Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process

An Le Thuy Tran
ID#: xxxxx7066
Chemical Engineering

CHEG 407-A
Spring 2016
Apr. 14, 2016
Submitted to Dr. Jacob R. Borden
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................3
Flowsheet and Process Description ...................................................................................................3
Cane Milling................................................................................................................................... 4
Juice Clarification ........................................................................................................................... 4
Fermentation................................................................................................................................... 5
Ethanol Distillation ......................................................................................................................... 6
Mass and Energy Balances................................................................................................................7
Major Equipment List ......................................................................................................................9
Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................9
ISBL/OSBL.................................................................................................................................. 10
CAPEX........................................................................................................................................ 10
OPEX........................................................................................................................................... 10
NPV/IRR...................................................................................................................................... 11
Safety Analysis................................................................................................................................12
Toxicity/ Flammability/ Auto-ignition ............................................................................................ 12
HAZOP ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Boston Square............................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................14

1
Figures
Figure 1: Overall Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process Overview........................................................3
Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview.........................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview .................................................................................................5
Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Inverts to Ethanol.........................................................................5
Figure 5: Fermentation Overview ........................................................................................................6
Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview ...............................................................................................7
Figure 7: Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................9
Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg .................................................................................. 13
Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators .............................................................................. 13
Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP...................................................... 14

Tables
Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section ....................................................................................4
Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section ............................................................................5
Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section....................................................................................6
Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section .......................................................................................7
Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section ...........................................................................................8
Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section .......................................................................................8
Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section...................................................................................8
Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section......................................................................................9
Table 9: Overall Economic Results .................................................................................................... 10
Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost..................................................................................................... 11
Table 11: Variables Cost of Production .............................................................................................. 11
Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost ............................................................. 11
Table 13: Variables Cost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production ............................................. 11
Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis ............................................................................................. 12
Table 15: Safety Parameters for Materials Involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process.......... 13

2
Executive Summary
Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Co-Op, Inc. located in
Jeanerette, LA. In this project, we have evaluated a sugarcane mill that processes 20,000 metric tons per
day (44.1 million lb/day) of cane. With the plant operating at an on-stream factor of 0.50, the annual
output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol or 64 million gallons.
The on-stream factor is a reflection of our assumption that the mills, fermentation and recovery are
operated during a milling season of 150 days/yr. This plant is estimated to have a ± 100% CAPEX of $
670,000,000 and a ± 50% major equipment cost of $ 120,000,000 (included a Lang factor of 4). Also,
total variables cost per gallon ethanol production is estimated as $ 2.02. A brief safety analysis, HAZOP,
and Boston Square were performed in order to identify and evaluate problems that may present risks to
personnel or equipment, or prevent efficient operation. The MS Excel file, with the shortcut as shown
below, shows all calculations, figures, and tables with detailed examination.

CHEG 407-Case
2-Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process.xlsx

Flowsheet and Process Description

The sugarcane plant is operated 5 months (150 days) a year, and processes 20,000 US ton of raw
sugarcane per day. The ethanol production from sugarcane consists of four process sections: cane milling,
juice clarification, fermentation, and ethanol distillation. The main raw materials involving in this
production are sugarcane and water, besides with other reagents at small quantities. The overall ethanol
from sugarcane mills process overview is provided in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Overall Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process Overview

3
 1. Cane Milling
The sugarcane from field typically contains 15 wt% sucrose, 15 wt% fiber, and 70 wt% water and
dirt. Firstly, the cane is unloaded for cleaning, and placed in a large pile. Then, breaking cane is done by
revolving knives and shredder; grinding cane is done by 4 sets of 4-roller mills. Next, conveyors transfer
the cane through knife mill and hammer mill toward roller mills. In order to enhance the extraction of the
juice, imbibition water is added at the roller mills. Lately, bagasse which is removed from the last roller
mill can be recycle to use as fuel. The design basis for Cane Milling section is provided in Table 1 below.

