Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asdf Techno-Economic Evaluation of The Effe PDF
Asdf Techno-Economic Evaluation of The Effe PDF
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe
Joaquim E.A. Seabra a,*, Ling Tao a, Helena L. Chum a, Isaias C. Macedo b
a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA
b
Interdisciplinary Center of Energy Planning (NIPE), UNICAMP, ZIP: 13084-971. Campinas, SP, Brazil
Article history: This work compares the calculated techno-economic performance for thermochemical
Received 27 October 2009 and biochemical conversion of sugarcane residues, considering future conversion plants
Received in revised form adjacent to sugarcane mills in Brazil. Process models developed by the National Renewable
15 January 2010 Energy Laboratory were adapted to reflect the Brazilian feedstock composition and used to
Accepted 19 January 2010 estimate the cost and performance of these two conversion technologies. Models assumed
Available online 31 March 2010 that surplus bagasse from the mill would be used as the feedstock for conversion, while
cane trash collected from the field would be used as supplementary fuel at the mill. The
Keywords: integration of the conversion technology to the mill enabled an additional ethanol
Hydrolysis production of 0.033 m3 per tonne of cane for the biochemical process and 0.025 m3 t1 of
Gasification cane plus 0.004 m3 t1 of cane of higher alcohols for the thermochemical process. For both
Bioethanol cases, electricity is an important co-product for the biorefinery, but especially for
Saccharum officinarum biochemical conversion, with surpluses of about 50 kWh t1 of cane. The economic
CHP performance of the two technologies is quite similar in terms of the minimum ethanol
Brazil selling price (MESP), at 318 $ m3 (United States 2007 dollars) for biochemical conversion
and 329 $ m3 for thermochemical conversion.
ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Dr. Shigeo Mori Street, 2013 - Cidade Universitária, CEP 13083-770 Campinas, SP, Brazil. Tel.: þ55 19 3289 3125.
E-mail address: jeaseabra@gmail.com (J.E.A. Seabra).
0961-9534/$ – see front matter ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.042
1066 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078
Cane trash
Mill’s power
Electricity
plant
Bagasse
Bagasse Bagasse
surplus surplus
Bagasse
surplus
Adjacent Ethanol
conversion
plant
Co-products
(electricity, higher alcohols)
MILL 2 MILL 3
Fig. 2 – Schematic representation of the sugarcane
biorefinery: mill D adjacent conversion plant.
Fig. 3 – Schematic representation of a cluster with three
mills.
To evaluate how much biomass would be available for
conversion, a simplified model of the mill’s power plant was
developed using Aspen Plus. Considering the assumptions
made, the final biomass availability to the adjacent conver- dilute acid pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis
sion plant was estimated at 361.9 dry thousand tonnes per and co-fermentation.
year (see details in Table 4). As for power generation, the mill’s In the process design considered here (see Fig. 4), the
turbine would produce 238 GWh during the cane season, of sugarcane biomass is first pretreated with dilute sulfuric acid
which 126 GWh could be exported to the grid. catalyst at a high temperature for a short time, liberating the
Another approach we considered was to increase the hemicellulose sugars and other compounds. The whole slurry
biomass availability through the integration of mills into from the pretreatment reactor is neutralized with ammonia
clusters, a trend observed for new projects in Brazil. In this before going into enzymatic hydrolysis.
study, sets of two and three mills (with similar characteristics Enzymatic hydrolysis coupled with co-fermentation of the
and close to each other) would supply additional biomass to conditioned hydrolyzate slurry is carried out in continuous
the conversion plant (see Fig. 3). For these cases, the final hydrolysis tanks and anaerobic fermentation tanks in series.
biomass availabilities would be as follows (considering 5% In the base case, a purchased cellulase enzyme preparation is
biomass losses during transportation): added to the hydrolyzate in the hydrolysis tanks. Alterna-
tively, the enzyme could be produced on-site using part of the
Reference case – 1 mill: 361.9 dry thousand tonnes per year hydrolyzed liquor as a sugar source.
Case 1 – cluster with 2 mills: 705.7 dry thousand tonnes per The fermenting organism Zymomonas mobilis is first grown
year in a series of progressively larger batch anaerobic fermenters
Case 2 – cluster with 3 mills: 1049.5 dry thousand tonnes per to make enough cells to inoculate the main fermenters. The
year. inoculum and other nutrients are added to the first ethanol
fermenter along with the partially saccharified slurry at
3.2. Biochemical conversion a reduced temperature. The cellulose continues to be hydro-
lyzed, although at a slower rate, at the lower temperature.
The biochemical conversion process design is based on an After a few days of separate and combined saccharification
updated version of the 2002 NREL process design and co-fermentation, most of the cellulose and xylose will
report [16,26] for corn stover conversion into ethanol using have been converted to ethanol, and the resulting beer is sent
to product recovery.
Product recovery involves distilling the beer to separate
ethanol from the water and residual solids. A mixture of
Table 4 – Biomass availability (kt yL1).a nearly azeotropic water and ethanol is purified to pure ethanol
Biomass Bagasse Trash using a vapor-phase molecular sieve. Solids from the distil-
lation bottoms are separated and sent to the boiler. Concen-
Available at the mill 520.0 224.0 tration of the distillation bottoms liquid is performed by
Losses 26.0 11.2
evaporation using low grade heat recovery. The evaporated
Used in mill’s boiler 118.1 212.8
Other uses 14.0 –
condensate is returned to the process and the concentrated
Available for conversion 361.9 – syrup is sent to the combustor. Part of the evaporator
condensate, along with other residue streams, is treaded by
a Dry basis. Values estimated for a mill with capacity of 4 Mt of
anaerobic digestion and aerobic polishing. The methane-rich
cane per year.
biogas from anaerobic digestion is sent to the combustor for
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1069
Fig. 4 – Schematic process flow diagram for biochemical conversion of bagasse to ethanol (adapted from [16]).
energy recovery. The treated water is suitable for recycling 3.3. Thermochemical conversion
and is returned to the process.
The solids from distillation, the concentrated syrup from The thermochemical conversion process design is based on
the evaporator, and the biogas from anaerobic digestion are the 2007 NREL design report [15] for hardwood conversion to
combusted in a fluidized bed combustor to produce high- mixed alcohols using indirect steam gasification. In this
pressure steam for electricity production and process heat, design (see Fig. 5), sugarcane biomass must be dried from the
similar to the cogeneration cycles used in Brazilian mills. The as-received moisture content to that required for proper
process produces excess steam that is converted to electricity feeding into the gasifier (using flue gases from the char
for use in the plant and for sale to the grid. combustor and tar reformer catalyst regenerator).
Fig. 5 – Schematic process flow diagram for thermochemical conversion of bagasse to ethanol (based on [15]).
1070 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078
Saccharification
Temperature C 48
Pressure MPa 0.1
Residence time Days 2.2
Cellulose to glucose % 90
Fermentation
Total solids % (wt) 19.8
Temperature C 32
Pressure MPa 0.1
Residence time Days 0.8
Glucose to ethanol % 95
Xylose to ethanol % 85
Minor sugars to ethanol % 85
Fig. 6 – Comparison of alcohol yields of the adjacent
Contamination loss % 3
conversion plants.
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1071
4. Techno-economic evaluation
Fig. 10 – Total project investment breakdown – related to the adjacent conversion plants.
for). MESP is defined here as the price required (at the factory Equipment costs and most operating costs were taken from
level, without sales taxes) for a zero net present value for the these references and updated to 2007 dollars using specific
project when the cash flows are discounted at 12% real after- indexes [27,28,29]. We assumed that capital costs (and oper-
tax income, considering 25 years of operation. ating costs) of a Brazilian nth plant would be similar to a U.S.
The economic model consisted of four main parts: capital nth plant. This is reasonable, considering that the current
cost estimate, operating cost estimate, revenue summary, and capital costs of ethanol plants with the same annual produc-
discounted cash flow calculation, following the same meth- tion are similar in Brazil and the U.S. [30,31], although the
odology described in Phillips et al. [15] and Aden et al. [16]. Brazilian plants operate only 6–7 months/year for alcohol
Fig. 11 – Minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) breakdown – related to the adjacent conversion plants. Co-product credits
are due to sales of electricity (biochemical conversion) and higher alcohols (thermochemical conversion) produced in the
adjacent conversion plant.
