Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Techno-economic comparison of biojet fuel production from

lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane juice
Gabriel Wilhelm Diederichs, Mohsen Ali Mandegari ⇑, Somayeh Farzad, Johann F. Görgens
Department of Process Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

h i g h l i g h t s

Techno-economic evaluation of the jet fuel production processes from biomass.

Comparison of 2G jet fuel production vs. 1G (vegetable oil and sugar cane juice).

Profitability of 1G jet fuel processes are slightly better than 2G processes.

The thermochemical and hybrid processes are the most promising 2G jet fuel options.

Ethanol intermediate production processes result less economic viability.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, a techno-economic comparison was performed considering three processes (thermochem-
Received 24 February 2016 ical, biochemical and hybrid) for production of jet fuel from lignocellulosic biomass (2G) versus two pro-
Received in revised form 20 May 2016 cesses from first generation (1G) feedstocks, including vegetable oil and sugar cane juice. Mass and
Accepted 21 May 2016
energy balances were constructed for energy self-sufficient versions of these processes, not utilising
Available online 24 May 2016
any fossil energy sources, using ASPEN PlusÒ simulations. All of the investigated processes obtained base
minimum jet selling prices (MJSP) that is substantially higher than the market jet fuel price (2–4 fold).
Keywords:
The 1G process which converts vegetable oil, obtained the lowest MJSPs of $2.22/kg jet fuel while the
Techno-economic comparison
Renewable jet fuel
two most promising 2G processes- the thermochemical (gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) and
Ethanol intermediate hybrid (gasification and biochemical upgrading) processes- reached MJSPs of $2.44/kg and $2.50/kg jet
Thermochemical fuel, respectively. According to the economic sensitivity analysis, the feedstock cost and fixed capital
Biochemical investment have the most influence on the MJSP.
Hybrid Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on first generation (1G). 1G feedstock conversion processes include

The world consumption of jet fuel is in excess of 800 million
litres per day, accounting for around 10% of global transportation
energy. Although most of the world’s jet fuel is produced through
crude oil refineries, the necessity for sustainable jet fuel with
reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, has prompted investiga-
tion of alternative jet fuel production pathways (Hemighaus et al.,
2006; Mussatto, 2016).
Jet fuel produced from plant-derived sources (biojet fuel),
has the potential to decrease the net GHG emissions associated
with the aviation industry (Agusdinata et al., 2011; Klein-
Marcuschamer et al., 2013) and increase energy security (Bond
et al., 2014). The focus of biofuel production, initially was intensely
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mandegari@sun.ac.za (M. Ali Mandegari).
hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA process) of vegetable
oil to jet fuel as well as biochemical conversion of sugars or
starches to intermediates (such as alcohols, hydrocarbons and
lipids), followed by upgrading to jet fuel. A promising thermo-
chemical conversion process for the conversion of lignocellulose
to jet fuel includes the gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch
(FT) synthesis process. Hybrid process pathways, such as gasifica-
tion followed by syngas fermentation to ethanol, have been studied
as an alternative pathway (Naik et al., 2010; Robota et al., 2013).
Fossil-derived jet fuel for commercial aviation, entails different
hydrocarbons, ranging mainly between C9 and C15 (Robota et al.,
2013). It is desirable that biojet fuels are compatible with the exist-
ing infrastructure (Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2011). Three biojet
production processes have already been approved by the ASTM
(American Society for Testing and Materials) for commercial avia-
tion use resulting in more than 1600 commercial flights run on

