Techno-Economic Analysis of Bioethanol Production from

Corn Stover

Name: Monawer ALhadid

Student Number: 6400443.
Supervisor: Dr. Jhuma Sadhukhan
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 4
Mass Balance ............................................................................................................................... 5
Pretreatment ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Hydrolysis .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Fermentation Process ............................................................................................................................ 8
Energy Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Global warming saving potential .......................................................................................................... 10
Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 11
Annualized total capital investment ..................................................................................................... 15
Indirect capital cost .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Fixed operating cost dependent on indirect capital cost ......................................................................................... 17

Fixed operating cost dependent on personnel cost .............................................................................. 18

Total Fixed operating cost ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Variable cost ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Results and Discussions Results and Discussions ......................................................................... 19

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 19
References .................................................................................................................................. 19
Abstract
By this research we performed profitably feasible analysis for the manufacturing of Ethyl Alcohol
from corn stover in a theoretical bioethanol refinery, in which we include all the compulsory plant
operation units for example preliminary treatment unit, hydrolysis unit, fermentation unit and
purification unit. The study reveals the corn stover is economic source for the manufacturing of
Ethyl Alcohol giving the high yield and is also not harmful to the environment because of less CO2
generation in the production. It is much harder to determine the accurate cost of corn stover raw
material. However, a cost analysis has finely done to approximate the price. Beside these,
economics and production cost exhibit some part of suspectibility to changing price of raw
material.

Introduction
In United States, India, and Brazil bioethanol has a use as green fuel. It lessens the global warming
impact of transportation by use as an alternative to gasoline. Almost all bioethanol is prepared from
the biotechnologies of first age group using sugarcane, molasses and corn as raw material till now.
These feedstocks of these types are used mainly for the preparation of bioethanol, because of being
green and they contribute in savings of emissions of fossil CO2 questioned severely. By utilizing
corn stover, the rest generated due to operation of corn, has taken great interest in Ethyl Alcohol
manufacturing due to the reason it is available readily in much large amounts and at less costs.
However, the techniques used for Ethyl Alcohol production by corn Stover is at exploratory
measure, the literature hardly show any systematic reports on unreduced plants in running.
Essentially conversion of corn stover to Ethyl Alcohol is not so easy due to presence of high
polymer contents and structure, and much methods have appeared on pre-treat and hydrolyze corn
stover prior to fermentation to Ethyl Alcohol.
The increasing concern on dependency of oil and (GHG) i.e. conservatory gas discharge has taken
China to search for the substitute to fossil gasoline in the section of transport. It is guessed that
demand of domestic oil will rise from 600 million to700 million tons per year by 2029 and from
701 million to 801 million tons by 2051 [1]. For the moment, by 2050, domestic level production
of crude oil will may remain at 200 million tons [2]. From the results of research of the International
Agency of Energy, by 2050 the biofuels may give 27% of total transportation propellant, and in
certain contribute to the renewal of C12H26 which is kerosene, aviation fuel & Diesel. If produced
sustainably then the biofuels use may avoid nearly 2.1 tonnes of Gallon (Carbondioxide release
per yr [3].
Zhao modeled global warming potentials that made focus on the best datasets, he extracted the
results that ammonia-based and steam explosion pretreatment were the best techniques for
conversion of 18%–22 percent of corn Stover into Ethyl Alcohol & giving climate change
economization of 851–1051 kilogram carbondioxide per 1001 kg of dry corn Stover.
The production of bioethanol was refined by 4%–15% for all the different techniques in cases of
“finest-GWP”. Technical configurations with NH3-based and alkalescent preliminary treatment
show down largest production of fermentation alcohol per ton of corn Stover. Results show that
for Ethyl Alcohol production from corn Stover of different alternative configurations have
different environmental impacts [4].

Methodology
The methodology adopted here consists of following particular stages i.e.
v Balancing of MASS
v Balancing of ENERGY
v Potential Saving due to global Warming
v Analysis Economically
The process make use of preliminary treatment of corn Stover by co-current diluteacid, and
determination of the cellulose(C6H10O5) which remains at end, and the zymolysis of C6H12O6 and
xylose (C5H10O5) resulted, to generate ethanol. The design of process also consists of storage,
feedstock handling, outcome purification, wastewater therapy, combustion of lignin, depository of
product, and services that are required. Collectively, nine areas are defined, as shown in Fig 1 [5]

Figure 1
Mass Balance
The cellulose content of the corn stover is 29.6%. Other components include xylan 16.6%, arabinan
3.3%, galactan 1.1%, lignin 14.1%, hemicellulose 23.4%, and ash 5% [6].