Component Value Unit

Raw cane 20000 US ton/day
Sugar in cane 15 %
Extraction yield of sugar 96 %
Bagasse 0.275 lb/lb cane
40 % solid
Bagasse composition
60 % moisture
Imbibition water 0.307 lb/lb cane

Table 1: Design Basis for Cane Milling Section

Water
6140 US ton/day
Knife mill Hammer mill
Sugarcane 20000 US ton/day Wt scale, 4-Roller mills
from field 15 wt% sucrose transport 6-10" billets 0.5-1" chunks split fiber
15 wt% fiber
70 wt% water, dirt
Raw juice Bagasse
20640 US ton/day 5500 US ton/day
13.95 wt% sucrose 40 wt% solid
60 wt% water

Figure 2: Cane Milling Overview

2. Juice Clarification
In the juice clarification section, the raw material is first heated at about 95o C. Next, calcium
oxide (lime) is added in order to produce organic acids precipitate. The remaining of lime and dirt then
are added to clarifier in order to separate clear juice and heavy precipitate (mud). The mud will undergoes
the vacuum filtering process while the clear juice will go through evaporator which has five heat
exchangers in series in order to produce concentrated juice, using evaporated water. The last heat
exchanger is operated at 2.5 psia and 57o C. A design basis for juice clarification section can be seen in the
Table 2 below.

4
Component Value Unit
Lime added 0.003 lb/lb cane
Sucrose lost in filtercake 0.7 %
Filtercake 0.0196 lb/lb cane
30 % solid
Filtercake composition
70 % moisture
Sugar in clear juice 12 %

Table 2: Design Basis for Juice Clarification Section

Lime
60 US ton/day Recycle juice
Juice heater
Raw juice Surge Mixing Surge
Clarifier
20640 US ton/day tank vessel tank
13.95 wt% sucrose

Concentrated juice Surge Clear juice Mud

Evaporator
9533 US ton/day tank 23832 US ton/day centrifuge
30 wt% sucrose 12 wt% sucrose

Evaporated water Wash water

14299 US ton/day 3524 US ton/day
Filter cake
392 US ton/day
30 wt% solid
70 wt% water

Figure 3: Juice Clarification Overview

3. Fermentation
Ethanol is produced as a result of fermentation in a series of fed-batch fermenters. Yeast cream
and molasses are fed to the top of the first fermenter. Each stage gives broth at the bottom following to
the middle of the next stage. The fermenters have a conical bottom inclined at 60˚ and an aspect ratio
(height/diameter) of 1.2 in the cylindrical part. Broth is circulated through external coolers to maintain the
fermenter operating temperature between 33 and 35o C (91 to 95o F). Liquid kinetic energy at the heat
exchanger outlet is used to agitate liquid in the fermenter. Foam and gasses from the fermenter conduct to
the next fermenter, then washed in a perforated plate column. Carbon dioxide is also produced with the
ethanol and contain some of the vent gasses.

Disk-bowl centrifuges separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream containing 70-80%
of cellular mass. Acid treatment vessels received the yeast cream, where water is added to up to 35-40%
of the volume, and concentrated sulfuric acid is added to get the pH of about 2.2. The amount of effective
concentration of ethanol in the wine accounts for about 10 vol%. Figure 4 below shows the conversion of
sucrose and inverts to ethanol.

Type of reaction Stoichiometry

Inversion of Sucrose by Hydrolysis C12 H22 O11 + H2 O → 2C6 H12 O6
Conversion of Invert Sugars by Yeast 2C6 H12 O6 → 4C2 H5 OH + 4CO 2
Figure 4: Conversion of Sucrose and Inverts to Ethanol

5
Component Value Unit
Fermentation time 8 hours
Waer added 0.13 lb/lb concentrated juice
Fermentation reaction yield 92 %
Bottom stream yield 99 % total ethanol
Total yield of ethanol 91 %
Diluted ethanol concentration 15 %
Reactor temperature 35 degree C

Table 3: Design Basis for Fermentation Section

CO2 Water

Gas
washing
column

Concentrated juice Gas

9533 US ton/day 1429 US ton/day Water
30 wt% sucrose

10-Fermentors

Water 10-Heat exchangers

1239 US ton/day

Yeast cream 9343 US ton/day

Acid treatment unit Centrifuges
15 wt% ethanol

Sulfuric acid

Figure 5: Fermentation Overview

4. Ethanol Distillation
Fermented wine (15wt% ethanol) which comes from centrifuges will first go through heater, then
stripping and rectifying columns. In the stripping column, carbon dioxide gas is removed as an overhead
product, while liquid water is removed at the bottom. Then, rectifying column will received the side
stream from stripping column in order to produce hydrous ethanol with 50% in volume. Both columns are
operated at 30 psia and consist of valve trays, overhead condensers, and bottom reboilers. A design basis
for distillation section can be seen in the table 4 below.

