of the hot condensate. owing to the circulation of the unburned carbon 48 . The presence of this acid requires that the flue gas temperature be kept above the dew point to avoid corrosion. and temperatures53.7 atm (115°C [25 psia.

CFBCs are generally considered to have lower NOx emissions due to lower combustion temperatures compared to traditional pile or grate combustors50. The nitrogen level in the combined feed is similar to coal when the ammonia species are included. and deaerator are from vendor quotes.8 CFB CFBC FBC Dryer/ FBC 49 . heat exchanger. II. the CFBC should be scaled on steam production. FWE and ABB provided scaling factor information. The fate of the ammonia species in a combustor is not well understood. shown in Table 19. including the scaling factor. formation is a complicated mechanism. but there is evidence to suggest that some of the ammonia is converted to nitrous oxide (N2O) while also acting to reduce NOx formation. but only for similar feed conditions such as moisture content. boiler feedwater pumps.8. or NOx. in actuality. The cost obtained from FWE compared well with a previous 1994 quote.31 kg/MWhr (0. The flue gas composition of 804D on PFD-P110A801 shows the remaining unreacted components.9 22. information on bag life and replacement cost from the vendor was incorporated into the capital costs.9 18-24 19. Other quotes obtained over the last decade are also listed in this table. and depends on the feed. combustion temperatures. In addition. Nitrogen oxide. Other chemical treatment costs are from Chem Systems57. ICARUS23 was used to cost the remaining equipment including pumps.55 Ammonia injection has long been a means of reducing NOx emissions. According to FWE. turbogenerator.back to the combustor bed from the cyclone. and surge tanks.2 lb/MMBtu)3. For the baghouse. but is more like untreated biomass when they are not. NOx is generated at 0. combustor design and the presence of other control schemes like limestone injection for sulfur dioxide control. Table 19. excess air rate. Boiler Costs Vendor/Requestor FWE/REI3 FWE/NREL 58 Ahlstrom Pyropower/Radian49 ABB/Chem Systems59 *$1998 dollars Year 1998 1994 1991 1990 Steam Conditions Pressure/Temp 915-1265 psia/950°F 1515 psia/950°F 1515 psia/950°F 1100 psia/875°F Steam Production (1000 lb/hr) 752 694 279-385 434 Total Cost Scope ($MM)* 24. Boiler feedwater softening equipment was costed using Richardson56. these would be present in the flue gas as char.3 Cost Estimation The costs for the CFBC.

9 II. We chose 28°C because the average summer wet bulb temperature in the southeastern part of the United States is 25°C and a 3°C approach is a reasonable design60. Water is provided to the stover washer system. the required process temperatures can be achieved by cooling water year-round. II. and the clean-in-place (CIP) system. the CIP system. Cooling water is provided to the following equipment items: • • • • • • • • • • • • • H-200 to cool the pretreated hydrolyzate liquor before it enters overliming H-205 to condense the water from the Pneumapress air vent H-244 to cool the pretreatment flash vapor before it enters WWT F-301-5 on an as-needed basis to remove heat in the seed train H-300 on an as-needed basis to remove heat produced in the co-fermentation production train H-302 to cool the saccharified slurry to fermentation temperature H-310 to remove heat produced in the saccharification production train H-504 to condense the beer column reflux H-505 to condense the rectification column reflux during start-up H-517 to condense vapors from the third evaporator effect M-503 to provide some cooling and condensation in the molecular sieve H-602 to cool wastewater before anaerobic digestion M-811 to condense the remaining steam after the steam turbine No chilled water is used in the plant. saccharification. and the distillation system. The utilities provided include cooling water. and steam condensation after the turbogenerator.1 Utilities – Area 900 (PFD-P110-A901-3) Overview This area provides all utilities required by the ethanol production facility except steam and electricity. The process water system mixes fresh well water with treated wastewater and provides water at a constant pressure to the facility. and instrument operation.2 Design Basis The primary cooling water consumers in this process are pretreatment. seed vessels.9. which are provided by Area 800. It is also mixed with recycle water for dilution before saccharification. chilled water. The cooling water system is designed at 28°C with a 9°C temperature rise in coolers throughout the facility. fermentation. cooling tower make-up. Process water is also used throughout the facility for cleaning on an as-needed basis. 50 .9. the Pneumapress units (prehydrolysis conditioning and post-distillation dewatering). plant and instrument air. seed production. The CIP system provides a solution that can be heated and includes cleaning and sterilization chemicals to saccharification and co-fermentation. process water. distillation. boiler feed water. wastewater treatment.II. and the scrubber. The plant and instrument air systems provide compressed air for plant uses (pneumatic tools and clean up).

we calculated the amount of cooling tower evaporation and assumed that windage would be 0. For tanks with spray balls.000 gpm) (or at the equipment design flow) through the equipment and returned to the CIP tank via the cyclone separator. fermentation. to provide clean water to the boiler feed water make-up system and the scrubber.000 gpm) (or at the equipment design flow) to the equipment being cleaned in order to flush the solids out of the equipment. CIP solution is then pumped at 454 m3/hr (2. via the cyclone separator. which enters the facility at 13°C and is heated to 26°C by the fermentation cooling load before entering the process water system. 4) The CIP cycle continues until the equipment has been cleaned. wastewater treatment.5 atm (140 psia) to the Pneumapress filters via air receivers at a combined usage of 8. and the CIP system.000 gal) to provide about 2. which is operated at 41°C. The remaining heat is removed by cooling water. The solution is then pumped back to the CIP tanks by the 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) CIP return pump. The plant and instrument air systems provide compressed air for plant uses (pneumatic tools and clean-up. The surge tank was sized at 3. The process water pump (P914) pumps water from the tank into the facility.5 L/m3/hr (1 gal per SCFM) of compressor capacity. The tower blowdown is assumed to be 10% of the sum of the evaporative loss plus windage.8 m3 (1. The CIP system is designed to provide cleaning solution to all the seed. Process water flows into the CIP system tanks and is heated by low-pressure steam. The process water tank (T914) mixes and holds the treated wastewater and the remaining fresh water before it is pumped throughout the facility.892 m3/hr (5. b. 3) The cyclone separator continuously discharges the sludge stream to the wastewater treatment area while the centrate is returned to the CIP tank for reuse. The scrubber and the boiler feedwater system require fresh water. Pneumapress filters) and instrument operation. It is designed to handle 1. residence time. An instrument air dryer and a surge tank were designed to provide clean dry air at a consistent pressure to the instrument air system. to all the beer column heat exchangers.1% of the total flow to the tower. Fresh well water is used to cool the fermentation broth and is then split three ways. The initial cooling source for fermentation. saccharification and fermentation tanks. Three 5. cooling tower make-up. 51 .530 m3/hr (900 SCFM) compressed air for plant operation. Delta-T recommended 1.075 CFM) screw compressors were specified—two on-line with one spare. distillation. The plant air compressor also provides air at 9. It is designed for an 8 hr.230 ACFM). saccharification. The washing sequence follows: 1) Process water is pumped at 454 m3/hr (2. and steam condensation in the boiler utilize cooling water year round.Overliming. Fresh process water is mixed with recycle water for dilution prior to entering seed production.5-times the process water flow requirement. is well water. Two CIP tanks are needed in order to maintain the ability to clean a tank at the same time as a beer column component. CIP solution is pumped at 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) through the spray balls in the tank. 2) a. Using ASPEN. to the beer column. and to the evaporators.228 m3/hr (3.

8 m (270 ft x 55 ft) frame. II.10.II. Well water is used to make up for water losses to the atmosphere due to evaporation. Improving water usage to reduce makeup demand continues to be an area of study. The process water tank and pump costs were estimated using ICARUS.3 m x 16.000 (1995). The Pneumapress air receivers were costed by Harris19. The quoted cooling tower is a five cell counterflow tower with a 82. chosen because of Delta T’s experience with these towers.000 gpm). The CIP system was designed by Delta-T and the cost was estimated to be similar to the costs previously used by NREL for this system. The process is designed for zero discharge to a municipal treatment plant in a steady state mode. water in streams vented to the atmosphere.9. and a total flow capacity of 16. We used ICARUS to estimate the plant air receiver tank costs as a horizontal vessel with a design pressure of 14.3 Cost Estimation We based the cooling system cost estimate on a verbal quote by Marley. Water is consumed in hydrolysis reactions that convert the long chain polymers to monomeric sugars (prehydrolysis and saccharification) and generated in the combustion and digestion reactions.6 atm (200 psig).6 m x 18. The cost of the previous units totaled $95. and water entrained in the waste solids. We estimated the tank cost using the atmospheric pressure carbon steel vertical vessel data and the pump cost using the carbon steel centrifugal pump data. The cooling tower circulation pumps were estimated using ICARUS23.6 m (271 ft x 61 ft) basin. 52 . Detailed water balances around the major processes and the entire plant were derived from the ASPEN simulations.125 m3/hr (71. a 82. a 181 kW (243 hp) fan in each cell. The estimates are based on 125-psig rotary screw compressors and a dew point requirement of -40°C. We used ICARUS to estimate the plant and instrument air compressor and dryer costs. The difference in the water and overall mass balance is discussed in the next section with the carbon balance. Their material of construction is carbon steel. Scaling and installation factors were estimated.1 Water Balance Large amounts of water are circulated throughout the biomass-to-ethanol process. It was quoted for a heat load of 148 MM Kcal/hr (587 MMBtu/hr) and fiberglass construction for cost effectiveness and corrosion resistance.10 Water and Carbon Balances and Energy Analysis II. Table 20 shows the major water inputs and outputs to the overall ethanol plant.

649 210. a carbon balance was performed61.658 -784 Prehydrolysis Saccharification Combustion Wastewater Treatment Consumption/Generation Total Process Outlets Ethanol Product 24. The major exits for carbon (accounting for 99%) are in the combustion exhaust (47%).824 7. The methods used in modeling two subsystems.051 2. • T-606 was designed using the COD (chemical oxygen demand) method of wastewater treatment.5%) in the recycle stream. This section accounts for 15 kmol/hr of the discrepancy. Since the total concentration of these trace compounds are very low (less than 0. • T-914 assumes that pure water is being recycled to the plant.686 Evaporative Losses 195. As a check of our assumed biomass composition.382 186.706 6.649 609.255 186. wastewater treatment (T-606) and the treated water mix (T-914).2 Carbon Balance Overall mass balances are performed on the ethanol production process using ASPEN. which only ensures that the mass balance closes and not the component molar balance.718 Outlet Total 608.788 -2. The overall carbon balance is 99% closed.239 310. 53 .194 226.882 122 156. stream flow definitions and reaction stoichiometry throughout the process. they are not modeled. and the scrubber vent (17%). ethanol product (34%). As shown in the table.039 6. Table 21 shows the flow of carbon as a percentage of the biomass feed. These results are depicted in Figure 14.993 Vents to Atmosphere 375.006 Water Consumption/Generation Water Flow (kg/hr) 14.992 -2.291 68.035 371 14.10.Table 20.outputs) II. contribute to the small error.255 0 3.736 20.443 Solids to Landfill 12.840 Water Difference (inputs + consumption + generation . Ethanol Plant Overall Water Balance Stover Feedstock Enzymes Chemicals & Nutrients Air Well Water Inlet Total Total Flow (kg/hr) Process Inlets 98. 99% of the carbon enters in the biomass feed. therefore the trace carbon compounds exiting from the block are not taken into account. This section accounts for the other 25 kmol/hr of the discrepancy.

003 3 0.001 3.05%).169 16 0.Table 21.008 Carbon Outlets 1.339 532 0. Ethanol Plant Overall Carbon Balance Stover Feedstock Enzymes Total Combustion Exhaust Ethanol Product Scrubber Vent Ash Gypsum Aerobic Vent Loss to Atmosphere Total Carbon Flow Ratio to Feedstock Carbon Content (C kmol/hr) (C kmol basis) Carbon Inlets 3.000 25 0.169 1. thus liberating CO2.144 1.995 We expect the amount of carbon exiting in the combustion exhaust to be rather large because most byproducts (lignin etc.008 3. The scrubber processes the fermentation gas. The majority of the carbon exiting the scrubber vent is in the form of CO2 with some minor amounts of carbon exiting in the form of ethanol (0.497 0.129 0.005 10 0.476 1.066 0.) of this process are burned.001 4 0. Over 99% of this stream consists of carbon dioxide. which contains CO2. 54 .

Figure 14. Process Carbon Balance 55 .

019 64. so the actual yield is 80% of the theoretical yield.g.3% 1.2% Non-Ethanol Producing Reactants 968 30. 64% (C mole basis) of the carbon in the feed stream is present as ethanol producing sugars.3% 81 2. 3. the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation essentially has a zero energy content compared to the other material and energy streams. II.5% 2. Accordingly. The potential energy of the material streams is considered to have three contributions: 1.) The potential energies of the material streams are referenced to the potential energy of the biomass feed.7% 665 21.9% 48 1. 2.6% 40 0.10.8% 13 0. 56 .1% 92 2. This analysis includes other energy inputs to the process (e.8% 26 1.Table 22. Table 22 shows the distribution. (For example. One outcome of this basis is that combustion products have a zero energy contribution (other than any sensible and latent heat effects).8% The comparison of the ethanol product’s carbon content to that of the total biomass feed is a little misleading since the non-carbohydrate components of the biomass cannot be converted to ethanol via fermentation.. A latent heat effect to account for a volatile component being in a phase condition different from its phase condition at the reference temperature. 51% of the feed stream carbon is actually converted by the ethanol pathway (ethanol in the product and CO2 in the scrubber vent). water being discharged as a vapor instead of it normal liquid state at 25°C.154 36. Converting all of this carbon represents the theoretical yield.9% 60 1.125 35. Also. the biomass feed stream can be broken into the various ethanol and non-ethanol producing components. A chemical potential energy defined as its higher heating value (HHV) at a reference temperature of 25°C.3 Energy Analysis The process has been analyzed to compare the energy available in its products (ethanol and electricity) to the maximum energy available from the biomass feed62. This is a convenient basis to analyze the energy contents of the streams since the energy of the ethanol product will ultimately be recovered by its combustion. Feed Stream Carbon Composition Component Cellulose Xylan Arabinan Galactan Mannan Total Lignin Soluble Solids Acetate Protein Extractives Total Carbon Flow (C kmol/hr) % Carbon Flow (C kmol basis) Ethanol Producing Reactants 1. A sensible heat effect to account for the process temperature being different from this reference temperature. sensible heat effects of all feed streams and effluent streams). According to Table 21.

006 -0. This is due to approximations made in three major areas: Pretreatment. This discrepancy is only 3% of the total inlet energy flow.487 0. There is a small discrepancy in the overall energy balance for the process. the liquid water in the process has a zero contribution to the chemical potential energy of any stream. There is a potential for increased energy recovery as exported electricity if more elaborate low level waste heat recovery systems were to be included in the process.000 0. as an inlet. Distillation.. and Wastewater Treatment. The outlet energy flow is 12 MMkcal/hr less than the inlet energy flow. A comparison of the major energy streams produced by the process to the combustion energy of the biomass feed is made in Table 23 and depicted in Figure 15. The outlet energy flow is 12 MMkcal/hr less than the inlet energy flow.060 0.004 0.045 0.. represents a sensible heat penalty to the process).000 0.005 -0. the well water enters the process at 20°C and. heat is required to convert sulfuric acid to its combustion products). The combined energy available from the ethanol product and the exported electricity is over half of the energy content of the biomass feed.g.e.004 1. The HHV has its basis water produced by combustion in the liquid state. or the LHV). 57 .009 0.003 -0. This is due to approximations made in three major areas: Pretreatment.The HHV is a convenient reference for the combustion energy since there is a lot of liquid water flowing throughout the process.004 0.005 -0. There is a small discrepancy in the overall energy balance for the process. The negative value for sulfuric acid represents its negative heat of combustion (i. Table 23. not the vapor state (as with the lower heating value. Ethanol Plant Overall Energy Analysis Energy Flow (MMkcal/hr) Energy Inlets Stover Feedstock 358 Enzymes 3 Air 2 Sulfuric Acid -2 Well Water -2 Other -1 Total 358 Energy Outlets Ethanol 174 Cooling Tower 79 Combustion Exhaust 54 Ambient Heat and Work Losses 22 Byproduct Electricity 16 Loss to Atmosphere 1 Ash 1 Other -2 Total 346 Ratio to Feedstock Energy Flow 1.966 Some of the energy flow values in this table are negative. So. This discrepancy is only 3% of the total inlet energy flow. This may be due to the stream’s temperature being less than the reference temperature (e. Distillation. and Wastewater Treatment. The energy losses from the cooling tower and combustion exhausts are fairly large.220 0.151 0.

Figure 15. Process Energy Analysis Based on Higher Heating Value of Biomass Feed 58 .

8% 2. such as condensation of acidic liquids or low gas velocities through the stack.8% Similar energy analyses can be performed around any section of the process. Combined.As with the carbon balance.1% 4. Taking this into account the energy content of the carbohydrates in the feed recovered as ethanol is much greater.6% 1. Table 24.6% 2.4 226 Non-Ethanol Producing Reactants 92 4 11 17 9 132 % Total Feedstock Energy Flow 36.2% 25. Though it would seem desirable to reduce this loss by further cooling the flue gas. Feed Stream Energy Analysis Component Cellulose Xylan Arabinan Galactan Mannan Total Lignin Soluble Solids Protein Extractives Acetate Total Energy Flow (MMkcal/hr) Ethanol Producing Reactants 129 75 10 7 5. operational problems could arise.1% 20.5% 63. See Figure 16 for a simplified flow diagram for this section of the process. the electricity and steam produced is 66% of the energy to the combustor. The combined feeds to the combustor have an energy content of 178 MMkcal/hr (706 MMBtu/hr). Only 63% of the original combustion value of the biomass is due to carbohydrates that can produce ethanol.9% 1. An energy analysis around the boiler section can identify the relative amount of the energy from the various feed streams to the combustor that will ultimately create the steam and electricity to run the process. Because the conversion is done by fermentation of sugars. The lignin residue provides the majority (59%) of this energy to the combustor.4% 36.9% 1.1% 3. a comparison of the ethanol product’s combustion energy content to that of the total biomass feed can be misleading. 59 . over 77%. The energy content of the various feed components (carbohydrates that can be converted to ethanol and the non-carbohydrates that cannot) is shown in Table 24. The energy lost to the flue gas is due to its high temperature and fairly large amount of volatile material in the vapor phase. the process cannot convert non-carbohydrate components of the biomass (such as the lignin and the proteins).

Many engineering texts such as Garrett6 or Peters and Timmerhaus63 list installation factors that can be applied to purchased equipment costs to determine the installed cost. Although the ICARUS estimate is more detailed than a simple factored method. Many of these standards (such as API for refineries and ANSI for chemical plants) are unnecessary for an aqueous-based process. Process Economics As mentioned earlier. The next step is to determine the installed cost of that equipment. The cost of ethanol production is used either to assess its potential in the marketplace with an absolute cost of production or to evaluate research proposals by looking at the relative cost of production of process modifications that could be developed through research. one of the primary purposes for developing a detailed process design. This study is more of a +25%/-10% accuracy. III.1 Total Project Investment Section II of this report describes the details of the conceptual process design and how the purchase cost of all equipment was determined. Standards for industries handling concentrated chemicals and fuels are based (to a significant degree) on the safety aspects of the process. not an aqueous-based biotechnology process. The installation cost can be determined by a detailed study of everything required to install the necessary equipment and make it operational. CFBC/Turbogenerator Energy Balance III. This section describes these three cost areas and the assumptions made to complete the discounted cash flow analysis. as well as the standard textbook factored methods. When the process is much closer to construction and an estimate of +/. A better 60 .1 Analysis Procedure The total project investment (based on total equipment cost) as well as variable and fixed operating costs. was developed for the chemical and petroleum industry. This type of detail is not warranted for the current level of the estimate. The ICARUS Process Evaluator23 develops a detailed installation cost estimate using its estimate of the piping and instrumentation required for each type of equipment.2% Flue Gas 31% 68% Feed Water 5% Electricity 15% COMBUSTOR 71% BOILER TURBINE/ GENERATOR Condenser 5% Humid Fresh Air 1% Heat Losses 1% Blowdown1% Power Losses 1% Steam to Process 51% Figure 16. With these costs. and cost estimate is to determine the economics of ethanol production. making a “factored” approach satisfactory.All heat flows are fractions of the energy content of the feed to the COMBUSTOR Lignin Residue 59% Evaporator Syrup 37% Anaerobic Biogas 2% Digestor Solids 0. III. more details will be necessary. are developed first.5% accuracy is required for financing. it. we use a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the production cost of ethanol when the net present value of the project is zero. simulation model.1.

continuous pretreatment reactors. as a result this overall installation factor (excluding A600 and A800) is 1. 61 . The resulting equation is used to extrapolate to future years (referred to as “out years”) when such an analysis is desired.42) to several existing corn ethanol projects. Harris obtained installation factors for the stover handling and solid-liquid separation equipment. The purchase cost of each piece of equipment has a year associated with it.46. were applied to the equipment purchase costs. we selected 2000 so as to align with petroleum costs projected by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). if a vendor quote was obtained in that year. In this case. Delta-T compared this ratio (1. it can be indexed to the project year being considered. Once the installed equipment cost has been determined from the purchased cost and the installation factor.61 for this design case. In general.66 provided equipment specific installation and scaling factors for corn stover feed handling. the Harris factors were higher than those from Chem Systems. The overall installation “factor” was then calculated as the quotient of the sum of all purchased costs and the sum of all installed costs. particularly for smaller equipment like pumps. excluding sections A600 and A800.methodology is to use the expertise and engineering practices that Delta-T has developed in the design and construction of starch-based ethanol plants.68 Existing values for the index ranging from 1990 to 1999 were regressed to a simple equation. The purchased cost year will be indexed to the year of interest using the Chemical Engineering Index. These installation factors.67 which is in 2000 dollars. given in Table 25. a more recent evaluation performed by Harris. Therefore. In addition to the Chem Systems installation factors. and solid-liquid separation equipment. was available. or it might be 1997 if ICARUS was used as its basis. along with its purchased and installed costs. Delta-T reviewed the factors for direct installation costs suggested by Chem Systems64 in its 1994 study of this process (Chem Systems in turn took these installation factors from Walas65). these installation factors were accepted for most equipment except where other information. See Appendix B for a complete listing of the equipment. such as installation factors from vendors. where the actual ratio was 1. Table 26 gives the index as a function of date. It might be 1998.

62 .3 358.2 359.1 381. Table 27 summarizes the categories and additional factors proposed by Chem Systems69 based on industry standards.1 381.3 Compressors (motor driven) 1. Chemical Engineering Purchased Equipment Index 68 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Index 357.2-1.3-1. To obtain the total project investment.1 Filters 1.3 Cooling Towers 1.5 390.4 Tanks – Field Erected.1 Pumps – Lobe 1.2-1.3 Boilers 1. Carbon Steel 2.0 Pressure Vessels – Carbon Steel 2.4 Agitators – Stainless Steel (SS) 1. we must add several other items.5 *Installed cost = (purchased equipment cost) x (multiplier) Table 26.4 Turbogenerator 1.Table 25.8 Pumps – Centrifugal.6 361.7 Tanks – Field Erected.6 394.5 389.6 Tanks – Field Erected.8 Pressure Vessels – Stainless Steel 1.4 Pumps – Centrifugal.4 Heat Exchangers (S&T) – Carbon Steel/Stainless Steel 2. Installation Factors 69 Equipment Multiplier* Agitators – Carbon Steel (CS) 1.0 Distillation columns – Stainless Steel 2.7 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 Index 386. Carbon Steel with Lining 1.2 368. Delta-T reviewed the items and factors and determined that they were consistent with other projects the company has completed. Carbon Steel 1. Stainless Steel 2.2 Solids Handling Equipment 1. Stainless Steel 1.2-1.2 Distillation columns – Carbon Steel 3.1 The total equipment cost in the year of interest has now been determined.

000 $3. plant vehicles. or unusual environmental problems. field services. Sales. Start-up and commissioning costs.400.300. curbing. and A500). with no unusual problems such as right-of-way. permits.800. 10% of Total Installed Cost 10% of Total Installed Cost 25% of Total Installed Cost 3% of Total Installed Cost 10% of Total Capital Investment Table 28 summarizes the Total Installed Equipment Cost. soil borings.000. bulk shipping containers. Land. Field insurance. This includes fringe benefits.000 $2. parking. Consumables. Total Installed Equipment Costs Process Area A100 Feed Handling A200 Pretreatment Neutralization/Conditioning A300 Saccharification/Fermentation A500 Distillation and Solids Recovery A600 Wastewater Treatment A700 Storage A800 Boiler/Turbogenerator A900 Utilities Total Installed Equipment Cost Model I0203I.800. Interest on construction loan. instrumentation. and other taxes. Engineering plus incidentals. and field construction supervision.700.000 63 . surveys. difficult land clearing. and fees.000 $38. Table 28.000 $19. lot.5% of Total Installed Equipment Cost 9% of the installed cost of process equip. A200. Transportation equipment. and construction. roads.000 $4.500.000 $7. insurance in transit and import duties on equipment. soil compaction/dewatering. unusual foundations. temporary construction facilities. burdens.000 $113. rights-of-way. steel. small tool equip. Piling. rental. Project Contingency Other Costs Amount 1.Table 27. Additional Costs for Determining Total Project Investment 69 Item Warehouse Site Development Description Site Development: Includes fencing. Prorateable Costs Field Expenses Home Office and Const. (areas A100. Overtime pay during construction. purchasing. Small because of the detail included in the process design. rail system. Freight.300.000 $9. Project team. well drainage.000. This factor allows for minimum site development assuming a clear site. etc. etc. and insurance of the construction contractor. Table 29 illustrates the application of factors in Table 27 to obtain the Total Project Investment (TPI). and general paving. 2000 $ Capital Cost $7.000 $21.700. use. A300. Escalation or inflation of costs over time. piping.

