Draft 170313

Synopsis
Remit
To asses the feasibility of a biodiesel production plant with a capacity of approximately

17000 t/yr from waste fish products.
1
Contents
Page
1.0. Introduction
1.1. Introduction
1.2. References
2.0. Process Description

2.1. Introduction
2.2. Fish Oil
2.3. Esterification
2.4. Supercritical Esterification
2.5. Legal Regulations
2.6. Fish Oil Extraction
2.7. Process Design
2.8. Process Modelling
2.8.1. Heating and Pressurising the Feed and Recycle
2.8.2. Biodiesel Production in a Conversion Reactor
2.8.3. Methanol Recovery
2.8.4. Water Separation
2.8.5. Biodiesel Purification
2.8.6. Overall Production Capacity
2.9. Plant Utilities
2.10. Process Flow Diagram
2.11. Construction Materials
2.12. References
3.0. Alternative Processes
4.0. Location
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Scotland
4.3. Rejected Options
4.3.1. Norway
4.3.2. Canada
4.3.3. United States of America (Alaska)
4.4. References
5.0. Market
5.1. Introduction
5.2. European Market
5.3. UK Market
5.4. United States of America Market
5.5. Asian Market
5.6. Biodiesel Prices
5.7. References
6.0. Economics
6.1. Set-Up Cost
6.2. Income
6.2.1. Biodiesel
6.2.2. Fish Meal
6.3. Outgoings
6.3.1. Staffing
6.3.2. Feedstocks
6.3.3. Transport
6.3.4. Maintenance
6.3.5. Energy
2
6.4. Economic Appraisal
6.4.1. Level of Production
6.4.1.1. Maximum Production Forecast
6.4.1.2. Realistic Production Forecast
6.4.1.3. Low Production Forecast
6.5. Cash Return
6.5.1. Annual Cash Return
6.5.2. Cumulative Cash Return
6.6. Payback Time
6.7. Return on Investment
6.8. Net Present Value
6.9. Summary of Economic Appraisal
7.0. Health and Safety

7.1. Introduction
7.2. Risk Assessment
7.3. Significant Hazards
7.4. Bio-Hazards
7.5. References
8.0. Sustainability
8.1. Feedstock Sustainability
8.2. Political Sustainability
8.3. Social Sustainability
8.4. Environmental Impact
8.5. Economic Sustainability
8.5.1. Methanol Feedstock Price Increase
8.5.2. Fish Feedstock Facilities Demand Payment
8.5.3. Increase in Energy Costs
8.5.4. Reinvestment by Commissioning a New Plant
8.6. Process Sustainability
8.7. References
9.0. Conclusion
9.1. Conclusion
10.0 Appendix
10.1. Material and Energy Balance with PFD
10.1.1. Material Balance
10.2. Process Equipment Calculations
10.2.1. Reactor CRV-101
10.2.2. Cooler E-100
10.2.3. Cooler E-105
10.2.4. Heater E-106
10.2.5. Distillation Column T-101
10.2.8. References
10.3. Cost of Process Equipment
10.3.2. Pump P-105
10.3.3. Pump P-104
10.3.4. Pump P-103
10.3.5. Mixer MIX-106
10.3.6. Mixer MIX-107
10.3.7. Mixer MIX-105
10.3.8. Mixer MIX-104
3
10.3.9. Cooler E-100
10.3.10. Cooler E-105
10.3.11. Fired Heater E-108
10.3.13. Heater E-106
10.3.14. Flash Separator V-101
10.4. Total Cost of Biodiesel Production Plant
10.5. References
- cradle to grave
- EMS
- LCA
- SWOT
- any economic stuff
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
5
1.1. Introduction
With global warming and pollution becoming an increasingly pressing issue in the world today,
alternatives to fossil fuels are constantly being sought after. Biofuels are an alternative to fossil
fuels that are created from biomass, which is any organic matter from plants or animals.
Biofuel production has been consistently increasing over the last decade. From 2000 to 2011
biofuel production increased from 16 billion litres to more than 100 billion litres. 3% of global
transport fuel is accounted for by biofuels(1).
Biodiesel is a biofuel that is used as a green replacement for petroleum diesel. It can be used in a
mixture of biodiesel and petroleum diesel, as well as pure. A 20% blend or lower of biodiesel and
petro diesel can be used as fuels as a replacement for diesel with only minor or no engine
modifications. Above this 20% blend of biodiesel, slight engine modifications are required to
prevent damage to the engine. Pure biodiesel is known as B100, while the other variations of the
fuel are named in a similar manner, i.e. B20 consists of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel.
Biodiesel is commonly created through the trans-esterification process. In the trans-esterification

process, triglycerides contained within oil are reacted with methanol to form fatty acid methyl esters
(FAME) and glycerol using a catalyst. Another way to make biodiesel is through the esterification
process, where carboxylic acids contained in some oils is reacted with methanol to form FAMEs
and water. Several alternative processes are possible with both types of reaction.
Biodiesel is one of the better alternatives to petroleum diesel at the moment as it offers similar
energy efficiency at the same time as being non-toxic, biodegradable, and has much lower carbon
emissions. Furthermore, it is created from the oils from animals or vegetables, and therefore this
fuel is a renewable energy source. These advantages make biodiesel a very attractive alternative
to petroleum based fuel. This is reflected by the fact that it's becoming increasingly popular with
well-known companies such as McDonalds, who are looking towards biodiesel as a means to fuel
their vehicles across the UK and the Europe.
Common examples of feedstock used for biodiesel include algae, vegetable oil, seed oil, animal
fat. The issue with biodiesel is, the feedstock used is often a food source. This means large scale
biodiesel plants need to find another source of feedstock other than a food source, as using food
source would drive up the price of food. Furthermore, farming crops for biodiesel production would
use too much land. It is much more practical, and environmentally friendly to use waste products
from other industries to create biodiesel.
Fish oil extracted from fish waste is often overlooked as a feedstock. Fish waste consists of all of
the parts of the fish that are not sold as food. This mainly consists of the head and tail of the fish
that are removed during processing. Using waste fish to create biodiesel also benefits the fish
market as the fish processing companies incur costs for disposal of the fish waste. Whereas, a
biodiesel company could take the waste and turn it into renewable fuel.
The purpose of this project is to assess the viability of setting up a biodiesel production plant using
fish waste as a feedstock.
1.2. References
1. IEA – Biofuels. International Energy Agency 2012 [ONLINE] Available at: www.iea.org/topics/biofuels
[Accessed 17 March 2013]
6
Chapter 2
Process Description
7
2.1. Introduction
Biodiesel is not a new topic, its uses can be dated back from before the first combustion engines.
However since Rudolf Diesel’s first model in 1893 which ran off peanut oil(14), biodiesel has steadily
gained popularity. In recent times the supply of fossil fuels has been diminishing with the result of
oil prices increasing. Therefore there has been significant research and the development of
renewable fuels such as biodiesel.
Biodiesel is a mixture of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) which are formed from the
transesterification or esterification reaction of triglycerides, carboxylic acids and alcohols. There
are many different synthesis methods such as: alkali-catalysed, acid-catalysed, heterogeneous
acid-catalyst and by supercritical methanol. A design has been created for the method of
supercritical methanol since it poses many advantages over the other methods.
Eq. 1 shows a generalised esterification reaction of an alcohol with a carboxylic acid to produce a
ester and water. The reaction is considered to be reversible.
Figure 2.1.(3) Esterification reaction, Eq. 1
The stoichometry of the reaction is 1:1, acid:alcohol ratio. Eq. 2 shows the chemical reaction for
biodiesel production. Where a fatty acid and
methanol react to product FAME and water. Like FA + methanol ⇌ FAME + water
the esterification reaction, Eq. 2 is also reversible.
However normal procedure is to include excess Figure 2.2. (6) FAME production Eq. 2
alcohol to push the equilibrium of the reaction to the
products side(1).
2.2. Fish Oil
Using fish oil as a feed stock, requires less energy to react a fatty acid and methanol producing a
FAME rather than complete transesterification. In order to complete the transesterification process,
two reactions must occur, these are:
3 FA + glycerol ⇌ triglyceride + 3 water

triglyceride + 3 methanol ⇌ 3 FAME + glycerol
Essentially this forms a tri-compound only to break that compound down into three separate
molecules, the FAME’s. Hence, the direct esterification reaction takes individual fatty acids and
increases the carbon chain length by adding a methyl group, and therefore it requires less energy
and potentially a smaller reactor and or fewer reactors depending on its design.
Studies on fish oil have shown that the primary components are oleic acid (C18:1), palmitic acid
(C16:0) and docosahexaneoic acid (C22:6). Few workers have analysed the fatty acid composition
of salmon oil. As a result, today there is a lot of conflicting data. It must be assumed that the fatty
acid composition is a function of salmon habitats. Fatty acid content can be found in table 1.1.
8
Due to the location
Table 2.1. Fatty acid profile and contents of salmon oil (2)
of the proposed site
Type Fatty Acid Chemical Structure Conten for the plant, it
t [g/100 makes sense to base
g (oil)] the design procedure
Saturated Lauric acid C12:0 0.15 on the compositions
Tridencanoic acid C13:0 0.07 found from salmon
Myristic acid C14:0 7.04 oil. The two major
Pentadecanoic acid C15:0 0.74 components are then:
Palmitic acid C16:0 14.95
oleic acid 21.95 wt.
Margaric acid C17:0 0.60
Stearic acid C18:0 3.71 % and palmitic acid
Total 27.26 14.95 wt. %. For
Unsaturate Myristoleic acid C14:1 0.09 simplification
d Palmitoleic acid C16:1 6.90 purposes, salmon oil
Oleic acid C18:1 21.95 will be assumed to
Linoleic acid C18:2 4.44 be 100% oleic acid.
Linolenic acid C18:3 7.97
Arachidonic acid C20;4 2.79
Brassic acid C22:2 0.11 2.3. Esterification
EPA, Timnodonic acid C20:5 n-3 11.52
C22:3 n-3 0.22 Esterification
C22:4 n-6 0.12 usually occurs with
DPA, Clupandoinic acid C22:5 n-3 3.67 a carboxylic acid
DHA Docosahexaenoic C22:6 n-3 12.96 and alcohol in the
acid presence of an
Total 72.74 acid catalyst,
forming an ester.
This reaction was
first discovered by
Emil Fischer and hence its official name is the Fischer esterification(7). As previously mentioned,
the reaction is reversible and once the equilibrium has been reached, large quantities of both
reactants remain. It is however to control the yield of ester. In general high quantities of alcohol can
be used to drive the equilibrium over to the products side of the reaction (7). This is suitable when
the carboxylic acid costs more than the alcohol. It would also be possible to add excess carboxylic
acid to get the same results.
In the case of biodiesel production, many studies have been completed and found that high alcohol
quantities work well to obtain high yields of biodiesel whilst most importantly being a cheap method
of production(12).
2.4. Supercritical Esterification
A compound can become supercritical when it is said to be above its critical temperature and
pressure. The compound is now a non-condensable dense fluid. It also doesn’t act as either a
liquid or a gas, but shows properties of both phases. A compound is supercritical when its density
is 20-50% times greater than that of the liquid state, while the viscosity when supercritical is similar
to that of it in the gas phase(5). It has been shown in studies that for a high esterification conversion
of fatty acids to methyl esters, a constant alcohol to oil ratio of 42:1 at 350 oC and 20 bar(5) is
required.
The supercritical reaction provides many advantages to the production of biodiesel, namely the
increased conversion of reactants. Furthermore, since there is no need for a catalyst like those
found in acid or base catalysed reaction, the supercritical process is more environmentally friendly.
It also produces far less waste compared to other methods. This process also allows the usage of
a low grade feedstock with unfavourable amounts of hydrated ethanol. Due to this characteristic,
9
the quantity of free fatty acids and water do not affect the reaction output. As previously mentioned,
the supercritical process has a higher conversion compared to that of other processing methods.
This is because there are fewer processing steps required because there is no need for
neutralisation, washing and drying of the product. Furthermore the rate of reaction is significantly
faster, and therefore the process requires a smaller reactor size(5). Since high amounts of alcohol
are used, it is necessary to recover as much of this as possible for reuse. This is easily done with
the use of a distillation column. However distillation requires a large amount of energy, and
therefore reduces the scale of being an environmentally friendly process. However a flash drum
can be used as an initial separator, which recovers the vast majority of alcohol not consumed
within the reaction at a much lower energy demand.
There are however a number of disadvantages to the supercritical process, namely the high
amount of energy required to prepare the fatty acid and alcohol to a suitable reaction temperature
and pressure. As a result of these conditions, an expensive reactor must be used, that can
withstand these harsh conditions(5). The high alcohol to oil ratio means that a lot of energy is used
in the preparing of the alcohol only to have the alcohol recycled, reheated and repressurised.
2.5. Legal Regulations
European standards dictate that biodiesel for sale must conform to certain chemical compositions.
EN 14214 is the applicable European standard. Table 1.2. shows a summary of certain
Table 2.2. A summary of brief requirements for biodiesel (4)
Limits
Property Unit Minimum Maximum
Methyl ester wt % 96.50 -