Table 1:
Corn Stover Biomass (Percentage Composition)
Name % Composition
Cellulose 29.6
Lignin 14.1
Hemicellulose 23.4
Moisture 15
Ash 5
Table 2:
Corn Stover Biomass (Hemicellulose) (Percentage Composition)
Name % Composition
HEMICELLULOSE 23.4
XYLAN 16.6
GLUCAN 2
ARABINAN 3.3
MANNAN 0.4
GALACTAN 1.1

Design Basis
2000 dry metric tonnes CORN Stover processing per daily basis

WET BIOMASS DAY PROCESSING CAPACITY tonne/day

TOTAL PLANT WORKING = 8411 hr /yr, so

Biomass per year wet basis tonne/year

Also, ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF BIOMASS tonne/year

Results are given following
Table 3:
Biomass OPERATIONAL BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
processing per HOURS PER PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
day (metric YEAR PER DAY (met. PER DAY (met. PER YEAR
tonnes on dry tonnes on wet tonnes on dry (metric tonnes
basis) basis) basis) on wet basis)

2000 8410 2352.94 700,833.33 824,509.39

The preparation of ETHYL ALCOHOL from lignocellulosic biomass raw material consists of four
parts i.e. Preliminary treatment, resolving, Agitation and Distillation. Pretreatment is to lower the
crystallinity of cellulose, break hemicellulose and increase the surface area of the feedstock for
more reaction. During hydrolysis, pretreatment rises the acceptance of the cellulose to enzymes [7].

Pretreatment
Table 4: Base Case [8]
Conversion Percentage for Pre-treatment unit
PRODUCT XYLAN GLUCAN ARABINAN MANNAN GALACTAN
XYLOSE 90
FURFURAL 5 5
OLIGOMER 2.4 0.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
GLUCOSE 9.9
HMF 0.3 5 5
ARABINOSE 90
MANNOSE 90
GALACTOSE 90
Tar FURFURAL HMF
100 100
Table 5: (Our Case)
Output flow rates of the components: Preliminary treatment (ton/yr)
Product XYLAN GLUCAN ARABINAN MANNAN GALACTAN TOTAL
Xylose 123,181.7 0 0 0 0 123181.7
Furfural 6843.43 0 1360.44 0 0 8203.87
Oligomer 3284.85 49.47 653.011 79.15 217.67 4284.151
Glucose 0 1632.52 0 0 0 1632.52
HMF 0 49.47 0 164.90 453.48 667.85
Arabinose 0 0 24487.92 0 0 24487.92
Mannose 0 0 0 2968.23 0 2968.23
Galactose 0 0 0 0 8162.64 8162.64
Total 133309.98 1731.46 26501.371 3212.28 8833.79 173588.881
Converted
Total 3558.57 14758.71 707.44 85.757 235.8133 19346.29
Unconverted
Total 192935.19
Hemicellulose
Processed

Furfural HMF Total tar

Tar 8203.87 667.85 8871.72

Hydrolysis
The conversion of carbohydrate polymer into monomeric sugars is known as hydrolysis [7].

Table 6: Base Case [8]

ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS UNIT CONVERSION Percentage
PRODUCTS CELLOLOSE
C6H12O6 90
OLIGOMER 4
CELLOBIOSE 1.2
GLUCOSE CELLOBIOSE
100
Table 7: Our Case
Output Mass Flowrates of Components Hydrolysis (tonnes/year)
Products Cellulose
Glucose 219649.301
Oligomer 9762.19
Cellobiose 2928.65
Total Converted 232340.141
Total Unconverted 11714.63
Total Glucose from Cellulose and Hemi-cellulose 221281.821

Fermentation Process
These sugars are transformed to ethanol are done by fermenting microorganisms and distillation to
purify the produced ethanol into concentrate [7].