551 0.000 $17.3 MM annual gallons ethanol) Raw Material kg/hr Cost ($/lb) MM$/yr Biomass Feedstock* 98.1. 15% moisture.0204 0.0128 23.) Total Project Investment Model: I0203I.43 *Cost of as-received corn stover.000 $1.000 $5.300.17 Clarifier Polymer 28 1.700.76 Lime 2. Table 30 summarizes these costs.24 0.Table 29.13 1.2500 0.0552 6.0706 0. 2000 $ III.0124 0. and by-product credits.492 0.9 0. Table 30.S.03 Cooling Water Chemicals 1.05 0.01 1.900.000 Variable operating costs.3497 0. Total Project Investment (TPI) Total Installed Equipment Cost (Table 28) Warehouse Site Development Total Installed Cost Indirect Costs Field Expenses + Prorateable Expenses Home Office & Construction Fee Project Contingency Total Capital Investment Other Costs (Startup. Variable Operating Costs (Based on 69.78 Gypsum Disposal 7.58 0.0804 1.95 Purchased Cellulase 6.000 $3.45 0.0094 0.29 64 .217 0.000 $197.700.000 $121.9 1. which include raw materials. ton Model: I0203I.200.23 2.81 -9.000 $179. $30/dry U.31 0.000 $30.001 0.0022 Make-up Water 186.400.0348 1.01 Ash Disposal 4.2 2.900.0094 1. both on a per-year and per-gallon of ethanol basis.04 WWT Chemicals 57.81 10.08 0. Appendix C documents the sources of the costs of these items. waste handling charges.400.747 (kW) 0. etc.98 Diammonium Phosphate 163 0.2 Variable Operating Costs $113.600.40 BFW Chemicals 1. 2000 $ See Appendix C for cost sources Cents/gal Ethanol 33.95 1.039 0.21 Propane 20 0.288 0.041/kWh -6.54 Corn Steep Liquor 1.09 2. Permits.25 Electricity Credit -18.04 0.0001 0.17 WWT Polymer 0.306 0. are incurred only when the process is operating.000 $24.395 0. All raw material quantities used and wastes produced were determined using the ASPEN mass and energy balance model.66 Sulfuric Acid 3.0022 0.300.0 1.1579 0.649 0.824 0.

plant security.5% of the total installed cost (shown in Table 29) using both Delta-T’s in-house information and published information.0 91. The estimates can vary significantly depending on specific location. and plant communications. heat. as shown in Table 31. general engineering. Salaries do not include benefits.9 1999 1989 99.1.8 92.7 98. except for the number of yard employees. These costs include labor and various overhead items. Harris determined the number of yard employees for the corn stover feed handling system16. Delta-T recommended information on fixed operating costs using data from similar ethanol plant projects the company has been involved with (ranging up to 230 million L [60 million gal] annual production). 2000 was extrapolated from the data.0 Note: 1990 to 1999 represents actual data.1 1998 1988 91. we use the Industrial Inorganic Chemical Index70 from SRI Consulting.6 1994 1984 85.1 96.8 98. 65 . General overhead is a factor of 60% applied to the total salaries and covers items such as safety. light. insurance and taxes were estimated at 1. location. payroll overhead (including benefits). Annual maintenance materials.3 94. These data were regressed to a simple equation and used to extrapolate to other years.3 Fixed Operating Costs Index 96.8 1997 1987 86. phone. the costs for chemicals are associated with a particular year. janitorial and similar services. Table 32 contains the Delta-T recommendation. as well as the standard reference of Peters and Timmerhaus63.8 Fixed operating costs are generally incurred fully whether or not the plant is producing at full capacity.7 1991 102. Inorganic Chemical Index 70 Year Index Year 1982 91.As with capital equipment. Data for this index were available for years 1980 through 1999.5 1992 100. they are covered in the general overhead category.3 93.2 2000 1990 101. To index the costs from the year in which they were obtained to the year the analysis is being performed. III.1 1993 1983 86.1 1996 1986 86. S. Additionally.9 1995 1985 88. It is important to note that the estimates provided for this section are based on a representative Midwest U. were estimated as 2% of the total installed equipment cost (shown in Table 28). based on the experience of Delta-T and Peters & Timmerhaus. general plant maintenance. Table 31.

98 12. plant life.000 $20.000 $50.4 Index 8. Table 33.000 $500. 2000 $ Annual Salary $80.62 16.000 $2.12 9.54 14. and (3) fixed operating costs—a discounted cash flow analysis can be used to determine the minimum selling price per gallon of ethanol produced.04 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Index 14.000 $65.000 $65.96 10.09 17.Table 32.93 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and the Selling Cost of Ethanol Once the major three cost areas have been determined—(1) total project investment.000 $100.5% Of Total Installed Cost The salaries are on a 1998 basis and will need to be indexed to other cost years when appropriate.3 9. The discounted cash flow analysis program iterates on the selling cost of ethanol until the net present value of the project is zero.000 $37. and construction start-up duration be specified.054. income tax rates.000 $2. depreciation method.000 $640. The minimum ethanol selling price is the 66 .17 16.819.51 14.293.000 Factor 60% Of Total Salaries 2% Of Installed Equipment Cost 1.1. The resulting regression equation can be used to extrapolate to out years.000 $100.000 $50.57 17.37 12. Fixed Operating Costs Plant Manager Plant Engineer Maintenance Supervisor Lab Manager Shift Supervisor Lab Technician Maintenance Technician Shift Operators Yard Employees General Manager Clerks & Secretaries Total Salaries (1998 $) Total Salaries (2000 $) General Overhead Maintenance Insurance & Taxes Model: I0203I.38 17.000 $28.000 $25.07 11.82 15. The index to adjust these costs is taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics71 and is given in Table 33. The available data were regressed to a simple equation.58 11. Labor Index 71 Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 III.000 $25.13 15. (2) variable operating costs.273. This analysis requires that the discount rate.000 $20.71 13.000 Number of Personnel 1 1 1 1 5 2 8 20 32 1 5 Total Annual Cost $80.09 13.000 $1.000 $1.000 $224.000 $60.56 11.150.000 $2.000 $50.000 $100.000 $185.000 $60.

selling price of ethanol that makes the net present value of the biomass to ethanol process equal to zero with a 10% discounted cash flow rate of return over a 20 year plant life. The discount rate for this analysis was set at 10%. This rate was selected based on the recommendation by Short et al.72 in his description of how to perform economic evaluations of renewable energy technologies for DOE. His view is that “In the absence of statistical data on discount rates used by industrial, transportation and commercial investors for investments with risks similar to those of conservation and renewable energy investments, it is recommended that an after tax discount rate of 10%… be used.” For this analysis, we assumed that the plant would be 100% equity financed. This, along with our other financial assumptions, is of course subject to change for a specific project. For this analysis these parameters were chosen to provide a standard method that was not clouded by the infinite possibilities of financing, but are certainly not the final word in project financing. Figure 17 illustrates the dependence of minimum ethanol selling price on both the percentage of equity financing and the after tax discount rate (IRR), based on 7.5% interest on a 10-year loan.

Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal)

$1.70 $1.60 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Equity (%)

20%IRR 15%IRR 10%IRR

Figure 17. Effect of Varying IRR and Equity on Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (Loan Rate=7.5%, Loan Term=10 years)

To determine the depreciation amount for the calculation of federal taxes to be paid, Short et al.73 recommends the use of the IRS Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MARCS). Within the MARCS system is the General Depreciation System (GDS), which allows both the 200% and 150% declining balance (DB) methods of depreciation. This offers the shortest recovery period and the largest tax deductions. IRS publication 534 (IRS 1993) indicates that steam production plants should use a 20-year recovery period. The IRS indicates that other property not specifically described in the publication should be depreciated using a 7-year recovery period. Short et al.74 indicates that property listed with a recovery period less than 10 years should use the 200% DB depreciation method and that a 20-year recovery period property should use the 150% DB depreciation.

67

State taxes are not considered, primarily because the location of the plant has not been determined and tax rates vary quite drastically (from 0% to 12%). Short et al72 suggested using the highest federal tax bracket, which is 39% for large corporations. Return on investment is calculated on a per gallon basis. Income tax is averaged over the plant life and that average is calculated on a per gallon basis. The amount of income tax to be paid by a potential ethanol producer varies annually due to changes in the volume of product produced and the allowable depreciation deduction. In fact, no income tax is paid in the first three years of operation because the depreciation deduction is greater than the net income. The construction time is important to the cash flow analysis because there is generally no income during construction but huge sums of money are being expended. Perry and Green75 indicate that small projects (less than $10 million investment) can be constructed in fewer than 18 months and that larger projects can take up to 42 months. An overview76 of petroleum refining economics indicates that large refineries (of the order of $1.5 billion investment) can be constructed in 24 months. Certainly this ethanol process is much smaller than the petroleum refinery, so using a construction time of more than 24 months is conservative and fits within these references. DeltaT’s experience with grain-to-ethanol plants indicates that it will require a little more than 2 years to complete a project of this size. An important difference between this type of facility and a refinery are the large number of field-erected vessels in this process. Their on-site construction and proximity will cause the construction time to be a little longer. Table 34 summarizes the schedule for construction and the cash flow during that time.

68

Table 34. Construction Activities and Cash Flow

Project Start Month 0

Project End Month 6

Activity Description Project plan and schedule established, conceptual and basic design engineering, permitting completed. Major equipment bid packages issued, engineering started on selected sub-packages, P&IDs complete, preliminary plant and equipment arrangements complete. All detailed engineering including foundations, structure, piping, electrical, site, etc. complete; all equipment and instrument components purchased and delivered; all site grading, drainage, sewers, rail, fire pond, foundation, and major structural installation complete; 80% of all major process equipment set (all except longest lead items), all field fabricated tanks built, and the majority of piping and electrical materials procured. Complete process equipment setting, piping, and instrumentation installation complete; all electrical wiring complete; all building finishing and plumbing complete; all landscaping complete; pre-commissioning complete; and commissioning, start-up, and initial performance test complete. TOTAL

% of Project Cost 8.00%

6

18

60.62%

18

30

31.38%

100.00%

Notes: 1. The above presumes no utility or process equipment orders placed prior to month seven. 2. Expenditures based on typical 60 MM gal/yr grain-to-ethanol facility. Perry and Green75 indicate that for a moderately complex plant start-up should be about 25% of the construction time - or 6 months, in this case. Delta-T’s experience with start-up demonstrates that a large grain-to-ethanol plant could be started in less time, but a biomass ethanol plant is more complex than a grain ethanol plant. Considering that this design is for the “nth” operating plant, we assumed a start-up time of 6 months. The start-up period is not completely wasted, however. We expect that an average of 50% production could be achieved during that period with about 75% expenditure of variable expenses and 100% of fixed expenses. Peters and Timmerhaus63 define working capital as money available to cover (1) raw materials and supplies in inventory 2) finished product in storage, (3) accounts receivable, (4) cash on hand for monthly payments such as wages and maintenance supplies, (5) accounts payable, and (6) taxes payable. They indicate that working capital is usually 10%-20% of the total capital investment. This flow of money is required over the life of the plant, beginning in the start-up phase to make product that generates revenue to use in purchasing more materials and supplies. For this project, 10% would be about $18 million. On-site ethanol storage capacity is seven days; assuming the product can be made, shipped and payment received in 30 days is conservative. One month’s raw materials, labor, maintenance, taxes and overhead is $4 million. Therefore, a lower number seems reasonable. Garrett6 suggests that using a fraction of the yearly operating cost, typically 10-35% is more relevant. Using these percentages results in a working capital range of $5 to $16 million. We chose to use $10 million, or 5% of the total capital investment. 69

Table 35 summarizes the parameters used in the discounted cash flow analysis.12/-$0.02/gal and a high of $1. plus the cost information in Table 29. operations. Figure 18 illustrates the contribution to the overall cost by process area and capital.5 years 8% 61% 31% 5% of Total Capital Investment 6 months 50% 75% 100% Using the discounted cash flow parameters in Table 35.7 2.7 69. Table 36. Discounted Cash Flow Parameters Plant Life Discount Rate General Plant Depreciation General Plant Recovery Period Steam Plant Depreciation Steam Plant Recovery Period Federal Tax Rate Financing Construction Period 1st 6 Months Expenditures Next 12 Months Expenditures Last 12 Months Expenditures Working Capital Start-Up Time Revenues Variable Costs Fixed Costs 20 years 10% 200% DB 7 years 150% DB 20 years 39% 100% equity 2.07/gal (see Table 36). Table 35.7 197.406 $1. Samples of the discounted cash flow.19/gal.4 12. and fixed costs. 2000 $ 2.5 2. 30 and 32. and summary worksheets are in Appendix D. 70 .0 7. Summary of Yields.000 89. Using the total project investment estimate margin of +25%/-10%. the impact on the cost of ethanol would be a low of $1.28 8.07/gal can be further broken down into the cost of each process area. operating costs. the resulting minimum ethanol selling price of pure ethanol is $1.05) The $1.07 /gal (+$0.3 113. and Conversion Costs Feedstock Rate (dry metric tons/day) Ethanol Yield (gal/dry US ton feedstock) Ethanol Production (MM gal/yr) Total Equipment Cost (MM $) Total Project Investment (capital) (MM $) Non-feedstock Raw Materials (MM $/yr) Waste Disposal (MM $/yr) Fixed Costs (MM $/yr) Excess Electricity Generated (kWh/gal ethanol) On-Line Time (hr/yr) Minimum Ethanol Selling Price Model: I0203I. Rates.

For this analysis enzymatic hydrolysis is assumed to be operated in a near sterile way and nearly to completion so that a transferable sugar stream is produced as product. Cellulase enzyme saccharifies the cellulose into glucose. used equipment (making use of related equipment that has been shut down).05 30% 40% Figure 18. Table 37 shows the sugar stream composition. galactose. and mannose in the pretreatment area. This could be feedstock costs (very low or negative for environmental wastes).4¢/lb. distillation and stillage treatment. It is not expected that grass roots. Cost Contribution Details from Each Process Area (% of Ethanol Selling Price) These costs are probably still too high for a company to start constructing a grass-roots plant based on undemonstrated technology.07/gallon +$0. Mass balances and capital and operating costs were determined for the sugar process and the minimum sugar transfer price was calculated to be 6.12/-$0. large-scale cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol plants will be built until after these first pioneer plants. To analyze the cost of the intermediate sugar stream the following areas were removed from the biomass-to-ethanol process model and economics: wastewater treatment (a cost was kept for treatment of the pretreatment flash vapor). and storage.Capital Recovery Charge Grid Electricity Biomass Feed Handling Pretreatment / Conditioning Saccharification & Fermentation Cellulase Distillation and Solids Recovery Wastewater Treatment 2% Raw Materials Total Plant Electricity Process Electricity Fixed Costs 31% 5% 19% 8% 9% 12% 8% (Net) Boiler/Turbogenerator Utilities Storage -20% -10% 0% 1% 10% 20% 4% $1. III.1. As in the design case for 71 . fermentation. Also. or a combination of these.5 The Cost of Sugar Sugars are an intermediate product in the formation of ethanol. a counter-current washer was added after the saccharification area to separate lignin for combustion from the dilute mixed sugar stream. Plants that are being engineered today have some niche that allows them a special advantage in the short term for a small market segment. co-location with existing facilities (biomass combustors and waste treatment facilities). arabinose. Hemicellulose is hydrolyzed to form xylose.

S. and demand are some of the factors that will affect the stover cost.07 per gallon reported. In most cases. Selling the lignin at the same price as the feedstock (on a lower heating value basis) reduces the sugar price to 5.2 2. the cost is affected to varying degrees. saccharification (enzyme development) and fermentation (ethanologen development). When any target is not met. harvest. reported stover collection costs between $31-$36 per dry U. glucose levels in the saccharification step may limit the extent of hydrolysis.4 114. Improved harvesting methods. Discussed here are process targets that have been identified as key ones to understand and achieve. all of the hydrolysis (90% of theoretical) is assumed to occur in the saccharification tanks.1 Stover Composition. uncertainty about equipment design and installation and construction costs will impact the economics. In reality. ton9. The relative proportions of the various anatomical parts present in a given lot of feedstock will be affected by the genetics of the corn. Sensitivity Analysis The cost of ethanol as determined in the previous section was derived using technology that has been developed or is currently being developed. values used for the sensitivities are picked from current experimental data. weather.3 In some cases the lignin stream can be sold either to a nearby plant that converts lignin into higher value byproducts or a larger more cost-efficient biomass power facility. since demand will affect the price of the ingredient or equipment. In addition.ethanol.6¢/lb. and preliminary observations suggest that variation in the solids composition of anatomical fractions of a plant can have an effect on pretreatment efficiency13. Mixed Sugar Stream Concentration From Saccharification Sugar Glucose Xylose Arabinose Mannose Galactose Total Model: R0204E Concentration (g/L) 65 38 5. and how they might be controlled to a definable range. Studies by contractors for DOE have reported a range of $35-$46 per dry U. to demonstrate the effect of technology advancement (or lack of) on the economic viability of the process. corn stover may need to be stored covered. Others. The results of a small stover collection program in 1997-1998 by Iron Horse Custom Farming of Harlan. and storage practices. ton with current 72 . pretreatment. Table 37. The process targets in the design represent what must be achieved to obtain the $1. IV. Some process targets can be met through research of the core technologies: feedstock collection. For example. and Handling Different parts of the corn have different compositions. The key is to understand the impact of those types of parameters that are likely to vary. Equipment and operating costs are another area that research is less able to affect. IV. environmental factors. Cost. Iowa.7 3.S. like feedstock composition variability are not as controllable. or be used within a certain window after harvesting to avoid carbohydrate degradation. These variations can have a significant effect on cost through yield alone.

07 $1. gypsum in the saccharification feed stream (306) goes from 28 kg/hr (0.35/gal using stover purchased at $55 per dry U. there is a savings of $0. If this step is removed.S.02 While the equipment designed for continuous dilute acid pretreatment of the stover is similar to hydrolyzers used in the pulp and paper and rendering industries.5 89.12 $1. The gypsum ends 73 .11/gal increase in the ethanol selling price.04/gal.18 $1.05 Change in price from design case ($/gal) +$0.1%) to 5.100 kg/hr (1%). Xylan makes up 72% of the hemicellulosic sugars. It is 0.collection methods77. If no more improvement is made in yields than the current data25 shows. About this same concentration goes to the stripper column and the first evaporator effect. The impact of having the gypsum in the process is more difficult to translate to cost. IV. These effects are easy to quantify. Table 38. high solids recovery in the solids recovery separation step keeps most of the gypsum out of the second and third effects.4 85.06% of the solids with the separation and becomes 10% of the solids if the separation is removed.05 -----$0. Table 38 shows the effect of pretreatment yield on overall yield and ethanol selling price. but a more expensive reactor design overall.S. If the number can be reduced from 32 to 8 (2 per shift) the resulting cost savings is $0. If these prices remain the norm due to any of the factors mentioned above. Bale handling in the plant is currently envisioned to require a large complement of yard workers to move the bales from the trucks to storage or the feedstock handling area. Such a reduction might occur from improved handling equipment or practices. Effect of Pretreatment Yields on Minimum Ethanol Selling Price Pretreatment Hemicellulose to Monomer Yield 67. the solids handling for stover may be significantly different. 3 Gypsum Solid-liquid separation prior to overliming and neutralization allows gypsum to be removed from the process and prevents deposits in the high temperature product recovery equipment. +2. then the production cost of ethanol could be as high as $1. then there is a $0.5% 80% 90% 95% Overall Ethanol Yield (gal/dry U.2 Pretreatment Yields and Cost Conversion of the hemicellulosic portion of the stover is important when it contains almost half (44%) of the available sugars.03/gal due primarily to capital reduction (-$7. Without the separation.2MM in conditioning/neutralization. These are not first of a kind costs.7 91.11 +$0. causing a more expensive reactor.1MM in saccharification/fermentation and distillation) and a slight yield increase (0. the ethanol selling price will change by $0.02/gal.4 gal/ton) from sugars that exited with the gypsum waste stream. IV. ton. If the costs are 50% higher (or lower) than currently envisioned (about $17MM installed equipment cost). Harris estimated 4 laborers per shift.S. ORNL has reported that almost all of the collectable stover becomes available for $55 per dry U. ton11.6 Change in Overall Yield (%) -10 -5 ----+2 Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) $1. ton) 80. Conditions in the reactor may require more exotic metallurgy than Inconel.

Canada) cellulase enzyme (lot no. Yields from the SSF were calculated by dividing the final ethanol concentration by the theoretical ethanol concentration from cellulose after subtracting out ethanol added with the inoculum. It is not intended to show the ideal enzyme loading/residence time combination but rather to show how that optimization could be determined. therefore. Figure 19 shows ethanol yields for five enzyme loadings (5. so for the cost of doubling the residence time. the saccharification time is 36 hours. Doubling the residence time in the saccharification tanks (from 1. In the design case. 74 . The gypsum will affect the SOx production in the combustor. The resulting yield is probably a conservative estimate of cellulose conversion because it does not include other fermentation products.179 to 3. The enzymatic digestibilities of the resulting hydrolyzed solids were measured in an SSF using Iogen (Ottawa.4MM and the ethanol selling price by $0. BRC 191095) and a Saccharomyces cerevisiae D5A in shake flasks. only a minimal increase in loading can be achieved.552 Btu/lb).g. For every 5 FPU/ g cellulose increase in loading.37% and is described in a paper by Schell78. lowering the feed’s lower heating value 15% (4.65% cellulose (equivalent to approximately 17% total solids). it will have a direct effect on the ethanol selling price. however. One of them is residence time. 20. There are several possible tradeoffs to minimize the overall effect of a higher than expected enzyme cost per ethanol gallon. but whether positively due to the calcium. That pretreatment was run at 165°C for 8 min.5 days) will increase the TPI by $4. saccharification without fermentation vs.01/gal. Since the cellulase subcontracts are in the second year. and the cellulose hydrolysis yield is 90%. the enzyme loading is 12 FPU/g cellulose. or some combination of both is unknown at this time. SSF with only glucose fermented) this study is only an example. it is early to have a preparation to test for efficacy and determine loading. IV. negatively due to the sulfur. Since only SSF data are available. the overall MESP can be minimized using a sensitivity analysis with empirical data.4 and were achieved using a more optimum pretreatment than was used for this study. Those parameters are discussed in section II.3. the pretreatment conditions were not optimized. Since the enzyme is not representative of what will be produced by the DOE/enzyme manufacturer partnerships. it is close to what can be achieved in the process.up in the combustor. for modeling purposes we assumed that the sacccharification and fermentation times are each half of the SSF time. with an acid concentration of 1. the ethanol selling price increases $0.04/gal. 10.. and the enzymatic digestibility measurements do not match process conditions (e. The flasks were loaded with 5. the design case has better results than those shown in Figure 19. and 25 FPU/g cellulose) at multiple SSF times (ranging from 7 hours to 168 hours).4 Saccharification and Fermentation Yields and Costs If the enzyme cost is higher or lower than estimated in this analysis. If increasing the residence time can minimize the enzyme loading. The unreacted portion will go with the ash to waste disposal. 15. the fermentation time is 36 hours (the equivalent SSF time is 72 hours). An example of that sensitivity analysis was run on an unoptimized corn stover pretreatment (P010129CS).

Figure 21 portrays the MESP at each enzyme loading with each time point. SSF Yields for Multiple Enzyme Loadings Each of the enzyme loading. pretreatment conditions. residence time. Figure 20 portrays the MESP at each time point with each of the enzyme loadings. enzyme cocktail. Both figures show the decreasing effect additional fermentation time (as additional fermentation capacity) has on the ethanol selling price. and the model was run to calculate the corresponding MESPs. It shows that the optimum enzyme loading is about 10 FPU/g cellulose. and enzyme cost so the optimums will probably change if any of those process options are different. 75 . and yield combinations shown in Figure 19 were entered into the process model.100 90 80 70 Yield (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (Hours) Loading (FPU/g) 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 19. These results are highly dependent upon the corn stover. Those MESPs are shown in Figures 20 and 21. saccharification/fermentation design. It shows that the residence time should be at or above 144 hours and that the effect of increasing residence time is large until it reaches about 120 hours.

10 $1. but some of the commercial preparations show 76 .30 $1.20 Residence Time (hours) 120 144 168 $1.10 $1.60 $1.40 MESP ($/gal) Loading (FPU/g) 5 10 15 20 $1. MESPs for Multiple Enzyme Loadings $1.50 $1.50 $1. the work is at an early stage.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Tim e (Hours) 25 Figure 20.00 0 5 10 15 Loading (FPU/g cellulose) 20 25 30 Figure 21. MESPs for Multiple Residence Times Hemicellulase activity in the enzyme preparation may also reduce costs by allowing for a milder pretreatment.$1.30 $1.40 MESP ($/gal) $1. Again.60 $1.20 $1.

No net revenue for electricity means $0. $0. Aside from biomass. respectively) in the ethanol selling price.01/gal. and biomass power generation has been in California for several years. If a CFBC requires additional drying or feed handling equipment for the residue. implying that the excess steam would be vented or used for some other nonrevenue producing work.03. If the value of the electricity were only $0.04/kW makes the ethanol selling price $1. or after.16/gal (with the turbogenerator removed from the design). Increasing the residence time to 3 days has the same minimal effect on the ethanol selling price as increasing saccharification time. Table 39 shows other yield effects from a less than robust multi-fermentation organism(s). which is usually an avoided use credit.09/gal increase ($0. like a modified pile or grate burner may be adequate. the ethanol selling price would be $1. If the combustor costs (currently $20. Conversely. If there were a value for the lignin residue outside of the plant. Assuming the plant could purchase electricity for $0. purchasing electricity and producing steam with a gas boiler would also reduce the capital costs.5 Energy Production Solids combustion (coal) is well known. A $0. there is a $0. galactose) are not converted. the ethanol selling price would be $1. $0.03/gal effect.12/gallon.6MM installed equipment cost) change by 50%. mannose. Biomass co-firing has become industry practice among power generators to reduce emissions. Given these two choices. which again hinges on the electricity cost variations. if the value were $0. The value of power is highly regional and fluctuates almost by the hour. the cost may increase. A worst case scenario would be no revenue for the excess power. If the minor sugars (arabinose. There is the uncertainty of the plant’s ability to meet contracts or get a good price by supplying more at peak demand. pulverized coal and coal slurries are the fuels most similar to the lignin residue from the ethanol process. “accessory” enzymes. A 30% change translates to a $0. There may be some cost benefit in using the excess steam to heat the plant buildings. $0.hemicellulase activity.02/gallon.041/kWh credit is assumed for excess electricity produced by the plant and sold “to the grid”. glucose. NREL is investigating opportunities in hemicellulase and other Finding or engineering an organism to ferment hemicellulosic sugars is key to economic yields from stover. in-house electricity production makes sense as a way to keep the costs controlled unless capital costs are controlling the decision.05/gal. A circulating fluidized bed combustor has been identified as the most likely combustor for this feed without drying it. If an organism is developed. a cheaper type of combustor. it may metabolize xylose and the minor sugars slower than. 77 . the ethanol price is affected by $0.04. IV.02/gal.09/gal increase.02/kWh79. so using it to increase ethanol yield can offset organism efficiency.06/kWh.