content
Methanol content wt % - 0.20
Triglyceride content wt % - 0.20
Glycerol content wt % - 0.02
Fatty acid content wt % - 12.00
components maximum and minimum wt % that can be present in the final biodiesel product.
2.6. Fish Oil Extraction
Fish waste is the feedstock used for this process. The waste consists of salmon heads, tails and
other unwanted body parts, these are all sources of oils. The fish heads contain high quantities of
oils and fats. In total the facility will receive 17000 t/yr of salmon waste. Studies have shown that
the fish heads comprise approximately 10% oil, 20% solids and 70% water(8). The water is an
aqueous mixture known as stickwater which comprises amino acids, vitamins and minerals(9).
Figure 1.3. shows a block diagram for a typical fish waste processing facility.
10
Figure 2.3. Fish waste processing block diagram(10)
The production of fish oil and fish meal is as follows(11). Fish wastes are fed to a cooker, where they
are cooked by an indirect steam cooker. The cookers conditions are atmospheric pressure and 50
o
C. The fish is cooked in order to coagulate the protein thus separating the oil and water present.
Any liquids are subsequently removed under gravity. Cooking tends to release vast quantities of
water, and therefore this separation is not energy intensive. The solids are then passed through a
press, further separating the liquids from solids and thus optimising the system ensuring as much
fish oil is collected. The solids separated are then heated in a tearing mill which grinds and reduces
the size of the fish solids. This is so that it can be easily mixed with the stickwater, later produced.
The solids are then dried by either a steam evaporator or by using a direct flame dryer to a
moisture content less than or equal to 12%. The fish meal will contain traces of metal and wood,
these are subsequently removed using vibrating screens and magnets. These alien components
arise from potential fish hooks or floating pieces of wood caught when catching the fish. The meal
is then further ground with a hammer mill. The dry ground fish meal is then stored in bags.
The liquids separated from the press is held in a buffer vessel. This mixture enters a centrifuge
which separates the stickwater from the oil. The centrifuge is capable of handling large flowrates of
liquids and can separate it into its respective components within seconds. Both the oil and
stickwater are sent to separate buffer vessels. Stickwater is then generally passed through a
number of multi-effect evaporators where its concentration is increased. The heating medium for
this stage is normally steam. The stickwater is then added to the solids from the press before being
dried, and therefore increasing the quality of the fish meal. The separated fish oil can be further
refined to purify it. Alternatively it can be stored in regular storage vessels constructed of a mild
steel.
It is estimated that approximately 17000 t/yr fish oil and 3400 t/yr of fish meal will be produced from
this process. Due to regulations regarding the sale of fish meal, fish oil extraction will be a batch
process, allowing for the sale of fish meal from fish caught at sea and not from dead fish farmed in
fish farms.
2.7. Process Design
The process chosen to produce biodiesel from waste fish products was the supercritical
esterification. This is the conversion of fatty acids found in fish waste to FAME’s. Table 1.1. shows
the composition of salmon oil, and therefore since oleic acid is the most abundant fatty acid
present, it will be assumed that salmon oil is pure oleic acid. The process is designed to be
continuous. Section 2.10. shows a process flow diagram (PFD) for the production of biodiesel from
fish oil.
Pure methanol and oleic acid are fed into the system at standard conditions (25 C and at
o
11
atmospheric pressure). Recycled methanol from the process is initially mixed with the fresh
methanol feed. Both components are then pressurised and heated separately to reaction
conditions of 190 bar and 350 C before being mixed together. The combined feeds in S03 have an
o
alcohol:oil ratio of 42:1. This is fed into a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR). A high conversion
of 98% fatty acid is achieved within the reactor at such operating conditions. The reactor products
are depressurised to produce vapour which is subsequently cooled, to be flashed. Flashing allows
for the initial recovery of the excess methanol present. Liquids from the flash separator are heated
in preparation of distillation. This first distillation recovers any left over methanol present and is
sent to join the methanol recovered from the flash separator. The bottoms from this column have
its pressure significantly reduced to prevent the thermal decomposition of the FAME to 0.05 bar.
Further distillation is then applied to separate the FAME from left over oleic acid, water and
potential methanol. A 25% of the recovered methanol is purged to avoid excess water build up,
and the remainder is distilled to produce a nearly pure product of methanol which is recycled back
to the methanol feed. FAME, water and the purge stream are either further refined or sent to
storage tanks ready for disposal or transportation.
Since this is the initial design, there are a number of possible alterations which can be made to
improve the efficiency of the process. Currently there are two individual heaters which prepare the
methanol and oleic acid feed to reaction temperature. It would be possible to use the heat from the
reactor products as a preheater to the reactor. This will be able to increase the temperature of the
feed significantly but still may require a conventional heater. Furthermore to reduce the amount of
methanol purged and therefore reduce the amount of fresh methanol feed required, the amount
purged could be reduced. However this would require a larger distillation column thus costing
more. This applies to all distillation columns, if better recoveries are wanting to be obtained, their
designs could be altered.
HYSYS version 7.1 was used to simulate the esterification of oleic acid. Fish oil was modelled as
100 wt% oleic acid. Therefore methyl oleate was considered as the final product, biodiesel. A by-
product also formed is water. The fluid package used was non-random two liquid (NRTL). This was
chosen because of polar groups on molecules being present. The annual capacity of the plant was
set at approximately 17000 t/yr. This basis was based on the plant operating 24 hours a day, 350
days per year.
2.8. Process Modelling
There are five stages for the production of biodiesel: heating and pressurising of the feed/recycle,
reaction, methanol recovery, water separation and biodiesel purification.
2.8.1. Heating and Pressurising the Feed and Recycle
Oleic acid is introduced in S01 as 100 wt% oleic acid. Methanol is introduced in S02. Both feeds
are at standard temperatures and pressures. The methanol feed is mixed with any recycled
methanol in stream S02A. Both streams are pressurised to 190.8 bar by P-104 and P-105
respectively. Both streams are then heated separately to reaction temperature of 350 oC by E-107
and E-108 respectively. Each heater has a pressure drop of 0.8 bar associated with them.
Therefore pressure drop over each heater satisfies the required reaction pressure. Both methanol
and oleic acid are then mixed together where the pressure remains constant and there is a slight
increase in temperature. This temperature increase is due to heat of mixing.
2.8.2. Biodiesel Production in a Conversion Reactor
At these temperatures and pressures, very high conversions can be obtained as shown by a
number of workers(1). The reactor used was a conversion reactor, converting 98% of oleic acid at
350 oC and 190 bar. The reactor is operated adibatically with no heat flow in or out. As shown by
many studies, a high alcohol to oil ratio helps push the reaction towards the product side, thus a
12
molar ratio of 42 was used. Reactor CRV-101 has a liquid and vapour product stream with the
higher flowrate being vapour. Liquid and vapour product streams are combined by MIX-104. There
is no pressure drop associated over the reactor. There is however a temperature decrease due to
the reaction being endothermic. The temperature of the outlet is 348.3 oC, which could be classed
negligible. It was assumed that with a high
Table 2.3. Overall production capacity
alcohol content the equilibrium of the
reaction was pushed Component Strea Mass towards the products
side and therefore m considered irreversible.
2.8.3. Methanol t/yr Recovery
There is a high Methyl oleate S10 16603.44 proportion of unreacted

methanol due to the (biodiesel) high alcohol:oil ratio.
Flashing S05 to 2.8 bar and also reducing the
temperature to 88.36 oC Water/methanol mixture S14 1082.09
which forms a vapour
fraction of 0.85, with a Waste S11 325.58 significant amount being
of that fraction methanol. There is a 0.8
bar pressure drop associated with the cooler. Passing the stream through a flash separator
recovers 87.32% of the excess methanol. The liquids separated from the flash drum are
pressurised slightly and heated to 220 oC in order to get a 0.85 vapour fraction. As before the large
quantity of this being methanol. There is a 0.8 bar pressure drop associated over the heater. The
heated stream is then passed through a 12 stage distillation column which has a total condenser,
to separate methanol from the mixture. The recovered methanol from column T-101 is then mixed
together with the vapour flashed from the flash drum. The distillation column has a methanol
recovery of 99.99%. The combined methanol recovered goes onto further processing. Over both
the flash separator and T-101 distillation column, 99.99% of the methanol is recovered.
2.8.4. Water Separation
The recovered methanol passes through further separation techniques because there is 2% (molar
basis) water present. This mixture passes through another distillation column to separate the
water-methanol mixture. There are a total of 65 stages with a total condenser in distillation column
T-104. This column recovers 99.89% of the methanol which is eventually recycled back to the
methanol feed. The recycled methanol is partly vapour and is cooled to a liquid state before being
mixed with fresh methanol feed. Over the cooler is a 0.487 bar pressure drop. Over both the
methanol recovery units and water separation unit, the quantity of methanol recovered is 99.89%.
Therefore the required fresh methanol is to compensate the reacted methanol lost.
2.8.5. Biodiesel Purification
Stream S09 is dropped in pressure to 0.05 bar in order to prevent the thermal decomposition of
methyl oleate. In order to satisfy EN 14214, the amount of oleic acid present must be reduced. A
36 stage distillation column with a total condenser is used to recover 99.99% methyl oleate. This
gives a final product which consists of: 99.95 wt% methyl oleate, 0.04 wt% water and 0.01 wt%
methanol. This is suitable for sale within the European Union.
2.8.6. Overall Production Capacity
With the initial assumption that the plant operates for 350 days per year at 24 hours a day. Table
2.3.
13
2.9. Plant Utilities
The HYSYS simulation utilised coolers and heaters in the initial stages of design. Therefore it is not
possible to produce exact figures for utility requirement, however estimations were generated. The
electricity demands for the process are dictated from pumps. With three pumps in the initial design,
the energy consumption is 102.10 kW. Intuitively, the plant will also require electricity for controls,
lighting, etc, and therefore this value stated will inevitably increase. It may be possible to self-
generate electricity, however this is very much dependent upon the economics of doing this task.
In cases where streams are heated to above 250 C, fired heaters must be used. The simulation
o
has assumed the utility to be fired heat (1000). In total two fired heaters will be required. The
design of fired heaters has not been carried out in this stage. The estimated energy consumption
for these units is 5067.19 kW. The fuel to be used will be natural gas. With typical efficiencies of
fired heaters being approximately 80-90% , a total of 30.38 t/hr of natural gas will be required.
(13)
Where process streams are not required to be heated to such extreme temperatures, high
pressure steam can be used. A total of four heat exchangers (including: three reboilers and one
heater) will utilise high pressure steam. The steam will be supplied at 40 bar, with a saturation
temperature of 250.4 C . The estimated energy consumption of these units is 4653.16 kW. A total
o (13)
estimated flowrate of steam for the plant is 9.83 t/hr.
Finally, cooling water is used in five condensers or coolers (three condensers and two coolers).
Cooling water will be supplied at 20 C. The estimated energy consumption of these units is
o
-9652.90 kW. A total estimated flowrate of cooling water is therefore 1660 t/hr.
The byproduct of esterification is water, as shown by Eq. 1. The amount of water produced from
the reaction is 6.67 kg/hr. The majority of this water exits the system at S14, a methanol recovery
stage. In order to dispose of this water, it must be treated before disposal. One such option is using
a waste water ion exchange plant. Similarly to the electricity requirement for the plant, it is possible
to self-treat the waste water or hire a contractor to deal with the waste water.
14
S13A
E-24
S02A
S02 S02B
S06
Methanol Feed S02C
S13
P-105 E-108 S12
S04A
2.10. Process Flow Diagram
S03
S05 S05A S05B
S01B VLV-102
S01 S01A S04B
E-105
FA Feed CRV-101 V-101
P-104 E-107
S07
S14
Water
T-102
Figure 2.4. A PFD for biodiesel production from fish oil
S08
S07B
S07A
P-103 E-106
Biodiesel
S09A S10
S09
VLV-103
T-101
S11
Unreacted FA
T-100
15
2.11. Construction Materials
Due to the high temperatures within the process, it is essential that any construction material used
can withstand the harsh conditions. Furthermore all the process equipment must be corrosion
resistant to a high degree. Harsh conditions refers to high temperature, high pressure points within
the process.
All the chemicals bar oleic acid are non-corrosive(16). Therefore for sections within the plant that
process oleic acid, the metal must be highly corrosion resistant. A suitable metal for this is
stainless steel type 304. This type of steel is widely used and therefore cheap (2965 $/t(17)) and
simple to manufacture. This steel is has a high tolerance to corrosion and also a high melting
temperature (1450 oC(15)). All process equipment which involve high quantities of oleic acid will be
constructed from type 304 stainless steel. This is primarily the oleic acid feed, the mixing of both
reactants and the reactor itself. Since the concentration of oleic acid is significantly reduced in the
reactor, a different type of steel is to be used for other items of equipment.
Where the concentration of oleic acid is low, a cheaper type of steel can be used. It is still
important to be corrosion resistant as well as being able to withstand harsh conditions. A suitable
metal for this is carbon steel. This type of steel is also widely used and cheaper (736 $/t(17)) than
stainless steel. The advantage of this type of steel over others is that, the price per tonne is
significantly reduced, yet it can still withstand the required conditions. All process equipment after
the reactor, i.e. flash separator, distillation columns as well as methanol feed will be constructed
from carbon steel.
Both carbon and stainless steel are suitable metals for construction purposes. They offer high
temperature resistances’ as well as being able to withstand fluid corrosion for the fluids they will be
carrying. In addition, because they are commonly used, they are readily available and affordable.
Where high temperatures are used within the plant, lagging must be present in order to minimise
heat losses to the surroundings. A mixture of lagging can be used. Examples of possible types of
lagging include: insulating firebrick, ceramic-fiber insulating lining and any suitable pipe lagging
materials. Where a process stream passes from a high temperature area to a cooler or condenser,
no lagging should be used, however it is possible to increase the heat loss by fixing fins to the
outside of the pipe. This will promote heat loss to the surroundings.
2.12. References
1. WEST, A.H. and POSARAC, D. and ELLIS, N.: Assessment of four biodiesel production processes
using HYSYS.Plant, Biosource Technology, vol. 99, issue 14 (2008), 6587-6601
2. EL-MASHAD, H.M. and ZHANG, R. and AVENA-BUSTILLOS, R.J.: A two step process for biodiesel
production from salmon oil, Biosystems Engineering, vol. 99, issue (2008), 220-227
3. CARDOSO, A.L. and GONZAGA, S.C. and DA SILVA, M.J.: Esterification of oleic acid for biodiesel
production catalysed by SnCl : A kinetic investigation, Engergies, vol. 1, issue (2008), 79-92
2
4. EN 14214. 2013. . [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.novaol.it/novaol/export/sites/default/allegati/EN14214.pdf. [Accessed 03 February 2013].
5. NGAMPRASERTSITH, S. and SAWANGKEAW, R.: Biodiesel - Feedstocks and Processing
Technologies, Intech (2011), (Note: Multiple authors, listed authors contributed to chapter 12,
Transesterification in Supercritical Conditions)
6. LUCENA, I.L. and SILVA, G.F. and FERNANDES, F.A.N.: Biodiesel production by esterification of
oleic acid with methanol using a water adsorption apparatus, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol 47, issue (2008),
6885-6889
7. BLACKMAN, A. and BOTTLE, S. E. and SCHMID, S. and MOCERINO, M. and WILLE, U.:
Chemistry, Wiley (2008)
8. YAHYAEE, R. and GHOBADIAN, B. and NAJAFI, G.: Waste fish oil biodiesel as a source of
renewable fuel in Iran, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 17, issue (2013), 312-319
9. stickwater – Dictionary definition of stickwater | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary. 2013.
stickwater – Dictionary definition of stickwater | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-stickwater.html. [Accessed 22 February 2013].
10. ACKMAN, R.G.: Fish Oils. Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, (2005)
16
11. The production of fish meal and oil - 3. The process. 2013. The production of fish meal and oil - 3.
The process. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6899E/X6899E04.htm. [Accessed 22
February 2013].
12. KUSDIANA, D. and SAKA, S.: Effects of water on biodiesel fuel production by supercritical methanol
treatment, Bioresource Technology, vol. 91, issue (2004), 289-295
13. SINNOTT, R. and TOWLER, G.: Chemical Engineering Design fifth edn., Elsevier (2011)
14. Rudolf Diesel - Inventor of the Diesel Engine Rudolf Diesel. 2013. Rudolf Diesel - Inventor of the
Diesel Engine Rudolf Diesel. [ONLINE] Available at: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldiesel.htm.
[Accessed 13 March 2013].
15. Article: Melting temperature ranges for stainless steels. 2013. Article: Melting temperature ranges for
stainless steels. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=103. [Accessed 17 March
2013].
16. Metals and Corrosion Resistance . 2013. Metals and Corrosion Resistance . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
17. Steel Prices, 2011, 2012, 2013, Steel Price Index, Stainless Steel Prices, Steel Price News, World
Steel Prices, Current Steel Pricing, Global Steel Prices, Average Steel Prices. 2013. Steel Prices, 2011,
2012, 2013, Steel Price Index, Stainless Steel Prices, Steel Price News, World Steel Prices, Current Steel
Pricing, Global Steel Prices, Average Steel Prices. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.worldsteelprices.com.
17
Chapter 3
Alternative Processes
18
Chapter 4
Location
19
4.1. Introduction
The location of the biodiesel plant was decided on a number of criteria. The most important factor,
as it was decided to create fish oil from fish waste within the process plant. Therefore there must
be a ready and sustainable supply of fish waste available. Further important factors included
potential market, competitors and both environmental and economic sustainability.
A number of different locations were considered. After careful analysis of each location, it was
decided to locate the fish waste processing plant in the North East of Scotland.
4.2. Scotland
The fishing industry in Scotland has existed for hundreds of years. More recently, fish farming has
become a popular method to intensively produce fish. Fish farms also have the ability to provide
fish at a time when it may not be possible (or allowable by law, such as breeding seasons) to catch
fish in the sea. They are well-established operations which process large amounts of fish annually.
Specific parts of the fish are not suitable to be processed into food products. These include: the
heads, internal organs and other waste must be disposed of in some manner. Currently, much of
this waste is transported to Norway or Denmark and made into pet food. This includes large
transportation costs to the farm owners. An alternative to this is to process the waste in Scotland,
which would be significantly cheaper as the waste would not have to be transported over long
distances. In addition this suggests that there is limited competition within Scotland, and therefore
there should be little competition in this market.
Clearly then, there exists in Scotland a sustainable supply of fish waste which could be obtained
cheaply from fish farms. Currently 162000 t/yr are produced in Scotland alone.(1) A significant
advantage of a processing plant producing fish oil for biodiesel production would have over a plant
producing fishmeal (the product used in pet food production) is that laws prohibit the use of fish
which have died in fish farms in fishmeal production. (1) This reduces the risk of any diseases
carried by the fish being transferred to other fish or animals. As biodiesel is not a foodstuff, these
restrictions do not apply. This potentially opens up an exclusive feedstock for a fish oil production
plant, because currently these mortalities are simply disposed of. The quantity of dead fish is
approximately 5000 t/yr in 2002 (this sector has expanded since 2002, and therefore the value will
be greater presently.) (2). This exclusive feedstock, and ones which are currently disposed of by
dumping it into the sea, should be sufficient to make up a large part of the necessary feed
depending on the size of our operation. Furthermore it may be procured at a relatively low cost.
A secondary consideration in the locating of the fish waste processing and biodiesel production
plant was the potential market for the biodiesel. Biodiesel is a product which has the potential to
explode in popularity over the next few years. As fossil fuels become scarcer and increase in price,
biodiesel can fill this void in the market. It is already gaining popularity in many countries
worldwide. The United States and Brazil are currently the largest users of biodiesel, but the market
is saturated by government supported biofuel production. These processing plants use mostly
sugar cane, and so a proportion of the market would be difficult to obtain. Europe has the next
highest demand for biodiesel, and therefore locating the fish waste and biodiesel production plant
in Europe would allow easy access to a large and constantly growing market. (3) It would also allow
a partial dilution of any risks involved with the markets, as if the was a backlash or loss of
confidence in biodiesel in a country for whatever reason, it would be reasonably easy to focus on a
different country within Europe, while this could be problematic if focussing on the US.
There are other benefits to locating our operation in the North East of Scotland. Firstly, there is
already a well-established oil industry located in Aberdeen, which means much of the expertise
and skilled labour which would be required to operate a fish waste processing and biodiesel
production plant is already in place. The close proximity of the fish farms in the North of Scotland
also means that transportation costs can be kept to a minimum. There are also grants available for
start-up biodiesel companies in the UK which could be taken advantage of.
20
Considering the specific location for the fish processing and biodiesel production plant,
approximately 6 acres of land would be required to build both plant (most of the land required is for
the biodiesel production plant and storage facilities for fish waste, fish meal and biodiesel). (4) There
is ample land in the North East of Scotland which could be utilised for this purpose. Land
surrounding Peterhead was investigated as a possible option as there is already a well-established
fish processing industry located. Land prices near Peterhead are relatively cheap. It is difficult to
get truly accurate estimates of land cost, but by looking at sites which would be comparable to the
one which would be required, enough land could be acquired for approximately £500,000-750,000.
(5)
4.3. Rejected Options
There were a number of other potential locations looked at. These were:
4.3.1. Norway
Norway has a large fish waste processing industry. It is bigger now than the industry in Scotland is
ever likely to become. Two large, long established companies, Scanbio and Hordafor, currently
dominate the market and therefore gaining a small portion of the fish waste produced would be
difficult. (1)
Norway also does not suffer from the same fishing quota issues as the UK because it is not a
member of the EU. Since the majority of our feedstock will be obtained from fish farms this is not
an issue. A further issue, is the vast majority of Norwegian fish waste goes into producing fishmeal.
Therefore, the vast majority of the raw materials required for biodiesel production are being used
for the production of other products. This in turn limits the viability of operation within Norway, even
if a share of the market is achieved.
4.3.2. Canada
Canada was quickly rejected. For a country of its size, Canada does not produce enough waste
concentrated in any one area to satisfy the needs of a biodiesel production plant. Across the whole
country, approximately 200000 t/yr of fish waste is produced, which would be sufficient. However
the largest concentration in one area is 20000 t/yr produced in British Columbia. (6) Due to the vast
wilderness of Canada across which much of the feedstock would have to be transported, it was
decided that Canada was not a viable option.
4.3.3. United States of America (Alaska)
The US was also looked into as a potential location, specifically Alaska because it has large
quantities of fish waste being produced which are currently unexploited. It produces over 907000
t/yr a year of fish waste. The majority of which is currently dumped at sea as the infrastructure
required to process the waste does not exist. It was however acknowledged that setting up
production here would be problematic. Alaska is isolated from the mainland US and the
environment is harsh (the fishing season ceases during the winter season (September-May)) that
there would be a great deal more factors to consider when considering the sustainability and
viability of a project here. Furthermore the distance to any potential market is large, therefore high
transportation prices would be incurred. The general consensus within Alaska is negative when
regarding any environmental threats to small fish processing facilities currently existing. (6) These
reasons were unfortunately enough for Alaska to be rejected, despite its large potential.
4.4. References
1. Evaluation of Fish Waste Management Techniques, SEPA, (2004)