Table 8: Base Case [8]

Fermentation Unit
Product Glucose Xylose Arabinose
Ethanol 95 85 85
Zymo 2 1.9 1.9
Glycerol 0.4 0.3 0.3
Succinic Acid 0.6 0.9 1.5
Xylitol 4.6

Table 9: Our Case

Output Mass Flowrates of the components Fermentation (tonnes/year)

Product Glucose Xylose Arabinose Total
Ethanol 210217.73 104704.45 20817.73 335739.91
Zymo 4425.63 2340.45 465.27 7231.35
Glycerol 885.13 369.55 73.46 1328.14
Succinic Acid 1327.69 1108.64 367.32 2803.65
Xylitol 0 5666.36 0 5666.36
Total 216856.18 114189.45 21723.78 352769.41
Converted
Total 4425.641 8992.25 2764.14 16182.031
Unconverted
Total Ethanol Total Ethanol Percentage mass yield Unrecovered Ethanol
Produced Recovered (98% of ethanol, Dry (2% of total ethanol
(tonnes/year) recovery) Biomass Basis (%) produced)
(tonnes/year)
335739.91 329025.11 47.9 6714.8
The mass yield % of ETHY ALCOHOL of lignocellulose mass (𝑌𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙) is calculated by
Hemicellulose mass and Cellulose in the Raw material, by means of separate % rates of conversion[8].
The equation 1 below was applied in calculating the mass yield of ETHYL ALCOHOL
𝑌𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 = 0.97 ∗ [0.9 ∗ 0.86 ∗ (𝑋𝑥𝑦𝑙𝑎𝑛 + 𝑋𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛 ) + 0.96(0.099 ∗ 𝑋𝑔𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑛 + 0.912 ∗
𝑋𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒)] (Eq. 1) [8]

ETHYL ALCOHOL is 98% recovered by the distillation process. However, the portion of the
bioethanol that was not recovered are directed to digestion of anaerobic.
The complete percentage mass subjected to 𝐹𝐴𝐷 can, therefore, be estimated from mass balance
by applying the equation 2 [8]

𝐹AD = 100 − 𝑋𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠 − 𝑋𝑎𝑠ℎ −𝑋𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑛 −𝑌𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙 − 0.05* (𝑋𝑥𝑦𝑙𝑎𝑛 + 𝑋𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛 +𝑋𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑛 + 𝑋𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛)
− 0.003 ×𝑋𝑔𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑛 (Eq. 2)[8]

Energy Analysis

Table 10:

Total wet biomass – (moisture + ash+ lignin + Tar+ Ethyl Alcohol))

Assume, 30% by mass balance amount ends up in biogas generation

Energy Calculations
Complete Biogas Lignin CV (MJ/kg) Tar CV (MJ/kg) Biogas CV (MJ/kg)
Produced
(tonnes/year)
59622.02 23.5 36 23

Total Energy Content Total Energy Content Total Energy Content Total Energy Input to
of Lignin (GJ/Year) of Tar (GJ/Year) of Biogas (GJ/Year) CHP (GJ/Year)
2732011.86 319381.92 1371306.46 4422700.24
Table 11:

Energy Analysis
Boiler Amount of Amount Steam Balance of Electricity Bioethano Energy
Efficienc steam energy of steam requiremen steam generatio l CV content of
y (%) generated per energy t by the site generated n from (MJ/kg) Bioethano
year generate (GJ/tonne (GJ/tonn balance of l (TJ/year)
(Mj/Yr) d per ethanol) e ethanol) steam at
year 35%
(GJ/ton energy
ethanol) efficiency
(MJ/tonne
ethanol)
90 3980430.21 11.85 15 -3.15 1102.5 29.7 9971.48
6

30% of the total mass of organic raw material routed to anaerobic digestion yields Biogas,

𝑌𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 0.3 × 𝐹𝐴𝐷 (Eq. 3) [8]

Steam production from the raw material within CHP plant of assumed 90% efficiency can be
estimated by

𝑌𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 = 0.9 × 𝐸𝐶𝐻𝑃𝑖𝑛 (Eq. 4) [8]

Global warming saving potential

Table 12:

Savings in global warming Potential

Emission factor of Petrol which is to be put in 3.2
the place of Bioethanol in kilogram Carbon
dioxide equivalent /Kilogram
Global warming capacity annual saving in 1074367712
kilogram Carbon dioxide equivalent / yr
Economic Analysis

Delivered Cost of Equipment

In order to find cost of an apparatus, we use an equipment with a different size but known price. If
the size of an equipment exceeds the max allowable size, then many units will have to take into
consideration [9]. Max size are given below in the table