02 -$0.04 $1.04 +$0.5 ----- Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) $1.4 --------87.03 -$0.05 +$0.22 +$0. The single result set is valid for the input set of data if 78 .12 $1.7 ----90.03 +$0.18 $1.03 Change in price from design case ($/gal) +$0.06/kWh Purchased 80% 17 FPU/g cellulose 85% +50% +50% 90% 3 days 95% 2/shift -30% No -50% Overall Yield (gal/dry U.16 $1.4 ----89.1 80. Table 39.02 $1.6 89.7 89.S.7 ----85. galactose) fermentation yields Pretreatment yield Electricity credit Electricity source Pretreatment yield Enzyme loading Glucose yield Combustor cost Pretreatment reactor cost Glucose yield Saccharification or fermentation residence time Pretreatment yield Stover handling labor Combustor cost Solid-liquid separation before overliming Pretreatment reactor cost IV.29 $1.05 $1.1 ----- Change in Overall Yield (%) -20 -----14 -10 -10 ---------4 -----6 ---------3 ----+2 --------+0.6MM $17MM 95% 1.5% 0 $0. ton 85% 85% 90% $0.11 +$0.05 +$0.01 -$0.S. The basic uncertainty of parameter values can be represented with random distribution functions and the results can be shown as probability curves.6MM Yes $17MM Sensitivity 50%/0% $50/dry U.6 85%/85% $30/dry U.09 +$0.6.10 $1.7 84. ton) 72.09 +$0.05 +$0.04 $1.12 $1. Since all parameter values have some uncertainty. reporting a single result set is an oversimplification of the potential results.02 -$0.4 81.08 $1.7 91.16 $1.7 77.05 +$0.05 +$0.1 Overview Monte Carlo analysis is a probabilistic analysis method that couples results with the uncertainty of values entered into a model.22 $1.05 -$0.0 89.041 kWh Produced 90% 12 FPU/g cellulose 95% $20.02/kWh $0.24 +$0. ton 50% 0% 67.31 $1.05 $1. mannose.10 +$0.11 $1.15 +$0.12 $1.04 Monte Carlo Analysis IV.S.5 days 90% 8/shift $20.03 -$0.0 89.7 89.12 $1.Table 39 summarizes the sensitivity results by their cost impact.17 $1.12 $1. Summary of Sensitivity Results by Cost Impact Design Parameter Values Design Case Xylose/minor sugar fermentation yields Stover cost Hemicellulose sugar fermentation yields Minor sugar (arabinose.

all values are absolutely accurate; however, a probability curve better represents real results based on uncertainty of the input parameters. The Monte Carlo analytical method allows the user to select one or more input parameters and define the probability curve of values for those parameters. It then utilizes random selection (according to the probability assigned) to set a value for each parameter, calculates the result, records the results, and repeats the process of selection, calculation, and recording numerous times. The final results can be reported in several different types of curves; the most common are histograms and probability curves. The primary use of Monte Carlo simulation has been for financial decisions, although a few groups have begun to use it in the scientific arena. As early as 1986, NREL staff proposed utilization of Monte Carlo analysis as a management technique for biomass-to-ethanol research80. They used cumulative probability curves to compare potential processes and focused on their overlaps and MESP with 50% probability. Akerberg and Zacchi show a probability curve of the production cost of lactic acid from starch81 to emphasize that a single production cost is insufficient. As a preliminary Monte Carlo analysis for this process model, we selected several economic parameters, defined their probability curves, and calculated the resulting probability curves for ethanol selling price and total project investment. Utilizing Crystal Ball82 as an add-in to Excel83 simplified the task of curve definition and recording and reporting of results. Process performance parameters were not varied during this analysis because of the difficulty of running an ASPEN simulation for each iteration. We plan to develop a method for Monte Carlo analysis of process parameters so that we can link economic results to research uncertainty as well as economic uncertainty.
IV.6.2 Parameter Estimates

Probability curves were defined for the following 5 parameters: stover cost, value of excess electricity, enzyme price, pretreatment reactor purchase price, and project contingency. Three of the parameters (stover cost, value of excess electricity, and enzyme price) affect operating costs directly. The other two (pretreatment reactor purchase price and project contingency) affect the capital investment and fixed operating costs that are scaled off of capital investment. Table 40 shows the distributions of the five parameters.
Table 40. Input Parameter Distribution for Monte Carlo Analysis

Stover cost

Value of Excess Electricity Normal $0.04/kWh $0.008/kWh $0.02/kWh Infinite

Enzyme Price Triangular $0.10/gal ethanol ------$0.07/gal ethanol $0.20/gal ethanol

Distribution Function Most Probable* Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

Triangular $30/dry US ton ------$25/dry US ton $50/dry US ton

Pretreatment Reactor Purchase Price Lognormal $2,457,000 $500,000 $0 Infinite

Project Contingency Triangular 3% ------2% 25%

* Mean for normal and lognormal distributions

79

In all cases, the most probable input is the value in the standard model and has been reported in previous sections. Two thousand iterations were run using the above probability distributions. For each iteration, all 5 parameters were randomly varied according to the defined distribution for each value and results were calculated and recorded.
IV.6.3 Results

The minimum ethanol selling price, total project investment, and Lang factor results were recorded. All results are based only upon the minimal number of varied values shown above. Obviously, a better analysis can be done once process performance parameters can be investigated in addition to the economic parameters that are currently being reported. Figure 22 is a histogram of the minimum ethanol selling price and shows that the 90% confidence interval of the MESP is $1.06/gal to $1.29/gal. Figure 23 is the probability curve of the MESP and shows that the MESP has a 7% probability of being $1.07/gal or less and that it has a 50% probability of being $1.17/gal or less.
Forecast: MESP
2,000 Trials
.016

Frequency Chart

8 Outliers

32

.012

24

.008

16

.004

8

.000 1.00 1.09 1.18 Certainty is 90.00% from 1.06 to 1.29 1.27 1.36

0 1.36

Figure 22. Histogram of the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price

80

1.36 2,000 Trials

Forecast: MESP 2,000 Trials
1.000

Cumulative Chart

8 Outliers
2000

.750

.500

1000

.250

500

.000 1.00 1.09 1.18 1.27 1.36

0

Figure 23. Probability Curve of the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price

Figure 24 is a histogram for the total project investment and shows that the 90% confidence interval for the TPI is $192,000,000 to $223,000,000.

Forecast: TPI 2,000 Trials
.025 .018 .012 .006 .000 184,000,000

Frequency Chart

17 Outliers
49 36.75 24.5 12.25 0

196,000,000 208,000,000 220,000,000 232,000,000 Certainty is 90.10% from 192,000,000 to 223,000,000
Figure 24. Histogram of the Total Project Investment

81

2,000 Trials

1 Water Balance and Optimization Efficient water usage in a process can reduce the overall costs significantly. they have a very high GWP. Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas. NOx and other air pollutants can effect climate change. VOCs. The mechanisms and amounts of these gases generated should dictate whether alternative or improved treatment is necessary.3 Air Emissions There are several areas where air emissions are a concern. CO and CO2 that are considered greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions from the bioethanol facility are comprised of carbon dioxide (CO2). The following gives a brief overview of the work currently underway or planned. The metabolic pathways of an organism are dependent on temperature. emissions that exceed EPA limits for a biomassto-ethanol plant will require further attention. pH. For example. Water recycle to the process will also be evaluated to determine the optimal approach to using the varying degrees of treated water available.V. but their impacts are small relative to the GWP of CO2. These may prove more efficient than the current system. but the scope of technologies and the capabilities for calculation will also be expanded. CO2 is assumed to have a global warming potential (GWP) of 1. Alternate treatment schemes can reduce wastewater treatment costs. inhibitors. 82 . but these three are the most potent.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carbon dioxide is a by-product of fermentation. V. Combustion of lignin residue generates SOx. Two of the by-products of ethanol fermentation. Planned Improvements and Extensions to the Model The process design and economic model that we have described here is not a static tool. Combustion of the lignin residue produces N2O. and ethanol are produced during fermentation. While N2O emissions are much lower globally (and in this plant). cause a lowering of pH. In addition.2 Fermentation pH Control Biologically catalyzed processes can have a very narrow band of optimum operating conditions. V. it is used as the standard for rating the relative global warming potential of other greenhouse gases. Current process models do not address neutralizing the acids made during fermentation to ensure the optimum pH is maintained. Because CO2 is by far the largest contributor to climate change effects. acetic acid and lactic acid. and particulates. In other words. It is generated as a result of lignin residue combustion in the boiler and as a byproduct of the fermentation of glucose to ethanol in the fermentors. One gram of methane is equivalent to 24 grams of CO2. V. CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas in emitted by the plant. some contaminant microorganisms may produce additional organic acids. Not only will the information contained in the model will be continually improved. One gram of N2O is equivalent to 360 grams of CO2. Adequate treatment of these gases in the existing scrubber and by other means needs to be assured. and many other parameters. nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). NOx. There are many other compounds that have some potential for causing global warming. such as a fractionated approach where waste streams are treated differently by type. V.

Is ethanol from corn stover a sustainable fuel? A Case Study in Cyber Farming. J. Bioenergy Information Network. C. “Large Scale Ethanol Facilities and Short Cut for Changing Facility Size.afdc. Merrick & Company.” Internal Report.. M.V. CO. R. CO. “Development of an ASPEN PLUS Physical Property Database for Biofuels Components.doe. October 1999.html ASPEN PlusTM.html “Steam and Electricity Generation Options For the Biomass-To-Ethanol Process. Madison. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo. The current base case will be modified to incorporate this technology so that a comparison can be made between it and conventional lignin combustion. Chemical Engineering Economics.” in BioEnergy ’98—Expanding Bioenergy Partnerships: Proceedings.doe. Aspen Technology. V. R. 1991.” NREL.” NREL Subcontract ACO-8-18019-01. et al.doe.6 Physical Properties of Corn Stover As NREL works more with corn stover. 1998. Schechinger.. Walsh. This technology.E.ott. Van Nostrand Reinhold. is currently being pursued by the DOE Biomass Power Program for use on biomass feedstocks. Sheehan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. K. 1989. CO. Golden. July 1999.doe. M. http://bioenergy. WI..ott. Inc.E.gov/pdfs/5149. 1998.ornl. Report MP-425-20685. Sheehan. This information will be incorporated into the mass and energy balance models to improve its predictive capabilities and provide a better picture of the energy balance of the process. and D.gov/biofuels/process_engineering.doe. J.afdc. Reaction Engineering International. Ibsen. termed integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power generation.gov/resourcedata/ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 83 . we expect our knowledge base of its composition and properties to expand. ”Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis”. January 2000. Ruth. J. “Corn Stover Collection Project. and V..” NREL report TP-580-26157. 1998. M. Volume 2.2. http://www. et al. Glassner. MA. Golden.html “Wastewater Treatment Options for the Biomass-To-Ethanol Process. Hettenhaus. In Press.” NREL Subcontract AXE-8-18020-01.. Putsche. D. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. pp 1100-1110. http://www.pdf Garrett. “Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios. UT. Cambridge.pdf.ott. Technical and Economic Analysis of an Enzymatic Hydrolysis Based Ethanol Plant. Riley. Aurora. April 1996. D. February 24. Ruth. http://www. Schell. Golden. References and Notes 1 Wooley. http://www. Salt Lake City. New York. http://www. Solar Energy Research Institute Internal Report. Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program. February 2000.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. CO.J. Release 10.gov/biofuels/process_engineering.gov/pdfs/3955. Wooley.5 Lignin Gasification and Gas Turbine Power Generation Another alternative to simply burning the lignin to generate steam and power is to gasify the lignin and use a gas turbine to generate power in combination with a steam turbine. March 16. T..

most recently in March 2002. Jechura. O’Connell. “Liquid/Solid Separation’” report no.” report no. Majdeski. “Estimating the Effects of Compositional Variation on Biomass Conversion Process economics.P.11 and 6 were used from the May batch. KomlineSanderson Limited. VA. Internal Report. Sample analysis for Sunds runs P011211CS and B/MAP sample 112901CS were used from the November batch. et al. R. McMillan.” Appl. Templeton. Seattle. WA.” Internal Report. B..doe.D. Wiselogel. 99-10600/14. Hatzis. 1997 defines the hold time to be 30 minutes. October 2001. Hames. Run #P001207CS Carbon Balance Point 2.doe. D. J. Compositional analysis of pretreated 84 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . National Renewable Energy Laboratory P milestone report to DOE. “Compositional and Storage Stability Study: Year 2 Results. March 6. B. McMillan. NREL Subcontract ACO-929067-01.. Seattle. Peapack. 67: 185-198. Near-term Ethanol prehydrolysis run in NREL’s Sunds reactor.. August 1998. Biotechnol.G. Delta-T. T. NJ. WA. J.. Rockville. ICARUS Process Evaluator. J.. Schell. “Correlation of Metal Corrosion Data. Q.” report no. A. J. “Determine Compositional Stability of Corn Stover during Outdoor Storage: Year One Results. from A. Biochem. M.ott. Version 4. 2001. 1997. 99-10600/17. Bunner. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo.. January 22.. Harris Group Inc. March 2001.D. National Renewable Energy Laboratory C milestone report to DOE. 1998.” NREL milestone report to DOE. The time is increased to 1 hr in the model to allow for reduced heating rates and different reaction kinetics in a large continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR). Delta-T Corporation. Des. and J. MD. Limited discussion of this run in “Preliminary Investigation of Corn Stover Pretreatment Using Dilute Sulfuric Acid” by D.. McMillan.” IEC Process. “Baled Feedstock Handling System. http://www. The Sunds reactor in the PDU has been run at approximately 30% solids in several recent runs.” Internal Report. 2001. Seattle. and C. Harris Group Inc. Williamsburg. http://www.” run number CS000914-02. 2001. Helm.html “Continuous Acid Hydrolysis Reactor. March 2002. Ruth. NREL Subcontract ACO-9-29067-01. July 2001. Sample analysis from totes 10.7. S.0. 14(3). J. J.html Hayden. VA. D. Internal Report. WA.ott. June 30. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo..” Internal Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.. “Identification of Inhibitory Components Toxic Toward Zymomonas mobilis CP4(pZB5) Xylose Fermentation.F. “A Generalized Method for Predicting Second Virial Coefficients. ICARUS Corporation. Dev. Bowser.. July 2001. 209. Hames. Templeton. Ranatunga. Letter to B. Williamsburg. Jervis.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. Nguyen. October 11. April 2000. run number P020311CS #5.. Thomas. “Summary of Corn Stover Pretreatment using the 4-L Steam Gun. H. Harris Group Inc. 1975.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. NREL Subcontract ACO-929067-01.12 Two separate batches of corn stover were received from B/MAP in May and November 2001. personal experience in the flue gas desulfurization industry. 99-10600/13.

M.25% CSL is used in the model. Kadam. Tucker.P. Glassner. McMillan. J.P. Notebook #2301.D. J. and G. T. M. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo. Therefore the cell mass production was increased to 4% from both glucose and xylose and the xylose to products yield was reduced to allow more xylose to be converted to cell mass. 1991.K.B. C.” Internal Report. Ruth. J. Process Qualifier Milestone. The CSL loading used in McMillan. pp. 80-84. Eddy. The fate of inorganics.. M. and D. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 20 September 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is the titer of the enzyme used in the NREL pilot facility. T. so 0. 1999. Wooley. Farmer. uronic acids and ether soluble organics. Ranatunga. Helm. 1995.K.” Internal Report. Wilson. 1996.J. CO. M. 37 no. Hayward. 1945. D.” Science.Q. R. Part 1. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 85 . Tucker. J. Hatzis. Golden. An Overview. Hayward. 31 August 1996.F. pp.33 g/L as evident by Newman. 28 Leonard. It is typically provided at a concentration of 0. M. Golden. M. “Process Qualifier Milestone. Internal Report. Duplicate SSCF runs were demonstrated in the mini pilot fermentation system using an initial total solids loading of almost 20%.material from these runs suggests that some of the lignin is being solublized.D. 720-723.P. K.” 29 30 31 Zhang. Hatzis.. McMillan. McGraw-Hill.” submitted to Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 31 August 1996. and D. 1950. 390395. “Demonstrate process technology meeting or exceeding process qualifier performance in the mini-pilot biochemical conversion system and assess continuous SSCF performance to recommend future work. PD 23 #3 utilized a 24-hr residence time for seed production.H. Hayward. Experiment PD 23 #3. October 1997. Glassner. Deanda. Hatzis. New York. McMillan. Picataggio. L. Experiment PD 23 #3. Jervis.. T. Diammonium phosphate (DAP) is an inorganic nutrient typically added to SSCF experiments for nitrogen augmentation. J. T. C.. C. and S. pp. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. McMillan.25% CSL was as effective as 1% CSL. CO.P.. CO.D.. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.D. R.. “Three dry nutrient supplements obtained from the Marcor Corporation were tested and growth curves compared to media containing liquid CSL using the adapted strain rZymomonas39676 (pZB 4L)”. C. vol.D.J. Walker. Tucker. Kern. Glassner.K.. M. Several research groups’ papers are listed in the bibliography that discuss different strain work. Golden. purchased from Iogen in 1995. M. and R. December 2001. and D. “Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulose: Bioresource Technology 36:3-14. Hayward.. 4. “Evaluation of Potential Strains for Corn stover to Ethanol Conversion. Newman.. Process Heat Transfer.. although rigorous mass balances to determine the lignin fate have not been completed to date. “The overliming of dilute acid pretreated lignocellulosics. Hainy. August 31. 267:240-243. experiment PD 23 #3 was 1% clarified CSL. M. EPD experiment #EPD0007. Tucker.. “Process Qualifier Milestone. T. National Renewable Energy Laboratory C milestone to DOE. Finkelstein. and D.” Internal Report. J.” Internal Report. The experiment titled Nutrient Screen #2 for recombinant Zymo 39676pZB4L conducted by the Enzymatic Process Development (EPD) team during fiscal year 1998 showed that 0. K. “Metabolic Engineering of a Pentose Metabolism Pathway in Zymomonas mobilis. J. The seed reaction yields were assumed to be the same as fermentation yields in the ethanol production fermentors with increased cell mass production.

FBT.” NREL subcontract ZX-3-03096-2 Final Report. Aurora. Inc. http://www. Badger Engineers. Muscle Shoals.doe. personal experience based on literature survey focused toward biomass residue combustion. “EPD0005: A Material Balance of the SSCF Using Whole In-house Cellulase Broth and Partially Washed Pretreated Yellow Poplar. Radian Corporation. 1998. Tetarenko.. 9-10. p. such as lactic acid. C. Putsche. New York. Street. Austin. Cambridge.afdc.ott. February 1998. Inc and Tennessee Valley Authority. the insoluble glucan to glucose conversion is 90%. Brodl. N. http://www. 1997. Seattle... Combs. Applied Chemical Process Design. http://www. ASME 1997.2% measured conversion of insoluble glucan to ethanol.41 A loss of 3% of the fermentable sugars to non-ethanol products.html “Baled Feedstock Handling System. 2.199 mg/L.html Fluidized Bed Combustion and Gasification: A Guide for Biomass Waste Users.” Published Procedure. The other yields were measured in a full mass-balanced experiment on yellow poplar that is listed in the reference. 1978.doe. “Economic Feasibility Study of an Acid Hydrolysis-Based Ethanol Plant. Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program.html “Biomass-To-Ethanol Total Energy Cycle Analysis. J. Aersten. Ruth. April 1987. personal communications with M. “LAP Procedures #8 . Vogelbusch. Inc.g. 1998. Babcock & Wilcox Company. Plenum Press. Babcock & Wilcox. “NOx Formation and Reduction During Combustion of Wet Sewage Sludge in the Circulating Fluidized Bed.SSF Experimental Protocols: Lignocellulosic Biomass Hydrolysis and Fermentation. V. USA. NREL Subcontract ACO-929067-01.ohio. AL.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. Ibsen. November 22. February 24.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Experimental Report.” report no. N. Final Report.” Internal Report. “Wastewater Treatment Options for the Biomass-To-Ethanol Process.” NREL Subcontract RCN 213-185-01-00 Final Report.pdf.ott.html K. http://www. New York. http://my. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 86 .” NREL Consultant Agreement CXL-8-18051-01.. http://www. 30 October 2001.398 mg/L and the average measured CID was 27. 1991.doe.doe. http://www. WA. vendor is Northwest Handling Systems. NY.” 1997 Fluidized Bed Combustion vol. is estimated based on conversations with corn ethanol producers who indicate they can tolerate a contamination loss less then 3%. Merrick & Company.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. Dowe.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. CO. McMillan.doe.gov/pdfs/4691. The COD calculated from composition was 28.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. TX. 1998. 34/10-16. P.ott. G.. Found in Appendix G. 2001. 1978.html pp. Steam: It’s Generation and Use Thirty-ninth Edition. March 2002. et al. F.ott.net/~combs/arr/fp/tankcars. Phillippek.” NREL Subcontract AXE-8-18020-01.. and G. 99-10600/13. July 1994. Three samples were analyzed for components and tested (in triplicate) for COD.ott. Assuming 3% loss of converted sugars to nonethanol pathway products (e.voyager. The LAP analysis resulted in 87. Harris Group Inc. October 11. cell mass and glycerol). MA.html “ASPEN Modeling of the NREL Boiler/Turbogenerator Systems.doe.

Cost Quotation. Department of Energy.doe. DC. Series ID: EEU32280006. Tarrytown. December 2001. 1988.. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 87 . August 1990.gov). http://www. Foster Wheeler Corporation. B. Campbell. CO. Mesa. October 1997. Chem Systems. Tarrytown.. Menlo Park. M. WA. “Process Design and Cost Estimate of Critical Equipment in the Biomass to Ethanol Process.. Energy Information Administration. National Employment.. published by SRI Consulting. MacFarlane. http://www. D. W. p. http://www. 2000.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. CO.56 Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards. 2001. Timmerhaus. M.doe.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. 1999..D.” from the Chemical Economics Handbook. “Technical and Economic Evaluation: Wood to Ethanol Process. Richardson Engineering Services. June 2001. NY.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Holt.” Internal Report. March 1995. 1994. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo.” Internal Report. U. Hours. Chem Systems. Chemical Process Equipment Selection and Design. September 30. Golden. and Earnings Catalog. electronic version section 100-374.html Walas. Report TP-462-5173. and K. Butterworth Publishing. Tarrytown. and T. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Web site (www. to V. Seattle.. Inc.gov/biofuels/process_engineering. December 1994.7. S.” SERI Subcontract Report.html Sheehan. NREL. a division of SRI International. Chem Systems.” NREL Final Subcontract Report. “Biomass to Ethanol Process Evaluation. Appendix V.doe.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Proposal 0-02-43731. “Biomass to Ethanol Process Evaluation. Harris Group Inc.S. MacFarlane. March 2001. 4th Edition.html W. http://www. annual average.2000.” Internal Report. Data extracted on March 1.” NREL Final Subcontract Report.” NREL Final Subcontract Report.S. Chem Systems.bls.” Chemical Engineering. Golden.eia. Inc. New York. Short. Putsche.ott.J. Annual Energy Outlook 2001 with Projections to 2020. NY. Industry: Chemicals and Allied Products.gov/oiaf/aeo/ “Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. VI-3. “Calculation of the Overall Energy Balance for the Ethanol Production Process. Washington. AZ..ott. “A Manual for the Economic Evaluation and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies. “Calculation of an Overall Carbon Balance for the Ethanol Production Process. NY. J. January 1998. Years: 1980 . Tarrytown. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Memo. McGraw-Hill..doe. NY. December 1994. B. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers.” NREL Final Subcontract Report. “Analysis of Regional Conditions for Cooling Water Used in Ethanol Production Technology.ott. 1991. “U. p. January 2001. Packey. Peters. “Biomass to Ethanol Process Evaluation. CA.stats. Producer Price Indexes – Chemicals and Allied Products/Industrial Inorganic Chemicals Index. December 1994.

March 1995. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. Inc. McGrawHill. M. Gary.. March 1995. 3rd Edition.J. Packey.73 Short. Christina. Report TP-462-5173. Comments from ethanol producers to J. February 2001. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 88 . CO. Release 2000. W.1 Professional Edition. 7th Edition.” TAPPI Proceedings of the 1986 Research and Development Conference.. Crystal BallTM. Handwerk. Akerberg. pp. so it represents a reasonable high-end value.06/kWh is below the industrial rate of many East coast utilities currently. and G. 20-21. Inc. Reported as runs #1 and #2 in Schell. Report TP-462-5173. “A Manual for the Economic Evaluation and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies. New York.. W. Excel TM. Holt. G. 9-76. and T. 19. Packey. 1994. W. and J. and D. and Solids Enzymatic Digestibilities” presented at the Twenty-Fourth Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals (Gatlinburg. Seattle. CO. Kinetics. Technology and Economics. p. WA. H. Golden. Short. Microsoft Corporation.D.” Internal Report. pp. Holt.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. D. “Dilute Sulfuric Acid Pretreatment of Corn Stover in a Pilot-Scale Reactor: Investigation of Yields. “Publish results of Bridge to Corn Ethanol Subcontracts. April-May 2002) and submitted to the conference proceedings which will be published in the Spring 2003 edition of Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. H. 65-71.. Denver. “Monte Carlo Simulation as a Research Management Tool. K. Release 2000. Ibsen.J. pp. Green. CO. and Zacchi.. McMillan. $0. Farmer. 1997. “An economic evaluation of the fermentation production of lactic acid from wheat flour. Decisioneering. September 2000.. R. Newman. Ashworth at the Enzyme Sugar Platform gate review meeting held in 2002 suggest that $0.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden. Larry J.J. New York. TN. 2000. E.02/kWh is in the range for long term power purchase and sales contracts in key states (Nebraska. D. Marcel Dekker. D. Perry.” Bioresource Technology 75 (2000) 119-126. J. J. Douglas. Kansas). National Renewable Energy Laboratory P milestone. Petroleum Refining.. “A Manual for the Economic Evaluation and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies. and T.

Appendix A NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Description and Summary .