6
Component Value Unit
Distillation yield 99 %
CO2 removed 100 %
Ethanol product 50 vol%
concentration 43 wt%
Ethanol product density 0.93 kg/L
Product stream 3,226 US ton/day
Product capacity 483,966 US ton/year
Overall capacity 124,729,357 gal ethanol/year
0.16 lb product/lb cane
Ratio product
157.37 L product/US ton cane

Table 4: Design Basis for Distillation Section

Gas to washing column Ethanol

25 US ton/day 50 vol%
3226 US ton/day
Condenser Condenser

Stripping Rectification
column column

Wine heater
Fermented wine Reboiler
9342 US ton/day
15 wt% ethanol

Reboiler To waste treatment

6091 US ton/day

Figure 6: Ethanol Distillation Overview

Mass and Energy Balances

For the annual output is 420 million pounds (192,000 metric tons or 242 million liters) of ethanol,
the mass flowrate of each component in each section has been calculated and can be seen in Tables 5-8
below.

7
 Section Component Flowrate (US ton/day)
Sucrose 3,000
Sugarcane
Fiber 3,000
feed
Water & dirt 14,000
Imbibition water 6,140
Milling
Sucrose 2,880
Raw juice
Water & dirt 17,760
Solid 2,200
Bagasse
Water 3,300

Table 5: Mass Balance for Milling Section

Section Component Flowrate (US ton/day)

Sucrose 2,880
Raw juice
Water & dirt 17,760
Wash water 3,524
Lime 60
Decanter
Sucrose 2,860
Clear juice
Water 20,972
Solid 118
Filter cake
Water 274
Sucrose 2,860
Clear juice
Water 20,972
Evaporator Concentrated Sucrose 2,860
juice Water 6,673
Evaporated water 14,299

Table 6: Mass Balance for Clarifying Section

Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)

Sugar 2,859.84
Inlet Water 6,672.96
Added water (from acid treatment) 1,239.26
Ethanol 1,415.54
Water 7,773.75
Outlet
Unreacted sugar 228.79
CO2 1,353.99
Fermentation
Water 73.02
Top
Ethanol 14.16
stream
CO2 1,342.35
Ethanol 1,401.38
Bottom Water 7,700.73
stream Unreacted sugar 228.79
CO2 11.65

Table 7: Mass Balance for Fermentation Section

8
 Section Stream Component Flowrate (US ton/day)
Ethanol 1,401.38
Water 7,700.73
Inlet
CO2 11.65
Sugar 228.79
CO2 overhead 11.65
Distillation
Ethanol overhead 14.01
Water at bottom 5,861.66
Outlet
Sugar at bottom 228.79
Water in product 1,839.07
Ethanol in product 1,387.37

Table 8: Mass Balance for Distillation Section

Major Equipment List

No. Equipment Functions
1 Knife mill 1st step of breaking the hard structure of the cane
2 Hammer mill 2nd step of breaking the hard structure of the cane
3 Roller mill Grind or mill the crushed cane
4 Settling tank Strain the juice from the mills to remove large particles
5 Vacuum filter Filter the insoluble particulate mass, called “mud”
6 Clarifying column Separate a heavy precipitate from the juice
7 Mix vessel Neutralize the organic acid
8 Juice heater Raise the temperature of the juice to about 200 degree F
9 Mud centrifugal Separate mud from the limed juice
10 Multiple effect evaporators Concentrate the juice in an evaporator station
Remove residual carbon dioxide and as little ethanol as possible
11 Stripping column
overhead
12 Rectifying distillation Tolerate solids well and have a relatively good efficiency
13 Fermenters Produce ethanol
Maintain each fermenter at operating temperatures by circulating
14 External coolers
broth through external coolers
15 Perforated plate column Wash gases and foam released from the fermenter process
16 Disk-bowl centrifuge Separate biomass from the wine to form a yeast cream
Dilute the yeast cream with water and mix with concentrated
17 Acid treatment vessel
sulfuric acid
18 Sulfuric acid tank Contain sulfuric acid
19 Condenser Condense carbon dioxide, ethanol, and water
20 Ethanol storage tank Store pure ethanol

Figure 7: Major Equipment List

Economic Analysis
A major equipment cost is calculated as a total of $ 30,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the
method. The details of estimated cost of each piece of equipment can be seen in Table 9 below. The total
equipment cost was then brought from 2006 US dollars to 2016 US dollars by using cost index found in