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 𝑅
=( ) (Eq. 5)
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1 𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1

Where
𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1 system capacity
𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 is the capacity after scaling up/down
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1 is the cost of the base
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 is the cost after scaling up/down
R is the Factor of Scaling or Scaling factor[9]

Table 13
Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) Preliminary process mechanical apparatus with max capacity = 83.4 dry tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = 4.45 Million $
Factor of scaling (R) = 0.67 Our
given case:
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2) raw material production capacity = 83.4 dry tones per hour

𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 𝑅
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2= (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) * 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

83.3 0.67
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (83 .3) * 4.45 million $ = 4.45 million $

Pre-treatment (b) dilute Acids

Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) Preliminary treatment of dilution acid apparatus max capacity = 83.4 dry tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = 14.2million $
Factor of Scaling (R) = 0.78 Our
given case:
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2) Raw Material production capacity = 83.4 dry tones per hour

𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 𝑅
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2= (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) * 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (8383 . 3 )0.78

. 3 * 14.2 million $ = 14.2million $
Hydrolysis and Fermentation Seed fermenters
Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) maximum size of this section (i.e. hydrolys & fermen. = 3.54 dry tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = $0.27million Scaling
factor (R) = 0.6

Additional added units = = 13 units

𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 𝑅
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) X 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

3.53 0.6
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (3 .53) X 0.27 M $ x 13 units = 3.51 M $

Upgrading (a) Purification & Distillation

Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) maximum capacity of this unit ethanol produced = 18.465 tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = $ 2.97 million Scaling
factor (R) = 0.7

The number of additional units needed = = 3 units approx.

𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸2 𝑅
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) X 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (1818 . 466

. 466)
0.7 X 2.97 million $ x 3 units = 8.89 million $

Upgrading (b) Molecular sieve

Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) maximum capacity of this unit ethanol produced = 18.465 tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = $ 2.93 million
Factor of scaling (R) = 0.7 Our
given case:

The number of additional units needed = = 3 units

Therefore,
By directly substituting in the equation 5, the cost of the equipment is estimated as

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸21)𝑅 X 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

18.466 0.7
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (18 .466) X $ 2.93 million x 3 units = $8.89 million

Residuals (a) Solids Separation

Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) maximum capacity of this unit is handling dry solids = 10.12 tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = 1.06 million $ Factor
of Scaling (R) = 0.65

We therefore, need = 1.683 units

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸21)𝑅 X 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

10.1 0.65
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (10 .1) X 1.06 million $ x 2 units = $ 2.2 million
Residuals (b) (An) aerobic digestion
Reference Base = table 13
(𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸1) maximum capacity of this unit is handling wastewater = 43 tones per hour
(𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1) Base cost = 1.55 million $ Factor
of Scaling (R) = 0.6

𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = (𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸𝑆𝐼𝑍𝐸21)𝑅 X 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒1

Putting values in eq. 5, equipment cost comes out to be:

16.1 0.6
𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒2 = ( 43 ) X 1.55 million $ x 1 unit = $0.92 million

𝐼𝑝𝑟
𝐶𝑝𝑟 = 𝐶𝑜 ( 𝐼𝑜 ) (Eq. 6)

Where:
𝐶𝑝𝑟 represents present cost

𝐶𝑜 represents original cost

𝐼𝑝𝑟 represents index value
𝐼𝑜 represents original index value [9] [10]

Annualized total capital investment

Annualized total capital investment is the product of total capital investment and annual capital
charge (given as 0.13) The result of the estimated annualized total capital investment is given in
the table 14.
Table 14:

Economic Analysis

Delivered Cost of Equipment

Process Unit Act Unit Base Base Capacity Scal Base Cost Cost Cost Insta Cost of Updated cost
ual s Cost Size e Year Inde Index of llati equipme of equipment
Siz (Mil Fact x of equip on nt at present
e lions or Curre ment facto includin year 2014
$) nt in r g (USD)
year year installati
2014 2003 on factor
Pretreatment
Mechanical 83. 1 4.44 83.3 dry t/h 0.67 2003 402 574.4 4.44 2 8.88 12690000
3 biomass feed
Dilute Acid 83. 1 14.1 83.3 dry t/h biomass 0.78 2003 402 574.4 14.1 2.36 33.28 47550000
3 feed