82 ft head for a pump Number of duplicate pieces of equipment needed Number of on-line spares Stream number or other characteristic variable from the ASPEN model by which the equipment cost will be scaled Equipment cost Source of the equipment cost. Additional information from the database is contained in the equipment cost listing in Appendix B. P-301 is a pump in Area 300 Descriptive name of the piece of equipment PFD number on which the piece of equipment appears.. e. e. Installed Cost = Base Cost x Installation Factor Source of the installation factor value. VENDOR Material of Construction Any other important information about the design or cost Complete.. FLOW.. This database contains information about the cost. Units of the scaling stream or variable. the first letter indicates the equipment type and the first number represents the process area. PUMP Code indicating the specific type of equipment. KG/HR. scaling factor... e. The information is stored in a secure database in the Biotechnology Center for Fuels and Chemicals and can be directly linked to the economic portion of the model. 20 gpm.g.g. CENTRIFUGAL for a pump Short description of the size or characteristics of the piece of equipment. The following summarizes the important fields of information contained in the database.g. VENDOR Value of the exponential scaling equation Source of the scaling exponent value.g. e. ICARUS or VENDOR Year for which the cost estimate is based Value of the scaling stream or variable used to obtain the base cost of the equipment Type of variable used for scaling. vendor literature and quotations and any other important information. These include sizing and costing calculations and vendor information when available.g. scaling characteristic. it has the ability to store documents pertaining to the piece of equipment..g. e.. e.. e. e. e. design information and back-up cost referencing. This is stored as an electronic document and can be pages from a spreadsheet other electronic sources or scanned information from vendors. Equipment Number:AB Equipment Name:AB Associated PFD: Equipment Category:A Equipment Type:A Equipment Description:A Number Required:B Number Spares:B Scaling Stream:B Base Cost:B Cost Basis:A Cost Year:B Base for Scaling:B Base Type: Base Units: Installation Factor:B Installation Factor Basis: Scale Factor Exponent:B Scale Factor Basis: Material of Construction:A Notes: Document: Design Date: Modified Date: Unique identifier.. . In addition to having all of the cost information used by the model. Original date for the design of this piece of equipment The system automatically marks the date in this field whenever any field is changed A B These fields are listed for all pieces of equipment in this Appendix. multi-page document containing design calculations. PFD-P110-A101 Code indicating the general type of equipment. These fields are part of the equipment cost listing in Appendix B.g..g.g.g. reference year. CAL/S Value of the installation factor. GARRETT. etc. DUTY.Appendix A NREL Process Design Database Description and Summary NREL’s Process Engineering Team has developed a database of primary information on all of the equipment in the benchmark model. e. A partial listing of the information is attached for each piece of equipment. ICARUS.

Clarifier Underflow Pump MOD SRL 2X3-10 100 GPM -. RUBBER CS. 50 ft head. res. 93 hp Top-Mounted. 90 bale / hr Belt Press Discharge Conveyor. 15 psig Modeled after Tank T-232 in Enzyme Process.40 TDH Clarifier Thickener 5000 GPM mechanism Belt Press 1. Factor Basis Scale Factor Basis Material of Construction CONVEYOR CONVEYOR CONVEYOR CONVEYOR SCALE VEHICLE VEHICLE SIZE-REDUCTION SIZE-REDUCTION MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP SEPARATOR S/L SEPARATION SEPARATOR TANK TANK BELT BELT BELT BELT TRUCK-SCALE LOADER LOADER CONCRETE-SLAB MISCELLANEOUS CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL RECIPROCATING CENTRIFUGAL SLURRY FILTER-PRESS MAGNET VERTICAL-VESSEL CLARIFER Bale Transport Conveyor. 150 ft head 7425 cfm.. 3' wide X 50' long. 10 min. 1800 rpm.Page 1 . Shredder Feed Conveyor. 90% wv.50 TDH 5000 gpm. 14' dia x 25' high.11 100 GPM -. 25 hp Top-Mounted. head Goulds Mod 3410 10X12-17 1000 GPM 60 ft TDH Goulds Mod 3410 10X12-17 6000 GPM 200 ft TDH 721 gpm. Belt Press Sump Pump VJC 1. 6001 lbs 31 fpm Truck Scales. 50. res.NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Summary Equipment Number Equipment Name PFD-P110-A101 C-101 Bale Transport Conveyor C-102 Bale Unwrapping Conveyor C-103 Belt Press Discharge Conveyor C-104 Shredder Feed Conveyor M-101 Truck Scales M-102 Truck Unloading Forklift M-103 Bale Moving Forklift M-104 Corn Stover Wash Table M-105 Shredder M-106 Concrete Feedstock-Storage Slab M-107 Polymer Feed System P-101 Wash Table Pump P-102 Wash Water Pump P-103 Clarifier Underflow Pump P-104 Clarified Water Pump P-105 Belt Press Sump Pump S-101 Clarifier Thickener S-102 Belt Press S-103 Magnetic Separator T-101 Wash Water Tank T-102 Clarifier Thickener Tank Equipment Category Equipment Type Equipment Description Cost Basis Install. 90% wv. res.. 11' dia x 30' high. 50 hp 18" dia.CS 304SS CS 304SS HASTELLOY-C 200. 48" dia x 23' long Vertical Screw.5x rail car vol. 140 cfh. residence time.SS316L SS304 SS316 304SS SS316 SS316 304SS C. head Goulds Mod 3196 ^X8-13 1000 gpm 60 ft TDH 25 hp 1200 RPM 687 gpm.POLYESTER PLASTIC SS316 SS304 SS304 SS316 SS316 CS SS304 SS304 Note: Equipment sizes listed are for a base case and may have been scaled up or down in the final cost estimation. 15 min. X 33' long. SS316 CS. res. 50 ft head. 6 psi. 8' wide X 30' long. res. atmospheric 24770 gal. 6266 sf. 10 min residence time 4 gpm. atmospheric 185200 gal. 16' dia. 304SS SS304 SS316 EPOXY LINED A285C. 15 min. 1. time. time. 13' dia. 1 hr.000 gal) Clarifier Thickener Tank (80' diameter) HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 VENDOR HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT ASSUMED ASSUMED DEFAULT DEFAULT HARRIS00 DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT CS CS CS CS CONCRETE A283 ALLOY STEEL CONCRETE CS CS. 245 ft. 48" dia x 23' long Fixed Tube Sheet.. 50 hp Top Mounted. Wash Water Tank (20' Diameter X 22' Tall. SS316 CS CS 304SS. 6266 sf.5X2.1990 sf.. 24 hr. X 32' high.S. 75% wv. 1800 rpm. 50 ft head.. 120 sf. time. 22275 lb/hr 737 gpm. 100 ft head MOD 30-12-316 285 GPM 360 SQ FT AREA Hydrocyclone and Vacuum Filter 8333 cfm. X 25' high. 200 ft head 720 gpm. time. 400 ft long.. 10' X 50' 50tn Truck Unloading Propane Gas Forklift Bale Moving Propane Gas Forklift Corn Stover Wash Table (55 ton/hr) Shredder (28 ton/hr) Concrete Feedstock-Storage Slab 350' X 538' Polymer Feed System 2500 gpm. 90% wv 14500 gal. 7600 cfh max flow 4' X 60' belt conveyor 8" dia.5 meter Tramp iron magnet separator. 1800 rpm. 8' wide. atmospheric ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS HARRIS00 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS HARRIS00 ICARUS HARRIS00 HARRIS00 ICARUS DELTA-T98 VENDOR ICARUS HARRIS00 VENDOR ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS HARRIS00 HARRIS00 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 CHEMSYST94 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT VENDOR GARRETT DEFAULT GARRETT ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT SS304 SS SS SS SS SS316 A285C 304SS. 1389 sf. Appendix A . RUBBER CS. 150 ft.000 gal 10' D X 11' high 6000 gal 4455 cf. 7000 lb/hr max flow Fixed Tube Sheet. 32' dia x 32' high. 6 cfm/sf 6444 gal. X 20' long Floating Head. Time 46200 gal. 27" dia. CS construction Floating Head.. 90% wv. FILTER CS CEMENT PFD-P110-A201-3 A-201 In-line Sulfuric Acid Mixer MIXER A-205 Hydrolysate Mix Tank Agitator AGITATOR A-209 Overliming Tank Agitator AGITATOR A-224 Reacidification Tank Agitator AGITATOR A-232 Reslurrying Tank Agitator AGITATOR C-201 Hydrolyzate Screw Conveyor CONVEYOR C-202 Hydrolysate Washed Solids Belt Conveyor CONVEYOR C-225 Lime Solids Feeder CONVEYOR H-200 Hydrolyzate Cooler HEATX H-201 Beer Column Feed Economizer HEATX H-205 Pneumapress Vent Condensor HEATX H-244 Waste Vapor Condensor HEATX M-202 Prehydrolysis/Screw Feeder/Impregnator Reactor REACTOR P-201 Sulfuric Acid Pump PUMP P-205 Pneumapress Feed Pump PUMP P-209 Overlimed Hydrolyzate Pump PUMP P-211 Primary Filtrate Pump PUMP P-213 Wash Filtrate Pump PUMP P-222 Filtered Hydrolyzate Pump PUMP P-223 Lime Unloading Blower FAN P-224 Fermentation Feed Pump PUMP P-239 Reacidified Liquor Pump PUMP S-205 Pneumapress Filter SEPARATOR S-222 Hydroclone & Rotary Drum Filter S/L SEPARATOR S-227 LimeDust Vent Baghouse SEPARATOR T-201 Sulfuric Acid Storage TANK T-203 Blowdown Tank TANK T-205 Hydrolysate Mixing Tank TANK T-209 Overliming Tank TANK T-211 Primary Filtrate Tank TANK T-213 Wash Filtrate Tank TANK T-220 Lime Storage Bin TANK T-224 Reacidification Tank TANK T-232 Slurrying Tank TANK STATIC FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP SCREW BELT ROTARY-VALVE SHELL-TUBE SHELL-TUBE SHELL-TUBE SHELL-TUBE SCREW CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL ROTARY-LOBE CENTRIFUGAL PNEUMAPRESS ROTARY-DRUM FABRIC-FILTER VERTICAL-VESSEL VERTICAL-VESSEL FLAT-BTM-STORAGE VERTICAL-VESSEL VERTICAL-VESSEL VERTICAL-VESSEL LIVE-BTM-BIN FLAT-BTM-STORAGE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE Static Mixer. 1800 rpm. 5000 gpm. 50 HP motor Bale Unwrapping Conveyor. 4 hr. 248 gpm total flow. Top-Mounted. 15 psig 12'6" D X 13' high 12.

API. (strip) x 18" T. 4 hp. agitated. 615 gpm each. 0. API atmospheric 456617 gal. 135 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE 22278 sf. 300 BTU/hr sf F 1060 gpm. 21. 25 psig ICARUS HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 13106 gal.. VENDOR SCREW 14" Dia X 100' Long ICARUS DISTILLATION 13. 104 ft head DELTA-T98 CENTRIFUGAL 790 gpm.333 gal. API..CS SS SS304.3 hp/1000 gal Top Mounted. 110 ft head ICARUS CENTRIFUGAL 1261 gpm.5' long. 41" dia.CS SS304. Nutter V-Grid Trays ICARUS DISTILLATION 11.5 psig VENDOR DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 GARRETT GARRETT ICARUS ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT VENDOR CS CS SS304 SS SS316 SS316 SS316 SS304. Time. 1800 rpm. 20' long. 2 per vessel. 19 hp. 75 hp each. jacketed.. Trays. 170 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE Fixed TS. 15 psig 194 gal.. 130 BTU/hr sf F ICARUS SHELL-TUBE Floating Head. 300 BTU/hr sf F 3765 sf total. 7 day residence total. 2' high. 50% wv. 60% eff. 157 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 PLATE-FRAME 909 sf. 0.(rect). 13899 sf. 178 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE Thermosyphon. 50% wv. 4' high. 15 min res time. each. pumps. 2.5' dia. 6. vacuum source. API. atmospheric 194500 gal. 20' long.NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Summary Equipment Number Equipment Name Equipment Category Equipment Type Equipment Description Cost Basis Install. 150 ft head ICARUS CENTRIFUGAL 12 gpm. plastic Jaeger Tri-Packing DELTA-T98 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 10233 gal.3 hp/1000 gal Side Mounted.. 150 ft head 1231 gpm total.5 psig 1950 gal. 110 ft head DELTA-T98 CENTRIFUGAL 2393 gpm each. 0. 1089 sf. Factor Basis Scale Factor Basis Material of Construction PFD-P110-A301-2 A-300 Ethanol Fermentor Agitator AGITATOR A-301 Seed Hold Tank Agitator AGITATOR A-304 4th Seed Vessel Agitator AGITATOR A-305 5th Seed Vessel Agitator AGITATOR A-306 Beer Surge Tank Agitator AGITATOR A-310 Saccharification Tank Agitator AGITATOR F-300 Ethanol Fermentor TANK F-301 1st Seed Fermentor REACTOR F-302 2nd Seed Fermentor REACTOR F-303 3rd Seed Fermentor REACTOR F-304 4th Seed Fermentor REACTOR F-305 5th Seed Fermentor REACTOR H-300 Fermentation Cooler HEATX H-301 Hydrolyzate Heater HEATX H-302 Saccharified Slurry Cooler HEATX H-304 4th Seed Fermentor Coils HEATX H-305 5th Seed Fermentor Coils HEATX H-310 Fermentation Cooler HEATX P-300 Fermentation Recirculation and Transfer PumpPUMP P-301 Seed Hold Transfer Pump PUMP P-302 Seed Transfer Pump PUMP P-306 Beer Transfer Pump PUMP P-310 Saccharification Recirculation and Transfer Pump PUMP T-301 Seed Hold Tank TANK T-306 Beer Storage Tank TANK T-310 Saccharification Tank TANK PFD-P110-A501-5 A-530 Recycled Water Tank Agitator C-501 Lignin Wet Cake Screw D-501 Beer Column D-502 Rectification Column E-501 1st Effect Evaporation E-502 2nd Effect Evaporation E-503 3rd Effect Evaporation H-501 Beer Column Reboiler H-502 Rectification Column Reboiler H-504 Beer Column Condenser H-505 Rectification Column Condenser H-512 Beer Column Feed Interchange H-517 Evaporator Condenser M-503 Molecular Sieve (9 pieces) P-501 Beer Column Bottoms Pump P-503 Beer Column Reflux Pump P-504 Rectification Column Bottoms Pump P-505 Rectification Column Reflux Pump P-511 1st Effect Pump P-512 2nd Effect Pump P-513 3rd Effect Pump P-514 Evaporator Condensate Pump P-515 Scrubber Bottoms Pump P-530 Recycled Water Pump S-505 Pneumapress Filter T-503 Beer Column Relfux Drum T-505 Rectification Column Reflux Drum T-512 Vent Scrubber T-514 Evaporator Condensate Drum T-530 Recycled Water Tank FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP FLAT-BTM-STORAGE VERTICAL-VESSEL VERTICAL-VESSEL VERTICAL-VESSEL FLAT-BTM-STORAGE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE PLATE-FRAME PLATE-FRAME PLATE-FRAME IMMERSED-COIL IMMERSED-COIL PLATE-FRAME CENTRIFUGAL ROTARY-LOBE ROTARY-LOBE CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL FLAT-BTM-STORAGE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE Side Mounted. 20" dia. 1 psig ICARUS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 13218 gal. 12' dia x 23' high.. 125 ft head ICARUS CENTRIFUGAL 69 gpm. 4' dia. 0. 100 ft head 1632 gpm each. 10 min res... 0. 2 per vessel. 75% wv. 880 sf.651 gal.CS SS304. 150 ft head 172 gpm. 170 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE 22278 sf each. 158 ft head DELTA-T98 CENTRIFUGAL 437 gpm. 20" dia.5' long. 1800 rpm.. Time. 39" dia. 8223 sf. 45' dia x 40' high. 92 BTU/hr sf F 2393 sf.. 171 ft head 1060 gpm. 32 Actual Trays. 39" dia.. 110 ft head ICARUS CENTRIFUGAL 617 gpm. 3' dia.651 gal. Residence time 20 min.. 4 hr res. 27. product cooler.. 4146 sf.1 hp/1000 gal Top Mounted..5' dia..Page 2 .5 psig 19444 gal. 6. 1800 rpm. 7 day residence total. 92 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE Fixed TS.15 hp/1000 gal Top Mounted. atmospheric 20 gal. 1800 rpm. 9' dia..CS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS304 SS CS SS316 SS304 SS304 SS304. condenser. 75 hp each. 20' long. 4 stages. 105 BTU/hr sf F 307 sf. 0. 15 min res.1 hp/1000 gal Top Mounted. atmospheric DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 VENDOR ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR VENDOR ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS VENDOR DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 CHEMSYST94 CHEMSYST94 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT MULTI-UNIT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT ICARUS ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT VENDOR VENDOR GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT MULTI-UNIT SS304 SS304 SS SS SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS SS SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 SS304 AGITATOR CONVEYOR COLUMN COLUMN HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX HEATX MISCELLANEOUS PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP SEPARATOR TANK TANK COLUMN TANK TANK FIXED-PROP 5 hp. 8' high..3' dia. 22' long.5' long. 110 ft head ICARUS CENTRIFUGAL 412 gpm each. 9' dia. 25 psig ICARUS ABSORBER 7' dia x 25' high. 3' dia. 20' long. 1255 sf each.5' dia.15 hp/1000 gal 962. 1" sch 40 pipe. 90% wv. 50 rpm. 6 hp. 1. 3" sch 40 pipe. 90% wv. 90% wv. VENDOR CENTRIFUGAL 5053 gpm. Appendix A .S. 150 ft head ICARUS PNEUMAPRESS 3@MOD 30-10-316 285 GPM 300 SQ FT AREA & 1@MOD 30-11-316 314 GPM 314 SQ FT AREA HARRIS00 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 346 gal. 150 ft head 233.CS SS304. twin mole sieve columns. 220 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 PACKAGE Superheater. 2. jacketed.PLASTIC SS304 CS Note: Equipment sizes listed are for a base case and may have been scaled up or down in the final cost estimation. agitated. 2. 140 ft head DELTA-T98 CENTRIFUGAL 154 gpm. 23 hp. agitated... 200 BTU/hr sf F DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE Fixed TS. each. jacketed. 300 BTU/hr sf F 773 sf. atmospheric 2393 sf. 300 BTU/hr sf F 27 sf. Nutter V-Grid trays DELTA-T98 SHELL-TUBE 22280 sf each. Time.. 60 act. atmospheric 962.

9.3 day residence time 195289 gal.5" Mech.FABRIC SS316 SS304 SS304 SS316 CS CS A285C SS304 CS. 150 ft head 25. 50 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 7425 cfm. 7000 lb/hr max flow CENTRIFUGAL 324 gpm. CENTRIFUGAL 500 gpm. 20' dia x 32' high.593 gal. 140 cfh. M-832 Ammonia Addition Pkg M-834 Phosphate Addition Pkg. 90% wv.. 4. 120 hr res time. 2 metering pumps CENTRIFUGAL 272 gpm 150' head CENTRIFUGAL 175 gpm.5' dia x 18.9 hr.1 hp/1000 gal Fixed Prop. 19' dia x 32' high. space velocity 12g COD/L/DAY 19500000 gal. P-804 Condensate Pump P-811 Turbine Condensate Pump P-824 Deaerator Feed Pump P-826 BFW Pump P-828 Blowdown Pump P-830 Hydrazine Transfer Pump T-804 Condensate Collection Tank T-824 Condensate Surge Drum T-826 Deaerator T-828 Blowdown Flash Drum T-830 Hydrazine Drum Equipment Category Equipment Type Equipment Description Cost Basis Install. 16.5 hp/1000 gal ROTARY-VALVE 8" dia. Residence time 11 min. total flow 341 gpm FIXED-PROP Top Mounted. 500 SF MISCELLANEOUS 900 to 1250 psig/950F Circ. 150 ' head CENTRIFUGAL 5 gpm. Fixed Prop. 1. atmospheric FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 10. 1800 rpm. 75 ft head VERTICAL-VESSEL 1600 gal. atmospheric FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 18697 gal. 48 hr res time. 90% wv. 168 hr res time. atmospheric ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT ICARUS GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT ICARUS GARRETT SS304 SS304 SS304 A285C CS SS316 CS CS CS CS CS CS A285C. 0.9' x 3'dia. 250 psig FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 63. 4. piping. Includes filters. 200 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 431 gpm.135 SF STEAM-TURBINE 52-61 MW. Residence time 1.5' high. 10psig ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR RICHARDSON CHEMSYST94 CHEMSYST94 CHEMSYST94 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS ICARUS NREL-ESTM DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 VENDOR DELTA-T98 NREL-ESTM CHEMSYST94 CHEMSYST94 CHEMSYST94 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 CHEMSYST94 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DEFAULT GARRETT VENDOR MULTI-UNIT VENDOR MULTI-UNIT DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT SS304 CS A285C. Factor Basis Scale Factor Basis Material of Construction AGITATOR AGITATOR AGITATOR CONVEYOR HEATX MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP SEPARATOR S/L SEPARATOR TANK TANK REACTOR SEPARATOR FIXED-PROP FIXED-PROP SURFACE-AERATOR SCREW SHELL-TUBE PACKAGE MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL SLURRY SLURRY CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL SCREEN FILTER-PRESS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE LINED-PIT CLARIFIER 38 hp each. 2 metering pumps PACKAGE 150 gal tank. 150 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 2500 gpm. 12' dia x 22' high. 281000 KG/HR STEAM PACKAGE 1000 gpm flow. 50 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 17 gpm. 90% wv. atmospheric LIVE-BTM-BIN 1425 cf. Agitator.Page 3 . 90% wv. 150' head 22 gpm. 150 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 2500 gpm. 15psig. 120 hr res time. 810250 gal each. 90% wv.6' length. 150 psig design pressure. Residence time 7. atmospheric HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 11. 150' head 803 gpm. Fluid Bed FABRIC-FILTER Pulse Shaker. 2740 ft head. 23 hp.170 gal hold tank. 10 min residence time HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 424 gal. 90% wv.2 hr.3 gpm. atmospheric FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 71. 150 ft head 2.POLYESTER A285C SS316 A285C A515 A285C SS304 SS304 CS SS304 MISCELLANEOUS HEATX MISCELLANEOUS SEPARATOR GENERATOR MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK MISCELLANEOUS 37000 sf combustion air/exhaust interchanger SHELL-TUBE Floating Head. 0. 112 ft head CENTRIFUGAL 215 gpm. HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 18.1 hp/1000 gal FIXED-PROP Top Mounted. ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR ICARUS ICARUS VENDOR VENDOR MERRICK98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS CH2MHL91 VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR MERRICK98 VENDOR DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 MERRICK98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 VENDOR VENDOR DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR MERRICK98 VENDOR GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT VENDOR DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT ASSUMED VENDOR GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT SS SS CS CS SS316. 4 hr res time. 545000 cfm.400 gal. 24" dia softener. 51' dia x 40' high. 10 day res time.SS316 CS SS316 Note: Equipment sizes listed are for a base case and may have been scaled up or down in the final cost estimation. 150 ft head..115 gal. valves PACKAGE 150 gal tank. Appendix A . cleaned Screen BELT THICKNESS 377516 gal. for 7-day res time. CENTRIFUGAL 650 gpm. 115 ft head.9' high. agitator. 27' dia x 37' high. chemical feeders.05 hp/1000 gal Twister Surface Aerators. 1800 rpm. agitator. 0. Residence time 3. CENTRIFUGAL 29 gpm. 15 psig VERTICAL-VESSEL 260 gal. 5 hp. Pump 876 gpm. atmospheric HORIZONTAL STORAGE 2000 gal.000 gal. 51' dia x 40' high. 7 day res time total.918 gal. 2 metering pumps PACKAGE 150 gal tank. 22275 lb/hr CENTRIFUGAL 431 gpm. Floating Head 5 Tanks and Pumps Flare and Pilot Tank. 24 hr res time.CS CS SS CS CS CS SS316 SS316 CS CS CS CS 304SS. atmospheric FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 130.5 gpm. 50 HP ea 9" Dia X 25' Long TEMA BES Type. Req.BUNA N CONCRETE EPOXY-LINED POLYMER LINED CONCRETE MIXER AGITATOR AGITATOR CONVEYOR PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP FAN PUMP SEPARATOR TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK STATIC Static Mixer.000 gal. 90% wv.5 minutes. 100 ft head 0.5x vessel vol. agitator. 150 ft head FABRIC-FILTER 8333 cfm. 6 cfm/sf FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 604. 150 ft head 828 gpm. 0.NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Summary Equipment Number Equipment Name PFD-P110-A601-2 A-602 Equalization Basin Agitator A-606 Anaerobic Agitator A-608 Aerobic Lagoon Agitators C-614 Aerobic Sludge Screw H-602 Anaerobic Digestor Feed Cooler M-604 Nutrient Feed System M-606 Biogas Emergency Flare M-612 Filter Precoat System P-602 Anaerobic Reactor Feed Pump P-606 Aerobic Digestor Feed Pump P-608 Aerobic Sludge Recycle Pump P-610 Aerobic Sludge Pump P-611 Aerobic Digestion Outlet Pump P-614 Sludge Filtrate Recycle Pump P-616 Treated Water Pump S-600 Bar Screen S-614 Belt Filter Press T-602 Equalization Basin T-606 Anaerobic Digestor T-608 Aerobic Digestor T-610 Clarifier PFD-P110-A701 A-701 Denaturant In-line Mixer A-720 CSL Storage Tank Agitator A-760 CSL/DAP Day Tank Agitator C-755 DAP Solids Feeder P-701 Ethanol Product Pump P-703 Sulfuric Acid Pump P-704 Firewater Pump P-710 Gasoline Pump P-720 CSL Pump P-750 Cellulase Pump P-755 DAP Unloading Blower P-760 CSL/DAP Pump S-755 DAP Vent Baghouse T-701 Ethanol Product Storage Tank T-703 Sulfuric Acid Storage Tank T-704 Firewater Storage Tank T-709 Propane Storage Tank T-710 Gasoline Storage Tank T-720 CSL Storage Tank T-750 Cellulase Storage Tank T-755 DAP Storage Bin T-760 CSL/DAP Day Tank PFD-P110-A801-4 H-801 Burner Combustion Air Preheater H-811 BFW Preheater M-803 Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor M-804 Combustion Gas Baghouse M-811 Turbine/Generator M-820 Hot Process Water Softener System M-830 Hydrazine Addition Pkg.5' x 4'dia. 4' dia x 23. 9' dia x 19. 24' x 9'dia. 41 hp.133 gal. atmospheric FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 600. 6 psi. 150 ft head 830 gpm. 1389 sf. 135.