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.090
0960-8524/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
332 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339
biofuels (Colket et al., 2016). These processes include the HEFA
process, the FT process and the Direct-Sugar-to-Hydrocarbon pro-
cess (Menetrez, 2014). A variety of other processes are still in the
approval process, including the alcohol-to-jet process (Mussatto,
2016).
According to International Air Transport Association (IATA),
economic viability and technology maturity is still a major hurdle
for the commercial production of biojet fuel (IATA, 2014). The mar-
ket price for jet fuel has undergone substantial variability in the
past ten years, fluctuating between $0.42 and $1.28 per kg jet fuel
(Colket et al., 2016; IATA, 2014).
Taking into account the commercialization status and process
technology, HEFA process is considered as the most mature process
for renewable jet fuel production (Mawhood et al., 2016). Although
the jet fuel produced through the gasification and FT synthesis
(GFT-J) process is already certified by the ASTM, the capital inten-
sive nature and operational difficulties of the GFT-J process has
delayed wide-scale commercial deployment of this process
(Mawhood et al., 2016). Another pathway consists of the bioetha-
nol production as intermediate and then ethanol upgrading to jet
fuel. The bioethanol production from 1G and 2G feedstocks,
through biochemical and thermochemical routes have been stud-
ied widely (Vohra et al., 2014), however the ethanol upgrading to
jet fuel process is still on the laboratory and pilot plant stages of
development (Mawhood et al., 2016).
This study performed techno-economic assessments on five
processes that convert plant-derived sources – in particular ligno-
cellulosic biomass and first generation feedstocks (vegetable oil
and sugar cane juice) – to jet fuel. The processes considering ligno-
cellulosic feedstock are, 1) the GFT-J (gasification and FT synthesis)
process, 2) the L-ETH-J (biochemical conversion to ethanol with
upgrading) process and 3) the SYN-FER-J (gasification, syngas fer-
mentation to ethanol with upgrading) process. The processes con-
sidering 1G feedstock are 4) the HEFA (hydroprocessing of
vegetable oil) process and 5) the S-ETH-J (sugar cane juice to etha-
nol by sucrose fermentation with upgrading) process. Since the
HEFA process is the most mature technology, it is considered as
baseline. The S-ETH-J process consists of a fully mature technology
for production of ethanol, whilst the ethanol production sections
by the L-ETH-J and SYN-FER-J processes – although having been
produced commercially- is still under study (Mawhood et al.,
2016). The combination of different intermediate ethanol produc-
tion routes and upgrading ethanol to jet fuel is one of the promis-
ing aspects of this study.
In this study, the different feedstock and pathways for bio jet
fuel production are compared through detailed techno-economic
analysis of the developed processes. Mass and energy balances
were constructed for all five processes based on the Aspen PlusÒ
process simulation, whilst the economics of these processes were
investigated based on cash flow analysis as well as an economic
sensitivity analysis.
2. Materials and methods
Simulations were developed for the investigated processes
using ASPEN PlusÒ (Aspen Technology Inc., USA) process simulator.
A single scenario was constructed for each process, based on pub-
lished experimental data. The scenarios were constructed such that
the processes were steam, power and hydrogen self-sufficient, thus
energy self-sufficient and independent of fossil fuel sources (Dutta
et al., 2011). The heat requirements of the process were optimised
using a pinch analysis, aided by ASPEN Energy AnalyzerÒ.
For the GFT-J, SYN-FER-J and L-ETH-J processes, the feed-rate of
dry, ash-free lignocellulose was fixed to 75 MT/h with a moisture
content (MC) of 50 wt% and an ash fraction of 3.70 wt% (based on
dry weight). The feed-rate of lignocellulose has been chosen based
on previous techno-economic analysis (Bond et al., 2014; Humbird
et al., 2011). The lignocellulose composition used for the process
models is based on a study by Petersen et al. (2015) which aimed
to represent a generic lignocellulose. It was specified using a chem-
ical composition for the L-ETH-J process, whereas a proximate and
ultimate analysis was used for the GFT-J and SYN-FER-J processes.
The feed-rate of the vegetable oil to the HEFA process and wet
sugar cane to the S-ETH-J process, was fixed to 14.9 MT/h, and
222.5 MT/h, respectively. The feed rate is calculated in a way to
produce the same amount of jet fuel which can be obtained from
lignocellulose to jet fuel processes. The composition of the veg-
etable oil – which is taken to be similar to jatropha oil- is based
on a study by Gong et al. (2012). The wet sugar cane, contains a
MC of 71.57 wt% and sucrose content of 13.30 wt% (Dias et al.,
2009). For the S-ETH-J process scenario, 140 dry kg of tops and
trash (MC of 15%) is assumed to be fed along with each metric
ton of wet cane (Dias et al., 2009).
The developed processes can be compared based on the con-
sumed feedstock and chemicals and also produced jet fuel. In addi-
tion, energy balance is applied to study the energy performance of
the developed processes. Among the energy indicators, energy
ratio and overall energy efficiency (Eqs. (1) and (2)) are well
applied by researches to evaluate the biofuel processes
(Leibbrandt et al., 2011; Petersen et al., 2015).
The energy ratios, is defined as the energy ratio of product (jet
fuel) to feedstock which can be calculated as follows.
jmfuel  HHV fuel j
ge ¼ ð1Þ
jmfeedstock  HHV feedstock j
where ge is the energy ratio of the process, mfuel is the mass of the
fuel produced, mfeedstock is the mass of the feedstock input, HHVfuel
and HHVbiomass are the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel and
feedstock, respectively.
The overall energy efficiency (goverall) determines the efficiency
of the process, considering the energy in the fuels and electrical
power produced (Eelec.power) as the product, whilst taking into
account the energy in the input feedstock and is calculated based
on Eq. (2).
jmfuel HHV fuel j þ Eelec:power
nov erall ¼ ð2Þ
jmfeedstock  HHV feedstock j
The economic investigation was performed based on the com-
plete mass and energy balances from the ASPEN PlusÒ process
models. The cost analysis was performed for process plants located
in the USA and indexed to 2014 US dollars. In this research, equip-
ment costs are estimated by Aspen PlusÒ Economic Evaluator pack-
age (Aspen Technology, Inc., USA) for: flash drums, columns,
pumps, compressors, and heat-exchangers, while the special
equipment such as boilers, turbo-expanders, generators, reactors,
waste water treatment basins are estimated based on technical
report data, using equipment-specific scaling exponents
(Swanson et al., 2010; Humbird et al., 2011; Dutta et al., 2011;
Jones et al., 2013; Klein-Marcuschamer et al., 2013).
Installed costs were calculated for the equipment by multiply-
ing the purchased equipment costs by an installation factor. The
fixed capital investment (FCI) and the total capital investment
(TCI) were estimated from the total installed costs. The total direct
cost was determined as the sum of the installed costs and the addi-
tional direct costs (10% of total installed costs). The FCI was calcu-
lated as the sum of the total direct costs and the total indirect costs
(60% of total direct costs) (Humbird et al., 2011). The TCI was sub-
sequently determined as the FCI plus the working capital (10% of
the FCI) and the cost of land (Humbird et al., 2011).
 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339 333

The production costs consisted of variable operating costs (raw Table 2

material costs, waste disposal costs, by-product credits and peri- Economic assumptions.