Hydrolysis
and
fermentation
45. 13 0.26 3.53 t/h ethanol 0.6 2003 402 574.4 3.38 2.2 7.436 10620000
4 produced

Upgrading
Distillation 45. 3 2.96 18.466 t/h ethanol 0.7 2003 402 574.4 8.83 2.75 24.42 34890000
and 4 produced
Purification
Molecular 45. 3 2.92 18.466 t/h ethanol 0.7 2003 402 574.4 8.76 1 8.76 12520000
Sieve 4 produced

Residue
Solids 17 2 1.05 10.1 dry t/h solids 0.65 2003 402 574.4 2.1 2.2 4.62 6600000
separation
(An)aerobic 16. 1 1.54 43 t/h wastewater 0.6 2003 402 574.4 0.85 1.95 1.6575 2370000
digestion 1
89.0535
Storage 13248980.33
system
Utilities system 22162397.02

CHP system 80948122.3

Total 243600500.8
Delivered cost
of equipment
Annualized 31668065.1
delivered cost
of equipment
Total capital 12253105.19
investment
 Annualized 159290367.5
total capital
investment

Indirect capital cost

To calculate the fixed operating cost, indirect capital cost must be known. Its cost is estimated as
annualized delivered cost of equipment multiply by 1.26 [9]

Table 15:

Indirect capital cost

Item Factor
Engineering and supervision 0.32
Construction and Expenses 0.34
Legal Expenses 0.04
Contractor’s fee 0.19
Contingency 0.37
Total 1.26

Fixed operating cost that depends on indirect capital cost

This comprises of local taxes, capital charges, cost of maintenance, royalties and insurance. It is
estimated by multiplying capital cost by 0.24 [9]

Table 16:
Fixed Operating Cost
Item indirect capital cost Factor
Maintenance 10% 0.1
Capital Charges 10% 0.1
Insurance 1% 0.01
Local Taxes 2% 0.02
Royalties 1% 0.01
Total 0.24

Indirect Capital Cost 39901762.03

Fixed Operating Cost 9576422.887
Fixed operating cost that depends on personnel cost
This is the product of bioethanol production in (kg/s), its calorific value, 0.595million, exchange
rate of euro to dollar and 1.9.

Table: 17

Personnel Dependent Fixed Operating Cost

Bioethanol Production in kg/sec 10.79
MWth LHV 374.92
Personnel cost in Euro/year 2230822.66
Personnel cost in $/year 271517.45
Personnel dependent fixed operating cost in $/year 5158913.17

Total Fixed operating cost

Total fixed operating cost is the sum of fixed operating cost dependent on indirect capital
cost and fixed operating cost dependent on personnel cost [9] Table 18:

Operating Cost
Item Cost Estimation
Maintenance 10% of indirect capital cost 3990176.203
Personnel 0.595 million Euro/100 2715217.457
MWth LHV
Laboratory Costs 20% OP(Of Personnel) 543043.49
Supervision 20% OP 1357608.73
Plant overheads 50% OP 3990176.203
Capital charges 10% ICC(Indirect Capital 399017.6203
Cost
Insurance 1% ICC 798035.24
Local taxes 2% ICC 399017.6203
Royalties 1% ICC 14735336.06
Total fixed operating cost $
Direct production cost $ 78191577.54
Miscellaneous $ 23457473.26
Total operating cost/year $ 101649050.8

Variable cost
Variable cost is simply the cost of raw materials and feedstock minus the cost of electricity export[9]
Table 19:
 Variable Operating Cost

Cost Revenue
Raw Materials $ 10937556.34
Feedstock $ 36454548
Ethanol $ 351776431.8
Electricity export $ -16064137.14

Total variable cost $ 63456241.49 Without ethanol produced

Results and Discussions

The analysis of biomass shows that it consists of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin. Also,
hemicellulose consists of glucan, XYLAN, MANNAN, GALACTAN and ARABINAN. Various
rates of flow of process units have shown in Tables 5-9. Each of the units play a vital role in yield
of Ethyl Alcohol. By applying eq. 1, the bioethanol production from corn stover is calculated.
Costs of the production of bioethanol are calculated through dividing yearly costs of alone system
with quantity of bioethanol prepared. Annual total costs consist of annual capital investments,
operating investments and maintenance. Also, cost of electricity and biomass feedstock.

The generation of steam from raw material in the combined heat power plant is guessed to be of
90% efficiency [8]. Lignocellulosic feedstocks produced required steam for generation of electricity.
Results show corn stover to be an economically good and environmentally friendly. A major part
of study is to determine the least selling price of ethanol, because of less information from public,
that is harder to knowhow the accurate price of corn stover raw material. Other quantities i.e. cost
of production and economic margin show some sensitivity to changing feedstock price.

Conclusions
Examination of this determines the profitable feasibility for the production. A guessed plant is
proposed with size of 2000 ton per day & 8410 hours per year. The conclusion of research indicates
corn Stover is a profitably viable & atmosphere affable. Main factor of the examination is to
determine least ethanol vend cost, because of absence of info from people, it is difficult to realize
accurate cost of corn Stover raw material. Other quantities i.e. value production and economic
margin show some value of responsiveness to varying raw material amount.

References
1. Chinese Academy of Engineering. Medium and Long Term Energy Development
Strategy in China: Electricity, Oil & Gas, Nuclear and Environment; Science Press:
Beijing, China, 2011; Volume 1.
2. Ma, L.W.; Fu, F.; Li, Z.; Liu, P. Oil development in China: Current status and future
trends. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 43–53.
3. International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for Transport;
OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2011.
4. Yan Zhaoa , Anders Damgaardb , Shan Liua , Huimin Changa , Thomas H. Christensenb,
“Bioethanol from corn stover – Integrated environmental impacts of alternative
biotechnologies” Volume 155, April 2020, 104652
5. Lili Zhao, Xiliang Zhang, Jie Xu, Xunmin Ou, Shiyan Chang and Maorong Wu
“TechnoEconomic Analysis of Bioethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass in
China: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover” 2015, 8(5),
4096-4117
6. Aldana, H., Lozano, F.J., Acevedo, J., 2014. Evaluating the potential for producing
energy from agricultural residues in México using MILP optimization. Biomass
Bioenergy 67, 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.022
7. Alemán-Nava, G.S., Casiano-Flores, V.H., Cárdenas-Chávez, D.L., et al., 2014.
Renewable energy research progress in Mexico: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 32,
140–153
8. Alvira, P., Tomás-Pejó, E., Ballesteros, M., Negro, M.J., 2010. Pretreatment technologies
for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: a
review. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (13), 4851–4861.
9. Amezcua-Allieri, M., Sánchez-Durán, T., Aburto, J., 2017. Study of chemical and
enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic material to obtain fermentable sugars. J. Chem. 1–
9 5680105.
10. CODESIN, 2012. Estimación de Volumen de la Disponibilidad de rastrojo de maíz para
la producción de Etanol. [Online]. Available:
http://codesin.mx/news/estimaciondevolumen-de-la-disponibilidad-de-rastrojo-
de-maiz-para-la-produccion-deetanol/.
11. Curcio, E., Drioli, E., 2005. Membrane distillation and related operations—a review.
Sep. Purif. Rev. 34 (1), 35–86.
12. Davila-Gomez, F.J., Chuck-Hernandez, C., Perez-Carrillo, E., Rooney, W.L.,
SernaSaldivar, S.O., 2011. Evaluation of bioethanol production from five different
varieties of sweet and forage sorghums (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench). Ind. Crop.
Prod. 33 (3), 611–616
13. Valdez-Vazquez, I., Acevedo-Benítez, J.A., Hernández-Santiago, C., 2010. Distribution
and potential of bioenergy resources from agricultural activities in Mexico. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (7), 2147–2153.
14. Wan, Y.K., Sadhukhan, J., Ng, K.S., Ng, D.K., 2016a. Techno-economic evaluations for
feasibility of sago-based biorefinery, part 1: alternative energy systems. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 107, 263–279.
15. Wan, Y.K., Sadhukhan, J., Ng, D.K., 2016b. Techno-economic evaluations for feasibility
of sago-based biorefinery, part 2: integrated bioethanol production and energy
systems. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 107, 102–116.
16. Wu, H., Dai, X., Zhou, S.L., Gan, Y.Y., Xiong, Z.Y., Qin, Y.H., et al., 2017. Ultrasoundassisted
alkaline pretreatment for enhancing the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw by using
the heat energy dissipated from ultrasonication. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 70–74.
17. Zhang, K., Pei, Z., Wang, D., 2016. Organic solvent pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass for biofuels and biochemicals: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 199, 21–33.