8 x E6 kcal/hr. Factor Basis Scale Factor Basis Material of Construction PFD-P110-A901-3 M-902 Cooling Tower System COOLING-TOWER M-904 Plant Air Compressor COMPRESSOR M-910 CIP System MISCELLANEOUS P-902 Cooling Water Pumps PUMP P-912 Make-up Water Pump PUMP P-914 Process Water Circulating Pump PUMP S-904 Instrument Air Dryer DRYER T-902 Pretreatment Pressure Filter Press Air Receiver TANK T-904 Plant Air Receiver TANK T-905 Product Recovery Pressure Filter Press Air Receiver TANK T-914 Process Water Tank TANK INDUCED-DRAFT 71000 gpm. 75 ft. 200 psig HORIZONTAL-PRESSURE gal 1000 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE 756000 gal.Page 4 . 75 ft. 125 psig outlet MISCELLANEOUS Designed by Delta-T. 70 ft head. 8 hr res time DELTA-T98 ICARUS DELTA-T98 ICARUS ICARUS ICARUS RICHARDSON HARRIS00 ICARUS HARRIS00 ICARUS DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 HARRIS00 DELTA-T98 GARRETT GARRETT NREL-ESTM GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT DEFAULT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT GARRETT FIBERGLASS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS Note: Equipment sizes listed are for a base case and may have been scaled up or down in the final cost estimation.NREL Biofuels Process Design Database Summary Equipment Number Equipment Name Equipment Category Equipment Type Equipment Description Cost Basis Install. -40F Dewpoint HORIZONTAL-PRESSURE gal 1000 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL 900 gal. CENTRIFUGAL 41000 gpm. head CENTRIFUGAL 1199 gpm ea. CENTRIFUGAL 1083 gpm. 147. 5 cell RECIPROCATING 450 cfm. Appendix A . Same cost as sum of previous units.. head PACKAGE 400 SCFM Air Dryer.

Appendix B Individual Equipment Costs Summary .

994 $356.000 $150.999 $13.00 1.000 $300.655 $30.000 $13.400 $232.000 $450.00 1.00 1.999 $410.000 $12.00 1.999 $13.000 $13.994 $450.00 0.04 $1.959 $203.433 $68.000 $1.863 $50.996 $299.000 $302.79 0.000 $135.25 1.032 $991.000 $240.6 0.6 0.118 $1.000 $60.000 $6.667.999 $71.00 1.000 $134.6 0.6 0.000 $30.999 $497.6 0.000 $135.999 $68.000 $100.863 $50.099 $110.208.435 $139.00 1.959 $89.00 1.00 1.000 $135.6 1 1 0.000 $45.335 $50.295.999 $100.79 0.032 $991.3 2.000 $12.00 1.651 $30.000 $134.00 1.51 $799.00 1.51 0.475.00 1.135.38 2.195 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.000 $15.000 $38.999 $497.199 $233.655 $30.295.998 $94.433 $68.79 0.400 $232.000 $104.Page 1 of 8 .118 $1.000 $19.000 $18.000 $34.000 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1998 2000 2000 $800.41 7.000 $18.000 $60.6 0.549 $160.000 $90.39 1.667.00 1.036 $7.38 2.79 0.000 $72.000 $450.398 $1.000 $38.994 $356.6 0.959 $89.398 A100 Subtotal* $4.099 $110.999 $71.919 $212.62 1.919 $212.19 1.959 $203.00 1.999 1.000 $89.000 $135.594 $139.8 3.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares 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 S-102 S-103 T-101 T-102 2 2 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name 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 Belt Press Magnetic Separator Wash Water Tank Clarifier Thickener Tank Scaled On Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 1.500 $331.000 $30.199 $233.89 1.500 $331.131.28 3.000 $208.00 $400.92 1.6 0.79 0.999 $71.475.999 $1.00 1.87 5.81 $7.000 $15.61 1.6 1 0.000 $239.000 $20.00 1.000 0.000 $50.198 $167.968 1.47 1 1 2. Appendix B .549 $160.999 $50.000 $45.999 $207.000 $100.2 2.518 $4.00 1.07 2.19 13.198 $167.000 $50.6 0.51 1.849 $124.00 1.000 $60.000 $68.000 $10.207.999 $410.998 $94.849 $124.

105 $32.104 $21.000 $165.03 0.800 $71.760 $64.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares 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 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 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 1 1 1 Equipment Name In-line Sulfuric Acid Mixer Hydrolyzate Mix Tank Agitator Overliming Tank Agitator Reacidification Tank Agitator Reslurrying Tank Agitator Hydrolyzate Screw Conveyor Hydrolysate Washed Solids Belt Conveyor Lime Solids Feeder Hydrolyzate Cooler Beer Column Feed Economizer Pneumapress Vent Condensor Waste Vapor Condensor Prehydrolysis/Screw Feeder/Reactor Sulfuric Acid Pump 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 Scaled On Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow None Area Area Area Area Flow Flow Solids Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Solids Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 1.445 $142.248 $21.78 0.214 $65.462 $9.953 $100.900 $45.900 $23.214 $139.760 $64.39 1 0.38 1.594.094 1.175 $79.68 0.27 1.824.8 1.51 0.800 $65.767 $231.800 $65.349 $83.000 $3.93 0.34 2.56 2.987 $32.636.372.895 $111.200 $36.409 $61.63 1.400 $15.2 $2.893 $89.400 $80.600 $4.68 0.19 $45.100 $44.684 $140.775 $33.620 $152.184 $38.763 $180.800 $71.000 $132.170 $49.000 $18.63 1.68 1.911 $16.368 $10.79 0.162 $13.00 0.163.958 $89.931 $98.99 4.62 1.5 1.318 $47.600 $61.843.1 2.79 0.800 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2000 1997 1997 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 2000 1997 1998 1998 1997 2000 1998 1997 1996 1997 1997 1997 2000 2000 1997 1997 1997 $1.84 0.347 $47.63 1.328 $148.83 $26.79 0.441 $28.507 $50.633 $4.859 $926.76 $2.51 0.48 0.370 $189.763 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.000 $32.800 $47.68 0.603 $80.45 1.603 $325.238 $78.007 $2.472.800 $15.000 $18.8 2.803 $10.3 1.911 $187.416 $148.800 $44.213 $3.959 $5.71 0.000 $59.725.800 $15.886 $4.51 0.594 $208.79 0.377 $65.772 $90.1 2.05 1.900 0.2 1.211 $13.200 $5.893 $87.83 0.4 1.603 $319.00 0.51 0.518 $77.99 1.000 $19.542 $34.201 $89.200 $5.800 $2.000 $3.62 1.421 $25.575.061 $13.968 $141.281 $227.71 0.657 $265.4 2.000 $69.583 $234.8 3.606 $21.207 A200 Subtotal* $14.695 $215.432 $583.414 $17.870 $136.599 $39.3 1.385 $398.266 $441.855 $234.000 $59.411 $65.64 4.542 $28.839 1 1.000 $19.900 $36.716 $267.941 $88.2 1.400 $65.959 $5.29 2.2 1. Appendix B .658 $28.2 1.716 $267.494.71 2.180 $7.100 $44.62 1.592 $34.51 0.745 $4.579 $31.824.098 $99.363 $14.000 $36.550 $31.63 1.291 $48.000 $69.1 2.772 $89.200 $147.863 $17.3 1.8 1.79 0.000 $36.457.02 0.400 $7.79 0.1 2.000 $398.45 3.71 0.578 $17.487 $4.37 1.800 $1.51 0.8 3.95 $1.423 $59.000 $32.862 $99.549 $49.71 0.820 $944.800 0.95 1.95 1.4 2.39 4.657 $262.347 $46.070 $48.4 1.163.7 0.078 $590.400 $80.416 $10.775.837 $90.200 $147.600 $184.763 $177.741 $39.02 0.881 $62.79 0.46 0.707 $9.000 $165.24 1.6 0.71 0.601 $102.63 0.600 $47.600 $46.2 1.16 0.3 2.567 $140.Page 2 of 8 .144 $36.2 1.700 $32.6 0.71 0.373 $111.37 2.03 2.19 1.00 1.385 $132.594 $211.237 $100.577 $44.809 $31.812 $26.214 $65.5 0.800 $44.308 $77.900 $36.19 1.200 $36.

474 $39.79 0.308 $83.2 1.99 0.469 $152.960.200 $78.8 2.995 $320.088 $17.2 2.85 1.2 1.400 $65.3 $9.059 $2.8 2.1 1.600 $48.150 $463.2 1.300 $18.097 $40.699 $127.51 0.51 0.320 $182.054 $82.955 $29.684 $70.4 1.7 0.255.289 $20.78 0.391 $14.523 $243.71 0.99 0.18 0.8 1.978.2 1.466.858 $67.274 $324.717 $85.99 1.49 0.51 0.340 $48.360 $5.500 $147.388 $108.699 $34.07 1.464 $110.947 $24.939 $186.800 $24.78 0.400 $196.760 $2.658 $28.802 $140.000 $44.700 $32.194 $54.886 $6.779 $5.501 $128.93 0.100 0.497 $25.552 $6.98 0.800 $4.2 1.79 0.760 $12.960.160 $93.97 0.391 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1996 1996 1997 1996 1998 1996 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1996 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 $196. Appendix B .1 2.388.740 $150.897 $2.680 $97.2 2.000 $294.871 $87.700 $19.995.000 $22.4 2.466.97 2.241 $112.466.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares 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 P-300 P-301 P-302 P-306 P-310 T-301 T-306 T-310 10 1 2 2 2 10 5 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 3 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name 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 Fermentation Cooler 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 Scaled On None Flow Flow Flow Flow None None None None None Flow Flow Heat Duty Area Area Heat Duty Heat Duty Heat Duty Heat Duty Flow Flow Flow Heat Duty Flow Flow None Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) $19.600 $81.2 1.038 $4.782 $2.954 $160.83 0.551 $23.998 $195.8 2.589 $33.437 $148.8 1.51 $196.007 1.023 $236.409 $3.700 $493.227 $3.760 $12.413 $229.490 $24.1 2.400 $20.000 $8.700 $10.308 A300 Subtotal* $6.300 $18.176 $34.676 $493.99 1.990 $27.636 $142.832 $355.68 0.000 $38.492 $23.2 2.07 0.276 $2.441 $5.671 $192.115 $62.346 $82.477 $28.300 $8.112 $14.000 $161.577 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.238 $3.200 $162.18 $39.582 $105.039.Page 3 of 8 .200 $162.346 $243.782 $15.99 1.955 $29.400 $65.51 1.2 $236.99 1.99 0.955 1.000 $161.593 $237.1 2.117 $153.995.99 0.760 $2.2 1.320 $293.852 $196.593 $237.040 $25.000 $44.8 1.78 0.560 $454.829 $266.600 $61.955 0.539 $234.51 0.51 0.112 $2.466.615 $7.200 $79.700 $2.000 $19.100 $107.090 $95.376 $16.676 0.176 $9.551 $11.79 0.2 1.984 $351.245 $4.2 1.18 $12.2 1.209 $16.51 0.7 0.080 $76.000 $48.

716 $69.515 0.095 $104.37 1.69 2.562 $770.035 $1.20 1.18 1.942 $4.000 $24.000 $12.8 2.092.675.72 0.030.93 0.800 $1.059 $35.37 1.595 $435.975 $92.70 1.074 $32.316 $12.300 $316.510 $32.927 $121.7 0. Appendix B .418 $63.600 $99.600 $2.000 $11.310.192 $15.600 $29.18 0.963 $31.727 $57.79 0.371 $624.103 $94.660 $9.237 $106.596 $1.79 0.633 $3.885 $268.469 $31.1 2.042 $107.690 $355.000 $37.640 $21.1 2.778.4 2.075.008 $33.100 $525.239 $11.230 $1.45 0.3 1.44 1.357 $4.19 1.49 $21.355 $52.585 $96.613 $89.564 $59.79 0.8 1. 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 Drum Vent Scrubber Evaporator Condensate Drum Recycled Water Tank Scaled On Flow Flow Diameter Squared Flow Area Area Area Heat Duty Heat Duty Heat Duty Heat Duty Area Heat Duty Flow Flow Heat Duty Flow Heat Duty Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Solids Flow Heat Duty Heat Duty Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 1.319 $279.1 1 2.68 0.174 $19.900 $45.650 $158.197 $16.544 $86.68 0.800 $24.793 $21.68 0.600 $99.1 2.112.8 2.41 1.182 $180.68 0.1 2.588 $226.300 $1.097 $27.28 0.042 1.348.650 $746.251 $33.441 $5.39 1.621.700 $13.312 $5.367.70 1.20 0.855 $126.748 $29.45 $5.83 1.152 $2.832 $9.418.105.467 $24.900 $45.190 $435.300 $2.706.04 2.660 $10.614 $233.571 $1.286 $19.685 $34.1 2.44 1.480 $111.992 $273.78 0.288.399 $1.700 $478.200 $14.8 2.000 $84.623 $3.330.700 $478.992 $97.843 $20.963 $31.Page 4 of 8 .553 $3.800 $544.703 $31.68 0.68 0.600 $2.650 $435.080 $243.79 0.1 2.000 $37.85 0.68 0.003 $5.888 $3.800 $26.356 $23.700.1 2.111 $1.793 $10.13 1.576 $2.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares A-530 C-501 D-501 D-502 E-501 E-502 E-503 H-501 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 T-512 T-514 T-530 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 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 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name Recycled Water Tank Agitator Lignin Wet Cake Screw Beer Column Rectification Column 1st Effect Evaporation 2nd Effect Evaporation 3rd Effect Evaporation Beer Column Reboiler Rectification Column Reboiler Beer Column Condenser Start-up Rect.496 $265.236 $613.222 $357.79 0.293.772 $177.122 $123.19 1.1 2.68 0.346 $109.515 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1998 1997 1998 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1996 1996 1996 1996 1998 1997 1998 1998 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 2000 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 $5.604 $28.6 0.692 $79.1 2.106 1.422 $774.539 $3.200 $14.45 0.759 $58.600 $1.8 2.372 $5.1 2.353.8 2.8 2.8 2.004 $3.622 $59.529 $15.75 1.348.68 0.211 $2.8 2.39 1.496 $1.413 $3.000 $42.560.748 $37.837 $520.075.39 1.79 0.475 $15.276.750 $11.93 0.600 $29.900 $8.916 $4.374 $29.51 0.68 0.79 0.1 2.1 2.4 $9.700.78 0.37 1.79 0.748 $9.878 $81.911 $42.174 $38.79 0.064 A500 Subtotal* $13.544 $86.419 $14.142.267 $749.37 1.745 $7.723 $1.8 2.100 $27.25 1.596 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.072 $71.040 $121.634 $2.68 0.09 1.782 $19.79 0.70 1.100 $525.714 $9.779 $1.383.200 $5.089.1 2.650 $871.1 1.248.

8 2.43 $28.393 $81.012 $14.356 $12.79 0.51 0.4 1.200 $37.79 0.79 0.8 2.356 $3.969 $15.300 $31.996 $448.524 $147.96 $24.730 $253.822 $37.22 0.385 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1991 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 $28.400 $10.914 $4.278 $10.72 0.52 0.821 $929.100 $21.400 $8.8 1.52 0.22 0.877 $3.6 0.818 $650.081 $635.52 0.573 $3.51 1 0.173 $174.875 A600 Subtotal* $3.232 $81.699 $35.51 0.2 1.000 $13. Appendix B .475 $4.250 $38.810 1.03 0.991 1.51 0.699 $4.250 $5.813 $2.681 $12.303.400 $20.791 $36.629 $244.700 $11.663 $248.400 $30.509 $36.34 $3.600 $117.52 1.438 $1.289 $334.791 $4.52 0.223 $350.375 $360.8 1.700 $128.52 0.475 $144.910 $35.314 $330.53 0.526 $453.286 $30.090 $4.58 1.000 0.100 $11.579 $10.739 $3.400 $11.68 1.004 $2.52 1.8 1.800 $21.79 0.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares 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 P-616 S-600 S-614 T-602 T-606 T-608 T-610 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name 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 Treated Water Pump Bar Screen Belt Filter Press Equalization Basin Anaerobic Digestor Aerobic Digestor Clarifier Scaled On Flow Volume Power Flow Area None Flow None Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow COD Flow Volume Volume Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 0.578 $893.300 $500.78 0.700 $128.79 0.768 $68.04 1 1.400 $30.800 $881.819 $2.081 $635.200 $117.79 0.03 0.24 $20.3 0.601 $359.760 $115.700 $6.400 0.075 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.22 0.22 0.306 $35.51 0.2 1.739 $3.Page 5 of 8 .771 $4.74 $20.8 2.100 $10.818 $650.600 $31.173 $174.42 1.981 $24.656 $36.252.100 $10.707 $3.26 0.26 0.083 $355.000 $22.400 $12.000 $5.629 $124.385 0.600 $31.678.534 $247.4 1.935 $250.1 2.200 $21.51 0.759 $31.463 $126.425.539 $12.775 $3.4 2.343 $36.772 $96.79 0.100 $11.4 2.800 $881.223 $350.023 $940.52 $11.875 $354.4 2.2 1.571 $330.

00 1.79 0.4 1.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares 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 T-701 T-703 T-704 T-709 T-710 T-720 T-750 T-755 T-760 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name 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 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 Scaled On Flow Flow Flow None Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 1.396 1.795 $3.00 1.655 $14.74 1.64 0.278 $34.137 $28.500 $88.532 $39.2 1.800 $18.155 $65.667 $35.64 0.075 $69.643 $88.06 0.582 $5.79 0.500 $88.045 $43.4 2.8 1.238 $1.79 1 0.4 1.200 $27.72 0.000 $36.00 1.100 $24.595 $383.173 $2.900 $12.4 1.51 0.8 2.800 $42.041 $12.5 1.51 $2.120 $10.000 $17.376 $36.675 $547.637 $60.51 0.216.48 0.500 $8.2 1.900 $28.79 0.600 $17.600 $32.652 $103.3 2.186 $43.384 $30.900 $12.000 $18.800 $9.014 $12.8 2.4 1.244 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.800 $47.114 $34.956.826 $39.03 0.070 $78.4 $2.8 2.79 0.800 $32.084 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1997 1996 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2001 1997 1997 2001 2001 2001 $1.434 $273.684 $61.049 $68.470 $192.3 1.8 2.900 $33.4 1.500 $16.6 $1.8 1.30 1.620 $34.333 $105.975.100 $125.2 1.170 $80.858 $2.Page 6 of 8 .084 0.251.359 $129.092 $72.06 0.400 $47.255 $28.431 $35.51 0.600 $8.64 1.32 0.33 2.79 0.400 $4.500 $166.93 $1.33 1.825 $46.335 $42.226 A700 Subtotal* $1.834 $43.15 0.376 $9.392 $537.100 $251.384 $30. Appendix B .175 $30.991 $274.900 1.333 $14.79 0.51 0.729 $277.676 $28.564 $269.44 0.348 $3.4 1.143 $12.551 $12.900 $22.93 $7.79 0.51 0.881 $131.200 $165.100 $24.200 $331.628 $46.600 $36.512 $78.949 $198.216 $2.795 $3.803 $49.35 1.834 $43.654 $73.600 $42.79 0.5 0.572 $14.33 2.800 $33.358 $86.817 $5.652 $14.33 1.470 $66.79 0.500 $8.864 $1.8 2.551 $12.15 0.470 1 1.959 $77.173 $2.589 $44.500 $166.

6 0.000 $19.000 $262.78 0.300 $10.6 0.000 $1.200 $12.264.75 0.557 $111.205 $25.258 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.483 $18.900 $58.79 0.672.600 $19.967 $20.000.87 0.619 $363.995 $16.000 $19.7 2.089 $4.300 $19.400 $24.3 1.059 $23.77 0.322 $35.502 $20.59 0.995 $16.431.000 $14.72 0.448 $13.553.763 $1.72 0.000 $1.8 2.000 $9.86 0.383 $11.300 $19.400 $24.800 $9.000 $19.000 $7.775 $18.6 0.54 0.162 $21.83 0.83 $1.949 $13.995 $67.600 $165.255 $7.52 0.79 0.381.58 0.500 $7.676.4 1.5 2.316 $17.66 0.8 1.49 0.483 $22.346 $23.500 $7.100 $7.501 $5.000 $19.987 $7.100 $49.728 $74.Page 7 of 8 .196 $18.259 $9.1 1.030.8 1.448.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares H-801 H-811 M-803 M-804 M-811 M-820 M-830 M-832 M-834 P-804 P-811 P-824 P-826 P-828 P-830 T-804 T-824 T-826 T-828 T-830 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name Burner Combustion Air Preheater BFW Preheater Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor Combustion Gas Baghouse Turbine/Generator Hot Process Water Softener System Hydrazine Addition Pkg.5 1.83 1.93 $687.536.000 $9.384 $72.801.049.069 $38.279 $1.233 $16.995 $16.664 $8.3 1 1 1 2.501 1.784.477 $15.34 0.892 $35.400 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1999 1994 1994 1994 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1997 1997 $1.000 $2.526 $25.55 0.297 $6.991 $11.42 0.707.100 $5.8 2.8 2.200 $15.432 1.500 $52.327 $10.48 0.94 0.559 $6.174.300 $10.200 $5.71 0.900 $58.186 $1.72 0.852 $315.900.008 $367.200 $12.504 $2.257.4 $37.461.79 0.211 $2. Appendix B .79 0.261 $70.205 $27.6 0.381.196 $68.8 2.995 $16.900.82 0.734 $1.995 $75.133.8 2.505 $10.5 1.79 0.71 0. Ammonia Addition Pkg Phosphate Addition Pkg.600 $165.050.749 $4.819 $12.049.83 0.114.8 2.100 $49.72 0.541 $129.400 0.196 $18.000.083 A800 Subtotal* $40.161 $311.7 $1.68 0.79 0.000 $2.995 $23.716.503 $16.316 $1.152 $35.83 0.536.422.472 $41. 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 Scaled On Heat Duty Area Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 0.

8 2.500 Total Original Equip Cost (Req'd & Spare) in Base Scaling Scaled Cost in Installation Installed Cost in Installed Cost Base Year Year Exponent Base Year Factor Base Year in 2000$ 1998 2000 1995 1997 1997 1997 1999 2000 1997 2000 1997 $1.79 0.865 $235.00 0.000 $13.599 $73.300 $30.432 $17.703 1.2 1.600 $95.084.517.025.75 $1.000 $834.2 1.70 1.114 $83.8 1.000 $278.2 1.78 0.4 $1.136 $834.659.659.250.453 $23.524 $30.500 0.865 $240. Appendix B .000 $664.79 0.977 $117.084.000 $17.3 1.600 $33.040 $56.139 $69.52 $112.800 $11.987.8 2.036 $484.61 1.76 0.043 $1.000 $68.996 $51.934 $1.Page 8 of 8 .00 1.000 $195.880 $1.652.72 0.500.383.666.309 $56.51 $1.435 Total Equipment Cost $87.108 $46.6 0.596 $3.67 0.72 0.067 $30.331 $12.596 $4.34 0.600 $21.5 $4.000 $195.300 $10.669.080 $49.331 $11.Individual Equipment Cost Summary Equipment Number Number Number Required Spares M-902 M-904 M-910 P-902 P-912 P-914 S-904 T-902 T-904 T-905 T-914 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Name Cooling Tower System Plant Air Compressor CIP System Cooling Water Pump Make-up Water Pump Process Water Circulating Pump Instrument Air Dryer Prehydrolysis Filter Air Receiver Plant Air Receiver Product Recovery Filter Air Receiver Process Water Tank Scaled On Heat Duty Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Size Ratio Original (Base/ Equip Cost Current) (per unit) 0.498 $17.917 $74.903 $1.764.470 $26.3 1.6 0.887 $168.000 $332.596.879 $75.409 $48.72 0.502 1.816 *Sections are subtotaled and an average "Installation Factor" is back-calculated for the section.977 $114.3 1.542 A900 Subtotal* $3.75 0.880 $83.533 $113.61 0.04 0.2 2.100 $15.79 0.89 0.942 $9.000 $13.513.356.598 $95.163 $1.200 $95.116 1.

Appendix C Chemical Costs and Sources .

0967 $0.10/gal ethanol. Chemical Marketing Reporter.3497 Radian Report. 2001 0. delivered enzyme 0.0001 $1/1000 gal. Chemical Marketing Reporter.0804 Analysis of CSL market. Report to Process Engineering Team.0022 $0. 815 1. Chemical Marketing Reporter. Chem Systems Report 1993 $0. pg.0706 $142/ton.0124 $25/ton. 1999 average from DOE Energy Information Administration 0. Ruth.35-$1.0094 $20/ton. 2000 0.0552 Set to $0. 2001 0.734/gal.1579 Merrick Report Appendix G 2.2500 Harris Group. Analysis of Corn ethanol producers' cost. Middle of range $0.50/1000 gal in Peters/Timmerhaus. 2001 0. Cases 1. 5 June 1998 0.Chemical Cost and Sources Raw Material Clarifier Polymer Sulfuric Acid Hydrated Lime Corn Steep Liquor Purchased Cellulase Enzyme Diammonium Phosphate Propane Makeup Water Boiler Chemicals Cooing Tower Chems WasteWater Chems WasteWater Polymer Gasoline Denaturant Utility Solid Disposal Co-product credit Electricity Cost ($/lb) in 2000 $ Reference 1. M.555/gal.0204 Unknown 0. based on purchased.041/kWh Chem Systems Report. 1999 average 0.5510 Merrick Report Appendix G 0.0348 $70/ton. 1994 Appendix C .

Appendix D Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return Summary .