2. Waste Arising from fishing and fish relating industry in Scotland. The Scottish Government 2005.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20716/52858 [Accessed 2 February
2013]
21
3. Biofuels Mandates Around the World. Biofuels Digest 2011. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/07/21/biofuels-mandates-around-the-world/ [Accessed 2
February 2013]
4. Economic Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in North Dakota, Department of Agribusiness and
Applied Economics , North Dakota State University, (2003)
5. Grange Road - Balmoor Industrial Estate - Site 3, Peterhead, AB42 1WN – Property details on
Showcase . 2013. Grange Road - Balmoor Industrial Estate - Site 3, Peterhead, AB42 1WN – Property
details on Showcase . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.showcase.co.uk/property/Grange-
Road/Scotland/Peterhead/8038414. [Accessed 27 February 2013].
6. Research Project for the 2011 Alaska Region National Ocean Sciences Bowl | Alaska Ocean
Sciences Bowl. 2013. Research Project for the 2011 Alaska Region National Ocean Sciences Bowl | Alaska
Ocean Sciences Bowl. [ONLINE] Available at: http://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/papers/2011/kodiak-
turbidites.php. [Accessed 2 February 2013].
22
Chapter 5
Market
23
5.1. Introduction
For the study of the viability for biodiesel production from waste fish oil, it was important to study
the possible markets in which biodiesel can be sold. Selling biodiesel in a stable/growing and
profitable market is a key aspect to the project’s success. A crash in the biodiesel market within the
foreseeable future would devastate the economic viability of the project. It was also needed to
confirm that a high enough demand exists, in order to sell the biodiesel within the chosen market.
The major biodiesel markets that we investigated were the European, US, and Asian biodiesel
markets. The UK market was also investigated as our production plant is to be located within the
UK.
5.2. European Market
The European biodiesel market is driven by the biofuels 2020 regulation, in which the European
Union established the aim for Europe to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources such as
biodiesel by the year 2020. This has created a larger demand for the use of biodiesel in industry as
companies are seeking to use biodiesel as a means to help reach this regulation(1).
The biodiesel market in Europe has seen a very high level of growth in the last decade or so. From
2002 to 2010 European Biodiesel production has risen from 1.065 million t/yr to 9.57 million t/yr, a
rise of 24% per year on average(2).
The Spanish government introduced a biodiesel quota around May in 2012. This quota restricted
the sale of biodiesel to 5 million tonnes per year to only Spanish government approved biodiesel
producers. These biodiesel producers are mainly domestic Spanish companies. This was in
retaliation to the Argentinian Government nationalising the oil and gas company YPF in which the
Spanish based company Repsol had a commanding share. This political issue has affected the
biodiesel market as Spain is importing much less biodiesel. This highlights possible issues
surrounding relying purely on export to sell biodiesel. Similar difficulties could arise in the future
with other countries, leading to a reduced number of countries that it is possible to export to(3).
Biodiesel demand globally, and in Europe is increasing. According to the Global Biofuels Outlook
to 2012 an increasing demand for biodiesel is forecast(4). European governments keep introducing
more legislation relating to an increase in the use of biofuels. This legislation has fuelled an
increase in demand of biodiesel in recent years, and will continue to result in increased demand in
years to come until another more convenient source of biofuel is discovered.
5.3. UK Market
It is important to look specifically at the UK market because this is where the plant will be located.
There exists the potential of Scotland becoming an independent country. If Scotland were to
become an independent nation, this should not greatly affect where the company can sell
biodiesel.
In 2011, the UK produced 218000 tonnes of biodiesel. There are 37 medium to large biodiesel
producers in the UK(5). At maximum capacity the plant will produce 17000 tonnes of biodiesel per
year which is 7.8% of the current UK annual production. The UK is not close to competing to be
one of the top European biodiesel suppliers at the moment. In 2011 the UK was ranked 12th in
terms of yearly biodiesel production, producing approximately 1/13th as much biodiesel as the
number one producer, Germany. As such it seems a more viable place for a start-up biodiesel
producer than in many other places in Europe as there is much room for growth as the biodiesel
production industry in the UK is not saturated(6).
With an increase in demand forecast and the UK market for biodiesel increasing, it can be said that
biodiesel is still a profitable industry in Europe and the UK. The price of biodiesel is closely linked
24
to the price of crude oil. This reinforces it’s stability as a product. This is due to humanity’s
increasing reliance on fuels such as diesel, and thus biodiesel.
In 2011, the UK consumed approximately 5700000 tonnes of biodiesel(9). Most of this biodiesel was
from imports, however this is still such a large value compared to the 17000 t/yr the plant can
produce. This combined with the prediction that biodiesel demand is going to increase makes it
clear that the UK demand for biodiesel vastly out scales the UK’s supply, and thus makes it
reasonable to assume that we will not have a problem selling all of our biodiesel in the UK.
5.4. United States of America Market
The US market is also large, and growing. Soybean oil is the main feedstock for biodiesel in the
US. The US is known for being a vast consumer of fossil fuels. As such biodiesel demand is
relatively high as it can be used to power diesel vehicles. The demand for cleaner fuels is also
increasing with global warming and pollution becoming greater issues in the US. In 2011, the US
consumed 2.9 million tonnes of biodiesel, a large rise from previous years(7).
The US has a growing biodiesel market but for the production scale that the company is looking to
operate at, shipping our biodiesel to the US is not viable. If the project is viable whilst selling
biodiesel in the UK and Europe, then exporting to the US is a future company expansion
possibility.
5.5. Asian Market
Biodiesel consumption in Asia was almost non-existent up until the last 5 years. The graphs below
highlight the differences in biodiesel consumption between Asia and Europe from 2000 to 2012.
They show how little consumption, and therefore demand, there is in Asia. This coupled with the
increased cost to ship biodiesel to Asia after production leads this not to be a viable option for a
start-up biodiesel producer of our size.
It can be seen from figures 5.1 and 5.2, that in 2010 the biodiesel consumption of Asia was less
than 10% of that of Europe.
25
Figure 5.1. Consumption of biodiesel in Asia over the last decade (10)
Figure 5.2. Consumption of biodiesel in Europe over the last decade (10)
5.6. Biodiesel Prices
The price of biodiesel is currently approximately 3.6 $/gal(9) This is the value that will be used for
economic viability calculations.
5.7. References
1. Energy: Biofuels and other renewable energy in the transport sector. European Commission. 2011
[ONLINE] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/biofuels_en.htm [Accessed 17 March
2013]
2. European biodiesel: a market on hold? - Risk.net . 2013. European biodiesel: a market on hold? -
Risk.net . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/feature/2189653/european-biodiesel.
3. News Story - Argus Media . 2013. News Story - Argus Media . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.argusmedia.com/pages/NewsBody.aspx?id=794858&menu=yes. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
4. Global Biofuels Outlook: 2011 - 2025 . 2013. Global Biofuels Outlook: 2011 - 2025 . [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.globalbiofuelscenter.com/Spotlight.aspx?Id=32#Analysis. [Accessed 17 March
2013].
5. The principles of tax policy. 2013. The principles of tax policy. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/memo/taxpolicy/m6.htm. [Accessed
17 March 2013].
6. European Biodiesel Board. 2013. European Biodiesel Board. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ebb-
eu.org/stats.php. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
26
7. Biofuels Issues and Trends - Energy Information Administration. 2013. Biofuels Issues and Trends -
Energy Information Administration. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/issuestrends/.
8. . 2013. . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/afpr_oct_12.pdf.
9. National Statistics. 2013. National Statistics. [ONLINE] Available at:
https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/national-renewables-statistics/. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
10. Index Mundi - Country Facts. 2013. Index Mundi - Country Facts. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.indexmundi.com. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
27
Chapter 6
Economics
28
6.1. Set-Up Costs
When determining the price for setting up the plant three areas were considered:
 Cost of land
 Cost of machinery
 Cost of labour
To estimate the cost of labour it was assumed that the staff able to run the plant, will possess a
skill set similar to that required to be able to build a plant. Although, extra costs for labour are to be
expected and to account for this it was assumed that double the cost of the staffing required to run
the plant will be required. As the plant construction time is assumed to be six months the
construction team would only need to be paid for this long. This brings the cost of labour for
construction to approximately £1.6 million.
As previously discussed, the combined plant size will require approximately 6 acres of land(1). The
plant will be located in the North East of Scotland due to the already well established fishing
industry in Peterhead. Land prices are cheap here. An estimate of £500,000 was used for the cost
of the land requirement. This includes: process plant, office space and storage facilities(2).
As the plant was designed using the process design software HYSYS, the software could also be
used to create an estimate for the price of the equipment. The software gives an estimate based
on the size of equipment required which is in turn based on the maximum capacity of the
equipment. However using HYSYS to price equipment produces a problem in that only the fish oil
to biodiesel section of the plant is able to be modelled on HYSYS, so the section of the plant which
processes the fish waste to produce fishmeal and fish oil is not priced in the same way as the
second section. Instead of using HYSYS to price the fish waste processing section of the plant
quoted prices from similar plants were instead used. The two numbers quoted for the cost of
machinery are as follows:
 Biodiesel Section – £1.8 million (contains an estimate of 100% overheads)

 Fish Waste Section – £8.5 million
The figure of 100% overheads seems a very large number however HYSYS does not model things
such as pipes or valves, and all the other peripheral equipment required to set up a chemical
processing plant. A second reason for the large figure is that it is very common for equipment like
pumps and tanks to be bought in twos, so that if one is not in use for repair or routine maintenance
then the other one can be used. Finally the cost of storage vessels has not been considered, for
the fish waste, fish oil and biodiesel, and it is predicted that the overheads will easily cover the cost
of these.
Combining all the figures estimated above the cost of set-up for the entire plant is estimated to be
approximately £13 million.
6.2. Income
The two sources of income for the business are from selling the biodiesel and fish meal produced.
At maximum capacity the plant is designed to be able to handle 170000 t/yr of fish waste which will
in turn produce 17000 t/yr of biodiesel and 34000 t/yr of fishmeal.
6.2.1. Biodiesel
The price for selling biodiesel was calculated using the retail price for standard diesel, although
biodiesel is likely to be granted tax deductions and therefore have a higher retail price it would not
differ much from the diesel price. The retail price for diesel in the UK in 2013 is around $3.65 /US
Gallon(3). Using a currency conversion of 0.66 £/$ and a density of 880 kg/m3 the biodiesel is said
to be sold at £723.17 /tonne, or 63 p/L.
29
6.2.2. Fish Meal
The standard price for a tonne of fishmeal produced from fish waste is £40/tonne(4). It was
mentioned previously that at max capacity 34000 t/yr of fishmeal would be produced, however this
is not entirely true. Not all of the fish waste used in the production of the fishmeal is legally allowed
to be fed back to animals, or humans. Any fish which has died of a disease cannot be legally
processed into a foodstuff, and as the plant is planning to take some of its feedstock from fish
mortalities in fish farms not all of the fishmeal produced will be able to be sold. An estimate of 8000
t/yr of the fish waste feedstock is predicted to be from fish mortalities, which in turn produces 1600
t/yr of unsellable fishmeal. So at maximum capacity it is assumed then that 32400 t/yr of fishmeal
will be available for sale.
6.3. Outgoings
The major fixed running costs can be displayed:
 Staffing
 Feedstocks
 Transport
 Energy
 Maintenance
 Fishmeal Disposal
6.3.1. Staffing
Using industry knowledge and industry standard wages an estimate of the cost required to staff the
plant is produced:
Table 6.1. Staff wages
Staff Role Number of Staff Yearly Wage Total Wage
Process Operator 15 £45,000.00 £675,000.00
Maintenance Staff 2 £35,000.00 £70,000.00
Process Engineer 1 £50,000.00 £50,000.00
Site Manager 1 £65,000.00 £65,000.00
Shift Supervisor 5 £55,000.00 £275,000.00
Electrical Engineer 1 £50,000.00 £50,000.00
Mechanical Engineer 1 £50,000.00 £50,000.00
Sales Manager 1 £50,000.00 £50,000.00
HR Manager 1 £40,000.00 £40,000.00
Total £1,325,000.00
Overheads 50%
New Total £ 1,987,500.00
The reasons why a 50% overhead is included in the staff costing are explained: it is likely that upon
exemplary performance by the staff bonuses will be issued, increasing the wage bill. Also it is
assumed that during the running of the plant there will be a requirement for contracted staff to be
used when the situation requiring them arises, on top of this it is extremely common for a chemical
plant running 24/7 to require process operators to work overtime. Overtime for such antisocial
hours is traditionally paid at a very high rate, but is necessary to allow the plant to run around the
clock. The 50% overheads is therefore designed to accommodate any bonuses, extra staff or
overtime required.
30
6.3.2. Feedstocks
The two feedstocks into the plant are fish waste and methanol. It is assumed that the fish waste
will be gained free of charge. The methanol will be bought at a standard industry price of €370
/tonne(5). Using a currency conversion of 0.86 £/€ and the methanol requirements from the material
balance, a total cost for feedstocks is calculated to be approximately £570,000 /year.
6.3.3. Transport
The transport assumed to be required is the cost of collecting the fish waste and methanol
feedstock for the plant. Transport required to remove products from the plant will be covered by
whoever is purchasing the product, or if the business is transporting the product itself then the cost
of transport will be factored into the cost of the biodiesel effectively rendering the transport free of
cost for the business. To estimate the cost of transport a figure of £0.118 /tonne km was taken
from a transport cost study(6). As the study gives the price as of 2008 to scale this figure up to 2013
the increase in the price of diesel was used(7). This gave a new figure of £0.152 /tonne km. By
assuming full plant capacity and a round trip of 100 km per truck a cost of transport was estimated;
£2.6 million/year.
6.3.4. Maintenance
To produce a rough estimate of the cost for maintenance of equipment, which includes new
equipment required and new parts required, the cost of the machinery was used. Appendix section
10.3. shows a number of cost estimations for process equipment. By assuming that one tenth of
the cost of the equipment per year will be required to maintain the equipment a figure of £1
million/year for maintenance was calculated. The figure of one tenth is quite a large estimate as it
insinuates that all equipment bought is essentially replaced once every ten years, however it is
necessary to assume the worst and plan for extraordinary circumstances, so that the budget can
accommodate any necessary maintenance.
6.3.5. Energy
To produce an accurate figure for energy costs two different methods were used. The first method
used to price the amount of electricity used by the electrical equipment on the plant the duties of
these pieces of equipment were totalled and the price of £745.45/kW year was used(8). On top of
this a 25% overheads was applied as it is likely that there will be many minor pieces of equipment
using electricity that it is not necessary to model on HYSYS.
For energy costs aside from electricity HYSYS had to be used again. A pricing feature on HYSYS
was used to estimate the cost of the following three elements:
 Cooling water.
 Steam.
 Fuel for heating.
By adding the figures calculated a total energy cost was calculated to be £800,000 /year.
6.3.6. Waste Disposal
There are two waste products made in the processes that have to be dealt with. The first of which
is a methanol/water purge which can be used by universities/schools etc. The plant purges a
relatively small amount of methanol and so this is seen as a viable option. Also all waste water on
the plant will be treated on site until environmental standards are met and the water can be safely
discharged into the plant surroundings.
31
The third waste product which needs to be disposed of is the fishmeal produced from fish fatalities.
INSERT METHOD OF DISPOSAL, BRIEF SUMMARY. This will be disposed of at a cost of
INSERT PRICE HERE(10), creating a total cost for waste disposal of INSERT COST PER YEAR
HERE.
6.4. Economic Appraisal
For the purpose of determining if this project is a viable project or not, it is important to determine if
the project is capable of making a profit. In this economic appraisal section, a number of different
scenarios will be covered and the viability of the project under each scenario will be discussed.
In order to judge whether the project is economically viable five figures were calculated:
 Annual Cash Return

 Cumulative Cash Return
 Payback time
 Return on Investment (ROI)
 Net Present Value (NPV)
These figures were all calculated for a variety of production forecasts. The production forecasts
were all based on different times taken for the plant to reach maximum production capacity. This is
due to our feedstock being fish waste, which fish processing companies are currently paying to
dispose of. As we will not immediately be able to receive and process 100% of our plant’s
production capacity, the following different production forecasts were created.
6.4.1. Level of Production
6.4.1.1. Maximum Production Forecast
An economic appraisal for a plant operating at 100% capacity from year 1 to 10 was carried out.
This means all income values calculated were based on creating 17000 tonnes of biodiesel a year.
The conclusions from this are not applicable to our project, but to compare to a realistic production
estimate that exhibits growth year by year to a near-maximum production capacity. The maximum
production forecast produces an estimate of the maximum amount of money that can be made
from this project.
6.4.1.2. Realistic Production Forecast
A realistic forecast for plant production levels was set up as follows for use in the calculations:
Year 0-1: 0% Year 6: 85%

Year 1: 35% Year 7: 90%
Year 2: 50% Year 8: 92.5%
Year 3: 65% Year 9: 95%
Year 4: 75% Year 10: 95%
Year 5: 80%
The first year that the plant is operated, it is assumed that it is operating at 35% capacity. This
assumption is a very reasonable one, as there is a whole year for the company to secure suppliers
of fish waste. From years 1-3 there is an increase of 30% production, 15% production increase per
year. This is accounted for by the steep rise in the production rate as the plant begins production.
A yearly increase of 10% from year 3-4 is assumed as the rate of increase of production begins to
slow down.
32
A slower increase of 5% per year from years 4-7 is exhibited as the yearly increase in production
slows down as the plant is approaching its maximum capacity.
Years 7-9 exhibit a 2.5% increase per year in production. At year 9, 95% of maximum plant
production capacity is reached. It is assumed that this is the greatest production rate for the 10
years, as in reality the plant’s production capacity will never be at 100% all of the time.
6.4.1.3. Low Production Forecast
A lower production forecast was also carried to show the economic viability of the project if
production increase doesn’t occur as expected. This follows a similar trend to the realistic forecast,
however it incorporates lower production % increases each year.
Year 0-1: 0% Year 6: 75%

Year 1: 35% Year 7: 80%
Year 2: 45% Year 8: 85%
Year 3: 55% Year 9: 90%
Year 4: 62.5% Year 10: 92.5%
Year 5: 70%
At year 1, the plant is operating at 35% of the maximum production capacity. This is the same as
the realistic production forecast as it is a reasonable starting point, as explained in section 6.4.1.2.
Years 1-3 exhibit only a 10% increase in production per year.

Years 4-5 exhibit a 7.5% increase in production per year. As the plant gets closer to maximum
production capacity, the yearly increase in production reduces.
Years 6-9 exhibit a 5% increase in production per year.
Year 9-10 exhibit a 2.5% increase in production.
It should be noted that in this production forecast, by year 10 the steady production rate of 95%
has not been achieved.
6.5. Cash Return
6.5.1. Annual Cash Return
The annual cash return number for each year shows the net amount of money that is being made
each year. It is calculated by the following equation:
Annual Cash Returns=( Money Made that year )−( Expenses ¿that year )
6.5.2. Cumulative Cash Return
The cumulative cash return shows the net amount of money that is being made over the whole
project. It is calculated by the following equation:
Cumulative cash returns=∑ Annual Cash Returns
Tables 6.2-6.4 show the annual and cumulative cash returns for the maximum and realistic levels
of production:
33
Table 6.2. Maximum Production Forecast
Year Income (£) Outgoings (£) Level of Production (%) Cash Return (£) Cumulative Cash Return (£)
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 12832417 0 -12832417 -12832417
1 6794973 3981469 100 2813504 -10018914
2 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 -4391906
3 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 1235101
4 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 6862108
5 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 12489115
6 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 18116122
7 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 23743129
8 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 29370136
9 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 34997143
10 13589945 7962938 100 5627007 40624150
Table 6.3. Realistic Production Forecast

Year Income (£) Outgoings (£) level of production (%) Annual Cash Return (£) Cumulative Cash Return (£)
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 12832417 0 -12832417 -12832417
1 2378240 2136342 35 241898 -12590519
2 6794973 5124282 50 1670691 -10919828
3 8833464 5975878 65 2857586 -8062242
4 10192459 6543610 75 3648849 -4413393
5 10871956 6827475 80 4044481 -368912
6 11551453 7111341 85 4440112 4071200
7 12230951 7395207 90 4835744 8906944
8 12570699 7537140 92.5 5033560 13940504
9 12910448 7679072 95 5231376 19171879
10 12910448 7679072 95 5231376 24403255
Table 6.4. Low Production Forecast

Year Income (£) Outgoings (£) Level of Production (%) Annual Cash Return (£) Cumulative Cash Return (£)
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 12832417 0 -12832417 -12832417
1 2378240 2136342 35 241898 -12590519
2 6115475 4840416 45 1275059 -11315460
3 7474470 5408147 55 2066323 -9249137
4 8493716 5833946 62.5 2659770 -6589367
5 9512962 6259744 70 3253217 -3336149
6 10192459 6543610 75 3648849 312700
7 10871956 6827475 80 4044481 4357180
8 11551453 7111341 85 4440112 8797293
9 12230951 7395207 90 4835744 13633037
10 12570699 7537140 92.5 5033560 18666596
It can be seen above that at maximum production from year 1, the cumulative cash return at the
end of 10 years is £40.6 million.
The realistic production forecast has a cumulative cash return after 10 years of £24.4 million.
The low production forecast has a cumulative cash return after 10 years of £18.7 million.
This can be seen clearly in the figure 6.1.
34
Figure 6.1. Cumulative cash return
Cumulative Cash Return

50000000
40000000
Cumulative Cash Return (£)
30000000
20000000 Maximum Production Forecast

Realistic Production Forecast
Low Production Forecast
10000000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-10000000
-20000000
Years
6.6. Payback Time
The payback time can be seen in figure 6.1. The payback time is the point at which the cumulative
cash return curve intersects the X-axis. This shows the number of years that it will take for the
project to break even. Whilst this does not give an indicator of how large the project is, it does
show the point after which the project is making net monetary gains.
The maximum production forecast results in a payback time of approximately 2 and a half years.
For the realistic estimate of the level of production, the payback time is 5 years
For the low estimate of the level of production, the payback time is 6 years.
6.7. Return on Investment
Return on Investment, or ROI, is a figure that gives a measure of average annual profit. It is
expressed as a percentage of the amount of money initially invested.
The ROI was calculated with the following equation:
Total Profit
Total Capital Investment
ROI= ∗100
Length of time plant is∈operation
For the realistic estimate of the level of production, the ROI was calculated to be 30.6% /year. This
is high, and shows an average of 30.6% of the initial investment is being earned each year. As a
result this figure supports the economic viability of our project.
35
For the low estimate of the level of production, the ROI was calculated to be 25.8% /year. This is
also a high value, showing that a quarter of our initial investment is being earned each year on
average. This supports the economic viability of our project even with lower production rates.
For the maximum estimate of the level of production, the ROI was calculated to be 43.9% /year.
This value however is fairly irrelevant due to the fact that the project will probably never reach this
level of production, let alone from year 1.
6.8. Net Present Value (NPV)
The net present value, is an important figure to calculate when determining the economic viability
of a project. It is based off of the idea that money is worth different amounts at different points in
time due to interest rates.
The value of the company (how much money has been made/lost) is calculated for each year.
These values are then converted into present values by discounting them using compound
interest.
Vt
PV =
( 1+ i )t
Where:
PV = Present Value
Vt = Value at year t.
i= interest rate (0.5% = 0.005) (9)
t = year
The sum of all of these present values is the Net Present Value.
This figure is important as a positive NPV is a good indicator of a project being economically
viable.
For the maximum production forecast this was calculated to be £133.8 million.
For the realistic production forecast this was calculated to be £18.7 million.
For the low production forecast this was calculated to be £11.6 million.
6.9. Summary of Economic Appraisal
From the figures calculated using the realistic production forecast it appears that the project is
economically viable. The cumulative cash return figures show a return of just over £24 million, with
a payback time of 5 years. The return on investment (ROI) was calculated to be 30.6%/year and
the net present value (NPV) of the company is positive, at +£18.7 million.
The high cumulative cash return along with a ROI of almost 1/3 per year and the NPV of the
company being strongly positive all suggest that the project is economically viable if the project
exhibits production growth similarly to the predictions.
The low production forecast results in figures of NPV, ROI, cumulative cash return, and payback
time that contradict each other in terms of the economic viability. The ROI of 25.8%/year, along
with the high cumulative cash return of £18.7 million after 10 years with a payback time of 6 years
point towards viability of the project. Contradictory to this, the NPV of -£11.6 million suggests that
the project is not economically viable under this production forecast.
From the negative NPV and the payback time being more than half way through the 10 year
forecast of the project, the conclusion has been made that the low production forecast has
significantly less economic viability than the realistic production forecast. However, the cumulative
cash return is still £18.7 million after 10 years which is a significant amount.
36
The maximum production forecast was not considered in terms of economic appraisal. It is in the
report for comparison of figures to a 100% production level all the way through the product. This is
definitely not possible and as such should not be considered a possible scenario for actual plant
operation.
In conclusion, this project’s economic viability depends on how quickly the plant can get to the
stage where it is operating at close to maximum capacity. If maximum capacity is achieved quickly
enough, similarly to in realistic production forecast, then the project can be deemed economically
viable. This is definitely a realistic expectation as the realistic production forecast uses estimations
of yearly production below what is expected. In reality the plant should reach maximum production
capacity faster than this as feedstock should be readily available.
6.10. References
1. Economic Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in North Dakota, Department of Agribusiness and

Applied Economics , North Dakota State University, 2003
2. Grange Road - Balmoor Industrial Estate - Site 3, Peterhead, AB42 1WN – Property details on
Showcase . 2013. Grange Road - Balmoor Industrial Estate - Site 3, Peterhead, AB42 1WN – Property
details on Showcase . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.showcase.co.uk/property/Grange-
Road/Scotland/Peterhead/8038414. [Accessed 27 February 2013].
3. Countries Diesel Prices Excluding Taxes . 2013. Countries Diesel Prices Excluding Taxes .
[ONLINE] Available at: http://www.eia.gov/countries/prices/dieselextax.cfm. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
4. Fishmeal price reference
5. Methanex - Methanol Price. 2013. Methanex - Methanol Price. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.methanex.com/products/methanolprice.html. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
6. Economics Capsule Pipelines for Aggregate Transport: Economics Imperial College. [ONLINE]
Available at:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/earthscienceandengineering/research/energyenvmodmin/capsule/economics.
[Accessed 17 March 2013]
7. Petrol Prices. 2013. Petrol Prices. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
8. Europe's Energy Portal » Fuel Prices, Rates for Power & Natural Gas. 2013. Europe's Energy Portal
» Fuel Prices, Rates for Power & Natural Gas. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.energy.eu/. [Accessed 17
March 2013].
9. Bank of England | Monetary Policy | Monetary Policy Committee Decisions . 2013. Bank of England |
Monetary Policy | Monetary Policy Committee Decisions . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/decisions.aspx. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
10. Reference for fish meal disposal
37
Chapter 7
Health and Safety
38
7.1. Introduction
In any processing plant there is an extremely large emphasis on health and safety, due to the
dangerous nature of the work done there. When looking at the process a risk assessment can be
constructed to detail the main hazards and the initial steps that will be taken to mitigate them.
39
7.2. Risk Assessment
Table 7.1. Risk assessment overview

Hazard Consequence Preventative Risk of Severity Risk Note
Action Incident of Rating
Incident
Highly - Explosion - Only intrinsically safe 1 10 10
Flammable - Pool fires equipment to be
Fluids - Jet fire allowed on plant, no
- Property damage unauthorised battery-
operated equipment
- Fire fighting
equipment
- Emergency
procedures outlined
and staff trained in
their execution
High Pressure - Explosion - Safety relief valves 1 10 10
Gasses - Property damage in potential build-up
areas
- Emergency
procedures outlined
and staff trained in
their execution
Heavy - Lacerations - Staff properly trained 2 6 12 New staff
Machinery - Limb crushing in the use of all members
equipment will be
- Correct PPE to be supervised
worn while operating by
equipment, specialist experience
PPE to be worn when d staff
outlined by Permit-to- when
Work system learning to
use the
equipment
High Voltage - Electrocution - Regular inspections 1 8 8 A tagging
Power of wiring to take place and filing
Supplies - No work to system for
commence until electrical
electrical isolations isolations
are in place if detailed on
in the Permit-to-Work equipment
will be
implement
ed
High - Burns - Correct PPE to be 1 6 6
Temperatures - Fire worn at all times when
on plant
- Hot surfaces to be
labelled and warnings
placed around them
Asphyxiants - Asphyxiation - All staff to be trained 1 8 8 All staff
- Fainting in the dangers of will be
asphyxiants trained in
- Ventilation put in the proper
place in potential low- use of
oxygen areas breathing
- Breathing apparatus apparatus
supplied for jobs in
enclosed spaces and
any other jobs which
risk asphyxiation
Vehicles on - Property - A 5 miles/hour speed 1 8 8 Large
Site Damage limit to be vehicles
- Collision implemented for all will have
vehicles on company their
property dimension
- An escort supplied s checked
for all drivers on the before
40
site who are either being
contractors or allowed on
unfamiliar with the site site
Risk of incident ranked 1-10, 1 = very unlikely, 10 = almost a certainty.
Severity of incident ranked 1-10, 1 = first aid required and no time off work, 10 = multiple fatalities.
Risk Rating is calculated by multiplying the Risk of Incident by the Severity of Incident.
7.3. Significant Hazards
For the reaction stage of the process, it is required that there be a very large pressure and a high
temperature to achieve the desired conversion, approximately 190 barg and 400 oC. After the
reagents pass through the reactor, the pressure is reduced and temperature decreased to a safer
2.8 bar and 140oC. Although the temperature is not something which is too significant it adds to the
overall danger. A vessel with gas at a pressure of 190 barg is extremely dangerous and poses the
main hazard throughout the whole process. As the fluid passing through this section of the plant is
extremely flammable there will be a completely oxygen free environment within the section.
One of the dangers posed by such a large pressure is that if a pinhole leak is formed where only a
very small volume of the gas inside the process is allowed to escape. Due to the large pressure
difference, the force at which the gas will escape will be enormous. The force of this gas escaping,
coupled with the temperature it is at will cause it to give severe burns, and possibly cut through the
limbs of a person. To ensure that no operator walks past such a leak the immediate area around
any pipe or vessel with this high pressure gas in it will be cordoned off, with people only entering
when necessary.
The second scenario which could develop is that weakening equipment could allow a fracture to
occur. A small hole would then be opened further by extreme forces acting upon it, eventually
causing an explosion. The methanol in the section is not at its auto-ignition temperature at any
point in the process. However it is likely in the case of an explosion the metal being ripped open
would cause a spark to form, igniting the gas. This would be an extremely bad incident for the
plant, potentially causing multiple fatalities and damaging the majority of the equipment on plant,
such an incident could cause the plant to close permanently. It is imperative then that all measures
are taken to stop such an incident taking place. The first step in ensuring something of this
magnitude does not happen is to purchase quality equipment which has been pressure tested
properly before being used and is capable of handling conditions within the section. Regular
maintenance on the equipment should also take place, using any downtime on the plant to inspect
all vessels and pipework in the affected area. Furthermore, all operators will be encouraged to be
extremely vigilant when on site for any signs of damage or wear. It is also extremely important that
if something like an explosion were to occur that the staff on site that day know how to act. There
will be procedures for such an incident and drills taken place regularly to prepare all the staff. Plans
will also be made with local authorities so that the fire service is trained in such an event, allowing
them to make a more effective job of controlling the incident.
7.4. Bio-Hazards
A hazard which is not normally dealt with on the majority of chemical process plants is the
possibility of a bio-hazard. On the plant in question this hazard is posed by the masses of fish
waste processed within the plant and the fish meal produced in the process. It is predicted that
large masses of fish waste and fish meal will be stored on the plant, waiting to be processed, and
waiting to be sold. There are good practices and laws which have to be followed when dealing with
food substances and the specifics are discussed.
The fish meal storage and handling will be much more rigorously controlled as this is a final
product; however the fish waste is still to go through a heating and pressing process. When fish
meal is in storage there are a few problems which can occur:
- Mould growth
41
- Lumping
- Spontaneous heating/cooling(1)
Lumping is the process by which clumps of the fish meal will stick together, making it harder to
transport. A very simple way to stop this occurring is to have a mixer within the storage vessel
which continuously moves the fish meal around. Spontaneous heating/cooling will normally occur
with mould growth and is again simply dealt with by ensuring the fish meal is stirred effectively.
Also when the fish meal has just been produced it is prone to minor reactions, and this can heat up
the entire mass in the vessel. There are two ways of stopping this being a problem and one is to
add an antioxidant to the mixture, inhibiting the reaction, or simply aerating the fish meal to cool it
down. This can be achieved by moving the meal to different vessels. As adding a biologically
friendly antioxidant is a much simpler and labour friendly option it is likely that this is the method
that will be employed.
The biggest problem listed above is the possibility of mould growing on the fish meal; if this was to
occur then it could potentially render a batch of fish meal as inedible, and therefore not sellable.
Additional storage vessels would be required to sterilise the fish meal before further use. One of
the factors which can determine mould growth within a storage vessel is the level of moisture. The
afore mentioned stirring will stop pockets of condensation forming, hindering the growth of mould.
However it is still possible for moisture to come together enough for mould to form so water must
be removed from the vessel.
7.5. References
1. The production of fish meal and oil - 3. The process. 2013. The production of fish meal and oil - 3.
The process. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6899E/X6899E04.htm. [Accessed 17
March 2013].
42
Chapter 8
Sustainability
43
8.1. Feedstock sustainability
The feedstock of fish meal production is waste fish produced from fish processing plants; the waste
would include fish heads, bones, tails, skin and a small proportion of fillet. The feedstock is readily
available in Scotland as the fish farming industry is thriving, catching in excess of 150000 tonnes of
salmon alone(1) (and over 600000 tonnes of fish throughout the whole UK(2), when shell fish are
included): according to the sea fish industry authority’s study on fish waste production in the UK,
47% by weight(3) of a pelagic fish (the family to which salmon belongs to) is put to waste in
processing. This would suggest by coinciding these figures, there would be an annual feedstock of
70500 tonnes in 2011, and increasing every year. These figure only represent processing waste
from salmon alone in Scotland; where Scotland farms the greatest amount of salmon fish than any
other country in the European Union, according to the Scottish government website(3). This further
supports the choice of location. This suggests a reliable source of feedstock as the Scottish fishing
industry has an estimated combined Pelagic and (deep sea species) Demersal landing value in
2011 of £336 million (£184 and £152 million, respectively)(4), contributing to the Scottish economy.
An industry of this value is clearly well established, sustainable and heavily supported by the
government. These figures mentioned are all with reference to open sea fishing, where over the
past decade there has been an increase in the value of landings. However the number of landing
vessels has endured a declining trend; this said, due to the Europeans Unions limitations on
catches at sea, the quantity caught has remained constant over the past 6 years investigated.
These limitations are in place to ensure the fish population remains high and prevents over fishing.
The limitations are what make the fishing industry in the UK sustainable.
The in-land fish farming industry provides a substantial amount of fish to the UK market. The
livestock in the fish farms are controlled and closely monitored by each respective farmer: the
livestock is not expected to reproduce like in the wild, and therefore there is less limitations on the
amount of fish caught. The fish numbers are often sustained by strict selective breeding
programmes(5), in order to provide as many of the most healthy and physically desired fish as
possible. The close proximity of livestock in the fish farms is a burden on farmers if there is an
outbreak of disease. Diseases can spread quickly and can kill large numbers of fish, also
contaminating many others meaning they cannot be sold for human consumption. In the case of an
outbreak, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) have the
power to cull whole farms as a measure to eradicate any contaminants and risk of the disease
spreading; producing vast quantities of fish carcasses as waste. The same power can be enforced
if the environment of the fish farm is polluted, as the fish would be deemed inedible by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and not allowed to be sold and
consumed by humans (for instance, a chemical spill in the water). However, quality of fish is not of
great importance to the biodiesel production process, but the mass and availability of the fish
waste produced is. The diseased fish that go to waste would be used in their entirety; as no gutting
or separating is required. Relying upon mass culls of fish is not sustainable practise, but when
such cases occur, making use of this waste would be more environmentally beneficial than
incineration or putting to land-fill. Routine mortalities of fish in aquaculture is estimated to be 6000-
8000 t/yr(6) of waste. The diseased fish can therefore be utilised as a feedstock for biodiesel
production. Again, dwelling on the misfortune of fish farms on having high mortality rates is not
sustainable practice either; yet mortalities do occur and this provides opportunity of better ways to
deal with waste. Like open marine fishing, processed fish waste is the most sustainable feedstock
provided from the aquaculture industry; with an excess of 29600 t/yr(6) (and an additional 25500 t/yr
is shipped out of Scotland) of waste from fish processing available for utilisation. This figure will
increase as the industry continues to grow in Scotland and as countries produce more affordable
food to cope with the increasing population.
8.2. Political sustainability
The legislations (common fisher policy (CFP)) set by the European Union allows for the marine
fishing industry to be a sustainable source of feedstock. The legislations restrict the active work
force at sea in specific areas, controlling the amount of fishing vessels allowed in these areas, the
specific equipment used to fish, and the quantity of each specific fish allowed to be caught for each
44
respective zone(8). These legislations allow for the wild fish stocks to remain at a sustainable level,
and therefore long term sustainability of using fish as a feedstock is ensured.
There is the potential for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom and become an
independent country by as soon as year 2016. In such a case, Scotland would have to reapply to
join the European Union. There is currently no guarantee on Scotland’s direct admission to the
European Union and therein lies an uncertainty. If Scotland were not to gain membership, an
agreement would have to be made on compromising the CFP, as these legislations would no
longer control Scottish waters. Under the current legislations Scotland accounts for only 32% of
fishing vessels in the UK, but 57% of the capacity(2). The capacity of Scottish catches would likely
increase in a non-EU, independent Scotland, as many workers believe Scotland would return to
the vessels numbers seen prior to the 1970s, before the CFP legislations governed Scotland. An
increase in feedstock capacity however does not guarantee sustainability; again this is an
uncertainty in the future that must be considered. If large capacity of feedstock is caught in a short
time period, fish cannot reproduce, thus wiping out fish populations. The biodiesel production
would therefore support Scotland to either stay in the EU, and abide by the CFP, or in the case of
Scottish independent, support would be given to apply similar legislations.
The EU has a target of producing 20% of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2020.
However, the European commission have set out to limit any renewable fuels produced by food
sources (crops) as this is deemed unviable(9) and have limited the biofuels production from food
sources to 5% (2012 showed to have food source biofuels at 4.5%). This gives political incentive to
support the process of creating biofuels from fish waste in order for the EU to reach its renewable
energy targets; while also eliminating competing biodiesel production. With the biofuel produced
from fish waste, the process of producing biodiesel from fish oil does not count as a feed stock.
The EUs desire for increasing renewable energy sources up to 2020 would not make the process
necessarily more sustainable, but could allow for it to become more economically sustainable if tax
breaks or investments were made into the scheme.
The EU recently passed legislations which shall set out a ban on sea fishing vessels throwing
away unwanted fish. These unwanted fish are often an unwanted species of fish, where they are
returned to the sea dead. The ban has come about as the throw away can be up to 25% of the
initial catch; meaning in the 40 years of the CFP being in place, millions of tonnes of waste fish
have been thrown away. The ban can be advantageous for the biodiesel production process, as a
greater quantity waste fish shall now be available. The new ban is in place to start in 2014 on
Pelagic species (Salmon, mackerel, herring) which is the species that the biodiesel production
shall be primarily using. Other species have the ban to come into action as of 2016 towards 2019.
The ban is not uniform for all EU states; many Mediterranean countries are given an allowance of
up to a 9% throw away: the fact that Scottish pelagic fisheries are welcoming(10) the complete ban
shows confidence in the industry and commitment to bring their waste to land. This confidence
supports the location of the biodiesel production plant being in Scotland. Political legislations
increases the production of biodiesel from waste fish matter sustainability by providing process
feedstock which would have previously been thrown away; and when on land there is little
competition as to what else can be done with the waste.
8.3. Social sustainability
The social sustainability shall closely coincide with a company ethos. This ethos can be broken
down and described in three parts:
1. Vision – The world is highly dependent upon fossil fuels; conventional transportation fuels
are almost completely reliant on fossil fuels – it is our vision to find an effective and feasible
alternative for the modern world as we know it to continue as natural resources deplete in
availability. There is only one world, and so the environment and the ecosystem must be
treated with a view that allows for the modern way of life to be sustained, whilst not treating
the world as if it is at the disposal of those who inhabit it.
45
2. Values – We believe that by acting locally and thinking globally; the dependency on
conventional transport fuels shall alleviate over time. We believe in an education for all on
the importance of eventual mainstream use of alternative fuels to fossil fuels. Having pride
in our local operating community and encouraging resourcefulness within all local
communities are core value of the company: aiming to allow communities to realise the
potential of local ecosystems and minimise wastage of resources.
3. Approach - We see potential in wasted resources that are already widely available, and
view it to be our duty to make the most of these in order to sustain the current quality of life
experienced in the modern world. It is envisaged that this utilization of wasted available
resources can be done in a way that has negligible impact on the environment. We view the
environment and the ecosystem as our most important asset; reduction of the impact that
the modern world has on the environment and the ecosystem is therefore a priority. We
utilise local resources, therefore shall also utilise a local workforce; this provides a
sustainable social environment and allows for the local community to prosper. Rather than
developing depth in secluded areas, we believe our ethos should be spread for all to adopt
and share.
As a company that produce an alternative fuel source to conventional fossil fuels, a green and
environmentally friendly ethos shall be adopted and shall be reflected in the environmental
management system. Without a concern for the environment and exploring the future of renewable
energy, there would be no drive for such a company other than making money. Due to the fact that
this has not been done in Scotland, or northern Europe, ever before; suggests the undertaking of
such a process is relatively high risk. There are many alternative ways of making money which do
not involve such high risks; by carrying out this process is would appear that a true desire is
present within the company to find alternative energy sources to conventional transport fuels.
As mentioned in the company ethos, local work force is employed in the operating plant. The
available places shall be for low skilled work. This allows for the company to return prosperity to
back to the community by employing the residents. The local community shall be actively
encouraged to make use of the biodiesel product.
The biodiesel production process can take advantage of the current public view on being
environmentally conscious. With successful marketing, biodiesel can be embraced by consumers
and other companies as it is currently fashionable to appear green in the public eye. By setting up
contracts with logistics and transportation companies; this allows for sustainable business, but
more importantly it would show that biodiesel is socially accepted. This kind of wide spread use
would act as an endorsement for the company and for alternative transportation fuels as a whole.
8.4. Environmental Impact
8.4.1. Environmental Impact
Unlike the majority of biodiesel production processes, where the feedstock is labour and often
mechanically intensive; and often the feedstock is grown or produced with biodiesel production as
the sole purpose. Fish matter as a feedstock for biodiesel production process is primarily a waste
product from the processing of fish in preparation for human consumption. As stated previously,
the fishing industry is thriving in Scotland, and is one of the country’s largest industries. The fishing
industry would continue regardless of a biodiesel production process utilising its bi-products; this
demonstrates the little, if any, environmental effect that is made for obtaining the desired
feedstock. As long as the fishing industry continues to carry out practicing at a sustainable rate, by
not over fishing, and adhering new bans on not throwing away, very little impact on the
environment is made by the fisheries themselves.
Current practices for dealing with fish waste do not provide any environmental or economical
return; this is why turning the waste into a source of renewable energy would be advantageous for
all. Fish waste currently can be dealt with a number of different methods: ensiling is best used in
preparation for putting to landfill, short term storage, and incineration; or treated and turned into a
46
combination of fish meal and fish oil. As stated previously, a large proportion of fish processing
waste is shipped outside of Scotland, namely to Norway and Denmark, where there are sufficient
facilities to cope with the capacity of fish waste. This transportation of fish waste could be stopped
as there is now a demand for the waste in Scotland. Thus, this would lower loads on transportation
vessels, or even stop making these journeys worth completing; both of which would lower the
carbon footprint of companies making these journeys.
Available figures(7) show that dead salmon waste specifically in Scotland is processed with using
incineration (64%, 50% with energy recovery systems), land-fill (34%), and disposal to land (2%).
These fish cannot be used for human consumption, so the whole fish is deemed as a waste
product. These could be utilised as biodiesel feedstock, by doing this no more landfill area would
be required. Furthermore the cost for landfill will no longer exist. Organic waste in landfill can
potentially spread diseases, even if the waste itself is not contaminated, there is an attraction to a
large number of parasites and rodents which contaminate or contribute to the spread of diseases.
Landfill is a visual eyesore and the smell of rotting organic waste is not environmentally friendly
either. Reducing the proportion of waste going to landfill and using it to produce biodiesel would
have a positive effect on the environment.
Reducing the mass of fish waste being incinerated by using it as a feedstock for renewable biofuel,
would also have an environmental benefit. The energy from incinerating all fish is not 100%
restored from which is put into the incineration process, therefore resulting in a loss of energy and
cost in order to simply produce another, non-valuable and non-usable, waste product.
It could be argued that the feedstock is purified fish oil, and not the fish waste. The fish mealing
process is what provides fish oil and fish meal. Rather than deeming the fish meal as waste; it can
be seen as a bi-product which can be sold. The fish meal is commonly used for feeding fish farms,
poultry and it can be found in many other commercial pet foods. Therefore, all the fish waste that
we take from the fisheries is made into a fish meal product and sold, or used to make biodiesel,
completely recycling all waste.
As a biodiesel production process, our product is intended to be used to supplement conventional

transport fuels, or used in its entirety for fuel. Therefore, there is no point in traveling great distance
in order to retrieve large quantities of raw materials to which only a small proportion shall be made
into the final desired product. The raw materials shall be sourced locally in order to keep
transportation costs low, and therefore the environmental impact of fuel usage down.
Transportation of the biodiesel product shall be by the consumer. Storage facilities are located on
sight for consumers to retrieve biodiesel from the production plant. Again, it would not make
environmentally impacting sense if a consumer was to come from a far, using great amount of
fossil fuels to retrieve biodiesel. At the final stage in the process what is most financially viable to
the company is what must be considered.
As stated, it is up to the consumer to decide what they do with the biodiesel. The company expects
the fuel to supplement diesel as a transportation fuel. The product of the process is aimed to
reduce the usage of fossil fuels by producing an alternative, renewable fuel. Usage of pure waste
animal-biodiesel can be accountable for a 37% and 45% reduction(11) in exhaust emissions of
carbon dioxide and particle matter, respectively. The production process of biodiesel itself, which
the company is accountable for, may not be directly lowering harmful gas emissions from cars or
dependency on fossil fuels, yet some credit can be taken for it.
8.4.2. Environmental Management Systems
The company shall follow a plan-do-check-act (PDCA) procedure. A clear goal is initially defined,
and how this goal can be reached in an environmentally safe way; these procedures are then
carried out; the process is then assessed comparing results to environmental policies and
legislations; then positive engagements are made to better environmental management system.
47
In to portray the environmental concern expressed in the company ethos, the usage of
transportation fuels in the company’s logistics is closely monitored. The net fuel consumption per
annum by all vehicles transporting feedstock to the processing plant may not exceed the annual
net biodiesel fuel production. This ensures that all journeys made by company vehicles must be
worthwhile. All company vehicles shall be run off a minimum of 15% biodiesel proportion in the
transport fuel; by doing this the company is making an example of how biodiesel can be easily
utilized and is a feasible alternative to conventional diesel. This shall lower the carbon dioxide
emissions produced by whole operation.
8.4.3. Legislation
A pollution prevention and control permit (PPC) shall be required for the production of Biodiesel in
Scotland. A waste management licence shall also be required, as a waste product is the feedstock
of the biodiesel process. Due to the fact that the feedstock is animal waste, approval to use this as
feed stock must be granted by the animal health and veterinary laboratories agency. The feed
stock would have to be cleared as category 2 (for fish mortalities) or 3 (processed fish waste)
material(15). Category 2 means the animal bi-product is high risk and not fit for human consumption,
and category 3 is low risk animal bi-product, which is passed fit for human consumption but not
intended for it.
8.5. Economic Sustainability
A large overhead has been taken into account (100%) for the start-up cost of building the plant.
This is a sustainable precaution; the pricing carried out using software program HYSYS 7.1 is not
accurate enough to base a full plant design upon. The simulation, as stated previously in the
economics section, does not take the price of storage and piping. A large overhead estimate gives
the company flexibility, and puts the company in a more favourable position than if the software
pricing was believed to be highly accurate.
The forecasted production of the plant under a realistic processing capacity scenario provides a
sustainable and fair prediction. Despite the feedstock being proven to be readily available in the
chosen location, the company shall need to build relationships and gain contracts with fish
processing and fish waste companies for final targeted plant capacity to be reached (95% after 10
years). As more relationships and contracts are made and strengthened as time goes on; a greater
processing capacity shall be available. Many fish waste and processing facilities shall have existing
contracts with rival companies; after time these run out and competition for contracts comes about.
This aspect of winning contracts for feedstock is expected to be a highly competitive side to the
company. The projected economic figures for NPV would therefore provide not only an accurate
projection, but also evidence to feedstock suppliers that they would be dealing with a reliable and
prosperous company.
It is predicted that the company shall be economically viable; however it is assumed that all costs
of methanol shall remain constant, fish feedstock to remain supplied free, and energy costs to
remain constant also. Certain scenarios shall be considered and how these may affect the
economic sustainability of the company. The scenarios focus on the effects made to the cumulative
cash return.
8.5.1.Methanol Feedstock Price Increase
A scenario where the price of methanol was increased by an additional £25 per annum, after year
5 of production was investigated. This rate of increase is extreme and highly unlikely, yet worth
looking at since the methanol is an essential requirement of the process.
It was found that this did not hinder the company’s cash return. At the 10 year point, there would
be a decrease of 3.7% of cash return. Figures are shown in table 8.1.
Table 8.1. Cash return senarios based on a methanol price increase

48
year CCR (£) - Ideal CCR (£) – Scenario 1 % decrease
- impact
5 4,335,813.5 4,289,373.5 1.07
6 8,150,975.9 8,019,395.9 1.61
7 11,966,138 11,710,718 2.13
8 15,781,301 15,363,341 2.65
9 19,596,463 18,977,263 3.16
10 23,411,625 22,552,485 3.67
8.5.2. Fish Feedstock Facilities Demand Payment
The availability of the feedstock is unquestioned; however the expectation that for a 10 year period
a company shall be based upon being supplied with its primary feedstock for free is not sustainable
practise. It would be an unethical business plan to show a company making millions of pounds,
from a feedstock, of no cost, donated by client companies; it has therefore been taken into
consideration the effects on the company if a cost on fish waste was imposed. A price of £20/tonne
of fish waste was imposed on year 3, and £30/tonne on year 5 and thereafter. The cost would
affect the company mostly in the early years of processing. The costing takes into account the
processing capacity, and therefore the outgoings costs on feedstock would increase with capacity.
It can be seen on figure 8.1. how the plant approaches breaking even as charges come into action,
yet breaking is never reached. As the processing capacity increases it can be seen how the
company struggles to cope with expansion; ultimately the company fails because it cannot afford to
process such a high quantity of feedstock even when it is priced at a competitive cost. Figures can
be seen in table 8.2. This comparison would be taken into consideration if the company was
considering company expansion. This also reiterates why healthy business relationships are
essential to have with suppliers to keep feedstock prices low and available.
Table 8.2. Cash return based on a demand for fish waste

Year Capacit CCR (£) - Ideal CCR (£) –
y (%) Scenario 2
3 65 -3,294,511 -7109674
4 75 520,651 -5504511
5 80 4,335,813 -4239349
6 85 8,150,975 -4504186
7 90 11,966,138 -5024024
8 92.5 15,781,301 -5798862
9 95 19,596,463 -6701199
10 95 23,411,625 -7731037
Figure 8.1. Cumulative cash return based on a number of varying economic scenarios
Cumulative Cash Return - scenarios

25000000
20000000
15000000 Ideal - 12000 Tonnes/Yr
10000000 senario 1
5000000 senario 2
£
0 senario 3
-50000000 2 4 6 8 10 12
-10000000
-15000000
Years
8.5.3. Increase in Energy Costs

49
The energy to run the process in the plant is predominantly from natural gas; peripheral energy
requirements are present elsewhere on sight, for example: office utensils and heating bills; these
will simply require energy from the national grid. An increase of 6% per year shall be considered
for energy cost of both categories. This is important to investigate because the company is relying
upon an energy intensive super critical process; if the cost for energy to run this was too great, the
process could not be sustained as it would not be financially viable. Figures derived in this scenario
shall reflect a sudden initial increase of 10% in energy cost at year 3, and then after a further 6%
increase cost every year; figures shown in table 8.3. This scenario is rather extreme, yet not
unheard of: prices(14) of gas between quarter 2 and quarter 4 in 2008 increased 28%. Energy prices
are however expected to increase every year.
Table 8.3. Cash return based on increasing energy costs

Year CCR (£) - Ideal CCR (£) - Scenario % decrease -
3 impact
3 -3,294,511 -3,375,325 2.25
4 520,651 354,174 0.84
5 4,335,813 4,078,534 0.54
6 8,150,975 7,797,446 0.41
7 11,966,138 11,510,583 0.34
8 15,781,301 15,217,598 0.3
9 19,596,463 18,918,124 0.27
10 23,411,625 22,611,772 0.25
8.5.4. Reinvestment by Commissioning a New Plant
Equipment on sight shall degrade and require maintenance over time; the company’s economic
strategy states a large set aside amount every year - enough after 10 years to completely build a
new plant. This is a sustainable self-insurance strategy that allows the company to plan for a worst
case scenario or a plant rebuild. This gives potential room for improvement as well; as this money
can be spent on simply upgrading the process, increasing yield, efficiency (both of which are
already very high) or be spent on treating waste.
Expanding the company by building a new plant could start after 10 years: the economic strategy is
forecasted for 10 years and therefore to satisfy investors and client companies it would be planned
to see through these initial 10 years before expansion. Expansion in the company would have to
come in the form of a new location and a new plant. The resources (feedstock) in the chosen
location would be exhausted if the plant was to process at 100% capacity; so it would not be
possible to have an additional plant to run in close proximity. It would not be a sustainable
investment to greatly enlarge the current plant size either, as stated, there would not be sufficient
feedstock to justify it because the capacity of the current plant is designed upon utilizing all of the
local fish waste.
8.6. Process Sustainability
The super critical esterification process does not require a catalyst; this eliminates any separating
of homogeneous catalyst like an acid or base liquid from the products. No spoiling of a
heterogeneous catalyst means no requirements to replace this in the future, keeping the overall
cost of the plant down. There shall also be no reliance on the varying costs of catalysts of any type;
expensive, rare metals or high volumes of acid/bases shall therefore not affect the future running of
the plant.
Business relationships can be made with local universities regarding the donating of slightly impure
methanol where it can be utilised in whatever way they desire. Relationships are made with the
intentions that the universities shall eventually facilitate research into solutions for treating impure
methanol. The greatest quantity of waste produced by the process is this impure methanol; it is in
50
the company’s best interest to find a more sustainable way of treating this waste. For the methanol
to be reused in the process, a 100% purification would be required – this is not financially viable.
8.7. References
1. Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation :: Facts & Figures . 2013. Scottish Salmon Producers'
Organisation :: Facts & Figures . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/facts_figures/index.aspx. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
2. Statistics. 2013. Statistics. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
3. 404 Error - Seafish. 2013. 404 Error - Seafish. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
4. scottish statistics news - government news scotland – Scottish Executive Departmental News . 2013.
scottish statistics news - government news scotland – Scottish Executive Departmental News . [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
5. FAO Corporate Document Repository. 2013. FAO Corporate Document Repository. [ONLINE]
Available at:
http://www.fao.org/documents/en/docrep.jsp;jsessionid=E27CC24DF9D8622D72022B4D44047211.
6. SEPA : Evaluation of fish waste management technologies, 2004. Poseidon aquatic resource
management.
7. SARF - about. 2013. SARF - about. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sarf.org.uk. [Accessed 17
March 2013].
8. Fishing Tacs and Quotas 2012 . European Commission Fisheries. 2012. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/com_2012_0595_en.pdf [Accessed 17 March
2013]
9. Scottish fishermen call for discards ban to be applied in a uniform manner | Scottish Fishermen's
Federation. 2013. Scottish fishermen call for discards ban to be applied in a uniform manner | Scottish
Fishermen's Federation. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sff.co.uk/node/709. [Accessed 27 February
2013].
10. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel – Ayhan Demirbas
11. Home | Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2013. Home | Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.dardni.gov.uk. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
12. National Statistics. 2013. National Statistics. [ONLINE] Available at:
https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/national-renewables-statistics/. [Accessed 17 March 2013].
13. Quarterly energy prices - Department of Energy & Climate Change - Inside Government - GOV.UK.
2013. Quarterly energy prices - Department of Energy & Climate Change - Inside Government - GOV.UK.
[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-
change/series/quarterly-energy-prices. [Accessed 15 March 2013]
14. Home | Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2013. Home | Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.dardni.gov.uk : Animal by-products general
guidance. [Accessed 15 March 2013]
51
Chapter 9
Conclusion
52
9.1. Conclusion
The aim of this report is to determine the viability of a biodiesel production plant using waste fish as
a feedstock. This has been assessed by looking at individual aspects of such a processing plant,
ranging from its first stage design to the sustainability of running such a plant.
The initial stage of designing the plant had a target capacity of 17000 t/yr of biodiesel. Today many
methods exist for producing biodiesel from oils and fats using a wide range of different catalytic or
non-catalytic processes. It was decided that biodiesel production via supercritical methanol was a
suitable option because it required no catalyst and achieved a high yield of biodiesel. The process
operates at 190 bar and 350 oC. A by-product of the esterification of fish oil is water, therefore this
must be separated from the products. A number of distillation columns were used to recycle up to
99.89% of the excess methanol present during the reaction. In addition, the final product was
purified, resulting in a 99.99% pure biodiesel product, with traces of fish oil. For this method of
production, large quantities of energy are required to obtain the correct operating conditions. These
will come in the form of high pressure steam, natural gas furnaces, cooling water and electricity to
drive pumps and other items of equipment. The majority of the plant will be constructed from either
carbon steel or stainless steel. Both of these materials are suitable for biodiesel production
because they provide fluid corrosion prevention and are able to withstand the pressures and
temperatures in the system. Fish waste would also be processed on site to produce fish meal and
the main feedstock, fish oil. Biodiesel will be produced continuously, operating 350 days per year,
24 hours per day. The fish oil extraction units will operate batch wise, and therefore dependent
upon deliveries. This allows maintenance for the plant at 15 days per year.
After much studying, the optimum location for the processing plant was found to be in North East
Scotland. More specifically, a location close to Peterhead. Peterhead is home to a large fishing
industry, which would provide ample quantities of waste fish. Approximately 170000 t/yr of waste
fish is produced. This is made up of fish catches at sea and a number of fish farms. Currently fish
processing facilities dispose of their fish waste by shipping it to Norway and Denmark. By locating
a biodiesel plant here, the costs to dispose of the waste will be significantly reduced, and therefore
a major advantage to the fishing industry. Furthermore, Peterhead has a good transport
infrastructure and a close, skilled work force whom are able to operate a biodiesel and fish waste
plant. Approximately 6 acres of land is estimated to be required for the plant site. This would cost
between £500,000-750,000.
Assessing if there is a market for biodiesel is key in determining if the project is viable. The
European Union aims to generate 20% of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2020.
This has resulted in an increased demand for biodiesel, and therefore the industry must expand.
Many companies are seeking to use biodiesel as a source of fuel in order to reach this target. The
biodiesel market has seen a high level of growth within the last decade, with a 24% rise per year.
As of 2010, 9.57 million t/yr of biodiesel were consumed. This trend is not isolated within Europe
but is seen globally. The UK has 37 medium to large biodiesel plants, producing 218000 tonnes in
2011. At maximum capacity the company would obtain a 7.8% of the current market. Much of the
biodiesel consumed within the UK is imported, and therefore it is clear there is an open market for
biodiesel in the UK. With Scotland potentially becoming an independent country by 2016, a
biodiesel market would still exist within Scotland, because they have set similar targets in energy
generation to the EU. Furthermore the plant will obtain waste fish from Scottish waters, and
therefore this reinforces the strength of the industry should Scotland gain independence. The price
of biodiesel is closely linked to that of Brent crude oil, and suggests its strength as a product.
Biodiesel is sold at 2.39 £/gal currently.
Economically, the production of biodiesel is also viable. It was estimated that the fixed capital
investment would be approximately £13 million. This figure includes costs for fish waste oil
extraction units, biodiesel production units, land and labour for construction. The business will have
two sources of income: selling biodiesel and fish meal. It was calculated that biodiesel can be sold
for 63 p/L and fish meal at 40 £/t. The variable costs account for: staff wages, feedstocks (fish
waste and methanol), transport costs, energy, maintenance and waste disposal. To operate the
53
plant and day to day running of the company, it was assumed that 28 members of staff are
required. The nature of the chemical plant implies that staff may have to work overtime, and
dependent upon production capacities bonuses will be provided. Staffing costs were estimated to
be £1.9 million per year. Initially fish waste is assumed to be gained at no cost because fish
processing plants need to get rid of this waste, and therefore the company would be providing a
service. However methanol is a required reactant in the process. Using industry standard prices, it
was estimated that methanol feedstock will cost approximately 570,000 £/y. Transport costs
include obtaining the fish waste. Transporting biodiesel from the plant will not be provided by the
company, and therefore irreverent. Collecting the fish waste it is estimated to cost 2.6 million £/y,
this includes fuel and vehicle costs. Overtime the plants facilities will degrade, and therefore
maintenance will have to be carried out. In order to cover for these costs, 1 million £/y is to be set
aside. This assumes a worse case scenario where several items of process equipment have to be
replaced. Energy costs were modelled using HYSYS. Electrical costs cover pumps, control
equipment and general electrical usage within the plant and office. The chemical process requires
cooling water, steam and natural gas for heating. All energy sources account for 800,000 £/y. The
process produces a small amount of waste. These include methanol, water and fish meal from fish
fatalities. Methanol will be donated to universities/schools so as to promote research and obtain
strong connections with education. Waste water will be treated on site allowing it for disposal into
drains. Fish meal created from fish fatalities is not legally allowed to be sold, therefore it must be
disposed of. It is assumed to cost XX £/yr.
Several scenarios were simulated with varying production capacity in order to determine the
viability of the project. Under a realistic scenario, the production of biodiesel was steadily increased
over a 10 year period, reaching a maximum capacity of 95% in year 9. Under these conditions, a
cumulative cash return after 10 years was calculated to be £24.4 million. This allows for plant
payback around year 5. The return on investment was calculated to be 30.6 % per year. This figure
supports economic viability of the project. The net present value was found to be £18.7 million.
Thus, overall the plant should be economically viable. Even with the minimum production capacity,
a cumulative cash return was calculated to be £18.7 million. This shifts the payback time to year 6.
The return on investment was calculated to be 25.8% per year. The net present value was found to
be £11.6 million. This further supports the economic viability, even with lower production rates.
Due to the nature of the chemical process happening to produce biodiesel (namely supercritical
conditions), there is a large emphasis on health and safety. Several aspects of the plant were
analysed. Whilst there are some extreme hazards which are present, it was thought that the
likelihood of these occurring was low. Furthermore, strict rules will be applied to the plant in order
to reduce the risk of these hazards. One of the most significant hazards is the chemical reactor, at
high temperature and high pressure. This section of the plant will be a completely oxygen free
environment reducing the risk of a fire. Furthermore with such extreme pressures, pinhole leaks
are sever hazards. To avoid injury to personnel, areas of high pressure will be cordoned off, with
people only gaining access for essential maintenance or other important tasks. All the process
equipment will degrade over time. As a result it will be regularly inspected for potential failures. Any
downtime within the plant will be used to inspect all vessels and pipework. Furthermore, all
operators will be encouraged to be extremely vigilant when on site for any signs of damage or
wear. All members of staff will have training provided to them. Training will include, health and
safety, fire safety, explosion safety, chemical spills, etc. A unique hazard from the fish meal
processing unit are bio-hazards. It is assumed that there will be large quantities of fish waste and
fish meal on site, waiting to be processed or sold. Storage of these items will be regularly
monitored, to avoid mould growth, lumping and spontaneous heating and cooling. Whilst there are
a number of safety hazards, the risks they contain are manageable, and therefore do not affect the
viability of the project.
It is clear that the project will have sufficient feedstock. Currently Scotland catches in excess of
150000 tonnes of salmon a year from sea catches as well as fish farms. This number is increasing
year on year. To further argue the plant will have a sustainable source of fish waste, a number of
limitations are in place to ensure that the fish population remains high and prevents over fishing.
These regulate which fishing vessels are allowed to fish in given areas, their quotas and many
54
more. The EU recently passed legislation which set out a ban on sea fishing vessels throwing
away unwanted fish. The throw a ways have been seen to be up to 25% of the initial catch. With
this new legalisation in place, there will be higher fish wastes brought back to land and therefore an
increased supply for the process plant. With Scotland potentially becoming an independent country
as soon as 2016, some doubts lie around the fishing industry. Currently the Scottish government
supports the fishing industry with a number of grants a year. However, if Scotland were to become
independent, it would no longer be required to follow EU fishing quotas. Therefore there is a risk of
fish populations dramatically decreasing as the fishing industry quickly increases their catches.
Many workers suggest that even with the quotas no longer an aspect, vessels would still abide by
them in order to have a sustainable fishing industry. For the fishing industry to realise this
themselves, it is clear how strong the fishing industry is. There is much concern over the
feedstocks of biodiesel. This is because they can be seen to compete with food sources. The EU
has a target of producing 20% of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. However
there is a limit on the amount of fuels produce from food sources at 5%. Since the plant will be
utilising waste fish as its primary feedstock, this does not constitute as a food source because it is
deemed inedible for human consumption. This gives political incentive to support the process of
creating biodiesel from fish waste.
The company aims to employ as much skilled work force from local areas. This allows for the
company to return prosperity back to the community. Furthermore the local community shall be
highly encouraged to make use of biodiesel products so as to reduce the dependence on
conventional fossil fuels. By processing waste product from fishes, the company will be seen to be
environmentally conscious. Therefore with successful marketing it is possible to promote green
technologies to the public because it is currently seen as a fashion statement. By setting up
contracts with logistic and transportation firms it allows for sustainable business, further endoring
the use of greener fuels.
Current practises with fish waste do not provide any environmental or economical return. Turing a
waste product into renewable energy is highly advantageous. Currently fish wastes in Scotland are
transported thousand of miles to Norway and Denmark, where it is processed into fish meal. By
reducing the distance for fisheries to transport their fish waste, this reduces their environmental
impact as well as operating costs. Thus reducing their carbon footprint. By reducing the need for
landfill, more land can be used for projects which can aid the local community. A result of less
landfills, is that there is less of a risk for spread of diseases carried by parasites and rodents
because the waste will no longer be there as a source of disease. This also leads to a reduction in
bad odour caused by landfills and being less visually eyesore. Both these would have positive
effects on the environment. Another environmental effect the company can do itself, is use a
minimum of 15% biodiesel in all its vehicles. This shows by example how easy it is to incorporate
biodiesel into modern day life, with minor changes to the physical vehicles.
It is possible that various costs that allow the plant to run day to day change. These have been
studied to see their effect on the companies return. It is seen that the price of methanol should
remain constant. However if it were to increase by an additional £25 per annum, there would be a
decrease of 3.7% of cash return. This still supports an economically viable project. One further
potential is that the fish processing companies demand payment for the fish waste. This is likely to
occur given the projected cash return. Small charges of 20-30 £/t would apply for the fish waste
and would ultimately make the company fail by no longer producing a profit. This shows that is it
key to have healthy business relationships between the suppliers and ourselves to keep the
feedstock prices low and available. Energy costs are likely to increase over the plants lifetime. With
an increase of 6% in cost per year for energy, this would only reduce the cash return by 0.25%
over a 10 year period. Therefore this shows economic flexibility within the project. After a number
of years, a substantial level of cash will have been collected. This allows for the possibility of
commissioning a new process plant. This plant should not be located near the current one,
because there is not sufficient amount of waste fish presently. However other locations with the UK
or outside of the UK are possible. Alternatively, the process equipment can be upgraded to
improve efficiencies and yields.
55
With aspects considered from: the process, location, market, economics, health and safety as well
as sustainability. The project can be deemed viable in all aspects. It has been shown that profits
are generated under a number of different scenarios. There is demand for biodiesel within Europe
and the UK which is currently rising, and therefore ultimately the project is sustainable.
Environmentally the project will reduce waste and therefore aid the environment. Socially jobs are
created which will help to boost the local economy. Therefore in conclusion it is suggested that the
design and commission of a biodiesel plant from fish waste be moved to the next level.
56
Chapter 10
Appendix
57
10.1. Material and Energy Balance with PFD
Table 10.1.1. Material flowrates, temperatures and pressures from HYSYS for fish oil esterification
Table 10.1.2. Composition mole fractions from HYSYS for fish oil esterification
Table 10.1.3. Energy comsumption from HYSYS for fish oil esterification
58
59
SPACE
EXCEL
BALANCE
Figure 10.1.1. HYSYS simulation PFD

MASS
LEFT FOR
60
10.1.1. Material Balance
The aim for production capacity was approximately 17000 t/yr of biodiesel. Methyl oleate was
considered the final product.
Assumptions made:
1. plant operates 350 days a year 24 hours per day
2. pure methanol and pure oleic acid is used as feed
3. 98% conversion is achieved within the reactor
4. alcohol:oil ratio of 42
The number of kmols per hour of methyl oleate that are required to reach the required is calculated
from:
The molar mass of methyl oleate is 296.49 kg/kmol, therefore the number of kmols per hour is:
The esterification reaction has a stoichiometry of 1:1 → 1:1, oleic acid, methanol, methyl oleate
and water respectively and therefore 6.830 kmol/hr of oleic acid is required to achieve the
production target. That however assumes that the conversion is 100%. The conversion for the
design is assumed to be 98%, therefore the number of kmols of oleic acid required feed is:
Again due to the stoichiometry, 6.830 kmol/hr of methanol is consumed within the reaction.
Therefore the required amount of methanol is:
The amount of oleic acid feed is then simply the difference of the inlet and outlet of the reactor:
Since methanol is also a reactant, it must be resupplied such that the reaction remains continuous.
Methanol is also lost in various separation stages. Total methanol lost due to separation is: 0.28
kmol/hr. Therefore the fresh methanol feed is the consumption plus the loss due to separations.
Table 1.1 shows a summary of the mass and molar flowrates required for the process. It should be
noted that these flowrates may alter to a small degree due to rounding using HYSYS version 7.1.
Table 10.1.4. Mass and molar flowrates for biodiesel production

Moles Mass
kmol/hr kg/hr
Fresh methanol feed 7.110 227.662
Fresh oleic acid feed 6.830 1929.270
Produced methyl 6.830 2025.027
oleate
Produced water 6.830 122.940
61
The distillation columns used within the process have external reflux ratios of 1.5 times greater
than the minimum reflux ratio.
10.2. Process Equipment Calculations
The kinetics of the esterification of oleic acid with methanol have been widely studied and shown to
be(1):
The reaction can therefore be said to be first order. The rate constant was found to be 0.02 s-1 at
350 oC(1).
A continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) will be used for the reactor, and therefore the design
equation is given by:
(1)
The rate equation can then be expressed as:
(2)
The inlet to the reactor contains 6.83 kmol/hr oleic acid which equates to a mass flowrate of
1929.27 kg/hr. The volumetric flowrate of this combined oleic acid and methanol stream is 13.95
m3/hr. Therefore the molar concentration of oleic acid to the reactor inlet is:
Substituting the rate constant, initial molar concentration of oleic acid as well as the final
conversion of 98%, Eq. 2 becomes:
Therefore τ is:
From the definition of τ, τ=V/Q, and therefore the volume of the reactor required is:
Before any construction takes place, it would be advised to ensure the rate equation and rate
constant apply to this reaction. The figure expressed in this calculation is an estimate.
10.2.2. Cooler E-100
62
Heat exchanger E-100 has a duty of 96.6 kW. If cooling water is supplied at 20 oC and to obtain the
required duty a mass flowrate of 16680 kg/hr of water is required, then the exit temperature of the
cooling water will be:
Therefore cooling water exit temperature is 25 oC
Assuming an overall heat transfer coefficient of 500 W/m2.K(2). The log mean temperature
difference is:
Therefore the area required for heat transfer is:
The overall heat transfer coefficient has been assumed to be this value by using data tables for the
type of fluids transferring heat and averaging the two most extreme values. This mean value has
been used in the calculation.
10.2.3. Cooler E-105
Heat exchanger E-105 has a duty of 1912 kW. If cooling water is supplied at 20 oC and to obtain
the required duty a mass flowrate of 329200 kg/hr of water is required, then the exit temperature of
the cooling water will be:
Therefore cooling water exit temperature is 25 oC
Assuming an overall heat transfer coefficient of 625 W/m2.K(2). The log mean temperature
difference is:
Therefore the area required for heat transfer is:
10.2.4. Heater E-106
Heat exchanger E-106 has a duty of 607.1 kW. If high pressure steam is supplied at 40 bar or a
saturated temperature of 251 oC. It is assumed that the steam condenses and all heat gained by
the process stream is latent heat from the high pressure steam.
Therefore the log mean temperature difference is:
63
Assuming an overall heat transfer coefficient of 600 W/m2.K(2), the area required for heat transfer
is:
Distillation column T-101 has 12 stages. Assuming the tray spacing is 0.55 m and a 10% excess,
the height of the column is:
Assuming the shell inside diameter is 1.5 m, constructed from carbon steel (density 7850 kg/m3(4))
with thickness 0.02 m, the mass of the shell is:
10.2.8. References
1. de BOER, K. and BAHRI, P.A.: Supercritical methanol for fatty acid methyl ester production: A
review, Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, issue (2011), 983-991
10.3. Cost of Process Equipment

64
Estimations for cost of equipment has been taken from two sources, either directly from HYSYS
where possible or from Coulson and Richardson vol. 6 . In the case of Coulson and Richardson,
(1)
they suggested a a correlation for costs in the form of:
, where a, b and n are constants found in a data table and S is the unit size. Below are cost
estimations for process equipment regarding the esterification of fish oil
With a reactor volume of 9.49 m , and being constructed from type 304 stainless steel, the cost is:
3
10.3.2. Pump P-105
Pump P-105 must deliver 11.52 m /hr or 3.20 L/s of methanol, the cost is:
3
10.3.3. Pump P-104
Pump P-104 must deliver 2.16 m /hr or 0.6 L/s of oleic acid (fish oil), the cost is:
3
10.3.4. Pump P-103
Pump P-103 must deliver 3.76 m /hr or 1.05 L/s of methanol, methyl oleate (biodiesel and oleic
3
acid, the cost is:
10.3.5. Mixer MIX-106
Mixer MIX-106 combines the recycled methanol with fresh feed methanol, its output flowrate is
11.52 m /hr or 3.20 L/s, the cost is:
3
10.3.6. Mixer MIX-107
Mixer MIX-107 combines the methanol and oleic acid (fish oil) feeds before passing into the
reactor. The output from this mixer is 13.68 m /hr or 3.80 L/s, the cost is:
3
10.3.7. Mixer MIX-105
Mixer MIX-105 combines the recovered methanol from the flash separator and distillation column.
The output from this mixer is 11.38 m /hr or 3.16 L/s, the cost is:
3
65
10.3.8. Mixer MIX-104
Mixer MIX-104 combines the reactor product streams together. The output from this mixer is 11.69
m /hr or 3.80 L/s, the cost is:
3
10.3.9. Cooler E-100
Heat exchanger E-100 acts as a condenser/cooler. Its calculated required surface area for heat
transfer is 4.12 m , the cost is:
2
10.3.10. Cooler E-105
Heat exchanger E-105 acts as a condenser/cooler. Its calculated required surface area for heat
transfer is 19.44 m , the cost is:
2
Fired heater E-108 heats the methanol feed to the reactor to reaction conditions. The duty of this
furnace is 4.04 MW, the cost is:
Fired heater E-107 heats the oleic acid (fish oil) feed to the reactor to reaction conditions. The duty
of this furnace is 0.42 MW, the cost is:
10.3.13. Heater E-106
Heater E-106 pre-heats a methanol, biodiesel mixture before distillation. The required surface area
for heat transfer calculated was 12.74 m , the cost is:
2
10.3.14. Flash Separator V-101
Flash separator V-101 is the first stage methanol recovery. Arbitrary values for its height and
diameter were taken as 6 m and 2 m respectively. This give it a L/D ratio of 3, which is the
recommended ratio as per several sources . With this information the simulation of biodiesel
(2)
production still worked. The built in cost evaluator in HYSYS version 7.1. gave an estimated cost
of:
66
The flash separator is priced as being constructed from carbon steel.
Distillation column T-101 separates methanol from biodiesel. It is a 12 stage column with a total
condenser and reboiler. Trays are spaced out 0.55 m and with 10% excess height, the total height
of the column is 7.3 m. Meanwhile, the diameter is 1.5 m.
The cost of the trays is:
The shell mass is 5400.86 kg, the cost is:
The total condenser has a similar heat load to E-105, and the reboiler as well. Therefore the cost of
these two items have been assumed to be equal to E-105, therefore the cost of heat exchangers
is:
Both the column and trays are priced as being constructed from carbon steel.
Distillation column T-100 purifies the biodiesel. It is a 36 stage column with a total condenser and
reboiler. Trays are spaced out 0.55 m and with 10% excess height, the total height of the column is
21.8 m. Meanwhile, the diameter is 1.5 m.
The total condenser has a similar heat load to E-105, and the reboiler as well. Therefore the cost of
these two items have been assumed to be equal to E-105, therefore the cost of heat exchangers
is:
Distillation column T-104 separates recycled methanol from water produced during the reaction. It
is a 65 stage column with a total condenser and reboiler. Trays are spaced out 0.55 m and with
10% excess height, the total height of the column is 39.3m. Meanwhile, the diameter is 1.5 m.
67
The total condenser has a similar heat load to E-105. The reboiler has a heat load double that of E-
105. Therefore the cost of these two items have been assumed to be equal to E-105, therefore the
cost of heat exchangers is:
10.4. Total Cost of Biodiesel Production Plant
The total cost of equipment required to be purchased is $1,376,803.83
10.5. References
1. SINNOTT, R. and TOWLER, G.: Chemical Engineering Design, fifth edn., Elsevier (2011)
2. http://people.clarkson.edu/~wwilcox/Design/veslsize.htm, Chemical Engineering design website
regarding HYSYS, Matlab and other useful tools
68

Draft 170313

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft 170313

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Synopsis

To asses the feasibility of a biodiesel production plant with a capacity of approximately

2.0. Process Description

3.0. Alternative Processes

7.0. Health and Safety

Biodiesel is commonly created through the trans-esterification process. In the trans-esterification

Figure 2.1.(3) Esterification reaction, Eq. 1

2.2. Fish Oil

3 FA + glycerol ⇌ triglyceride + 3 water

2.4. Supercritical Esterification

2.5. Legal Regulations

Property Unit Minimum Maximum

Methyl ester wt % 96.50 -

Methanol content wt % - 0.20

Triglyceride content wt % - 0.20

Glycerol content wt % - 0.02

Fatty acid content wt % - 12.00

2.6. Fish Oil Extraction

2.7. Process Design

2.8. Process Modelling

2.8.1. Heating and Pressurising the Feed and Recycle

2.8.2. Biodiesel Production in a Conversion Reactor

2.8.3. Methanol t/yr Recovery

There is a high Methyl oleate S10 16603.44 proportion of unreacted

2.8.4. Water Separation

2.8.5. Biodiesel Purification

2.8.6. Overall Production Capacity

estimated flowrate of steam for the plant is 9.83 t/hr.

4. EN 14214. 2013. . [ONLINE] Available at:

4.3. Rejected Options

4.3.3. United States of America (Alaska)

1. Evaluation of Fish Waste Management Techniques, SEPA, (2004)

5.2. European Market

5.4. United States of America Market

5.5. Asian Market

5.6. Biodiesel Prices

 Biodiesel Section – £1.8 million (contains an estimate of 100% overheads)

The major fixed running costs can be displayed:

6.3.6. Waste Disposal

6.4. Economic Appraisal

 Annual Cash Return

6.4.1. Level of Production

6.4.1.1. Maximum Production Forecast

6.4.1.2. Realistic Production Forecast

Year 0-1: 0% Year 6: 85%

6.4.1.3. Low Production Forecast

Year 0-1: 0% Year 6: 75%

Years 1-3 exhibit only a 10% increase in production per year.

6.5. Cash Return

6.5.1. Annual Cash Return

6.5.2. Cumulative Cash Return

Cumulative cash returns=∑ Annual Cash Returns

Table 6.3. Realistic Production Forecast

Table 6.4. Low Production Forecast

Cumulative Cash Return

20000000 Maximum Production Forecast

6.6. Payback Time

6.7. Return on Investment

The ROI was calculated with the following equation:

6.8. Net Present Value (NPV)

6.9. Summary of Economic Appraisal

1. Economic Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in North Dakota, Department of Agribusiness and

Health and Safety

Table 7.1. Risk assessment overview