9
 figure 7.3 from Chemical Engineering Design Book (page 337) before being multiplied by a Lang factor
of 4 to get a CAPEX cost of $ 120,000,000 ± 50% within the accuracy of the method.
No Equipment Symbol Material Op. parameter
Op. value Op. unit a b n Material factor Cost $
1 Knife mill S-101 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 $ 626,850.00
2 Hammer mill S-102 Carbon steel Mass flow 765 t/h 68400 730 1 1 $ 626,850.00
3 Roller mills (x4) S-104A-D Carbon steel Mass flow 18000 t/day 250000 500 0.9 1 $ 3,628,432.60
4 Settling tank S-105 Carbon steel Volume 568 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 $ 141,370.07
5 Vacuum filter (x2) S-107A&B Carbon steel Area 3026 m2 -73000 93000 0.3 1 $ 956,778.04
6 Clarifying column V-102 304 SS Volume 492.10 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 $ 166,945.29
7 Mix vessel V-101 304 SS Volume 359.61 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 $ 135,522.00
8 Mud centrifugal S-106 316 SS Diameter 1.30 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 $ 822,040.96
9 Fermenters (x10) R-301-310 304 SS Volume 1135.623 m3 623750 5000 1 1 $ 6,301,865.00
10 Disk-bowl centrifuge S-301A&B 316 SS Diameter 0.91 m 57000 480000 0.7 1.3 $ 660,211.09
11 Acid treatment vessel V-301A-D 316 SS Volume 26.50 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1.3 $ 112,644.24
12 Sulfuric acid tank T-351 Carbon steel Volume 18.93 m3 113000 3250 0.65 1 $ 134,977.95
13 Ethanol storage tank T-451A&B Carbon steel Volume 3217.5985 m3 5800 1600 0.7 1 $ 462,249.02
Carbon steel Area 58.06 m2 1600 210 0.95 1 $ 11,552.53
14 Juice heater E-101
316 SS Duty 8206 kW -14000 1900 0.75 1.3 $ 2,111,387.98
Multiple effect 316 SS m2
15 E-102A-E Area 743.22 330 36000 0.55 1.3 $ 1,776,096.73
evaporators
316 SS Duty 18.65 kW 17000 1130 1.05 1.3 $ 53,812.80
Carbon steel Area 111.48 m2 29000 400 0.9 1 $ 56,832.35
16 External coolers (x10) E-301-304
304 SS Duty 21.2 kW 580000 20000 0.6 1.3 $ 916,470.63
Carbon steel m2
17 Condensers E-402 Area 65.03 30400 122 1.1 1 $ 42,444.82
304 SS Duty 366.34 kW 260000 2700 0.75 1.3 $ 631,914.07

Trays/packing parameter Cost of Column parameter

Cost of column
No Equipment Symbol Trays/Packing # of trays Height of packing (m) a b n tray/packing a b n
18 Stripping column C-401 valve trays 34 N/A 210 400 1.9 $ 160,022.85 17400 79 0.85 $ 2,197,673.55
19 Rectifying distillation C-402 valve trays 60 N/A 210 400 1.9 $ 163,477.76 17400 79 0.85 $ 2,685,939.58
20 Perforated plate column C-301 304 SS Raschig rings N/A 3.048 0 8000 1 $ 284,671.99 17400 79 0.85 $ 1,130,005.67

Year Cost index

2006 1.6 fig. 7.3
2016 1.45 fig. 7.3

Total 2006 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50% $ 26,999,039.58

Total 2016 Cost of Major Equipment ± 50% $ 29,792,043.68 eq. 7.14
Lang factor 4
CAPEX ISBL ± 50% $ 119,168,174.70 eq. 7.10

Table 9: Overall Economic Results

Compare to the original ± 100% ISBL cost ($ 670,000,000), the calculated CAPEX cost is much
lower ($ 120,000,000). The reason is many pieces of equipment not being accounted for. These
equipment are continuous vacuum pans, batch seed pans, crystallizers, continuous centrifuges, etc. The
difference also might come from the number of reactors used in practice, which will raise the CAPEX
cost significantly.

This project is designed for St. Mary Sugar Coop plant in Jeanerette, Louisiana. The cost analysis
can be done by using ISBL and OSBL method. Based on the total purchased equipment cost, the total
fixed capital cost is estimated as $ 216.9 MM for an investment of 20-year life for a project.