624 $73.826446281 $28.876.025 $44.620921323 0.093.181 $31.322.424.637.395 $6.983.624 $73.169.364.364.360 $41.876.377 $3.908 $0 $349.634 $3.069.727 $10.364.458.093.038 $23.779.364.637 -2 -1 0 $15.360 $7.432.858.996.961 $34.269.915 $13.181 $0 $0 $0 $3.270 $6.149 $4.726 $66.206 $52.360 $7.489.961 $4.540.270 $6.462.540.558 $2.432.894 $80.894 $80.385543289 $26.489.779.447.637.894 $23.095.882 $24.624 $73.757 $14.540.432.894 $80.155 $14.540.169.961 $11.455.040.395.308.858.194 $47.489.46650738 0.590) $26.876.504.395.932.308.910.433 0.222 $26.489.730.540.858.891 $3.373.134 $13.360 $7.425 $61.558 $2.590) ($19.343.121.357 $37.558 $2.519 $2.933.894 $23.271 $93.779.374.483 $3.176.670.534 Total Capital Investment + Interest $19.958.609.099 $11.990 $3.932 $612.794.327.824.407.364.471.540.202 .308.819.237 $73.169.612.388 $19.858.305 $4.961.425.038 $23.432.482.048 $22.098 $9.779.1 1 Annual Present Value $220.558 $2.998 $7.595 $19.632 $11.048 $22.749 $3.038 $23.894 $80.270 $80.835 $19.360 $7.702 $73.191 $3.094.887.242 $26.876.163.910.871.155 $45.730.480 $3.270 $6.038 $0 $349.110.770 $130.216 $48.719 $4.181 $31.853.732.121.953 $11.900 $28.543 $4.304 $5.489.038 $23.961.776.424.690 $19.468 $4.990 $31.470.969 $26.796.363 Net Present Worth $0 If income taxable income < 0.401 $19.360 $45.779.871.308.790.474.365.250 $19.348 $20.983.377 $3.234.256 $50.314 $2.961 $11.270 $6.894 $80.642 $2.348 $20.794.540.139 $4.270 $6.269.136 $31.621.169.249 $13.739 0.624 $73.775.209 $11.287 $7.21 1.308.624 $6.489.136.424.540.181 $31.777 $2.899 $38.944.270 $6.824.730.487 $17.237.876.719 $4.728 $45.670 $20.601 $50.095. Loan payment subtracted from annual cash income Interest on construction loan added to investment $0 $0 $0 $2.401 $19.169.282 $4.333.711.590) ($19.263.155 $45.360 $45.231.682 $12.181 ($23.396.261 NPV of Income Tax NPV of Ethanol Income $60.926 $4.155 $45.308.424097618 0.961.837 $45.344.489.923 $12.556.757 $14.751314801 0.511 $3.344) $8.741.500.909090909 $17.993 $2.348 $12.757 $7.432.181 $31.825.Discounter Cash Flow Rate of Return Year Fixed Capital Investment Working Capital Ethanol Sales By-Product Credit Total Annual Sales Annual Manufacturing Cost Raw Materials Ion Exchange Resin Baghouse Bags Other Variable Costs Fixed Operating Costs Total Product Cost Annual Depreciation General Plant DDB SL Remaining Value Actual Steam Plant DDB SL Remaining Value Actual Net Revenue Losses Forward Taxable Income Income Tax Annual Cash Income Discount Factor 1.422.540.955 $2.462.038 $23.724.422.592.269.838.203 $60.395.543 $18.757 $14.757 $34.961.944.757 $14.184 $63.56447393 0.876.779.816 $22.694.344) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($23.757 $14.308.889.014 $15.701.263.136 $31.038 $23.624 $73.990 $3.806.534 $4.876.749 $3.320 $61.999.961.360 $7.047.961 $11.880 $16.683013455 0.155 $45.609.757 $7.929.327.779.272.876.858.308.093.432.265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Appendix D $55.648.113.958) ($8.300.169.169.061 $55.614 $17.191 $3.958) ($8.941.432.489.210 $5.158.634.374.455 $9.428 $37.858.806.757 $14.270 $80.876.757 $14.836 $7.624 $73.155 $37.257 $35.961.796.432.513158118 0.496 $7.690 $12.738 $32.048 0.330.155 $45.333.782 $30.970.571 $41.388 $15.798.038 $23.687 $8.038 $73.624 $73.395.739 $31.479.558 $3.644 $34.730.160.432.789.370.589.642 $2.645.364.134 $13.360 $7.953 $9.169.648.055.648 $41.961 $11.270 $6.360 $7.497.169.741 $27.353.470 $4.389 $34.690 $12.972.408.269.155 $45. tax = $0 Loan Interest subtracted from taxable income.682 $14.819.779.894 $80.540.463.894 $80.991.624 $6.558 $56.480 ($23.585 $21.789.308.024 $118.779.

558 $22.779.432.547.876.476 $16.558 $19.135.682 $14.876.489.395.038 $23.486 $2.17985879 0.038 $23.736 $2.224.757 $7.432.858.308.185.753 $1.197 $4.393 $4.749 $2.624 $73.973.690 $2.361.048 0.077.558 $31.961.961.081 $2.876.308.373 $2.961.558 $31.881 ($1.308.424.685.769 $3.838.961.038 $23.682 $14.169.538 $2.540.508.489.499 $12.812 $2.169.395.360 $45.853 $2.690 $1.743 $22.558 $13.038 $23.989 $2.318630818 $7.558 $31.757 $14.858.324.894 $23.424.690 $22.779.181.974.961.894 $80.432.289 .779.308.270 $6.316 $5.858.540.169.295 $2.961.432.827.424.395.558 $15.961.837 $73.558 $31.655.624 $6.395.048 $22.270 $6.757 $7.306.674.858.148643628 $6.946 $3.307.038 $23.558 $16.395.048 $22.068 $2.565 $2.159 $2.350493899 $7.489.431.876.961.155 $2.897.894 $80.624 $6.690 $1.197844669 0.155 $45.424.360 $7.876.540.779.779.558 $31.287.961.858.851 $21.858.961.489.558 $17.558 $31.331.270 $6.531 $2.706 $14.181 $0 $31.757 $7.116.360 $7.757 $14.961.165 $2.558 $31.048 $22.536 $1.132.038 $0 $349.540.360 $45.624 $6.743 0.Discounter Cash Flow Rate of Return Appendix D Year Fixed Capital Investment Working Capital Ethanol Sales By-Product Credit Total Annual Sales Annual Manufacturing Cost Raw Materials Ion Exchange Resin Baghouse Bags Other Variable Costs Fixed Operating Costs Total Product Cost Annual Depreciation General Plant DDB SL Remaining Value Actual Steam Plant DDB SL Remaining Value Actual Net Revenue Losses Forward Taxable Income Income Tax Annual Cash Income Discount Factor Annual Present Value Total Capital Investment + Interest Net Present Worth NPV of Income Tax NPV of Ethanol Income 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ($9.395.048 $22.540.540.424.961.048 $5.169.624 $73.395.426 $19.288.774.624 $73.961.489.28966438 0.399.270 $6.936 $2.271.328.741 $4.270 $6.169.858.181 $12.106.169.181 $0 $31.432.990 $3.096 $13.779.038 $23.846.424.432.181 $12.877 $2.489.876.270 $80.263331254 0.181 $12.558 $31.418 $10.301) $4.071.395.624 $73.958.690 $1.961.369 $3.181 $12.779.838.540.169.558 $26.360 $7.270 $80.308.690 $1.858.432.181.265) $73.757 $14.181 $0 $31.499 $12.181 $12.961.234.508.624 $73.181 $0 $31.155 $14.031.757 $14.270 $6.779.540.048 $22.487.540.336 $2.285.668 $2.779.163507991 0.876.169.155 $45.048 $22.757 $14.360 $12.360 $45.894 $23.540.520 $2.558 $31.757 $14.430.624 $73.113.217629136 0.360 $7.155 $45.508.809 $2.981.270 $80.661.876.858.181 $0 $31.858.616.181 $0 $31.155 $45.558 $28.808.624 $73.155 $45.979 $25.315 $1.467.961.024 $17.087.432.360 $7.894 $80.308.894 $80.239392049 0.458.499 $0 $31.454.530 $2.489.961.876.169.038 $0 $349.876.360 $7.837 $45.894 $80.499 $0 $31.424.308.690 $1.048 0.858.489.558 $24.079.360 $7.315 $22.858.432.871.181 $0 $31.432.757 $14.308.894 $80.169.038 $73.539.155 $45.858.690 $1.961.894 $23.955.894 $80.673.508.779.308.372 $2.181 $12.858.690 $22.288.961.270 $6.424.634.181 $12.961.181 $0 $31.558 $31.038 $23.600 $2.027.858.391 $2.558 $20.306 $3.181 $12.893.308.889 $23.598.858.

400.000 2.4 106.000 $9.800.000 42% $197.000.000 $4. Costs Waste Disposal Electricity Fixed Costs Capital Depreciation Average Income Tax Average Return on Investment Maximum Yields (100% of Theoretical) Ethanol Production (MM Gal/yr) Theoretical Yield (Gal/ton) Current Yield (Actual/Theoretical) $23.8 10.7 2. Sales Price Denaturant Cost ($/gal denaturant) 69.000 $3.0 2.700.4 0.500.600.000 $19.200.28 1. (MMgal / yr) Denatured Fuel Min.3 89.9 14.300. process P110: 2010 plant start-up Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis with Saccharification and Co-Fermentation All Values in 2000$ Minimum Ethanol Selling Price $1.700.9 -9.000 $7.000.800.000 $73.000 $9.400.3 10.800.870 0.000 $3.000 $7.000.000 $7.000 $83. / Year) Ethanol Yield (Gal / Dry US Ton Feedstock) Feedstock Cost $/Dry US Ton Internal Rate of Return (After-Tax) Equity Percent of Total Investment Capital Costs Feed Handling Pretreatment Neutralization/Conditioning Saccharification & Fermentation Distillation and Solids Recovery Wastewater Treatment Storage Boiler/Turbogenerator Utilities Total Installed Equipment Cost Added Costs (% of TPI) Total Project Investment Loan Rate Term (years) Capital Charge Factor Denatured Fuel Prod.800.000 $38.900.000.7 80% Excess Electricity (KWH/gal) Plant Electricity Use (KWH/gal) Plant Steam Use (kg steam/gal) Boiler Feed -.07 Ethanol Production (MM Gal.8 Operating Costs ($/yr) Feedstock Biomass to Boiler CSL Cellulase Other Raw Matl.300.000 $113.176 72.5 2.5 $1.900.3 10.04 $0.000 N/A N/A 0.000 $21.000 -$6.518 87.000 $17.700.6 25.Ethanol Production Process Engineering Analysis Corn Stover Design Report Case.Water Fraction Appendix D .LHV (Btu/lb) Boiler Feed -.0 112.555 Operating Costs (cents/gal ethanol) Feedstock Biomass to Boiler CSL Cellulase Other Raw Materials Waste Disposal Electricity Fixed Costs Capital Depreciation Average Income Tax Average Return on Investment 33.42 16.000 $2.000 $2.000 $0 $1.300.7 $30 10% 100% Ethanol at 68°F $7.500.000 $7.400.1 5.

Variable and Fixed Operating Costs

Production Rate (MM gal/yr) Hours per Year Variable Operating Costs

69.27

Feedstock Dry 24,686 Tons/yr gal/ton

772168 90

8,406

Costing Code F-1 F-1 S-11 R-5 R-4 R-3 R-7 R-8 S-12 S-8 S-1 S-2 S-4 S-5

Raw Material Feedstock Feedstock Clarifier Polymer Sulfuric Acid Hydrated Lime Corn Steep Liquor Purchased Cellulase Ammonium Phosphate Propane Makeup Water Boiler Chemicals Cooling Tower Chems WasteWater Chems WasteWater Polymer Subtotal Waste Streams Disposal of Steam 809 Disposal of Stream 229 Subtotal

Stream No. STRM010 STRM084 STRM010 STRM071 STRM074 STRM073 STRM075 STRM075 3 STRM090 STRM092 STRM092 STRM063 STRM063

kg/hr 98,039 0 28 3,288 2,395 1,306 6,824 163 20 189,649 1.0 1.9 57.9 0.2

lb/hr 216,176 0 63 7,251 5,280 2,879 15,046 360 45 411,562 2 4 128 0.43

Quoted Price (cents / ton) 2550 2550 250000 2500 7000 15000 10823 14200 436 24 280000 200000 30956 500000

Year of Price Quote 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 1998 1999 2001 1999 1990 1991 1999 1999 1999

2000 Cost (cents / 2000 Cost ton) ($/lb) $/hour 2550.00 2550.00 250000.00 2485.99 6960.77 16087.17 11044.07 14120.42 444.90 23.30 269932.90 204081.02 31587.66 510202.54 0.0128 0.0128 1.2500 0.0124 0.0348 0.0804 0.0552 0.0706 0.0022 0.0001 1.3497 1.0204 0.1579 2.5510 2756.25 0.00 78.24 90.13 183.77 231.57 830.86 25.42 0.10 48.67 2.98 4.28 20.18 1.10 4272.73

MM$/yr Cents/Gallon (2000) Ethanol (2000) 23.17 0.00 0.66 0.76 1.54 1.95 6.98 0.21 0.00 0.40 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.01 35.92 33.45 0.00 0.95 1.09 2.23 2.81 10.08 0.31 0.001 0.58 0.04 0.05 0.24 0.01 51.85

W-2 W-3

STRM080 STRM022

4,492 7,217

9,906 15,913

1820 1820

1993 1993

1872.61 1872.61

0.0094 0.0094

92.75 148.99 241.74

0.78 1.25 2.03

1.13 1.81 2.93

P-1

By-Product Credits Electricity Subtotal Total Variable Operating Costs

WKNET

KW 18,747 na

$/KW 0.040

1999

$/kWh 0.041

765.20 765.20

6.43 6.43

9.29 9.29

3,749.29

31.52

45.50

Fixed Operating Costs Plant Manager Plant Engineer Maintenance Supr Lab Manager Shift Supervisor Lab Technician Maintenance Tech Shift Operators Yard Employees General Manager Clerks & Secretaries Total Salaries

80000 65000 60000 50000 37000 25000 28000 25000 20000 100000 20000

1 1 1 1 5 2 8 20 32 1 5

80,000 65,000 60,000 50,000 185,000 50,000 224,000 500,001 640,001 100,000 100,000 2,054,002

2.15

3.11

Overhead/Maint Maintenance Insurance & Taxes Total Fixed Operating Costs

of Labor & 60% Supervison Equipment 2% Cost of Total 1.5% Installed Cost

1,292,976 2,273,396 1,819,029

1.29 2.27 1.82 7.54

1.87 3.28 2.63 10.89

Total Cash Cost

39.06

56.38

Appendix D

Appendix E
Process Parameters

Process Area

Process Parameter Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) Feedstock Feedstock Flow (dry metric ton/day) Feedstock Cost ($/dry US ton) Cellulose Fraction Xylan Fraction Arabinan Fraction Mannan Fraction Galactan Fraction Lignin Fraction Pretreatment Reactor Residence Time Acid Concentration Temperature Xylan to Xylose Yield Mannan to Mannose Yield Galactan to Galactose Yield Arabinan to Arabinose Yield Type of Conditioning Saccharification Cellulase Purchase Price ($/gal total ethanol) Cellulase Purchase Price ($/gal cellulose-derived ethanol) Residence Time Temperature Cellulose to Glucose Yield Co-Fermentation Residence Time Temperature Glucose to Ethanol Yield Xylose to Ethanol Yield Arabinose to Ethanol Yield Mannose to Ethanol Yield Galactose to Ethanol Yield Contamination Loss Overall Cellulose to Ethanol Yield Utilities Electricity Credit ($/kWh) On-line Time (hr/yr) Model: I0203I

Model Value $1.07 2000 $30 37.4% 21.1% 2.9% 1.6% 2.0% 18.0% 2 min 1.1% 190°C 90% 90% 90% 90% Overliming $0.10 $0.17 1.5 days 65°C 90% 1.5 days 41°C 95% 85% 85% 85% 85% 3% 85.5% $0.041 8406

Appendix F Process Flow Diagrams Note: Larger format (11” x 17”) versions of these Process Flow Diagrams are available upon request from Kelly_Ibsen@nrel.gov .

6% 20 1.400 0.05 1.00 22 45.1 0.4 0.9442 -42.80 WP104 WC104 11.00 8 11. SS316 CS CS 304SS.xls .417 325 0 48 7 0 15 86 0 13 2 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 41 7.3433 -0.06 Eq.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr g/ml 101 98.706 102 43.002 6.002 15.00 0.00 0. RUBBER CS.94 37.039 77. CS CS CS CS CONCRETE A283 ALLOY STEEL CONCRETE CS CS.0% 0.00 WS103 WP101 37. Spare Equipment Type C-101 Bale Transport Conveyor 2 BELT C-102 Bale Unwrapping Conveyor 2 BELT C-103 Belt Press Discharge Conveyor 1 BELT C-104 Shredder Feed Conveyor 4 BELT M-101 Truck Scales 2 TRUCK-SCALE M-102 Truck Unloading Forklift 4 1 LOADER M-103 Bale Moving Forklift 4 LOADER M-104 Corn Stover Wash Table 2 M-105 Shredder 4 M-106 Concrete Feedstock-Storage Slab 1 CONCRETE-SLAB M-107 Polymer Feed System 1 MISCELLANEOUS P-101 Wash Table Pump 2 1 CENTRIFUGAL P-102 Wash Water Pump 2 1 CENTRIFUGAL P-103 Clarifier Underflow Pump 1 1 RECIPROCATING P-104 Clarified Water Pump 1 1 CENTRIFUGAL P-105 Belt Press Sump Pump 1 1 SLURRY S-101 Clarifier Thickener 1 S-102 Belt Press 1 FILTER-PRESS S-103 Magnetic Separator 1 MAGNET T-101 Wash Water Tank 1 VERTICAL-VESSEL T-102 Clarifier Thickener Tank 1 CLARIFER kW 74.017 0.007 0 107 28 0.009 0. WC101 55.00 1 970 0 105 128.93 WP102 WC102 11.9983 I0203I.1% 74 1.0 0. SS316 CS.0% 20 1.0% 5.0 1.00 0.00 0.570 2.676 59.435 2.4709 -160.00 0.804 -284.90 WS101 WM105 1118.919 0 28 1 31.1% 74 3.18 WP105 WM104 83. Equipment Name Req.275 0 104 1.00 31 42.187 17.417 232 0 34 5 2 31.0% 0.18 5.1 1. RUBBER CS.8 0.187 17.0% 0.00 14.18 WP103 WC103 2.570 2.9443 -3. No.8% 45 1. FILTER CS CEMENT 15.00 Mat Const.0% 0.00 0.09 2.804 -170.00 0 58 7.59 4.435 2.1% 74 1.919 28 Work Stream No.4% 7.56 WS102 WM107 25.546 0 0 103 11.9443 6.19 0. kW Work Stream No.

435 kg/hr 2.417 3.0% % 5.0% 0.xls .288 0.570 kg/hr 2.1% 74 3.276 1.804 Kcal/hr -284.8 0.16 0 48 268 0 449 70 0 48 268 0 449 70 3.0% 0.581 5.00 73 52.0% 20 1.00 93 189.507 0.0% 20 3.00 11.00 kg/hr 22 kg/hr 45.251 -369.2% 12.00 0.9 -198.0 g/ml 1.158 2.00 0.8% C 45 atm 1. QH201 QH201B QH244 MM kcal/hr -0.19 -22.0% 0.31 3.8166 4.152 0.0% 0.0% 268 13.1% 30 1.5 0.713 21.185 501 502 449.1 1.234 0 133 751 0 111 17 0 133 751 2.6% 190 12.0% 0.64 Work Stream No.417 3.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.490 2.507 216 37.567 439 61 73 0 0 Eq.0% 0.426 2.2 0.828 82 82 909 909 217 217 254 254 360 360 1.620 -1510.9973 -166.00 73 52.00 0.104 0.258 5.104 111 17 2.447 0.620 -809.152 0.2 0.00 1.40 0.0% 0.244 0 0 0 48 268 0 449 70 220 225.6% 95 41 4.288 4 4 5 28.853 1.974 2.426 17.969 2.919 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 15.00 0.426 17.6 0. Spare In-line Sulfuric Acid Mixer 1 Hydrolyzate Screw Conveyor 1 Beer Column Feed Economizer 2 1 Waste Vapor Condensor 2 1 Prehydrolysis/Screw Feeder/Reactor 3 Sulfuric Acid Pump 1 1 Sulfuric Acid Tank 1 Blowdown Tank 1 Equipment Type Mat Const. No. SS316L CENTRIFUGAL SS304 VERTICAL-VESSEL PLASTIC VERTICAL-VESSEL SS316 14.104 278 43 233 1.8166 I0203I.344 0.6% 3.828 374.00 73 52.00 20 136.676 % 59.459 9.0% 0.256 0 0 215 11.969 2.0% 20 3.00 0.218 2.0% 3.1% 101 1.567 439 61 73 0 5 28.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS 105 kg/hr 128.90 0.9489 -36.825 24.9903 -195.251 14.490 2.00 1.1% 100 1. A-201 C-201 H-201 H-244 M-202 P-201 T-201 T-203 Equipment Name Req.581 9.185 0.2 1.152 0.459 1.1246 -2.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.353 449.05 0.088 14.256 0 0 212 2.825 374.00 24.919 230 291 500 750 174 7.00 0.80 1. WC201 WM202 WP201 kW 37.00 37.00 0. SS304 SCREW SS316 SHELL-TUBE 304SS SHELL-TUBE 304SS VESSEL W/ PADDLES ALLOY 825-CLAD.0 0.9195 -6.002 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 6.9442 -4.252 28 4.1% 74 4.9520 0.6% 101 1.0% 0.8 0.865 17.244 0 0 520A 53.252 28 520 53.0% 164 4.42 1.00 214 101.234 0.4 1.919 230 291 500 750 126 7.353 5.3% 15.417 kg/hr 232 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 34 kg/hr 5 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 1 kg/hr 31.276 1.40 0.3433 211 99.620 -642.00 0.244 0 0 710 3.0022 -115.00 71 98.0% 5.3 1.00 71 98.00 1.258 154 154 576 576 90 90 440 440 0 0 4.8166 -373.620 -1488.0% 0.007 kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 41 kg/hr 7.088 14.187 kg/hr 17.0053 4.104 727 114 218 53.00 Heat Stream No.0006 4.6 0.00 0.0 0.853 646 646 969 969 1.9585 0 0 4.104 217 278.08 699.

096 225.9808 I0203I.00 1.271 9.713 138.2 -1389.00 1.806 18.7% 15.76 159.00 0. A-205 A-232 C-202 H-200 H-205 P-205 P-211 P-213 P-224 S-205 T-205 T-211 T-213 T-232 Equipment Name Req.762 428.104 1.432 439 61 73 81 0 136 14.620 Kcal/hr -755.087 kg/hr 50 2.722 2.2% 1.7 -642.811 kg/hr 19 2.0158 1.811 126.00 0.477 848 1.537 335. No.745 2.125 428.00 kg/hr 28 20 15 36 47 kg/hr 200.9% 55 1.794 4.417 5.760 2.252 kg/hr 0 28 28 kg/hr kg/hr 23 4.0720 240 250 252 268. WC202 WP205 WP211 WP213 WP224 WS205 WT205 WT232 kW 26.00 0.094 0.88 14.764 % 0.7% 50 51 46 1.456 54.00 10 73.0106 -1.466 136.969 13.4 g/ml 0.477 kg/hr 36 2.316 9.702 0 0 0 0 Eq.528 32 2.00 260 5.00 0.2% % 1.00 1.1% 11.272 2.773 8.0 0.0011 -0.00 0.687 0.1246 0.458 3.204 167 196 15 20 34 50 8 497 210 141 17 3 256 130.913 0.755 163 1.429 438 61 73 51 0 86 14.252 28 0 0 602 4 1 0 0 51 0 86 45 0 253 76.9793 -455.199 0.3 0.581 1. FIXED-PROP SS FIXED-PROP SS BELT CS SHELL-TUBE 304SS.355 2.251 71 0 14.00 0.2% 0.9974 1.490 1.02 15.543 1.00 1.2 -425.703 984 3.13 Work Stream No.0010 -0.0% 9. QH200 QH205 MM kcal/hr 2.7% 13.0% 50 1.764 130.34 83.567 143 1 28.581 kg/hr 1.620 23 0 4.6% 19.182 0.00 1.962 kg/hr 83 230 179 266 312 kg/hr 427 291 227 539 716 kg/hr 149 500 389 558 646 kg/hr 223 750 584 837 969 kg/hr 145 126 98 208 270 kg/hr 2.225 0 4.312 335.2% 21.563 265.341 3.0% 40 9.432 kg/hr 2 439 2 0 439 kg/hr 0 61 0 0 61 kg/hr 0 73 0 0 73 kg/hr 81 81 kg/hr 0 0 kg/hr 136 136 kg/hr 71 14.426 1.888 2.00 0.919 2.00 1.397 3.9793 255 87.44 0.0% 0.938 2.00 0 199 Heat Stream No.0% 5.9% 2.209 7.612 -237.00 0 205 262 200 0.987 16.00 1.00 0.915 387 2.2% 13.0% 1.0% 38 1.00 0.9 1.974 106.773 4.0% 0.00 36 47 18 226.2% 0.0% 0.51 1.985 154 22 450 576 190 70 90 30 19 29 19 0 0 607 143 2 0 0 0 0 954 28.42 30.7% 50 1.0% C 46 101 101 53 51 atm 1.0% 11.27 221.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS 219 220 221 230 232 kg/hr 207.342 2.336 348 233 36 19 0 0 603 259 4.3% 0.6 -874.0207 4.962 37 267 312 52 542 716 270 561 646 94 841 969 141 209 270 91 8.00 0.0720 0.620 15 -1389.00 0 404 261 4.2 1.432 12 16.7% 46 1.00 1 36.0% 0.CS SHELL-TUBE CS CENTRIFUGAL SS316 CENTRIFUGAL SS316 CENTRIFUGAL SS316 ROTARY-LOBE 304SS PNEUMAPRESS SS316 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 VERTICAL-VESSEL SS316 VERTICAL-VESSEL SS316 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 23 -883.0 0.6 0.898 18.432 kg/hr 210 17. Spare Hydrolyzate Mix Tank Agitator 1 Reslurrying Tank Agitator 1 Hydrolysate Washed Solids Belt Conveyor 1 Hydrolyzate Cooler 1 Pneumapress Vent Condensor 1 Pneumapress Feed Pump 2 1 Primary Filtrate Pump 1 1 Wash Filtrate Pump 1 1 Saccharification Feed Pump 2 1 Pneumapress Filter 3 Hydrolyzate Mixing Tank 1 Primary Filtrate Tank 1 Wash Filtrate Tank 1 Slurrying Tank 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.3246 984 3.00 21 119.158 2.744 7 77 18 22 31 157 55 82 53 813 493 13 111 17 11 0 0 350 3 1 0 0 30 0 50 26 0 8 -278.9855 0.1% 9.894 0.4 -477.0% 38 1.00 1.85 96.00 0.9793 1.xls .263 2.637 154 kg/hr 301 278 217 448 576 kg/hr 47 43 34 70 90 kg/hr 29 18 29 kg/hr kg/hr 0 0 0 kg/hr 0 0 0 kg/hr 952 5 4 603 954 kg/hr 7 28.24 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 28.087 132 2.7 1.275 2.622 225.910 417 488 88 315 171 257 111 2.8 0.00 0.528 kg/hr 59 2.702 0 984 3.8 0.