odic costs) and fixed operating costs (including employee salaries, Description Assumed value
labour burden and maintenance). The assumptions for the main Minimum acceptable internal rate of 10%
variable operating costs are given in Table 1. The labour and super- return (cost of capital)
vision costs were based on literature salaries (Dutta et al., 2011), Plant financing debt/equity 60%/40% of total capital
whilst adding a 90% labour burden based on the salaries investment
Plant life 20 years
(Humbird et al., 2011). The additional fixed operating costs were Income tax rate 35%
determined based on the FCI, with maintenance assumed to be Interest rate for debt financing 8% annually
3% of the FCI and property insurance and tax assumed to be 0.7% Term for debt financing 10 years
of the FCI (Humbird et al., 2011). Depreciation schedule 7 years MACRSa schedule
Construction period 3 years (8% 1st year, 60% 2nd year,
A cash flow analysis was performed in Microsoft Excel for each
32% 3rd year)b
process based on the estimated capital and operating costs. The Plant salvage value No value
economic assumptions employed in the cash flow analysis, are Start-up time 6 months
given in Table 2. As there is significant uncertainty about the future Revenue and costs during start-up Revenue = 50% of normal
price of jet fuel (and biojet fuel), the preferred method for eco- Variable costs = 75% of normal
Fixed costs = 100% of normal
nomic comparison of processes is calculation of the minimum jet
On-stream factor 90% (7884 operating hours per
fuel selling price (MJSP) for an acceptable investor return, based year)c
on cash flow analysis. The MJSP was obtained by iterating the jet a
Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System.
fuel product cost to obtain a net present value (NPV) of zero at a b
The percent expenditure of the project cost during each construction year.
specific minimum acceptable internal rate of return (IRR; i.e. cost c
The only exception is the S-ETH-J process with an on-stream factor of 75% due
of capital). MJSP is useful to compare the investigated processes to sugar cane feedstock availability considerations.
with each other along with determining the economic feasibility
of the processes, by comparison of the MJSP to market jet fuel
prices. Finally, an economic sensitivity analysis was performed to thermodynamic calculations. The syngas is then compressed to
determine the effect of changing economic parameters on the 33 bar before being sent to a Rectisol unit for acid gas-cleaning,
MJSP. which removes 95% of the CO2 in the feed (Sun and Smith, 2013).
After further compression, the clean syngas is converted to syn-
crude in a FT synthesis reactor. The FT reactor, which has condi-
2.1. Process descriptions and simulations tions of 195 °C, 42 bar and a one-pass conversion of 40%
(Petersen et al., 2015), was modelled with a probability of 89%
2.1.1. Gasification and FT synthesis to jet fuel (GFT-J) process on the Anderson-Schulz-Flory distribution (Swanson et al., 2010).
In the GFT-J process, jet fuel is the primary product from ligno- The light gasses (mainly unconverted syngas) from the FT reactor
cellulose by gasification, FT synthesis and upgrading (Fig. 1(a)). The are sent to the auto-thermal reformer. By addition of steam (1:1
simulation of the gasification, FT synthesis and auto-thermal ratio with the hydrocarbons) and oxygen (from an air-separation
reforming sections were performed by updating a simulation unit), the feed to the auto-thermal reformer which has conditions
reported previously (Petersen et al., 2015). The lignocellulose feed, of 1000 °C and 33 bar, is reformed to syngas. The auto-thermal
along with steam, is converted to syngas in a dual-fluidized bed reformer syngas composition was predicted in ASPEN PlusÒ by
(DFB) gasifier. The gasification section of the DFB gasifier is slightly thermodynamic calculations (Petersen et al., 2015). The reformed
above 900 °C, whilst 42% of the biomass is sent to the combustion syngas is recycled to the gas-cleaning section. After the aqueous
to provide process energy (steam, electricity) (Petersen et al., phase is removed from the FT reactor liquid fraction, the subse-
2015). The syngas composition was predicted in ASPEN PlusÒ by quent syncrude is upgraded in a hydrocracker operating at
350 °C and 35 bar (Lundgren et al., 2013). The syncrude along with
excess hydrogen, is cracked and isomerised into mainly jet fuel
Table 1
(77% of fuel product), naphtha (23% of fuel product), and remaining
Main variable operating cost assumptions, ($ 2014).
light and heavy fractions. The fuel fractions are separated in two
Prices for raw materials and waste disposal Source distillation columns. The heavy fraction is recycled to the hydroc-
Lignocellulose 95.6 $/MT Jones et al. (2013), Dutta racker, whilst the light fraction is sent to the steam and power
feedstock (dry) et al. (2011)a plant. The hydrocracker hydrogen feed is obtained by recovery of
Vegetable oil 956.3 $/MT
hydrogen by a pressure-swing adsorption (PSA) unit from hydroc-
Sugar cane (wet) 41.0 $/MT
Trash (dry) 95.6 $/MT –b
racker off-gas, as well as a fraction (1.7%) of the clean syngas. Sur-
Enzymes 692.6 $/MT broth c Kazi et al. (2010) plus electricity (12.5 MW) is produced in a condensing steam
Nutrients 5.00 % of main Humbird et al. (2011) turbine generator using steam generated from the process heat
d
feedstock cost sources as well as incineration of process off-gasses. Over 20 MW
Sulphur dioxide 414.8 $/MT Humbird et al. (2011)
of the produced electricity is used for syngas compression (47%
Solvent make-up 3343 $/MT
(n-heptane) of total electricity demand). The GFT-J process shows a fuel mass
Solids disposal 40.1 $/MT Jones et al. (2013) ratio (kg fuel per MT dry lignocellulose fed to the process) of
Prices of by-products Source 0.13. According to studies by Swanson et al. (2010)) and
Electricity 0.08 $/kWh –a Lundgren et al. (2013), the fuel mass ratio can be increased above
Naphtha 1607 $/MT –e 0.19 if a pressurized gasifier is employed with oxygen in the feed.
Diesel 1597 $/MT –e
a
Based on in-house information (green electricity). 2.1.2. Gasification, syngas fermentation to ethanol with upgrading to
b
Based on lignocellulose cost. jet fuel (SYN-FER-J) process
c
10% broth as specified by (Kazi et al., 2010).
d
For L-ETH-J and SYN-FER-J processes.
The SYN-FER-J process converts lignocellulose into mainly jet
e
With an assumed 50% increase for fuel product cost due to green premium fuel through gasification followed by syngas fermentation to etha-
(http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities). nol and finally ethanol upgrading to jet fuel (Fig. 1(b)). Syngas is
334 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339
Fig. 1. Simplified block flow diagrams of the lignocellulose to jet fuel processes: (a) GFT-J process, (b) SYN-FER-J process and (c) L-ETH-J process.
produced from lignocellulose and steam in a DFB gasifier (simu-
lated similar to the GFT-J process). The gasification section of the
DFB gasifier is at 920 °C while 41% of the biomass is sent to the
combustion section of the DFB gasifier to provide the required
energy. The conditions of the gasifier were chosen as such that pro-
duced syngas meet the specification of fermentation feed (Gaddy
et al., 2014). A fraction of the produced syngas (13.2%) is sent to
the steam and power plant to satisfy the process plant’s electrical
power demand (26 MW), whilst the remaining syngas is sent to the
syngas fermenters. Syngas fermentation with Clostridium ljung-
dahlii occurs in bubble-loop reactors with recycling of syngas and
cells. The fermentation was based on Gaddy et al. (2014), convert-
ing syngas (containing 50 mol% H2, 45 mol% CO and 5 mol% CO2) by
using C. ljungdahlii, to mainly ethanol (23.4 g/l), with acetone
(5.7 g/l) as a by-product. Ethanol is recovered to 93 wt% from the
fermentation broth and off-gas using two distillation columns
and a water scrubber. The SYN-FER-J process produces 217 kg
ethanol per MT dry lignocellulose fed to the process. These overall
yields compare relatively well to yields proposed by syngas fer-
mentation companies Ineos Bio (245–330 kg ethanol per dry MT
lignocellulose) and Coskata (330 kg ethanol per dry MT lignocellu-
lose) (Daniell et al., 2012). The ethanol (93 wt%) is subsequently
dehydrated to ethylene in isothermal fixed bed reactors operating
at 350 °C and 1 atm, with an ethylene selectivity of 99.9% and an
ethanol conversion of 100% (based on (Haishi et al., 2011)). The
ethylene is oligomerized in a two reactor setup to mainly jet fuel
(88% of fuel product) and also diesel (12% of fuel product) with
recycling of the light hydrocarbon product (C8-) to the second
oligomerization reactor. The first oligomerization reactor (55 °C
and 22 bar in the presence of a catalyst in n-heptane solvent) con-
verts the ethylene to mainly C4 and also C6 and C8 hydrocarbons,
(Mahdaviani et al., 2010). The second oligomerization reactor
(Kuechler et al., 2010), operated at 235 °C and 7000 kPa in presence
of zeolite catalyst. Hydroprocessing of the jet fuel and diesel frac-
tions (at 34.5 bar and 185 °C), is performed to ensure the quality
of the fuels (Kuechler et al., 2010). The hydrogen required by the
hydroprocessing section, is recovered from the fermentation off-
gas using a membrane and a PSA unit. Electricity is produced by
the steam and power plant in a condensing steam turbine genera-
tor using steam generated from process heat sources, as well as
incineration of split syngas and process off-gasses while no surplus
electricity is generated. The SYN-FER-J process achieved an ethanol
to jet fuel mass yield of 0.54, which is slightly lower than the the-
oretical achievable mass yield of 0.61.
 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339
2.1.3. Lignocellulose biochemical conversion to ethanol with upgrading
to jet fuel (L-ETH-J) process
The L-ETH-J process converts lignocellulose to ethanol via bio-
chemical route followed by upgrading ethanol to mainly jet fuel
(Fig. 1(c)). The simulation of the pretreatment and conditioning,
hydrolysis and fermentation, steam and power plant as well as
the evaporator units were performed by updating a simulation
reported previously (Petersen et al., 2014). The lignocellulose is
pre-treated by SO2 impregnated steam explosion with a maximum
temperature of 205 °C and then hydrolysed enzymatically, with a
cellulose to glucose conversion for SO2 pretreated biomass achiev-
ing up to 87% (Carrasco et al., 2010). Continuous fermentation
using a promising co-fermenting strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
was subsequently employed, which had conversions of xylose to
ethanol of 44% and glucose to ethanol of 88%, with an ethanol con-
centration of 3.9 wt% in the fermentation broth (Martín et al.,
2007). Ethanol is recovered to 93 wt% from the fermentation broth
and off-gas, using two distillation columns and a water scrubber.
The L-ETH-J process produces 192 kg ethanol per MT dry lignocel-
lulose fed to the process, whilst, the ethanol production rate can be
increased up to around 250 kg ethanol per MT dry lignocellulose
fed to the process (the increased yield is mainly possible due to
the increase of the xylose to ethanol conversion of S. cerevisiae)
(Humbird et al., 2011). Upgrading Ethanol (93 wt%) to mainly jet
fuel by dehydration, oligomerization and hydroprocessing pro-
ceeds as described for the SYN-FER-J process. Steam reforming of
3.8% of the ethanol product is performed to satisfy the hydrogen
requirement of the hydroprocessing unit. The composition of the
reformed gas is adjusted in a shift reactor followed by hydrogen
recovery in a PSA unit. The products of the steam reformer and
shift reactor were predicted in ASPEN PlusÒ by thermodynamic cal-
culations (Jones et al., 2013). The solid residue from the separation
section is concentrated by evaporation, a pneumatic press and a
multiple effect evaporator. Excess electrical power (19.1 MW) is
produced in a condensing steam turbine generator using steam
generated mainly from the combustion of solids.
Fig. 2. Simplified block flow diagrams of the 1G feedstock to jet fuel processes: (a) S-ETH-J process and (b) HEFA process.
335
2.1.4. Sugar cane juice to ethanol by sucrose fermentation with
upgrading to jet fuel (S-ETH-J) process
The S-ETH-J process converts sugar cane to mainly jet fuel via
the fermentation of sugar cane juice to ethanol with subsequent
ethanol upgrading (Fig. 2(a)). The simulation of the sugar cane
juice to ethanol production, as well as the steam and power plant
unit, was developed. The sugar cane is initially cleaned, followed
by sucrose extraction in a diffuser. The resulting bagasse is dewa-
tered to a moisture content of 50%. Dirt is removed from the
sucrose liquid by means of physical treatment using screens and
hydrocyclones. The sucrose is then concentrated in a multiple
effect evaporator to a concentration of 22 wt% followed by steril-
ization. Employing S. cerevisiae, the sucrose liquid is fermented to
ethanol in a fed-batch manner with fermentation time of 8 h, fer-
mentation yield of about 91%, and ethanol concentration of 13%
(w/v) is obtained. The fermentation yield of 91% is in good agree-
ment with literature (Dias et al., 2009; Macrelli et al., 2012). Etha-
nol is recovered to 93 wt% from the fermentation broth and off-gas
using two distillation columns and a water scrubber. Ethanol
(93 wt%) upgrading to jet fuel by proceeds as described for the
SYN-FER-J process. Similar to the L-ETH-J process, steam reforming
of 3.8% of the ethanol is carried out to satisfy the hydrogen require-
ment of the hydroprocessing section. Surplus electricity (52.6 MW)
is produced in a condensing steam turbine generator using steam
generated, mainly from the combustion of the dewatered bagasse
and additional trash fed.
2.1.5. Hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) process
The HEFA process implements hydroprocessing of vegetable oil
to produce jet fuel as the primary product (Fig. 2(b)). The vegetable
oil is deoxygenated to hydrocarbon by catalytic hydrotreating. The
hydrotreating occurs in a fixed bed reactor (350 °C, 3 MPa) with a
liquid hourly space velocity of 2 h1 and a H2/feed volume ratio (v/
v) of 600 (based on (Gong et al., 2012)). The hydrocarbon product
(mainly C15–C18) is subsequently cracked and isomerised by the
addition of H2, while the hydrocracker conditions is set to achieve
336 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339

maximum jet fuel production (Robota et al., 2013). The hydroc-
racker reactor, (278 °C, 55.16 bar), has liquid hourly space velocity
of 1 h1 and a H2/feed volume ratio (v/v) of 850 (Robota et al.,
2013) and fractions the hydrocarbon into jet fuel as well as diesel,
naphtha and a light fraction. About 55% of the naphtha product is
sent to the hydrogen unit in order to meet the process plant’s
hydrogen and electricity demand. The make-up hydrogen of the
process plant is generated by steam reforming (simulated in ASPEN
PlusÒ similar to L-ETH-J process) of a fraction of the naphtha pro-
duct (29%), together with the light fraction from the separation
unit. Hydrogen recovery from the hydrotreater and hydrocracker
off-gas, as well as the reformed gas, is achieved by two PSA units.
Only sufficient electrical power is produced in a condensing steam
turbine generator to meet the process plant’s total usage of
2.60 MW. Gas compression accounts for over 72% of the total elec-
trical power usage. The fuel produced through HEFA process, con-
sists of 3% diesel, 78% jet fuel and 19% naphtha. The HEFA process
achieved an overall yield of 480 kg jet fuel per MT vegetable oil fed,
which is in good agreement with similar studies (Klein-
Marcuschamer et al., 2011; Pearlson et al., 2013) with yields of
480–494 kg jet fuel per MT vegetable oil fed.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Overall mass and energy balances
The mass and energy balances for the investigated processes
resulted from simulations (ASPEN PlusÒ), is summarized in Table 3.
Among the lignocellulose fed processes, the GFT-J process achieved
the highest fuel mass ratio of 0.14 (ratio of total fuel to feed ligno-
cellulose) and overall process energy efficiency of 37.2%, which com-
pares well with other researches (Leibbrandt et al., 2011). The
overall energy efficiency achieved by the HEFA process was high
(75%) which can be ascribed to the fact that, the vegetable oil
feed is much more similar to the final fuel products, thus requires
less processing than the other feedstocks (lignocellulose or sugar
cane syrup). Although all of the investigated processes designed
to produce mainly jet fuel, the L-ETH-J, SYN-FER-J and S-ETH-J pro-
cesses achieved the highest jet to fuel mass ratios (ratio of jet fuel to
total fuel) of 0.88. That is because these processes (with a biochem-
ical process step) generate an ethanol intermediate, which after
dehydration to ethylene is upgraded to jet fuel via oligomerization,
with a very high jet fuel selectivity. In contrast, the HEFA and GFT-J
processes crack large hydrocarbons, resulting in significant
amounts of by-products (low molecular weight hydrocarbon), thus
decreasing the jet fuel fraction in the final product. Both the HEFA
and GFT-J process achieved jet to fuel mass ratios below 0.8. How-
ever, the jet fuel to feed energy ratio of the lignocellulose fed pro-
cesses were very similar (25–26%). The HEFA process obtained
a jet fuel to feed energy ratio of 60%, whilst the low jet fuel to feed
energy ratio of the S-ETH-J process (22.6%) is due to its fibre residue
fed, which enabled the production of a very large amount of sur-
plus electricity (50 MW). Both the L-ETH-J and GFT-J processes
also produced significant quantities of excess electricity
(19.1 MW and 12.5 MW, respectively). For the L-ETH-J process
due to high amounts of unfermentable solids (mainly lignin) sur-
plus electricity is generated while the GFT-J process requires signif-
icant amounts of high temperatures heat sources, therefore
electricity is produce along with high pressure steam production.
The HEFA and SYN-FER-J processes did not produce any surplus
electricity, as both processes required combustion of intermediate
products (naphtha and syngas, respectively) to attain electricity
self-sufficiency.
The HEFA process had the highest specific hydrogen usage
(hydrogen usage per total fuel produced) of 65.3 kg-H2/MT-fuel,
whilst the three processes with an ethanol intermediate had the low-
est specific hydrogen usage of 12.1 kg-H2/MT-fuel. The high specific
hydrogen usage of the HEFA process, required the reforming of a sig-
nificant fraction of produced naphtha for hydrogen generation.
Comparison of energy consumptions (cooling, heating and elec-
tricity) of the processes demonstrates that processes with interme-
diate ethanol production, consume significantly higher energy due
to drastic energy consumption of lignocellulosic ethanol produc-
tion (Cardona Alzate and Sanchez Toro, 2006). Since GFT-J process
is direct process for jet fuel production, its energy consumption is
milder compared to other processes, therefore the overall energy
efficiency of this process stands as second preferred process after
HEFA.

Table 3
Summary of mass and energy balances results for investigated processes.

Parameter Process
L-ETH-J SYN-FER-J GFT-J HEFA S-ETH-J
Feed Lignocellulose (dry MT/hr) 77.88 77.88 77.88 – –
Vegetable oil (MT/hr) – – – 14.87 –
Sugar cane (dry MT/hr) – – – – 63.27
Trash (dry MT/hr) – – – – 31.16
Energy Cooling demand (MW) 145.58 202.32 109.09 12.43 156.48
Heating demand (MW) 88.75 81.99 39.33 7.62 72.92
Electric power demand (MW) 23.79 25.94 42.11 2.6 15.46
Product Jet fuel (MT/hr) 7.75 7.94 7.93 7.14 7.76
Naphtha (MT/hr) – – 2.39 1.71 –
Diesel (MT/hr) 1.01 1.04 – 0.31 1.01
Electricity (MW) 19.1 – 12.5 – 52.6
Specific hydrogen usage (kg-H2/MT-fuel)a 12.1 12.1 23.2 65.3 12.1
Jet Fuel to Feed Energy Ratio (Eq. (1)) 25.3% 26.2% 26.1% 58.6% 22.6%
Overall Energy Efficiency (Eq. (2)) 33.3% 29.6% 37.2% 75.3% 37.1%
Overall Energy Efficiency (Eq. (2)) Value –c –c 41,9–52,2% 63,30–71,50% 43.70%
On literatureb Reference –c –c (Swanson et al., 2010) (Klein-Marcuschamer (Klein-Marcuschamer
et al., 2011; Pearlson et al., 2011)
et al., 2013)
a
Ratio between process hydrogen usage and total fuel produced.
b
Process efficiencies of literature which investigated similar processes.
c
No similar processes were found to be investigated in literature.
 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339 337

Table 4
Summary of economic results for investigated processes.

Parameter Process
L-ETH-J SYN-FER-J GFT-J HEFA S-ETH-J
Variable Operating Costs (million US$ per year) Raw materials and waste disposal 120.23 69.75 62.51 112.60 85.36
By-product credits 24.77 13.03 38.16 25.44 38.28
Fixed Operating Costs (million US$ per year) 24.78 22.09 27.85 10.52 18.92
TIC (million US$) 274.2 232.8 321.3 91.7 184.1
FCI (million US$) 482.6 409.7 565.5 161.4 324
FCI/Annual Jet Fuel Kilogram ($/kg) 7.90 6.54 9.05 2.87 5.30
TCI (million US$) 532.7 452.5 623.9 179.4 358.3
MJSP ($ per kg jet fuel) 3.43 2.49 2.44 2.22 2.54

3.2. Economic evaluation
The economic analysis results for the investigated processes are
summarized in Table 4. From Table 4, it is clear that the GFT-J pro-
cess has the highest FCI with $566 million, while both processes
with 1G feed have significantly lower FCI in comparison to the lig-
nocellulose processes.
Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of the installed equipment
costs for the investigated processes based on process units. As
demonstrated in Fig. 3, hydrogen plant and hydrocracking units
account for over 85% of the installed equipment costs of the HEFA
process. The main installed equipment costs for the S-ETH-J pro-
cess is determined as the sugar cane to ethanol unit (30.9%), etha-
nol upgrading unit (37.0%) and the cogeneration unit (18.5%). The
ethanol upgrading units are demonstrated as major capital costs
for the SYN-FER-J and L-ETH-J processes (30% and 25% of capital
costs, respectively), whilst wastewater treatment (WWT) unit cost
is also substantial (both over 10% of capital cost), due to the large
amount of recycled water. The installed equipment cost of the lig-
nocellulose to ethanol unit for the SYN-FER-J and L-ETH-J processes
does not vary significantly ($102 million and $100 million,
respectively). The high FCI of the GFT-J process is because of
required equipment with high capital cost, including gasification
plant, gas cleaning unit, upgrading and separation unit as well as
the auto-thermal reformer.
The base MJSPs determined for the investigated processes (see
Table 5) are considerably higher than the market jet fuel price
(between $0.42 and $1.28 per kg jet fuel during last ten years
(Colket et al., 2016)). The base MJSPs of the HEFA and S-ETH-J
processes of the 1G route resulted $2.22 and $2.54 per kg jet fuel
which are lower and similar to the best performing lignocellulose
fed processes respectively. The GFT-J and SYN-FER-J processes
achieved the lowest base MJSPs for the lignocellulose fed pro-
cesses ($2.44 and $2.50 per kg jet fuel, respectively), whilst the
L-ETH-J process requires the highest base MJSP of $3.44 per kg
jet fuel.
The breakdown of the base MJSPs are also given in Table 5. A
major portion of the MJSP for the 1G processes consists of biomass
feedstock cost, consisting of 89.6% for the HEFA process’ MJSP and
61.4% for the S-ETH-J process’ MJSP. In contrast, biomass feedstock
cost consists of only between 28% and 39% of the MJSP for the lig-
nocellulose fed processes. Table 4 illustrates that enzyme cost is a
significant burden for the L-ETH-J process accounting for 21% of
the MJSP. As there is significant uncertainty surrounding the
enzyme cost (Humbird et al., 2011), further investigation is recom-
mended. All the processes have substantial fuel by-product credits,
(i.e. up to 20% of the MJSP for the HEFA and GFT-J processes). The L-
ETH-J, GFT-J and especially the S-ETH-J processes, also have signif-
icant electricity by-product credits (21% of the MJSP for the S-
ETH-J process). As reported in Table 5, except for the SYN-FER-J
process, the MJSP’s of the investigated processes compared well
to literature (IATA, 2014). It can be seen that MJSP determined
by IATA is somewhat lower. This is most likely due to difference
in economic assumptions, which are not provided by IATA.

Fig. 3. Installed equipment costs of investigated processes by section (as a percentage of total).
338 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339

Table 5
MJSP breakdown for the investigated processes, in cents per kg of jet fuel.

Parameter Process
L-ETH-J SYN-FER-J GFT-J HEFA S-ETH-J
Main feedstock 96.1 93.8 94.0 199.2 117.5
Trash – – – – 38.4
Enzymes 72.2 – – – –
Catalysts 17.7 17.6 13.6 1.8 19.1
Other raw materials 21.5 11.0 2.3 0.1 4.6
Waste disposal 2.7 2.9 2.6 0.1 4.4
Grid electricity 19.7 0.0 12.6 0.0 54.2
Fuel by-products 20.8 20.8 48.4 45.2 20.8
Fixed costs 40.6 35.3 44.6 18.7 37.1
Capital depreciation 12.0 11.8 11.8 14.3 14.4
Average income tax 17.3 14.3 19.1 6.2 14.2
Average return on investment 103.5 83.6 117.4 27.1 79.4
Total 343.5 249.5 244.2 222.3 254.0
Literature MJSP b, 248.1 – 243.2 148.1 169.1
Fossil jet fuel pricea Minimum 42
Maximum 128
a
In last ten years (between April 2005 and March 2015).
b
(IATA, 2014).

Fig. 4. Economic sensitivity analysis of investigated processes.

3.3. Economic sensitivity analysis
Economic sensitivity analysis is carried out by investigating the
effects of economic parameter’s variation on the MJSP and the
results are demonstrated in Fig. 4 (base MJSPs are displayed in
Fig. 4 by vertical black lines). Although fifteen sensitivity analysis
parameters were adjusted across their uncertainty range, only
the parameters which caused a change of more than 10% in the
MJSPs are reported in Fig. 4.
The economic viability of the L-ETH-J process with the highest
base MJSP, did not increase significantly at the favourable param-
eters considering that its lowest MJSP of $3.02 per kg jet fuel is
much higher than the base MJSPs of the other investigated pro-
cesses. To increase the potential associated with the L-ETH-J pro-
cesses, it is crucial for the enzyme cost to be reduced, whilst an
increase in overall yield or ethanol broth concentration could also
significantly improve its prospect and there is continual improve-
ment in these various aspects (Humbird et al., 2011). In all the pro-
cesses, variation in feedstock and FCI cost caused a larger than 10%
overall change in MJSP. Except for the HEFA process (with the low-
est FCI), the investigated processes also underwent a larger than
10% overall change with varying minimum acceptable IRR. Chang-
ing vegetable oil feedstock cost had a major effect on the HEFA pro-
cess (changes in MJSP ranging from $1.37 to $3.36 per kg jet fuel),
indicating that feedstock cost presents a significant source of
uncertainty for the HEFA process which have been mentioned by
other researches as well (Pearlson et al., 2013). The S-ETH-J process
showed larger than 10% overall change of the MJSP over six param-
eters, including feedstock cost (sugar cane and trash), FCI, stream
factor, minimum acceptable IRR and electricity product price. As
 G.W. Diederichs et al. / Bioresource Technology 216 (2016) 331–339
noted in Table 1, the on-stream factor for S-ETH-J process is 75%
(6570 operating hours per year) while for the other processes is
90% (7884 operating hours per year). Assuming 90% on-stream fac-
tor for this process the MJSP decreases to $ 2.27 which is slightly
more than HEFA process ($ 2.22).
Under favourable parameter inputs, the MJSPs of both the GFT-J
and SYN-FER-J have significant overlap with the 1G processes.
Although the GFT-J process has a lower MJSP compared to the
SYN-FER-J process, the GFT-J process has a higher uncertainty
due to its higher FCI as well as its substantial amounts of by-
products.
4. Conclusions
The HEFA process achieved the lowest MJSP, while both the 1G
and 2G processes had significantly higher MJSP than fossil-derived
jet fuel, especially when the lignocellulosic ethanol intermediate is
produced through the process. The 2G processes had higher FCIs
compared to the 1G processes, while the 1G processes deal with
higher feedstock costs. The 2G processes may compete with 1G if
the cheaper feedstock become available, specifically GFT-J process.
The feedstock cost and FCI showed the most influence on the MJSP
based on the sensitivity analysis, except for the L-ETH-J process for
which enzyme cost was the most effective parameter.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation towards AspenTech for
providing a licence to the AspenOne software package as well as
to the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies
(CRSES) at the University of Stellenbosch which provided financial
support to perform this study.
References
Agusdinata, D.B., Zhao, F., Ileleji, K., Delaurentis, D., 2011. Life cycle assessment of
potential biojet fuel production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45,
9133–9143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202148g.
Bond, J.Q., Upadhye, A.A., Olcay, H., Tompsett, G.A., Jae, J., Xing, R., Alonso, D.M.,
Wang, D., Zhang, T., Kumar, R., 2014. Production of renewable jet fuel range
alkanes and commodity chemicals from integrated catalytic processing of
biomass. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 1500–1523, others,.
Cardona Alzate, C.A., S??nchez Toro, O.J., 2006. Energy consumption analysis of
integrated flowsheets for production of fuel ethanol from lignocellulosic
biomass. Energy 31, 2111–2123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2005.10.020.
Carrasco, C., Baudel, H.M., Sendelius, J., Modig, T., Roslander, C., Galbe, M., Hahn-
Hägerdal, B., Zacchi, G., Lidén, G., 2010. SO2-catalyzed steam pretreatment and
fermentation of enzymatically hydrolyzed sugarcane bagasse. Enzyme Microb.
Technol. 46, 64–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.10.016.
Colket, M., Heyne, J., Rumizen, M., Edwards, J.T., Gupta, M., Roquemore, W.M.,
Moder, J.P., Tishkoff, J.M., Li, C., 2016. An overview of the national jet fuels
combustion program. 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 0177.
Daniell, J., Köpke, M., Simpson, S.D., 2012. Commercial biomass syngas
fermentation. Energies. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en5125372.
Dias, M.O.S., Ensinas, A.V., Nebra, S.A., Maciel Filho, R., Rossell, C.E.V., Maciel, M.R.
W., 2009. Production of bioethanol and other bio-based materials from
sugarcane bagasse: integration to conventional bioethanol production
process. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87, 1206–1216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cherd.2009.06.020.
Dutta, A., Talmadge, M., Hensley, J., Worley, M., Dudgeon, D., Barton, D., Groendijk,
P., Ferrari, D., Stears, B., Searcy, E.M., et al., 2011. Process Design and Economics
for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Thermochemical Pathway
by Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis.
Gaddy, J.L., Arora, D.K., Ko, C.-W., Phillips, J.R., Basu, R., Wilkstrom, C.V, Clausen, E.C.,
2014. Methods for Increasing the Production of Ethanol from Microbial
Fermentation.
Gong, S., Shinozaki, A., Shi, M., Qian, E.W., 2012. Hydrotreating of jatropha oil over
alumina based catalysts. Energy Fuels 26, 2394–2399. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/ef300047a.
Haishi, T., Kasai, K., Iwamoto, M., 2011. Fast and quantitative dehydration of lower
alcohols to corresponding olefins on mesoporous silica catalyst. Chem. Lett. 40,
614–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1246/cl.2011.614.
339
Hemighaus, G., Boval, T., Bacha, J., Barnes, F., Franklin, M., Gibbs, L., Hogue, N., Jones,
J., Lesnini, D., Lind, J., et al., 2006. Aviation Fuels Technical Review. Chevron
Prod. Co.
Humbird, D., Davis, R., Tao, L., Kinchin, C., Hsu, D., Aden, A., Schoen, P., Lukas, J.,
Olthof, B., Worley, M., et al., 2011. Process Design and Economics for
Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-acid
Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover.
IATA 2014 Report on Alternative Fuels (No. ISBN 978-92-9252-508-8), 2014.
International Air Transport Association, Montreal-Geneva.
Jones, S., Meyer, P., Snowden-Swan, L., Padmaperuma, A., Tan, E., Dutta, A., Jacobson,
J., Cafferty, K., 2013. Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels: Fast Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating
Bio-oil Pathway. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden CO.
Kazi, F.K., Fortman, J., Anex, R., 2010. Techno-economic analysis of biochemical
scenarios for production of cellulosic ethanol. Natl. Renewable Energy Lab. 102,
NREL/TP-6A2-46588.
Klein-Marcuschamer, D., Simmons, B.A., Blanch, H.W., 2011. Techno-economic
analysis of a lignocellulosic ethanol biorefinery with ionic liquid pre-treatment.
Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 5, 562–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.303.
Klein-Marcuschamer, D., Turner, C., Allen, M., Gray, P., Dietzgen, R.G., Gresshoff, P.
M., Hankamer, B., Heimann, K., Scott, P.T., Stephens, E., Speight, R., Nielsen, L.K.,
2013. Technoeconomic analysis of renewable aviation fuel from microalgae,
Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 7, 416–428. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1404.
Kuechler, K.H., Brown, S.H., Jaensch, H., Mathys, G.M., Luo, S., Cheng, J.C., 2010.
Olefin oligomerization to produce hydrocarbon compositions useful as fuels.
Google Patents.
Leibbrandt, N.H., Knoetze, J.H., Görgens, J.F., 2011. Comparing biological and
thermochemical processing of sugarcane bagasse: an energy balance
perspective. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 2117–2126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2011.02.017.
Lundgren, J., Ekbom, T., Hulteberg, C., Larsson, M., Grip, C.E., Nilsson, L., Tunå, P.,
2013. Methanol production from steel-work off-gases and biomass based
synthesis gas. Appl. Energy 112, 431–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.03.010.
Macrelli, S., Mogensen, J., Zacchi, G., 2012. Techno-economic evaluation of 2nd
generation bioethanol production from sugar cane bagasse and leaves
integrated with the sugar-based ethanol process. Biotechnol. Biofuels 5, 22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-22.
Mahdaviani, S.H., Soudbar, D., Parvari, M., 2010. Selective ethylene dimerization
toward 1-butene by a new highly efficient catalyst system and determination of
its optimum operating conditions in a buchi reactor. Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl. 1,
276–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJCEA.2010.V1.48.
Martín, C., Marcet, M., Almazán, O., Jönsson, L.J., 2007. Adaptation of a recombinant
xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain to a sugarcane bagasse
hydrolysate with high content of fermentation inhibitors. Bioresour. Technol.
98, 1767–1773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.021.
Mawhood, R., Gazis, E., de Jong, S., Hoefnagels, R., Slade, R., 2016. Production
pathways for renewable jet fuel: a review of commercialization status and
future prospects. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
bbb.1644, n/a–n/a.
Menetrez, M.Y., 2014. Meeting the U.S. renewable fuel standard: a comparison of
biofuel pathways. Biofuel Res. J. 1, 110–122.
Mussatto, S.I., 2016. A closer look at the developments and impact of biofuels in
transport and environment; what are the next steps? Biofuel Res. J. 3, 331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2016.3.1.2.
Naik, S.N., Goud, V.V., Rout, P.K., Dalai, A.K., 2010. Production of first and second
generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 14, 578–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.003.
Pearlson, M., Wollersheim, C., Hileman, J., 2013. A techno-economic review of
hydroprocessed renewable esters and fatty acids for jet fuel production.
Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 7, 89–96.
Petersen, A.M., Aneke, M.C., Görgens, J.F., 2014. Techno-economic comparison of
ethanol and electricity coproduction schemes from sugarcane residues at
existing sugar mills in Southern Africa. Biotechnol. Biofuels 7, 105. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/1754-6834-7-105.
Petersen, A.M., Farzad, S., Görgens, J.F., 2015. Techno-economic assessment of
integrating methanol or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in a South African sugar mill.
Bioresour. Technol. 183, 141–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.02.007.
Robota, H.J., Alger, J.C., Shafer, L., 2013. Converting algal triglycerides to diesel and
HEFA jet fuel fractions. Energy Fuels 27, 985–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
ef301977b.
Sun, L., Smith, R., 2013. Rectisol wash process simulation and analysis. J. Clean. Prod.
39, 321–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.049.
Swanson, R.M., Platon, A., Satrio, J.A., Brown, R.C., 2010. Techno-economic analysis
of biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification. Fuel 89, S11–S19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.07.027.
Vohra, M., Manwar, J., Manmode, R., Padgilwar, S., Patil, S., 2014. Bioethanol
production: feedstock and current technologies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2, 573–
584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.10.013.