10
 Major equipment cost $ 119,168,174.70
Offsites factor (OS) 0.3
Design and Engineering (D&E) 0.3
Contigency (X) 0.1
Total fixed capital cost $ 216,886,077.96

Table 10: Total Fixed Capital Cost

Consumption/Production
Component Value Unit Cost per unit Cost per day Cost per year
Cooling water 37,857,600 gal/day $ 0.005 $ 189,288.00 $ 28,393,200.00
Utilities
Electricity 523,872 kWh/day $ 0.060 $ 31,432.32 $ 4,714,848.00
Raw sugarcane 20,000 US ton/day $ 30.00 $ 600,000.00 $ 90,000,000.00
Raw material
Calcium oxide 60 US ton/day $ 60.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 540,000.00
By product Electricity (from bagasse) 22,723 kWh/day $ (0.087) $ (47,445.62) $ (7,116,843.60)
$ 116,531,204.40

Table 11: Variables Cost of Production

Assume that this sugarcane plant has 25 operators, 6 engineers, and 1 plant manager, in which the
salaries are estimated as $25/hr for operators, $30/hr for engineer, and $35/hr for plant manager. Thus, for
one season, the labor cost of this plant is calculated as around $6,000,000. Maintenance cost and
depreciation cost are estimated as 5% ISBL and 5% total fixed cost, respectively. Total annual cost equals
the sum of labor cost, maintenance cost, and depreciation cost.

Labor cost $ 6,000,000.00

Maintenance $ 6,235,986.00 5% ISBL
Depreciation $ 10,844,303.90 5% total fixed cost
Total annual cost $ 23,080,289.90

Table 12: Annual Labor, Maintenance, and Depreciation Cost

Cooling water $ 0.45

Utilities
Electricity $ 0.07
Raw sugarcane $ 1.41
Raw material
Calcium oxide $ 0.01
By product Electricity (from bagasse) $ (0.11)
Labor $ 0.09
Maintenance $ 0.10
Total $ 2.02 per gal
$ 128,709,825.40 per year

Table 13: Variables Cost per Gallon and per Year of Ethanol Production

Assume the plant is built at time zero, begins operation at full rate in year 1. The rate of corporate
income tax is 35%, and paid tax based on the previous year’s income. The IRR is found as 13.11% by
using Goal seek in Excel. The NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years then is calculated as
$106,932,545.09, which is approximately as $107 MM. The payback period is 8 years, and the profit is
earned at the 9th year. A detail can be seen in Table 14 below.

11
 Depriciation After tax income
Year Revenue ($) Cost ($) Gross profit (S) Taxable income ($) Tax ($) NPV ($) Total NPV to year ($)
charge ($) ($)
1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (216,886,077.96) $ (216,886,077.96) $ (216,886,077.96)
2 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 41,526,408.14 $ (175,359,669.82)
3 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 36,713,707.06 $ (138,645,962.76)
4 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 32,458,773.73 $ (106,187,189.03)
5 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 28,696,965.71 $ (77,490,223.32)
6 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 25,371,132.24 $ (52,119,091.08)
7 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 22,430,746.09 $ (29,688,344.99)
8 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 19,831,135.84 $ (9,857,209.15)
9 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 17,532,807.30 $ 7,675,598.15
10 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 15,500,843.44 $ 23,176,441.59
11 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 13,704,373.93 $ 36,880,815.53
12 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 12,116,106.17 $ 48,996,921.70
13 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 10,711,910.63 $ 59,708,832.33
14 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 9,470,454.26 $ 69,179,286.59
15 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 8,372,876.42 $ 77,552,163.01
16 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 7,402,502.31 $ 84,954,665.31
17 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 6,544,589.66 $ 91,499,254.97
18 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 5,786,104.75 $ 97,285,359.72
19 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 5,115,524.42 $ 102,400,884.13
20 $ 128,709,825.40 $ 52,814,968.57 $ 75,894,856.83 $ (10,844,303.90) $ 65,050,552.93 $ 22,767,693.53 $ 53,127,163.30 $ 4,522,660.96 $ 106,923,545.09

Rate of corporate tax 35% Total = Net present value = $ (0.00)