794 1.537 226.316 8.355 2.1% 12.395 kg/hr Kcal/hr -7.00 0.6 g/ml 2.S.97 104.9 1.74 38.00 1.395 271.312 2.565 23 -894.745 266 539 558 837 208 8.1% 53 1.762 2. FIXED-PROP SS FIXED-PROP SS ROTARY-VALVE A285C CENTRIFUGAL 304SS CENTRIFUGAL 304SS CENTRIFUGAL C.34 25.9% 50 1.xls .217 80. Spare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.316 3.898 2.275 16.275 2. Equipment Name A-209 Overliming Tank Agitator A-224 Reacidification Tank Agitator C-225 Lime Solids Feeder P-209 Overlimed Hydrolyzate Pump P-222 Filtered Hydrolyzate Pump P-223 Lime Unloading Blower P-239 Reacidified Liquor Pump S-222 Hydroclone & Rotary Drum Filter S-227 LimeDust Vent Baghouse T-209 Overliming Tank T-220 Lime Storage Bin T-224 Reacidification Tank Req. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.342 2.760 2.40 0.01 28.157 100.185 239 240 272.355 2.00 0.6% 53 1.00 0.263 16.355 2.898 2.898 16.00 0.125 0.00 0.7% 0.9 1.760 267 542 561 841 209 8.0% 13.0397 71 5.0158 71 5.00 36 226. No.0% 12.794 450 70 19 0 0 607 143 2 0 0 229 7.760 267 267 542 542 561 561 841 841 209 209 8.00 1.64 30.316 3.POLYESTER VERTICAL-VESSEL SS304 LIVE-BTM-BIN CS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 71 3.275 16.00 36 225.537 2.0207 I0203I.485 895 23 -892.342 268.0% 0.806 2.00 0 1.59 57.41 Eq.0146 0 28 0 -874.537 2.773 448 70 18 0 0 603 1 0 0 0 233 1.9% 13.794 3.185 0.00 0.537 23 -20.271 3.225 12 91 13 15 1 3 3 5 1 45 21 2 0 0 0 0 3 142 2 0 0 230 265.3 1.3430 227 228 2.1% 0.8166 23 -883.00 36 36 226. CENTRIFUGAL SS304 ROTARY-DRUM EPOXY LINED FABRIC-FILTER A285C.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 2.0% 20 3.2 1.0% 1.00 1.84 57.7 2.985 450 450 70 70 19 19 0 0 607 143 2 0 0 0 0 607 143 2 0 0 Heat Stream No.6 1. WC225 WP209 WP222 WP223 WP239 WS222 WT209 WT224 kW 0.0% 53 50 1.0% 2.0422 71 -2.

xls .00 0.00 5 33.6% 41 1.0% 0.8 0.7% 4.95 16.00 310A 219 0.00 1.881 103 156 32 37 36 185 65 97 224 958 527 15 57 9 40 0 0 292 136 44 6 7 65 0 193 1.0% 100.7 1.40 11.0% 41 1.00 2.00 0. QF301 MM kcal/hr 0.7 g/ml 1. Equipment Name A-301 Seed Hold Tank Agitator A-304 4th Seed Vessel Agitator A-305 5th Seed Vessel Agitator F-301 1st Seed Fermentor F-302 2nd Seed Fermentor F-303 3rd Seed Fermentor F-304 4th Seed Fermentor F-305 5th Seed Fermentor H-304 4th Seed Fermentor Coil H-305 5th Seed Fermentor Coil P-301 Seed Hold Transfer Pump P-302 Seed Transfer Pump T-301 Seed Hold Tank Req.425 3 462 -137.00 Heat Stream No.70 39.119 1.0% 20 1.95 23.235 32 0 0 219 28 Eq.425 kg/hr 3 kg/hr kg/hr 462 Kcal/hr -141.00 0.0016 -0.335 33.0% 15.7% 41 1. FIXED-PROP SS304 FIXED-PROP SS FIXED-PROP SS VERTICAL-VESSEL SS304 VERTICAL-VESSEL SS304 VERTICAL-VESSEL SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 IMMERSED-COIL SS IMMERSED-COIL SS ROTARY-LOBE SS304 ROTARY-LOBE SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 -5.21 Work Stream No.00 70 76 310 28 0. No.1 1.9983 I0203I.415 0.809 253 296 36 185 65 97 27 958 448 15 58 9 3 304 41.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 95 kg/hr 136 kg/hr 44 kg/hr 6 kg/hr 7 kg/hr 65 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 14 kg/hr 1. WP301 WP302 WT301 WT304 WT305 kW 16.0% 20 1.919 3.0176 304C 2.559 5.0% 0. Spare 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.0096 -0.0754 303 43.1 0.00 0 1 0 1 0 2.391 5.00 0.

222 5.00 668 710 311 136 0.072 1.00 0.581 8.0% 41 1.432 1.456 9.6% 41 0.490 591 9.962 2.7 -1275.620 -1510.490 0.853 646 969 1. WP300 WP306 WP310 WT300 WT306 WT310 kW 345.89 4 7 0 8 1 34 0 0 0 136 568 Eq.119 kg/hr 18.09 2.4 -1384.391 5.0% 0.00 9.0% 5.89 8.528 2.00 0.827 1.00 9.620 4.251 154 568 89 406 0 0 4.490 0.0% 4 1 1.811 335.5 -1408.00 0.228 136 kg/hr 439 439 439 395 44 kg/hr 61 61 61 55 6 kg/hr 73 73 73 66 7 kg/hr 81 81 650 585 65 kg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 kg/hr 136 136 136 122 14 kg/hr 14.919 kg/hr 2.075 1.90 438.0% 5.20 119.799 226 0 0 1.252 14.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.7% 15.258 154 576 90 440 0 0 4.8 0.00 0.087 0.0% 148 4.252 28 4.029 43.029 448 kg/hr 154 154 154 139 15 kg/hr 576 576 576 518 58 kg/hr 90 90 90 81 9 kg/hr 29 29 29 26 3 kg/hr kg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 kg/hr 0 0 0 0 0 kg/hr 954 954 954 859 95 kg/hr 28.087 18.015 308 22.962 2.90 0.7 0.477 4.010 -4.5 0.5% 4.5 -141.269 33.764 428.00 0.425 3 462 -137.7% 15.49 Work Stream No.353 5.158 462 Kcal/hr -1389.7 1.7% 4.00 1.73 113.075 304 41.275 253 kg/hr 2.087 16.00 312 6.xls .365 439 61 73 650 0 1.0% 3.620 -1372.193 28.824 8.365 1.0% 100.809 kg/hr 2.0% % 9.2% 11.0% 164 4.7 g/ml 1.0% 20 1.0% 20 1.825 374.00 1.0% 0. A-300 A-306 A-310 F-300 H-300 H-301 H-302 H-310 P-300 P-306 P-310 T-306 T-310 Equipment Name Req.6% 41 1.477 4.00 1.188 305.00 24.3% 0.998 -24.432 28.002 -0.2 0.00 793 36.087 502 449.764 435.088 14.00 2.42 0.477 4.00 0.074 3.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39 0.581 9.040 -138.252 14. No.459 9.528 2. Spare Ethanol Fermentor Agitator 10 Beer Surge Tank Agitator 2 Saccharification Tank Agitator 10 Ethanol Fermentor 5 Fermentation Cooler 5 1 Hydrolyzate Heater 1 1 Saccharified Slurry Cooler 3 Fermentation Cooler 5 1 Fermentation Recirc/Transfer Pump 5 1 Beer Transfer Pump 1 1 Saccharification Recirc/Transfer Pump 5 1 Beer Storage Tank 1 Saccharification Tank 5 Equipment Type Mat Const.588 392.252 28 4.00 0.90 0.865 I0203I.284 590 9.490 Heat Stream No.666 296 kg/hr 312 312 360 324 36 kg/hr 716 716 1.811 339.620 4.052 1. FIXED-PROP SS304 FIXED-PROP SS304 FIXED-PROP SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 PLATE-FRAME SS304 PLATE-FRAME SS PLATE-FRAME SS304 PLATE-FRAME SS304 CENTRIFUGAL SS304 CENTRIFUGAL SS304 CENTRIFUGAL SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 -47.00 1.881 103 156 32 37 36 185 65 97 224 958 527 15 57 9 40 0 0 292 136 44 6 7 65 0 193 1.0% 0.088 14.4 1.828 82 909 217 254 360 1.952 551 37.7% C 51 65 65 41 41 atm 1.581 9.620 4.00 kg/hr 47 47 47 43 5 kg/hr 335.2% 5.528 2.7 1.0% 20 1.00 0.432 2.853 1.00 1.00 0.04 122.1 0.002 -34.00 6. QF300A QF300 QH301 QH302 MM kcal/hr 0.853 646 969 1.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS 232 301A 301B 302 303 kg/hr 428.018 306 412.00 24.130 0.0% 9.64 445.581 5.9 0.00 0.276 1.975 -29.032 338.432 31.623 958 kg/hr 4.059 1.40 -4.42 1.276 1.420 0.335 33.581 5.544 82 909 217 254 360 1.668 185 kg/hr 646 646 646 581 65 kg/hr 969 969 969 872 97 kg/hr 270 270 270 243 27 kg/hr 9.087 18.559 % 11.962 2.425 kg/hr 28 28 28 25 3 kg/hr kg/hr 4.255 3 6 0 7 1 20.2 1.252 12.279 1.00 311A 1.

00 182 182 337.0% 0.7 0.505 Heat Stream No.819 337.314 9.9 0.088 14.819 82 82 909 909 217 217 254 254 360 360 1.459 1.18 -33.620 -1304.8653 I0203I.00 65.91 1.42 0.853 646 646 969 969 1.9570 Eq.51 0 4.583 36.0029 -147.353 5.088 14.252 28 4.8% 5.252 28 4.9534 508 491 0.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.353 449.41 0.00 0.825 24.581 4.828 374.505 0.00 24.088 14.620 -1488.6% 3.314 1.275 1.581 5.9585 0 0 4.00 60 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 411 0 0 0 510 62.8% 4.00 4.0% 0.258 154 154 576 576 90 90 440 440 0 0 4.2% 4.581 9.505 0.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.9513 0 4.990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 0 259 0 278 43 29 0 0 1 518 518A 386.258 5.8 0.276 1.0% 5.275 1.533 5. WP501 WP503 kW 312. Spare Equipment Type Mat Const.828 82 82 909 909 217 217 254 254 360 360 1.853 1.825 374.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.6% 95 100 4.088 14.3 0.CS 1 SHELL-TUBE SS304.00 24. QCD501 QH512 QRD501 MM kcal/hr 0.0% 164 4.9 0.00 65.0 0.0% 148 4.276 1.252 28 4.CS 1 1 PLATE-FRAME SS 1 1 CENTRIFUGAL SS 1 1 CENTRIFUGAL SS 1 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL SS304 -1.998 4. Equipment Name D-501 Beer Column H-501 Beer Column Reboiler H-504 Beer Column Condenser H-512 Beer Column Feed Interchanger P-501 Beer Column Bottoms Pump P-503 Beer Column Reflux Pump T-503 Beer Column Relfux Drum Req.1 0.2% 113 1.37 -2.252 28 4.0022 -239.00 0.6 0.853 1.0% 60 1.42 1.620 -1307.2% 123 117 2.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr g/ml 501 506 449.76 Work Stream No.505 595 65.853 646 646 969 969 1. No.998 154 154 298 298 46 46 594 65.0% 0.76 0.86 1.459 9.0% 3.10 0.329 0.10 2.0% 0.620 -1486.xls . 1 DISTILLATION SS304 1 1 SHELL-TUBE SS304.533 386.581 9.0014 -205.

235 kg/hr kg/hr 32 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -5.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 1 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 1 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 2.77 6.0% 60 1.912 550 24.0% 41 1.0% 0.0% 164 4.284 592 8.7 0.329 0.868 0 0 521 8.990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 0 259 0 278 43 29 0 0 1 511 33.5 0.107 0.xls .0% 148 4.546 0.9925 -51.164 0.4% 121 4.00 19 36.0% 0.90 0.5 0.912 0.8653 I0203I.00 8.00 70 76 308 22.444 258 0 0 524 35.799 226 0 0 508 491 0.6 0.164 593 8.0% 41 1. D-502 H-502 H-505 P-504 P-505 P-515 T-505 T-512 Equipment Name Req.42 1.0014 -44.86 1.0% 0.53 0.0% 0. Column Condenser 1 SHELL-TUBE SS304.0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 23.0% 0.PLASTIC -47.0% 0.0 0.164 0.42 0.420 0.0% 0.0% 39 0.00 668 710 3 6 0 7 1 20.0016 -138.3 0.21 Work Stream No.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0023 -137.0% 29 0.00 6.232 0.9 0.325 0.492 516 37.583 36.CS Start-up Rect.00 60 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 411 0 0 0 510 62.2% 113 1.00 35.415 0.70 1.643 0.130 0.0% 0.3 0. WP504 WP505 WP515 kW 9.00 793 36.00 8.Spare Equipment Type Mat Const. QRD502 MM kcal/hr -4.0016 -1.176 2.370 0 145 259 0 278 43 29 0 0 1 523 25.00 1.0% 41 1.0% 92 1.31 12.4 0.0016 -136.29 0.00 0.0% 0.2 0.90 1.00 1.410 258 0 0 4 7 0 8 1 34 0 0 0 Eq.0029 -147.0% 26 1.00 24.0022 -29.0% 0.1 g/ml 0.740 2.00 797 806 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 8 1 23.00 4 434 551 37. Rectification Column 1 DISTILLATION SS Rectification Column Reboiler 1 SHELL-TUBE SS304.8964 -17.9750 -25.7943 -53.91 1.00 1.0% 70 1.CS Rectification Column Bottoms Pump 1 1 CENTRIFUGAL SS Rectification Column Reflux Pump 1 1 CENTRIFUGAL SS Scrubber Bottoms Pump 1 CENTRIFUGAL SS Rectification Column Reflux Drum 1 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL SS304 Vent Scrubber 1 ABSORBER SS304. No.0016 304C 2.164 Heat Stream No.00 30.

96 -0. SS -44.00 24.0022 -35.176 2.0022 -2. No.176 2.7 0.5 0.53 0.00 621 597 621 0.8308 -29. Equipment Name M-503 Molecular Sieve (9 pieces) Req.686 0.70 1.0023 511 33.86 Work Stream No.546 0.0% 0.00 621 Heat Stream No.370 517 8.6 0.32 0.370 522 8.0% 116 1.0017 -17.232 0.0% 0. QH503 QH506 QH507 QH509 MM kcal/hr 2.42 1.0 0.176 2.232 0.686 0.00 6.546 0.0% 0.8 0.0% 0.0% 116 1.00 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92 1.42 0.492 511C 33.Spare Equipment Type 1 PACKAGE Mat Const.0022 -17.176 2.00 30.0% 0.0% 70 1.3 0.0% 70 1.740 2.8653 I0203I.7943 -2.44 1.70 1.6 g/ml 0.0% 164 4.00 6.0% 0.53 0.14 0.7753 -14.0% 35 0.5 0. WM503 kW 171.564 122 521 8.7943 -17.70 1.740 2.370 596 621 0.370 519 24.0% 0.3 0.59 Eq.00 0.0% 92 1.0% 148 4.8 0.00 6.492 515 24.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -44.564 122 515A 8.546 0.0% 0.00 24.24 5.xls .0% 38 1.00 6.546 0.

97 4.49 44.546 211 99.0% 0.0% 115 1.00 170 17 234.32 0.581 9.21 1.998 4.944 -88.00 0.0% 64 0.854 20 7 1 1 244 0 408 214 0 69 -665.0 g/ml 0.853 646 646 969 969 1.947 Eq.856 0 533 76.53 55.365 439 6 1 7 3 650 0 1.0% 0.5 0.628 1.852 20 7 1 1 244 0 408 214 0 69 -374.858 861 4.60 0.252 28 4.0% 0.868 0.985 23.2% 117 87 2.282 447 670 6.5 0.0% 0.932 8 2 82 909 909 217 217 254 254 360 360 1.68 0.20 0.9 0.11 42.819 255.282 0 447 670 319 6.00 31 42.244 107 69 11 860 4.8 0.252 2 8 4.23 0.0% 115 1.275 1.1% 7 4 74 2.620 -1018.243 0 530 77.21 0.0% 0.8% 0.58 2.0% 0.684 0 0 0 133 751 0 111 17 0 96 540 0 80 12 518A 525 386.3 0.1% 0.085 5 5 9 1 2.856 0 534A 535 237.796 0 265 4 1 0 4 3 4.xls .10 0.00 2 75.056 57 629 150 176 249 1.00 27 177. Equipment Name E-501 1st Effect Evaporation E-502 2nd Effect Evaporation E-503 3rd Effect Evaporation H-517 Evaporator Condenser P-511 1st Effect Pump P-512 2nd Effect Pump P-513 3rd Effect Pump P-514 Evaporator Condensate Pump T-514 Evaporator Condensate Drum Req.314 996 9.946 0.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 58 kg/hr kg/hr 325 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 48 kg/hr 7 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 2 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -160.4 1.628 309 2.5% 5. SHELL-TUBE SS316 SHELL-TUBE SS316 SHELL-TUBE SS316 SHELL-TUBE SS304.628 3.581 4.689 154 154 298 100 4 6 16 526 82.8% 7.000 -307.0% 0.CS CENTRIFUGAL SS CENTRIFUGAL SS CENTRIFUGAL SS CENTRIFUGAL SS304 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL SS304 -369.887 0 0 0 319 309 0 197 31 527 528 82.948 -243.946 0.1% 74 3.4 0.499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 0 32 180 0 27 4 580 194.0% 0.1% 74 3.944 -262.00 0.070 0 1 2 2 1.585 23.4% 87 0.2 1.00 0.954 -883.759 0.088 14.0% 0.466 0. Spare 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.0% 0.944 102 43.00 0.00 143 81.620 0.00 143 3 81.273 1.000 -290.05 42.070 0 12 2 1.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.68 40.827 0 107 197 13 31 2 529 77.58 Stream No.003 2 2 2.344 0.5 0.983 2 2 2.5 0.60 1.017 0.282 447 670 6.3% 40 3.0% 71 0.37 23.1% 74 3.8% 64 0.31 0.00 182 39 337. WP511 WP512 WP513 WP514 kW 198.887 0.0% 0.00 24 77.752 0.0 0.999 -18.000 -286.4% 25.088 14. No.533 303.847 20 7 1 1 244 0 408 214 0 69 -88.752 0.620 -1307.757 107 2 0 532 76.0 0.2% 5.922 2.944 -15.00 4.00 0 23.0% 0.4 0.31 1.00 0.001 I0203I.7 0.813 57 0 629 0 150 176 249 1.957 57 629 150 176 249 1.00 1.957 4.00 2 75.0% 6 4 0.256 0 0 251 71.68 0.00 51 70.858 0.4% 4.887 116.1 0.887 99.858 Stream No.00 0.853 1.944 -265.00 0.243 0 0 0 531 39.33 418 0 56 9 418 0 56 9 1.00 24 77.0% 71 0.932 -247.00 71 98.61 0.646 5.8% 87 71 0.4% 8.858 0. QCD502 QE501A2 QE502B QE503B QH517 MM kcal/hr 24.0% 0.0 0.3 0.

20 1.00 0.805 27 9 1 1 325 0 544 285 1 92 -887.967 27 4.3326 3.921 0.16 59.41 113.999 0.00 3 19.91 6.677 0 2.00 kg/hr 28 kg/hr 200. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.5% 5.3% 40 3.3% 40 3.056 57 629 150 176 249 1.854 20 7 1 1 244 0 408 214 0 69 -665.60 0.2% 87 0.1% 38 3.3% 4.783 6 70 17 20 28 144 50 75 992 743 363 12 8 1 572 259.689 154 100 16 559 5.244 107 69 11 Heat Stream No. Spare 1 1 1 1 4 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.0 0.932 82 909 217 254 360 1.0% 0.628 3.0106 -396.466 kg/hr 19 kg/hr 210 kg/hr 50 kg/hr 59 kg/hr 83 kg/hr 427 kg/hr 149 kg/hr 223 kg/hr 145 kg/hr 2.7 g/ml 0.209 1.096 % 0.00 571 44.620 0.00 36 236.081 36 23 4 574 104.00 0 74 580 194.9983 -0.00 19 36.51 1.620 -1018.0% 0.019 19 210 50 59 83 427 149 223 2.838 4.579 560 5.00 0.853 646 969 996 9.643 0.00 27 177.0% 40 9.2 0.5 0.579 0.20 0.273 1.709 596 894 8. WC501 WP530 WS505 WT530 kW 28.3 0.4% 121 4.252 28 4.2 1. A-530 C-501 P-530 S-505 T-530 Equipment Name Recycled Water Tank Agitator Lignin Wet Cake Screw Recycled Water Pump Pneumapress Filter Recycled Water Tank Req. No.243 4.7% C 46 atm 1.20 0.20 0.4% 5.646 7.337 430 60 72 325 0 544 13.00 9 59.9% 38 3.29 0.493 0.528 -136.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS 219 kg/hr 207.0% 0.0% 20 1.00 39 255.3% 40 3.868 0 0 0 145 259 0 278 43 29 0 0 1 525 303.2 1.365 439 61 73 650 0 1.83 4 1 0 0 0 1.2% % 1.0034 0 1 468 1.5% 5.9793 516 37.0% 0.9990 951 7 2 0 0 81 0 136 71 0 23 -221.5% 5.8 0.075 48.6 0.3 0.0036 I0203I.088 14.326 142 93 14 573 64.678 4.243 4.581 4.20 0.209 kg/hr 1. FIXED-PROP CS SCREW CS CENTRIFUGAL CS PNEUMAPRESS SS316 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE CS -137.282 447 670 6.8964 0.075 76 838 200 235 332 1.00 104.xls .341 kg/hr 36 kg/hr 301 kg/hr 47 kg/hr 29 kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 952 kg/hr 7 kg/hr 2 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 81 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 136 kg/hr 71 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 23 Kcal/hr -755.9990 Eq.873 0.9990 1.

264 0.094 0 0 613 97.2 0.264 0.9906 I0203I.00 0.0% 28 1.499 0 0 612 97.1% 35 1.00 73 52.00 0.0% 20 1.00 0.26 0.9841 -0.0% 0.9 0.1% 30 1.0% 0.57 22.00 0.00 0.26 Work Stream No.0% 0.0% 0. QH602 MM kcal/hr 2.8 g/ml 0.00 0.0% 0.715 0.244 0 0 535 23. A-602 A-606 H-602 M-604 M-606 P-602 P-606 S-600 T-602 T-606 Equipment Name Equalization Basin Agitator Anaerobic Agitator Anaerobic Digestor Feed Cooler Nutrient Feed System Biogas Emergency Flare Anaerobic Reactor Feed Pump Aerobic Digestor Feed Pump Bar Screen Equalization Basin Anaerobic Digestor Req.00 0 199 520 53.00 6 96.00 0.6 0.37 31.759 0.CS PACKAGE CS MISCELLANEOUS SS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS SCREEN CS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE CONCRETE FLAT-BTM-STORAGE EPOXY-LINED 43 -198.0% 0.6 0.0% 38 1.1% 35 2.439 0.094 0 0 615 625 0.4 0.9903 -88.0% 0.00 0 28 618 96.xls .0% 0.6925 -54.9983 -19.0% 0.00 1.0% 309 96.00 821 5.00 17 23.414 0 0 630 58 0.0 0.9442 -362.06 0 48 268 0 449 70 0 32 180 0 27 4 0 80 449 0 476 74 0 80 449 0 476 74 0 0 0 0 273 324 0 0 0 80 31 33 5 25 1 0 0 58 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 58 Eq.00 0.00 14.0009 -365.00 90 96.0% 35 1.3 0.42 14.0 0.00 5.1% 59 2. Spare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.45 0.9808 262 200 0. No.0% 0.152 0.697 0.00 90 96.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 1 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -0.9604 -364.9846 -1.715 944 14.1% 74 1. WM604 WP602 WP606 WS600 WT602 WT606 kW 4.6 0.14 22.439 Heat Stream No. FIXED-PROP SS FIXED-PROP SS SHELL-TUBE SS316.

00 627 1.77 2.0% 0.1481 -363.1% 35 1.7 1.204 0.1% 21 1.414 620 40.2 0.235 31.BUNA N LINED-PIT POLYMER LINED CLARIFIER CONCRETE 65 65 65 -2.29 0.0 g/ml 0.00 0 152 0 624 95.00 1.25 21.9841 618 96.0% 20 1. A-608 C-614 M-612 P-608 P-610 P-611 P-614 P-616 S-614 T-608 T-610 Equipment Name Aerobic Lagoon Agitator Aerobic Sludge Screw Filter Precoat System Aerobic Sludge Recycle Pump Aerobic Sludge Pump Aerobic Digestion Outlet Pump Sludge Filtrate Recycle Pump Treated Water Pump Belt Filter Press Aerobic Digestor Clarifier Req.0% 0.1% 21 1.00 0 1.1% 0.070 0 631 0 0.290 5.64 159.881 0 623 218 30.0012 -4.00 1 95.9983 I0203I.0% 20 1.9973 -4.0% 21 1.00 6 96.1% 0.0% 0.658 0 625 1.302 31.00 Heat Stream No.0% 0.00 0.24 0. SURFACE-AERATOR CS SCREW CS MISCELLANEOUS CS SLURRY SS316 SLURRY SS316 CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS FILTER-PRESS 304SS. Spare 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.072 0. WC614 WM612 WP608 WP610 WP611 WP614 WP616 WS614 WT608 WT610 kW 1.00 0 627 621 97.00 0.805 0.00 1.9976 -0.1% 21 1.00 0.07 1 0 0 0 112 1 8.1% 21 1.xls .531 0.0228 0.0012 -367.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 80 kg/hr kg/hr 31 kg/hr kg/hr 33 kg/hr 5 kg/hr 25 kg/hr 1 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 58 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 43 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -365. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.9 0.95 11.25 0.0% 0.3 0.222 0 626 39.0 0.230 0 Eq.6 1.90 0.228 0 80 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 0.00 0.00 0.9973 0.00 1 96.00 0.095 0. No.697 0.00 0.1 0.00 0 1.1% 21 1.17 22.0% 0.0% 0.