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1073
Fig. 19 – Sensitivity analysis of transportation costs when clusters of mills are considered (in all cases bagasse at 0 $ tL1 dry
and trash at 15 $ tL1 dry).
As shown in Fig. 13, moisture content has an important biomass cost is presented separately in Fig. 18, while Fig. 19
effect on the thermochemical process yields, which makes shows the results for the alternative strategy of mill clusters.
trash a promising material for conversion because of its lower Scale is an important factor for cost-effective production of
moisture content. However, trash may also have high mois- ethanol, and different strategies to increase the biomass
ture and ash content, depending on the recovery route and availability are analyzed here. Further reductions of mill’s
feedstock handling, compromising, thus, the conversion steam consumption are not likely in the near future (espe-
yields. For biochemical conversion, the preference for trash is cially for distilleries), but a higher trash recovery level seems
not the same since the sugar content is lower, even though to be a good alternative, although recovery costs probably are
there are uncertainties about biomass composition. going to be higher. In this analysis the recovery cost was kept
constant, but it is important to stress that costs as high as
30 $ t1 dry may compromise the gains due to scale.
6.2. Scale and cost parameters For the particular case of clusters, even with high trans-
portation costs, the final MESP would still be within an
Table 8 presents the limits considered for selected parame- economically feasible range. This is not true, however, when
ters, and Figs. 16 and 17 show the results. Sensitivity of higher bagasse or trash costs are considered, as illustrated in
Fig. 20 – Sensitivity analysis of enzyme supply strategy for biochemical conversion: impacts on (a) yields and (b) economics.
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1077
Fig. 17 for a single mill case. And in the near future, as mills competitive with the current anhydrous ethanol market
increase their profits from the cane’s ligno-cellulosic fraction, selling price in Brazil, although many uncertainties about cost
it is likely that part of the cane cost will be attributed to estimates for advanced technologies exist.
bagasse, especially within the context of Brazil’s sugarcane Further improvements still can be achieved for both cases
supply system. as technologies progress. Different companies are investigating
different process designs and technology options, which
6.3. Enzyme supply eventually may lead to higher yields and/or lower costs. For
biochemical conversion, important cost reductions may also be
An alternative approach for biochemical conversion considers achieved through process integration with the conventional
on-site enzyme production using part of the hydrolyzed liquor mill, avoiding capital expenses and increasing the utilization of
as a sugar source. In this case, the capital needed for the the existing installed capacity. For thermochemical conversion,
project increases, as does the overall electricity demand of the process integration is more difficult, but different options arise
plant due to the additional compression work demanded by when gasification systems are considered. Different biofuels (or
the enzyme production section (see Fig. 20). Actually, the bioproducts) can be produced, and even systems set to produce
incremental electricity demand would be such that part of high amounts of surplus electricity can be considered,
the biomass would be diverted to the boiler in order to match depending on the commercial interests involved.
the overall electricity demand, therefore compromising the Despite the apparent cost-competitiveness of ethanol
overall ethanol output. Alternatively, the electricity deficit production, it is important to point out that these processes
could be purchased from the grid to avoid biomass diversion, also have to compete with different options for biomass use.
but this option was not considered here. As a result of these Today, the only commercial option is electricity generation
aspects, the final MESP for the on-site enzyme production through conventional steam cycles, which represents an
alternative would be far higher than for the base case attractive business option in Brazil. But other alternatives may
scenario. However, it is important to stress that the base case arise in the future. Therefore it will be important to perform
scenario is based on enzyme costs targeted by the enzyme this same type of detailed techno-economic analysis to eval-
industry, which may not be achieved within the time horizon uate these various options for the utilization of sugarcane
considered here. residual biomass.
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Ligno-cellulosic materials can be converted to ethanol either
Joaquim Seabra thankfully acknowledges the financial
biochemically or thermochemically using sugarcane-derived
support of the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cien-
processing residues and agriculture residue trash. In this
tı́fico e Tecnológico – CNPq (process no. 201362/2008-2). The
work, a comparison of the projected techno-economic
authors gratefully thank the U.S. Department of Energy
performance of these processes is presented, considering
Biomass Program and particularly Zia Haq, Paul Grabowski,
the conversion of sugarcane residues within the context of
Valerie Sarisky-Reed, and Alison Goss Eng for their support.
a sugarcane biorefinery in the near future.
This work was conducted as part of the U.S.-Brazil Bilateral
For both technologies, the mill’s ethanol production may
Colaboration in Advanced Biofuels and Strategic Analysis
be considerably increased by using cane trash as a supple-
NREL activities for the DOE’s Biomass Program. The authors
mentary fuel to bagasse. Biochemical conversion of cane
thank the staff of the Biorefinery Analysis Section at the
residues may lead to an additional 0.033 m3 of ethanol per
National Bioenergy Center – Andy Aden, Abhijit Dutta, and
tonne of cane, while for thermochemical conversion the
David Humbird – and NREL’s management, Tom Foust and
additional ethanol yield would be 0.025 m3 t1 of cane, plus
Mike Cleary, for their technical support and Ms. Dee Scheaffer
0.004 m3 t1 of cane of higher alcohols. For both cases elec-
for her administrative support.
tricity would be an important co-product of the biorefinery,
but especially for biochemical conversion, with surpluses of
about 50 kWh t1 of cane; the thermochemical plant was
references
designed to be energy self sufficient instead of producing
additional electricity.
These values are preliminary; the overall yields estimated
[1] IEA – International Energy Agency. CO2 emissions from fuels
here are based on comprehensive, detailed simulation models, combustion: 1971–2004. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2006. 2006 Edition,
but uncertainties about future conversion yields and biomass 560 pp.
composition still exist. Therefore, in order to have a better [2] Licht FO. World ethanol production growth may slow down
understanding of the potential of sugarcane residues as energy in 2008. World ethanol & biofuels report; October 2007.
sources, it is important to establish a reliable database for [3] Licht FO. Sobering prospects – the world biodiesel production
estimate. World ethanol & biofuels report; February 2008.
biomass composition considering the particular case of Brazil
[4] Global Bioenergy Partnership. A review of the current state of
and their variability over time for different strategies of use.
bioenergy development, G8 þ 5 countries. Rome: FAO/GBEP.
In terms of economic performance, both systems lead to Available from: http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/
very similar minimum ethanol selling prices, estimated here user_upload/gbep/docs/BIOENERGY_INFO/0805_GBEP_
as 318–329 $ m3 for the reference cases. These values are Report.pdf; 2008.
1078 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078
[5] The Royal Society. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and [20] Linero FAB, Lamônica HM. Integração BIG/GT – Usina.
challenges. London: The Royal Society, ISBN 978 0 85403 662 Geração de energia por biomassa: bagaço e palha de cana,
2; 2008. Available from: http://royalsociety.org/ Seminário alternativas energéticas a partir da cana-de-
displaypagedoc.asp?id¼28914; 2008 [retrieved May 2008]. açúcar, Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, CTC. Piracicaba, SP,
[6] IEA Bioenergy. The availability of biomass resources for Brasil: Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, CTC; 2005.
energy. summary and conclusions from the IEA bioenergy [21] Peláez MR. Use of a biofuel obtained from the fast pyrolysis
ExCo58 workshop. Stockholm, Sweden: IEA Bioenergy. of sugarcane trash in an Otto engine [Master’s dissertation
Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/LibItem. (in Portuguese)]. Campinas: Faculdade de Engenharia
aspx?id¼5796; 2006 Oct 4 [retrieved May 2008]. Mecânica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas; 2007. 118 pp.
[7] Hamelinck CN, van Hooijdonk G, Faaij APC. Ethanol from [22] Rossell CEV. Tecnologias de conversão de biomassa em
lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in etanol, hidrólise de celulose. V Workshop Internacional
short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass Bioenerg 2005;28: Brasil-Japão em Biocombustı́vel, Meio Ambiente e Novos
384–410. Produtos da Biomassa. Campinas, SP, Brasil; 29 de outubro
[8] RFA – Renewable Fuels Association. Washington: Renewable de 2007.
Fuels Association. Available from: http://www.ethanolrfa. [23] Lamônica HM. Produção de vapor e eletricidade – a evolução
org; 2005–2009 [retrieved April 2009]. do setor sucroalcooleiro. II GERA: Workshop de Gestão de
[9] IEA – International Energy Agency. Biofuels for transport: an Energia e Resı́duos na Agroindustria Sucroalcooleira. FZEA –
international perspective. Paris: OECD/IEA. Available from: USP, Pirassununga; 12 de junho de 2007.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004. [24] Pizaia W. Steam economy improvement, Report no. RLT-025
pdf; 2004. to MCT/PNUD, Project BRA/96/G31, Brazil; 1998.
[10] Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): regulations. [25] Olivério JL. Novas tecnologias para biocombustı́veis. 9
Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Encontro de negócios de energia, São Paulo; 14 de outubro
[retrieved July 2009]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ de 2008.
OMSWWW/renewablefuels/index.htm#regulations. [26] Humbird D, Aden A. FY08 state of technology update,
[11] CEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency. Low Internal NREL milestone completion report. Golden, CO:
carbon fuel standard, vol. 5. Sacramento, CA: California Air National Renewable Energy Laboratory; October 30, 2008.
Resources Board. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ [27] Economic Indicators Chemical Engineering Magazine; May
fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs_isor_vol1.pdf; March 2009. 2008.
[12] Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the [28] Economic environment of the chemical industry, SRI
Council, of 23 April 2009, on the promotion of the use of international chemical economics handbook. SRI
energy from renewable sources and amending and International. Available from: http://www.sriconsulting.
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ com/CEH/; March 2008.
EC. Official Journal of the European Union 05.06.2009; [29] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington: U.S. Department of
L140(16). Labor. Available from: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
[13] Simms R, Taylor M, Saddler J, Mabee W. From 1st- to 2nd- [30] Tiffany DG, Morey RV, De Kam MJ. Economics of biomass
generation biofuel technologies – an overview of current gasification/combustion at fuel ethanol plants. 2007 ASABE
industry and RD&D activities. Paris: OECD/IEA Bioenergy. annual international meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/MediaItem. 17–20 June 2007.
aspx?id¼6060; November 2008. [31] Rodrigues AP. Participação dos fornecedores de cana na
[14] U.S. Department of Energy. Washington: U.S. Department of cadeia do açúcar e álcool. Congresso Internacional de
Energy [retrieved March 2009]. Available from: http://www. Tecnologias na Cadeia Produtiva, Concana, Uberaba (MG);
energy.gov. março de 2007.
[15] Phillips S, Aden A, Jechura J, Dayton D, Eggeman T. [32] Bryant C. Step change in cellulosic ethanol – the future is
Thermochemical ethanol via indirect gasification and mixed moving closer. Brussels: World Biofuels Market; 2009.
alcohol synthesis of lignocellulosic biomass. Golden, CO: [33] Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Turhollow A, Kumar A, Bransby D,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; April 2007. Report Lynd L, et al. Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of
no.: TP-510-41168. switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) – current technology and
[16] Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J, et al. envisioning a mature technology. Biofuel, Bioprod. Biorefin
Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and 2009;3:124–41.
economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and [34] Kenney K, Wright C. Uniform format feedstock supply
enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. Golden, CO: National system design for lignocellulosic biomass. Feedstock Supply
Renewable Energy Laboratory; June 2002. Report no.: Syst Des Rev Dec 2007;13. Washington, DC.
TP-510-32438. [35] Oliveira AMK, Lima LM, Carletti Filho PT, Ferrari RC, Caixeta
[17] Zuurbier P, van de Vooren J, editors. Sugarcane ethanol: Filho JV. Avaliação da Viabilidade Técnica e Econômica da
contributions to climate change mitigation and the Utilização de Biomassas como Fonte Energética Alternativa
environment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Academic em Fornos Industriais. XLII Congresso da SOBER 2004,
Publishers; 2008. Cuiabá, MT.
[18] UNICA – União da Indústria da Cana-de-açúcar [retrieved [36] Mahmud H, Flynn PC. Rail vs truck transport of biomass.
March 2009]. Available from: www.unica.com.br. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2006;129–132:88–103.
[19] Hassuani SJ, Leal MRLV, Macedo IC. Biomass power [37] CEPEA – Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia
generation: sugar cane bagasse and trash, Série Caminhos Aplicada. Brazil: CEPEA; 2007 [retrieved April 2009]. Available
para Sustentabilidade. Piracicaba: PNUD-CTC; 2005. from: http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br.