IRR 13.11%

Table 14: Cash Flow and NPV Analysis

Safety Analysis
Many hazardous chemicals involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills process are listed in the
Table 6 below. Carbon dioxide is classified as harmful; sucrose, water, ethanol calcium oxide, fructose,
and glucose are considered as non-harmful based on LD50 rate. The LD50 rate expresses the amount of the
specified chemical that it would take to kill 50% of an animal population. A chemical substances may be
very dangerous at high temperature or pressure, though it is not at lower degree of temperature and
pressure. The PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) establishes the ppm limit that should not come into
contact with a person. Appropriate medical care and paperwork should be fulfilled if a person comes into
contact with a chemical beyond its PEL. The Flammability Range in air (vol% in air) suggests that if the
volume percent of the specified material falls between these ranges, an explosion will mostly occur,
especially if there is an ignition source. In order to not falling in the flammability range, the unit needs to
be operated a very safe distance from this range. In our plant, since other chemical’s flammability ranges
do not applicable except ethanol’s, our unit process needs to be run at a very ethanol rich at 32 volume
percent in air or higher; or at a very EDC poor at 1 volume percent in air or lower. In case the
flammability ranges of other chemicals are indicated, our unit needs to be operated at the point more than
the highest volume percent in air of all the upper limits or at the point less than the lowest volume percent
in air of all the lower limits. Auto ignition temperature is shown in the last column, at which the specified
material may spontaneously ignite. Therefore, a unit should have a material operating far from its auto
ignition temperature. In order to do that, extra insulation may be added around process equipment.

Toxicity data Flammability range Auto ignition

Compound PEL Toxicity level Lower Upper temperature
LD50 (mg/kg) (o C)
(ppm) limit limit
Sucrose 27 29,700 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
1200 Rat
CO2 5000 Harmful N/A N/A N/A
1029 Mouse

12
 H2 O N/A N/A N/A Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
3450 Oral, mouse
6300 Oral, rabbit
Ethanol 1000 Not harmful 3.3% 19% 363
9000 Oral, rat
7060 Oral, rat
CaO 2.2 7340 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Fructose N/A 15000 Rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Glucose N/A 25800 Oral, rat Not harmful N/A N/A N/A
Volume percentage
Source: OSHA in air at ambient
conditions
Table 15: Safety Parameters for Materials Involved in the Ethanol from Sugarcane Mills Process

LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg

≤ 25 Very toxic
25 to 200 Toxic
200 to 2000 Harmful
Figure 8: LD50 Absorbed Orally in Rats, mg/kg

Unaccounted chemical, although all safety solutions are taken, escapes and can cause
unpredictable safety issues. Extra layers of protection should always be used as a backup. A check valve
should be used for process equipment that involves toxic material redundant. For personal safety, a
worker should always wear appropriate protective equipment like respirator, flame retardant clothing,
steel toe boots, and safety glasses. Figure 10 below shows the HAZOP on multiple effect evaporators.
Likelyhood
Scenario

Severity

Parameter Guide Word Deviation Possible Causes Consequences Action

Failure of inlet
Process fluid temperature not Install flowmeter to detect incident and
1 Flowrate NO No steam flow pneumatic check valve 5 5
heated accordingly notice maintenance
to open
Failure of pneumatic Output of process fluid Install temperature controller to control
2 Flowrate MORE More steam flow 4 7
check valve to close temperature too high steam
Reverse process Failure of process fluid
3 Flowrate REVERSE 1 Product offset 3 Install check valve
fluid flow inlet valve
Electronic control No steam to barometric Isolate the gate valve and enable the
4 Flowrate NO No fluid flow 3 1
valve fails condenser to provide heat bypass
Exchanger outlet Exchanger shell side will be over Rated pump discharge pressure at no
Pressure Shell side high
5 HIGH discharge check valve 2 pressurized up to maximum 4 flow should be less than exchanger design
(shell side) pressure
closes pump discharge pressure pressure

Figure 9: HAZOP on Multiple Effect Evaporators

13
 FMEA Rating Scale
Rating Likelyhood of Occurrence Severity Detection
1 Failure is very unlikely Effect is insiginificant Current safeguards adequate
3 Occasional failure likely Minor disruption, Customer dissatisfied High chance that safeguard will detect
5 Moderate likelyhood of failure Major equipment damage Moderate chance that safeguard will detect
7 Failure is very likely Personal injury Low chance that safeguard will detect
10 Failure will always happen Death likely to occur No known method of detection

Figure 10: FMEA Rating Scale

Boston Square
10
9
8
7
Severity

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Likelyhood

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Figure 11: Boston Square for Multiple Effect Evaporators HAZOP

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall, this project provides a general design for sugarcane mill plant in which the plant is
operated at an on-stream factor of 0.50, and the annual output of ethanol is 420 million pounds (192,000
metric tons or 242 million liters) or 64 million gallons. With the corporate tax is 35% and IRR is 13.11%,
the NPV of this sugarcane plant after 20 years is calculated as approximate as $107 MM. The payback
period is 8 years, and the profit is earned at the 9th year. Any technical improvement is required to reduce
either the capital investment or the cost of production in order to improve the economic analysis.

14