06 5.00 0.288 0.00 0.686 0.00 0.0% 20 1.00 311 136 0.0018 -5.6876 -36.48 1. STATIC SS304 FIXED-PROP SS304 FIXED-PROP SS304 ROTARY-VALVE A285C CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL SS316 CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS FABRIC-FILTER A285C. Spare 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 1.080 723 20 0.00 Work Stream No.255 755 163 0.0096 -4.09 3.00 24.43 0.306 0.2 1.0% 20 1.24 0.0% 20 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 1.1 1.POLYESTER FLAT-BTM-STORAGE A285C FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS316 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE A285C HORIZONTAL STORAGE A515 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE A285C FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 LIVE-BTM-BIN CS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE SS304 -0.019 0.019 1.1 0.00 312 6.6 0.0% 20 1.0% 0.4 0. No.96 0.255 515 24.087 0.0% 0.9983 -24. WP750 WP755 WP760 WT720 WT760 kW 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.00 9.4 0.00 0.0% 20 1.00 0.2 1.00 703 25.00 0.0% 0. 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 T-701 T-703 T-704 T-709 T-710 T-720 T-750 T-755 T-760 kW 0.705 0.00 0.29 3.00 0.0% 20 1.00 735 1.00 0.9983 0.0% 100.00 713 9.4 1.0% 0.00 310A 219 0.00 0.00 311A 1.00 6.00 1.00 0.0% 20 1.00 6.0% 38 1.564 122 701 1.00 24.29 Work Stream No.0% 20 1.00 0.40 0.306 3.9983 -0.0096 I0203I.xls .3% 0.61 219 1.0% 20 1. WC755 WP701 WP703 WP704 WP710 WP720 Eq.0 0.00 0.087 1.288 28 136 1.7872 -6.8 0.019 20 163 568 568 Equipment Name 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 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 Req.824 8.8166 -34.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr g/ml 310 28 0.824 8.5 0.9983 -24.080 0.0096 -0.0403 -35.0% 20 1.4 1.0% 20 1.00 0.564 122 710 3.00 750 6.0% 100.0% 20 1.0403 -0.7753 -0.

570 65.3% 0.492 0.894 0.116 0.661 67.828 351.009 271.0409 52 -347.411 197.336 1.0012 -11.xls .283 0 0 402 14 13 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 10 9 142 140 28 27 4.00 1.1% 38 3.95 176. A285C.2 0.00 1.0% 24 1.273 10.3% 164 164 0.0 3.97 0.273 205.0% 0.638 61.00 Eq.01 1.00 0 0 67.382 4 1 0 0 0 1.7 0.283 206.0% 0.290 -12.570 3 3 10. Spare Equipment Type 1 MISCELLANEOUS 1 FABRIC-FILTER Mat Const.638 10.0% 0.00 3.0 0.FABRIC -0.2 0.3% 100.99 1.1 0.702 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -0.009 355.3% 0.570 3 61.0% 38 1.00 0 0 0 3.0% 0.661 3.677 0 59.617 1 7 2 2 3 14 5 7 4 4 996 74 1 1 21 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65.0% 0. No.97 1. QH801 MM kcal/hr 11.0007 I0203I.0012 0. Equipment Name H-801 Burner Combustion Air Preheater M-804 Combustion Gas Baghouse Req.1415 809A 810 355.342 -347.828 4.617 67.3% 0.703 205.00 0 74 804 260.01 0.0407 4.0% 1.342 -359.00 0.0% 0.99 0.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 1 kg/hr kg/hr 1 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 984 kg/hr 3.243 4.00 0 205 560 5.283 402 402 14 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 10 0 142 2 28 0 4.86 Work Stream No.0036 -10.6 g/ml 0.0012 Heat Stream No.324 804A 804B 804D 809 271.97 0.999 0.00 1.617 1 1 7 7 2 2 2 2 3 3 14 14 5 5 7 7 996 996 74 74 21 21 2 2 0 0 0 0 65.0% 0.703 206.0 0.0% 26 204 278 1.0011 261 4.0% 0. WCOMBFAN WM804 kW 119.9 0.20 1.273 206.

486 816A 16.0% 0.26 0.0% 35 1.893 63 699 167 196 277 1.0% 46 0.0% 0.0% 0.485 0.0% 164 4.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 6.0% 46 4.3% 4.9% 38 3.771 0. No.00 16.0% 510 86.486 816 16.847 kg/hr 20 kg/hr 7 kg/hr 1 kg/hr 1 kg/hr 244 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 408 kg/hr 214 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 69 Kcal/hr -88.00 190.0 0.00 3 43.0% 0.828 1.9 0.715 0.5 0.8963 -115.00 3 19.0% 0.1 0.3326 65 803 84.6 0.00 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 273 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 468 1.287 0.00 0 23.486 821 5.6925 -51.4 g/ml 1.783 6 70 17 20 28 144 50 75 992 743 363 12 8 1 615 625 0. WKNET WP811 WPLANT WTOTAL kW -18747.372 2.42 1.00 16.0% 204 1. Spare H-811 BFW Preheater 1 M-803 Fluidized Bed Combustion Reactor 1 M-811 Turbine/Generator 1 P-811 Turbine Condensate Pump 2 Equipment Type SHELL-TUBE MISCELLANEOUS STEAM-TURBINE CENTRIFUGAL Mat Const.485 0.00 95.283 402 14 4 1 1 6 1 10 142 28 4.0023 -52.858 Heat Stream No.20 0.075 48.0% 0.01 1.638 205.87 16.3% 0.342 -347.9898 -62.0001 -62.0407 812 184.1 0.240 840 0 0.00 0.0007 -554.1 0.234 0.0% 0.0 0.8 0.486 0.6 0.00 1.485 813B 190.68 -30465.06 1.0% 190 12.0845 531 39.99 0 67.20 0.97 0.00 37. SS304 CS SS304 -1.22 Work Stream No.282 447 670 571 44.757 kg/hr 107 kg/hr 2 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 2.00 1.957 57 629 150 176 249 1.0259 -44.00 1.358 437 61 73 568 65 952 14.570 3 10.2092 804B 271.8763 0.00 14.858 0.xls .597 -225.715 823 14.1481 0.3% 278 0.0% 0.528 -136.240 0.2 1.00 0 3.967 27 4.63 0.665 0.00 14.0% 268 13.240 0.485 814 37.215 26.5 0.0% 0.120 118 9 1 0 0 0 1 3.00 190.0% 0.337 430 60 72 325 0 544 13.14 0 Eq.0% 0.0% 309 96.4 0.0007 -15.64 8.0055 -699.8% 64 0.00 184.00 0 28 623 218 30.0% 0.273 206.2 0.10 0.0% 0.426 497 746 992 7.0023 -53.0% 46 0.628 kg/hr 1.6 1.2 1. Equipment Name Req.771 812B 14.9320 -692.234 815 95.42 1.4% 25.0055 -300.665 815E 16.00 1.0% 268 13.21 0.0% 25 1.922 2.0% 0.97 4.0% 0.315 1.9899 -19.0009 -0.5% 14.0% 164 4.00 16.240 813A 190.9 0.486 0.181 28 4.1 0.287 815A 16.31 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 177 97.35 -0.0% 115 1.486 0. QBOILER QH811 QM811 MM kcal/hr 118.0010 I0203I.10 0.661 4 1 0 2 0 61.703 0 804D 355.617 1 7 2 2 3 14 5 7 996 74 21 2 0 0 65.0% 139 98.2 0.32 0.009 0.0% 0.45 3.00 5.8% 55 1.3 0.1% 21 1.68 0.89 11717.00 860 4.

6 0.456 811A 811B 119.240 0.00 5.490 0.0% 0.820 812E 0 0.0% 148 4.0% 148 4.8 0.00 190.00 119.164 0.9 0.1 0.42 0.44 719.456 0.00 65.9970 -441.485 0.486 0. PACKAGE CENTRIFUGAL SS316 CENTRIFUGAL SS304 CENTRIFUGAL SS316 CENTRIFUGAL CS VERTICAL-VESSEL A285C HORIZONTAL-VESSEL SS304 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL CS.42 0.9 0.9 0.0% 26 3.9320 -52.0% 0.30 0.0% 46 4.0% 0.9899 -19.820 0.8763 -18. WP804 WP824 WP826 WP828 kW 20.858 0.26 0.42 0.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm 591 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 148 4.00 16.0% 0.0% 0.00 0.00 4.00 621 811 54. Equipment Name Req.485 190.490 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -34.7 g/ml 0.0023 -62.0% 137 139 3.505 597 621 0.31 0.00 16.6 0.9670 -700. No.42 1.0% 190 12.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.858 Heat Stream No.240 861 4.00 593 8.486 821 5.715 823 14.70 3.8653 -2.8653 Eq.485 190.0% 115 1.00 54.27 1. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.8653 -239.0% 0.20 0.46 11.0% 309 96.715 0.9283 -699.00 813 813A 190.7 0.32 0.505 0.9466 I0203I.SS316 HORIZONTAL-VESSEL CS -29.4 0.665 0.40 0.665 816A 16.00 8.68 0.42 0.6925 -51.0% 115 87 1.485 815A 16.0% 0.0% 0.164 595 65.40 0.9467 -647.0% 0.30 98.80 kg/hr kg/hr 9.0% 148 4.00 0.0% 164 4.0 0.0% 0.8653 -206.364 173.00 14.xls .5 0.0% 0.3 0.0% 3. Spare M-820 Hot Process Water Softener System 1 P-804 Condensate Pump 2 P-824 Deaerator Feed Pump 2 P-826 BFW Pump 5 P-828 Blowdown Pump 2 T-804 Condensate Collection Tank 1 T-824 Condensate Surge Drum 1 T-826 Deaerator 1 T-828 Blowdown Flash Drum 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.364 173.

PACKAGE PACKAGE PACKAGE CENTRIFUGAL CS VERTICAL-VESSEL SS316 I0203I. No.xls .00 0. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.02 Eq.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr g/ml Heat Stream No. Spare 1 1 1 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.00 10. Ammonia Addition Pkg Phosphate Addition Pkg. M-830 M-832 M-834 P-830 T-830 Equipment Name Hydrazine Addition Pkg.00 10. Hydrazine Transfer Pump Hydrazine Drum Req. WM830 WM832 WM834 WP830 kW 10.

00 14.00 9.0% 0. No.909 135.0% 28 1.703 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr 0.8 0.00 12.00 559 5.7 0.0000 I0203I.0 g/ml 0.00 0.256.0% 0.89 1258.51 1. WM902 WM904 WP902 WS904 kW 657.0106 -46287. QCWCAP MM kcal/hr 102.921 0.00 0.256.9906 -54.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm 259 4.0% 0.678 Eq.909 158.0% 40 9.0% 40 9.0% 0.08 0.059 0.828 942 9.9906 -46390.0% 0.0% 28 1.9906 -35. M-902 M-904 P-902 S-904 T-902 T-904 T-905 Equipment Name Req.0% 37 28 4.33 7.687 0.6 0.08 1.00 1.330 0.0% 0.256.243 4.0% 0.04 0.059 Heat Stream No.94 Work Stream No.00 0.0% 0.439 945 949 12.8 0.0106 1.9906 -432.67 1110. Spare Cooling Tower System 1 Plant Air Compressor 2 1 Cooling Water Pump 1 1 Instrument Air Dryer 1 1 Prehydrolysis Filter Air Receiver 3 Plant Air Receiver 1 Product Recovery Filter Air Receiver 4 Equipment Type Mat Const.51 1.xls .0% 0.909 135.828 0.909 158.00 12.256.0 0.9819 -601.1 0.439 0.3 0.0% 0.0% 28 28 4.00 0. INDUCED-DRAFT FIBERGLASS CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CS PACKAGE CS HORIZONTAL-PRESSURE CS HORIZONTAL-VESSEL S C HORIZONTAL-PRESSURE CS 0.36 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 984 kg/hr 3.330 944 14.00 940 941 12.

1% 21 1.9983 -363.0% 0.xls .0% 20 1.6 0.1% 26 38 1.00 145 941 158.0% 0.00 1.00 0.9925 -396.281 Heat Stream No.9925 -993.912 0.6 0.624 0 0 906 145 0. CENTRIFUGAL CS CENTRIFUGAL CS FLAT-BTM-STORAGE CS -136.828 0.0 0.9970 -706.9906 -364.649 262.00 0.1% 74 3.5 0.0% 0.9973 -206.828 943 96.0% 26 1.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 0 kg/hr kg/hr 96 kg/hr kg/hr 540 kg/hr 0 kg/hr 80 kg/hr 12 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr 3 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr -265.00 0.8 0.3 0.00 158.00 96.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.456 0.9925 I0203I.00 0.40 0.00 0.0% 28 1.912 574 104.00 1 95.6 0.0% 0.281 0.00 104.456 904 905 186.552 0. WP912 WP914 kW 20.00 52 186.67 0 79 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 58 175 543 0 83 13 0 0 1 1 60 Eq.9811 -0.00 54. Spare 1 1 2 1 1 Equipment Type Mat Const.1 0.2 0. Equipment Name P-912 Make-up Water Pump P-914 Process Water Circulating Pump T-914 Process Water Tank Req.9442 251 71. MM kcal/hr Work Stream No.466 0.8 g/ml 0.658 0 811 54.684 524 35.579 0. No.649 263.579 624 95.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.00 35.805 0.0% 26 1.85 58.0% 0.00 51 70.0% 20 1.0% 26 3.0% 0.9983 -601.00 0.

5 0.00 63 Heat Stream QH910 Mmkcal/hr -0.09 Work Stream No.00 0.00 63 916 63 0.0% 0.2 0.998 -0.xls .0% 20 1.00 1.00 145 914 63 0.00 145 909 145 0.0% 20 1.0% 0.0% 0.36 Eq.0% 121 1. WM910 kW 257.00 0.00 0.0% 0.001 -0.998 I0203I.0% 20 1. Spare Equipment Type 1 MISCELLANEOUS Mat Const.998 -0. No.5 0.COMPONENT Total Flow Insoluble Solids Soluble Solids Temperature Pressure Vapor Fraction Ethanol Water Glucose (SS) Xylose (SS) Arabinose (SS) Other Sugars (SS) Cellobiose (SS) Glucose Oligomers (SS) Xylose Oligomers (SS) Other Oligomers (SS) Corn Steep Liquor (SS) Others (Soluble Solids) Acetic Acid Sulfuric Acid Furfural HMF Carbon Dioxide Methane Oxygen Nitrogen Others Cellulose (IS) Xylan (IS) Arabinan (IS) Other Sugar Polymers (IS) Cellulase (IS) Biomass (IS) Zymo (IS) Lignin (IS) Gypsum (IS) Ca(OH)2 (IS) Others (Insoluble Solids) Enthalpy Flow (millions) Average Density UNITS kg/hr % % C atm kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Kcal/hr g/ml 906 145 0. CS -0.2 0. Equipment Name M-910 CIP System Req.

Appendix G Changes from the 1999 Design Report .

and the change to target yields for pretreatment and co-fermentation that can be achieved in the next several years. Labor for the baled feedstock was a significant change . . Yield targets were increased from 75 to 90% for hemicellulose to monomer conversion. Because the bales are trucked in and must be unloaded. It is assumed that the bales would be stored in several locations until needed. breaking them up. and making the stalks and other long pieces small enough to feed to the pretreatment reactors. The total installed cost of $7. including moving the bales. transportation and farmer costs required to obtain stover in 2010. a substantial amount of bale moving is anticipated. unbaling. The reason for this decrease in savings as the installation factor is applied is that the Anco-Eaglin system has a larger installation factor of 2. better design and cost information.5 for the Sunds unit. The feedstock cost of $30 per dry short ton is an increase from wood chips at $25 per dry short ton.eight forklift operators per shift for corn stover versus two bulldozer drivers for chips. There are fewer carbohydrates in corn stover than hardwood. The cost of offsite storage for the once-per-year harvest of stover was not included in this design. Both companies specified lower cost metallurgy for the wetted parts (Incoloy 825 clad steel and Incoloy 825. It is conceivable that this system is overdone. so the theoretical of ethanol yield per ton of feedstock is lower. and picked one based on its performance in existing similar applications.29 versus a factor of 1.5MM for stover handling equipment was $2. piled feedstock like wood chips to baled stover presented several changes in the feedstock receiving and handling area. Corn stover also contains a higher percentage of dirt and less moisture than wood chips. ORNL has been instrumental in providing us with information on feedstock costs to use in the process model.6MM higher than that for wood chips. The cost represents our current understanding of the expected harvesting capabilities. the need to portray the current state of research in enzyme production. so dust and debris were issues. Corn Stover Feedstock The change in feedstock from yellow poplar hardwood chips to corn stover is a major one. and continues to work towards a better understanding of the availability and cost of stover. washing. which was sized on a total feed rate basis. The Harris group looked at several designs for moving. Anco-Eaglin and Andritz provided detailed estimates. Pretreatment Reactor and Yields The Harris Group contacted several vendors for design and cost information to augment the information we obtained from Sunds through Delta-T. the process changes came from a new feedstock.5MM in installed equipment cost over the Sunds unit. The stover handling equipment was also sized on a dry feed rate unlike the wood chip handling equipment. Other minor changes (to the mass and energy balance model) had a small combined cost effect.The following section describes the major changes that have been made since the 1999 design report. The lower cost of the Anco-Eaglin system provided a savings of about $5. and shredding baled corn stover.5MM in purchased and $2. and the washing and size reduction could be reduced as we learn to handle or minimize the dirt picked up in harvesting and gain a better understanding of the effect of particle size. In general. Harris contracted with a corrosion lab and corrosion consultant to conduct testing on these materials. The change from a loose. respectively) than Sunds originally did (Hastelloy C-2000) for the pretreatment conditions.

it allows for washing with a minimal amount of liquid. The electrical demand of the plant is roughly halved without the enzyme production fermenters. the SSCF process was separated into separate saccharification and co-fermentation. and required a dryer to get the total boiler feed moisture content low enough to support combustion. and washing ability.3MM installed cost for the Pneumapress and peripherals compared to $2. due to the high efficiency of the Pneumapress unit.Solid-Liquid Separation Equipment A significant portion of the Harris Group’s work was with solid-liquid separation vendors in an attempt to optimize the design of equipment for both separation of prehydrolyzate slurry and post-distillate slurry.5MM) and operating costs associated with that production were about $0. but $18. previously used for drying. its separation and washing efficiencies were superior to the horizontal belt filters. can now be used in a combustion air preheater ($1.10 per gallon of ethanol was used for enzyme delivered to the plant from a local enzyme facility. The installed capital ($15. Distillation column costing Both the beer column and rectification distillation column capital costs are now scaled by the square of the diameter (previously just the diameter). we consider it more reliable than the previous separation equipment costs used Enzymatic Hydrolysis (Saccharification) and Co-Fermentation Based on our current understanding of what production of the first commercially available enzyme preparation for lignocellulosic biomass will entail. the Pneumapress filter’s estimated installed cost was $2. In preparation for an improved thermal tolerant enzyme. The saccharification yield target was increased and the fermentation yield target for glucose was also increased. Also. Chilled water demand is also greatly reduced by removing cellulase production. the Pneumapress system used here is again about $4MM more expensive than the prior centrifuge cost ($6. a cost of $0.4MM). For the post-distillate solids.) was $0. Harris’ estimated installed cost for a centrifuge system in this application (including all extraneous equipment such as pumps. cake dryness. A rotary drum dryer.1MM for the belt filter press).30 per gallon ethanol.4MM versus $2. the solids fed to the boiler are not being dried. As a result of vendor testing over a wide range of separator types.2MM). a Pneumapress pressure filter was chosen for the prehydrolyzate slurry application based on its performance in solid recovery.7MM more expensive than that of the Pneumapress system. but also allows the removal of the solids dryer ($2. however.1MM). etc. The previous design used a centrifuge. 2. Other Changes 1. and has been verified through vendor testing. This is a major change from the previous d esign. Solids Dryer Testing In the current design.2MM more than the closest cost quote.5MM less than the highest quote. Reesei fungi (previously Area 400 in the design). When compared against the other quotes (for horizontal belt filters). The flue gas. conveyors. However. Because this data was based on vendor tests. similar to those used to dry the Distiller’s Dried Grains (DDG) in the corn ethanol industry was used with . which assumed on-site fermentation of the enzyme using T. The installed cost of the Pneumapress system was about $4MM higher than our current estimate for a belt filter press ($6. to better represent the size (and hence cost) by a variable that is proportional to cross-sectional flow.

01 Hardwood Chips $25 per dry ton $4.06 +$0.04 +$0.the hot flue gas as the heat source. and was incorporated into the design (replacing the rotary drum dryer) until the Pneumapress unit replaced it and the centrifuge in this new design. 1.30 per gallon ethanol SSCF 73. The cost of the dryer was about $2.20 -$0.02 $1.9MM 2 per shift Hastelloy C-2000 75% Hemicellulose to Monomer Yield 190°C 0.10 +$0. 2 minutes Overliming only Pneumapress Pressure Filters Purchased for $0. 2000 $ .01 -$0.06 -$0. 10 minutes Ion exchange and overliming Belt Filter Press/Centrifuge Produced on-site for $0.5% Cellulose to Ethanol Yield 85% all Hemicelluosic Sugars to Ethanol Yield 2000 -$0.07 +$0.02 -$0.01 -$0. 1997 $) Feedstock Feedstock Cost Feedstock Handling Installed Cost Feedstock Handling Labor Pretreatment Reactor Pretreatment Targets and Conditions 2002 Design Report Ethanol Selling Price ($/gal) $1.2MM.15 -$0.02 +0.6% Cellulose to Ethanol Yield 85% Xylose to Ethanol Yield 1997 Corn Stover $30 per dry ton $7.1% acid.08 +$0. Summary of Significant Changes 1999 Design Report 1999 Reported Cost (Model: R9906A.5% acid.5MM 8 per shift Incoloy 825 clad steel 90% Hemicellulose to Monomer Yield 190°C.07 Conditioning Solid-Liquid Separation Equipment Enzyme Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation Configuration Fermentation Targets Cost Year Change Other Minor Model Fixes 2002 Reported Cost (Model: I0203I.44 +$0.10 per gallon ethanol Saccharification and CoFermentation 85.

Appendix H Chemical Formulas for Biomass Compounds .

3 C6 H10 O5 C6 H12 O6 C10 H13.5 N0.3 C5 H8 O4 C5 H8 O4 C5 H10 O5 CH1. mobilis Chemical Formula C2 H4 O2 C5 H8 O4 C5 H10 O5 C12 H22 O11 C5 H10 O5 Unknown C5 H4 O2 C6 H10 O5 C6 H12 O6 C6 H12 O6 C5 H4 O2 C10 H13.9 O1.Chemical Formulas for Biomass Compounds Compound Name Acetate Arabinan Arabinose Cellobiose Cellulose Corn Steep Liquor (CSL) Furfural Galactan Galactose Glucose HydroxyMethylFurfural (HMF) Lignin Mannan Mannose Soluble Lignin Tar Xylan Xylose Z.2 Notes Use Xylan Properties Use Xylose properties Use Glucose properties Modeled as water Use Cellulose properties Use Glucose properties Use Furfural properties Use Cellulose properties Use Glucose properties Use Glucose properties for liquid-liquid interactions Use Xylan Properties .9 O1.8 O0.

Appendix I Physical Property Model and Parameters for Distillation .

which makes the vapor fugacity coefficient equal to one. reduces to the pure component vapor pressure. at low pressures (the Poynting correction is unity). f i *. ln γ i ∑x τ G = ∑x G j ji j k ki k ji xG + ∑ j ij j ∑ xk Gkj k  ∑ xmτ mjGmj    m τ ij −  ∑ xk Gkj    k  Where: Gij = exp( −α ijτ ij ) τ ij = aij + τ ii = 0 Gii = 1 aij ≠ a ji bij ≠ b ji cij = c ji d ij = d ji Vapor Pressure Correlation T + eij ln T + f ijT α ij = cij + d ij (T − 273. Tables 11 and 12 give the ethanol and water parameters for those equations. calculation. The vapor phase is modeled using the ideal gas law.Physical property models and parameters are important throughout a rigorous mass and energy balance model such as the one used here. The NRTL activity coefficient model and vapor pressure models used by ASPEN are given below. The liquid phase equation for liquid fugacity is: f iλ = xi γ i f i*. This is even truer for distillation calculations involving azeotropes such as the separation of ethanol from water. f i λ .λ .λ = C1i + i C2i + C4iT + C5i ln T + C6iT C 7 i T + C3i .λ . pi*. The physical property optioni selected for this ASPEN model uses the NRTLii activity coefficient (γ i ) model for the liquid phase fugacity.λ The pure component liquid fugacity.15) bij ln p*. The v apor phase fugacity coefficient is not nearly as important as the liquid phase fugacity because of the low-pressure operation.

Praustniz. Aspen Technology. Aspen Technology.3037 C6 3.NRTL Activity Coefficient Model Parameters iii aij 0 aji 0 bij -55. and J. Inc. i . Parameters Ethanol Water C1 74. Inc. Physical Property Data. 1996. 1996.”AIChE J.13 Temperature Units.16 Upper Temperature Limit 513.3.649 C2 -7164. Physical Property Methods and Models. 1968.1340E-06 4. Cambridge.92 647...3270 -7. 135.” Release 9..15 Note: i – ethanol..1653E-06 C7 2 2 Lower Temperature Limit 159. Kelvins Pressure Units. ii Renon. j – water Vapor Pressure Model Parameters iii Eq. Cambridge.3.M.”Release 9.2 C3 0 0 C4 0 0 C5 -7.475 73. H.3031 dij 0 eij 0 eji 0 fij 0 fji 0 Lower Temperature Limit 348. “Local Composition in Thermodynamic Excess Functions for Liquid Mixtures.05 273. iii “ASPEN Plus™. MA.1698 bji 670.3 -7258.15 Upper Temperature Limit 373. Pascals “ASPEN Plus™. Reference Manual–Volume 3. 14(1).4442 cij 0. Reference Manual–Volume 2. MA.

and to the Office of Management and Budget. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NREL/TP-510-32438 12a. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. DC 20503. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 10. Suite 1204. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. VA 22161 13. Washington. J. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 16. M. acid prehydrolysis. SUBJECT TERMS process design. Montague.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB NO. Lukas 7. B. DISTRIBUTION CODE National Technical Information Service U. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. CO 80401 Harris Group Seattle. Neeves. WA 98109 9. NUMBER OF PAGES 14. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Technical Report 5. CO 80401-3393 11. PRICE CODE 20. 15. searching existing data sources. Sheehan. Golden. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Biotechnology Center for Fuels and Chemicals National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden. Arlington. VA 22202-4302. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. A. Ibsen. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Jechura. including the time for reviewing instructions. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2002 4. gathering and maintaining the data needed.Ruth. AUTHOR(S) TA: BFP2. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. including suggestions for reducing this burden. Wallace L. enzymatic hydrolysis 17. economic analyses. Aden. K. J. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Slayton. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This report is an update of NREL’s ongoing process design and economic analyses of processes related to developing ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks. REPORT DATE 3. J.S. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 19. 1. FUNDING NUMBERS Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover 6. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Unclassified Unclassified UL Standard Form 298 (Rev. to Washington Headquarters Services. K. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18.A410 A. Z39-18 298-102 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful