Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545 DOI 10.

1007/s10570-009-9327-8

Technoeconomic analysis of the dilute sulfuric acid and enzymatic hydrolysis process for the conversion of corn stover to ethanol
Andy Aden Thomas Foust

Received: 15 October 2008 / Accepted: 24 May 2009 / Published online: 12 June 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Technoeconomic analysis has been used to guide the research and development of lignocellulosic biofuels production processes for over two decades. Such analysis has served to identify the key technical barriers for these conversion processes so that research can be targeted most effectively on the pertinent challenges. The tools and methodology used to develop conceptual conversion processes and analyze their economics are presented here. In addition, the current process design and economic results are described for dilute acid pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation. Modeled ethanol costs of $1.33/gallon (in consistent year 2007 dollars) are being targeted for this commercial scale corn stover conversion process in 2012. State of technology models, which take actual research results and project them to commercial scale, estimate an ethanol cost of $2.43/gallon at present. In order to further reduce costs, process improvements must be made in several areas, including pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. As the biomass industry develops, new fuels and new feedstocks are being researched. Technoeconomic analysis will play a key role in process development and targeting of technical and economic barriers for these new fuels and feedstocks.
A. Aden (&) T. Foust National Bioenergy Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA e-mail: andy_aden@nrel.gov

Keywords Bioenergy Economic analysis Bioethanol Corn stover

The purpose of analysis Technoeconomic analysis has been used to guide the research and development (R&D) of lignocellulosic biofuels production processes at NREL for over two decades (Wright 1998; Bull 1987), including both biochemical and thermochemical approaches. Such analysis has served to identify the key technical barriers for these conversion processes so that research can be targeted most effectively on the pertinent challenges. In addition, the technical targets required to overcome these barriers have been determined and quantied. As R&D continues, technical progress towards these targets can be quantied and measured, and subsequently translated into economic terms that are perhaps more meaningful and more easily understood. The uncertainty around these economics is also quantied through the use of sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis. In addition to guiding and focusing the Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored research, the models that form the basis of the technoeconomic analysis of lignocellulosic conversion processes have been obtained by commercial entities to support their development of cellulosic processes. The process simulation models that have been developed during this effort have been made available to the general

123

536

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

public, especially industry and academia. Many of the companies currently developing and commercializing cellulosic conversion processes have used these models as a reference for their specic applications. Such companies include DuPont, Abengoa Bioenergy, ADM, and Cargill (Natureworks). In addition, several large petroleum companies1 have utilized these technoeconomic models and data in the creation of their individual value chain analyses and corporate strategy development in the renewable fuels arena.

Appropriate level of analysis detail As Ibsen (2006) describes, the proper level of engineering evaluation must be applied to R&D projects as they progress in order to ensure the best use of R&D dollars. For a project or conceptual design in the early phases of development, a relatively simple analysis can sufce. Consistent with traditional engineering approaches (Peters and Timmerhaus 1991), a preliminary design can be used as a basis for determining whether future work should be done on the proposed process. Simple break even cash ow analyses or even back-of-the-envelope calculations are often used. As the economics warrant further examination and process R&D, more detailed engineering and economic models are developed. At this phase of development, processes are more rigorously modeled and costed. More detailed cash ow analyses are created which can be used to calculate capital and operating costs, as well as rates of return and prot margins. This level of detail for technoeconomic analysis is a crucial aspect to understand for both current and future biofuels. Ethanol (produced from starch- and sugar-based feedstocks) and biodiesel (produced from natural oils) are produced throughout the world at commercial scale and have played key roles in establishing signicant biofuels markets. However, research and development is enabling the use of a greatly expanded range of feedstocks (lignocellosic biomass). To convert these cellulosic materials, a wide variety of new process technologies are being
1

developed and demonstrated at varying scales, from bench (i.e. 1 L working volume) and pilot (*1 dry ton per day), to demonstration (70 tons per day) and commercial scales (700 tons per day). In addition, advanced biofuels beyond ethanol and biodiesel are being targeted, including butanol and mixed alcohols, Fischer-Tropsch fuels, fermentation-derived hydrocarbons, algae-derived fuels, and even hydrogen. Because many of these advanced fuels and processes are at early stages of development, technoeconomic analysis will play a vital role in identifying the key technical barriers and providing focus to the seemingly endless myriad of possibilities that exist.

History of technoeconomic analyses at NREL and abroad Concurrent with the early phases of development that occurred in the 1980s, technoeconomic analyses conducted during that period remained relatively simple. Analyses by Wright (1998), Bull (1987), and others developed early economics for enzymatic hydrolysis technologies. Several engineering companies (Stone and Webster Engineering Corp Boston 1987; Chem Systems Inc Tarrytown 1987; Badger Engineers Inc. Cambridge 1987) conducted numerous feasibility studies for biomass-to-biofuels processes. Many of these studies concluded that the enzymatic based technologies showed promise under certain circumstances, and further research was needed. In 1991, Schell et al. (1991) published a preliminary process design and economic analysis for an enzymatic hydrolysis-based process, comparing several feedstocks and several pretreatment technologies. Landucci et al. (1994) and others continued to develop more rigorous economic analyses as the research advanced. Added rigor was brought to the technoeconomic methodologies at NREL when Wooley et al. (1999a) and others developed process simulations using rigorous physical property modeling to develop detailed material and energy balance data. The inaugural design report (Wooley et al. 1999b) was published in 1999, which used detailed modeling and discounted cash ow economics, along with process ow diagrams, to capture the state of the research at that time, and to identify areas for further research. In reality, the process simulation allowed

For example, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ConocoPhillips (COP), Iowa State, and NREL was recently announced. http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2008/577. html.

123

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

537

the combination of research derived results with phase separation calculations to obtain detailed heat and material balances. These results were used to determine reasonable sizes for major equipment which in turn became the basis for reasonable capital and operating cost estimates. In 2002, Aden et al. (2002) developed these models further and produced a design report based on the conversion of corn stover to ethanol at a 2000 dry metric ton-per-day scale. This design case did not present an optimized design, but instead represented one technology package capable of achieving cost competitive cellulosic ethanol. More importantly, it identied the key technical barriers for the research and set quantiable targets for achieving program goals. Numerous others have also contributed process modeling and technoeconomic analyses of cellulosic biofuels processes. Baylor University (Van Walsum and Jayawardhana 2004), Lund University (Sweden; Galbe and Zacchi 1992), Umea University (Sweden), and USDA-ARS (Kwiatkowski et al. 2006) are just a few notable organizations who have contributed signicant analyses to this eld.

Tools and methods development The methodology and tools used to develop the technoeconomics for corn stover conversion are described in several articles and reports, including Wooley et al. (1999a), and Aden et al. (2002). Working iteratively with researchers, a conceptual process design was created. Once the design was created, including process ow diagrams, it was modeled using Aspen Plus process simulation software. While Aspen Plus comes with physical property data for a variety of common chemical compounds (e.g. ethanol, water, CO2) it does not come with data for unconventional components of a biomass system, such as cellulose, lignin, and biomass. Therefore customized physical property data had to be added to the model. This is described by Wooley and Putsche (1996), Wooley and Ibsen (1999). During the modeling process, engineers also worked with The Harris Group2 to include sufcient modeling detail behind certain process areas

such as solid/liquid separations, feedstock handling, and pretreatment reactor design and costs. Once the models were completed, the material and energy balance data was used in a spreadsheet model to perform the discounted cash ow rate of return analysis calculations. While many economic analysis methods exist (break even analysis, annual production cost, etc.), the discounted cash ow was used as an established method of combining capital costs with operating costs and revenues spread out over the life of the plant. Each piece of capital equipment was sized and costed based on the material balance data. Cost information for simple equipment, such as pumps, tanks, etc, was largely obtained from commercially-available costing software (Process Evaluator ICARUS 1997). Costs for more specialized equipment, such as pretreatment reactors and molecular sieve dehydration units, were obtained from a variety of vendor quotes and other sources. Many of these costs are contained in a central equipment cost database at NREL (Ibsen et al. 2000) so that a central and consistent repository can be used for a variety of projects. All operating costs for items such as feedstock, raw materials, and labor, were obtained from a variety of sources as well. Market list prices were obtained when possible from sources such as the Chemical Marketing Reporter. Using this data, a cash ow analysis was generated for the biorenery. Specic economic assumptions are further documented in the Economics section of this article. For a 20-year time period, the net present value for the biorenery is calculated. An Excel Macro is then used to calculate what the ethanol selling price must be for a net present value of zero, when a 10% (Short et al. 1995) discounting factor is used with 100% equity nancing. This has been termed the Minimum Ethanol Selling Price (MESP, $/gallon). These baseline parameters, however, can be easily raised or lowered for sensitivity analysis calculations.

Feedstock Corn stover is one of many available biomass feedstocks for a biorenery. The amount of stover that can be sustainably harvested in a particular region depends on a multitude of factors, most notably soil quality. Leaving certain percentages of

Harris Group Inc Seattle, WA, http://www.harrisgroup.com.

123

538

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

stover on the eld serves to replenish soil organic carbon and assist with erosion control. Stover is largely a heterogeneous feedstock, and has a very diverse compositional prole. This has been quantied by Ruth and Thomas (2003), and the economic impact associated with it quantied. Sufce it to say, the wide range of compositional diversity of corn stover can have tremendous impact on the overall production economics. For modeling purposes, a single composition was chosen, and is shown in Table 1.

Plant size and feedstock cost This design is not specic to any particular location, but is meant to be a general design that can further be applied for future sites of interest. Choosing a specic location can change many aspects of the design, including installation and construction costs, access to rail and transport infrastructure, and permitting requirements. A plant size of 2,000 dry metric tons per day of corn stover was selected for this design. A number of tradeoffs were considered in choosing this size, including potential feedstock availability, biorenery economies of scale, and cost of feedstock harvest and transport to the plant gate. The composition modeled for corn stover is listed in Table 1. It was derived from wet chemical analysis at NREL using a relatively small number of samples.

A feedstock cost of $30/dry ton delivered to the plant gate was targeted circa 2002. This represented a target cost for improved harvesting and logistics systems, such as single pass harvesting. Since that time, however, corn stover harvesting and logistic systems have been studied in more detail. Working with experts at Idaho National Laboratory, these delivered feedstock costs have been updated. As documented in the Ofce of Biomass Program (OBP) Multi-year Program Plan (MYPP; Biomass Multiyear Program Plan 2008), current feedstock costs (circa 2008) are on the order of $60/dry ton with 2012 targets closer to $46/dry ton delivered to the throat of the pretreatment reactor.

The process The process is depicted in Fig. 1. Baled corn stover is delivered to the plant by truck, and the bales are unloaded, broken, washed, and milled. From there, the stover is loaded to pretreatment at 30% total solids concentration. Dilute sulfuric acid is used to solubilize much of the hemicellulose to soluble sugars. Pretreatment also serves to disrupt the matrix of biomass polymeric compounds in order to facilitate enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis further downstream. Once pretreated, the hydrolysate is conditioned using a process known as overliming. Overliming requires that the liquor and solid fractions of the hydrolysate are separated, and the liquor fraction is conditioned by adding sufcient lime to raise the pH to 10.0. This not only neutralizes the acid present, but provides further detoxication through mechanisms that are not fully understood. The reaction of lime and sulfuric acid results in a gypsum precipitate that is separated from the process and hauled off as waste. The conditioned liquor is then reacidied to the proper pH (determined by the enzyme system) and mixed with the pretreated solids prior to entering enzymatic saccharication. Cellulose hydrolysis (saccharication) uses cellulase enzymes to create fermentable monomeric glucose from long chains of cellulose. Fermentation then uses microorganisms (yeast or bacteria) to ferment the mixture of sugars into ethanol. Several fermentation congurations are possible and have been researched by many. Simultaneous saccharication and fermentation (SSF) is commonly

Table 1 Corn stover modeled feedstock composition Component Glucan Xylan Lignin Ash Acetate Protein Extractives Arabinan Galactan Mannan Unknown soluble solids Moisture
a a

% Dry basis 37.4 21.1 18.0 5.2 2.9 3.1 4.7 2.9 2.0 1.6 1.1 15.0%

Unknown soluble solids are calculated by difference to close the mass balance

123

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545 Fig. 1 Overall conceptual process design

539

Feedstock Handling Pretreatment


Corn Stover Steam & Acid CO2 Ethanol Enzyme Lime

S/L Separation

Liquor

Recycle

Gypsum

Dewatering

Steam

Distillation & Ethanol Purification


Lignin Residue

Saccharification & Fermentation

Conditioning

Burner/Boiler Turbogenerator

Steam

Electricity

practiced. This has several advantages including reduced end product inhibition effects, reduced chance for contamination, and reduced cost of capital. Performing the enzymatic saccharication and fermentation in separate steps (SHF) has the advantage of being able to optimize each respective step, but sugar inhibition of the enzymes can be a problem. In addition, the pretreated liquor and solids can remain separated. In this fashion, the hemicellulosic sugars and cellulosic sugars can be fermented separately by different organisms. In this design, a hybrid hydrolysis and fermentation (HHF) is assumed. Purchased cellulase enzymes are added to the saccharication fermentors and the biomass is loaded at 20% total solids. NREL experience has shown this to be the upper limit of conventional fermentation equipment. The mixture is held at 65 C (the optimum reaction temperature for the enzyme) for approximately 36 h. At this point, saccharication is well underway, but not entirely complete. The mixture is then cooled to 41 C (the optimum temperature for the fermenting organism) and sent to fermentation, where the rest of the cellulose is saccharied while Zymomonas mobilis bacteria ferment the sugars to ethanol. The total saccharication and fermentation residence time is assumed to be 3 days (72 h). CO2 produced from fermentation is scrubbed of organics and vented to the atmosphere.

The fermented broth is then distilled in a twocolumn system to produce azeotropic ethanol. The remaining water is then removed using conventional molecular sieve dehydration technology. The stillage from distillation enters a series of dewatering steps. First, solid/liquid separation is used to recover the insoluble lignin-rich residue. This is sent to a biomass combustion system onsite where steam and electricity are generated to power the biorenery. The overall biorenery as designed is steam-limited, therefore excess electricity remains after meeting the electric needs of the renery. This is sold to the power grid for $0.04/kWh. Once the insoluble residue is separated and combusted, the remaining liquor is sent through a triple-effect evaporator system to reduce the hydraulic load that would otherwise be sent to wastewater treatment. Much of the evaporated condensate is recycled back to the front end of the process while the evaporator syrup is sent to the combustor. The remaining condensate is then sent to anaerobic and aerobic wastewater treatment. Treated water is also recycled within the process.

Economics Once the equipment is sized and properly costed, additional costs must be factored into the estimate of

123

540

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

Total Project Investment. Installation factors must be considered as well as costs for site development, permitting, insurance, taxes, etc. In this design, installation factors for individual pieces of equipment were developed. These were originally developed from a 1994 Chem Systems study (NREL Final Subcontract Report 1994), and subsequently reviewed by two engineering rms: Delta-T (Wooley et al. 1999b) and The Harris Group (Aden et al. 2002). The total installed costs for this design are shown in Table 4. The Aden et al. (2002) report documents many of the underlying economic assumptions for the overall design. Table 2 summarizes many of the major discounted cash ow parameter assumptions used for this analysis. For site-specic projects, these parameters will often vary depending on a companys location, business practices, desired prot margin, etc. The assumptions in Table 2 represent a generalized list of values, not tied to any specic site or company. While this design assumes 100% of the nancing to come from equity sources (as opposed to loans), a more typical business approach is to fund such a project with a mixture of debt and equity nancing. The IRS Modied Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) was used because it offered the shortest recovery period and largest tax deductions. Due to ination and other market factors, the time value of money does not stay constant. In order to ensure that all costs are on a comparative basis, index factors were used to put all capital, chemicals, and labor costs in the same cost years dollars. These indexing factors are shown in Table 3 and come from several published sources. These indexing factors are
Table 2 Major economic parameters used in the cash ow analysis Plant life Discount rate (Short et al. 1995) General plant depreciation General plant recovery period Steam plant depreciation Steam plant recovery period Federal tax rate Financing Construction period Working capital Start-up time

also used to update the 2002 design report costs (in year $2000) to more modern costs (year $2007). Note the signicant increase in factors since 2003. This reects the large increases in steel and energy prices seen throughout the marketplace. The resulting Total Installed Costs (TIC) and Total Project Investment (TPI) are shown in Table 4 updated to year $2007. Cost estimates developed in this fashion are often cited in engineering textbooks (Peters and Timmerhaus 1991) to have accuracy 30%.

Discussion Table 5 shows a summary of yields, rates, and conversion costs for the process as designed. The MESP can be further broken down into the cost of each process area. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. Overall, the single largest cost to the process is the feedstock cost at 38% or $0.51/gallon ethanol. The boiler/turbogenerator area presents a signicant portion of the overall capital cost of the biorenery, however, some of this is offset by the credits for process electricity and excess electricity. After feedstock, the next largest cost area is pretreatment. This is largely due to the high metallurgy costs associated with high temperature, pressure and corrosive requirements of the pretreatment reaction. The cost of cellulase enzyme assumed in this design is relatively low, contributing $0.10/gallon ethanol. However, this is a target value and not an accurate depiction of where the costs are today. In fact its very difcult to assess with certainty where todays cellulose enzyme costs lie for several reasons. First,
20 years 10% Double declining balance (DDB) 7 years 150% Declining balance 20 years 39% 100% Equity 2.5 years 5% Of total capital investment 6 months

123

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545 Table 3 Capital, chemicals, and labor indices 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a

541 Capital index factorsa 381.1 381.7 386.5 389.5 390.6 394.1 394.3 395.6 402.0 444.0 468.2 499.6 525.4 Chemicals index factorsb 139.5 142.1 147.1 148.7 149.7 156.7 158.4 157.3 164.6 172.8 187.3 196.8 203.3 Labor index factorsc 14.86 15.37 15.78 16.23 16.40 17.09 17.57 17.97 18.50 19.16 19.67 19.60 19.56

CEPCI, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SRI International Chemical Economics Handbook, US Producer Price Index Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 4 Total installed costs and project investment, year $2007

Capital cost Feed handling (captured in the delivered price of feedstock) Pretreatment Neutralization/conditioning Saccharication/fermentation Distillation and solids recovery Wastewater treatment Storage Boiler/turbogenerator Utilities Total installed cost Other costs Total project investment $ $22,700,000 $9,400,000 $11,200,000 $26,100,000 $3,700,000 $2,400,000 $46,000,000 $5,500,000 $127,000,000 $93,100,000 $220,100,000

contract prices between suppliers and purchasers are negotiated. Second, because commercial-scale cellulosic bioreneries are not yet operational, process yields are not proven but simply estimated. Press releases (Stock Exchange Announcement 2005) give a snapshot of what cost estimates may be. Wastewater and storage sections contribute very little to the overall MESP and therefore, are not active areas of research within the DOE program. Sensitivity analysis is used to understand which process parameters have the most signicant impact on the overall economics of the process. This includes parameters that are directly under research control (e.g. xylose yield) as well as parameters not under research control (e.g. electricity co-product

credit). Understanding the most signicant parameters from an economic perspective helps to better direct and focus the research. A sample of singlepoint sensitivity analyses conducted for this process is shown in Fig. 3. Parameters with the largest impacts over the ranges shown include plant size, feedstock cost, carbohydrate content of the feedstock, and cellulase enzyme cost. The advanced nature of this target design is apparent in the fact that most of the parameter permutations result in an increase in the MESP. Many other sensitivity analyses have been conducted but are not shown in this gure. A detailed energy balance has also been developed around this process (Aden et al. 2002). In this balance, the energy available in its products (ethanol

123

542 Table 5 Summary of yields, rates, and conversion costs

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

Minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) projected for 2012

$1.33/gallon (constant year 2007 dollars) 69.3 Million gallon/year 89.8 gallon per dry ton $220.1 MM $46/dry ton 8,406 h per year 2.18 (KHW/gal) 1.45 (KWH/gal) 18.3 (kg steam/gal)

Ethanol production Ethanol yield Total project investment Feedstock costincludes all onsite feed handling costs Online time Excess electricity Plant electricity use Plant steam use

Fig. 2 Cost contribution of each process area to the overall MESP

Capital Recovery Charge Grid Electricity

Raw Materials & Waste Total Plant Electricity

Process Electricity Fixed Costs

Biomass Feed Handling Pretreatment / Conditioning Hybrid Hydrolysis & Fermentation Cellulase Distillation and Solids Recovery Wastewater Treatment 2% 10% (Net) Boiler/Turbogenerator Utilities Storage 4% 1% $1.33 MESP 8% 7% 11%

38%

(Included in Price of Purchased Feedstock)


19%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

and electricity) is compared to the maximum energy available from the biomass feed. This analysis includes other energy inputs to the process, such as sensible heat effects of all feed streams and efuent streams. The energies of all streams are compared on a higher heating value (HHV) basis instead of a lower heating value basis (LHV) because of the large volumes of liquid water owing through the process. This means that the liquid water in the process is the reference state and has zero contribution to the potential energy of any stream. For this design, roughly 55% of the energy in the feedstock is recovered in the products, with the remaining losses emanating from the cooling tower, ue gas, and certain ambient sources.

Progress since the 2002 design report Signicant research and development progress has been achieved since the publication of the 2002 design report. Several multi-million dollar awards were given to companies such as DuPont, Broin (now Poet), Cargill, and High Plains Corp (now Abengoa Bioenergy) to further develop biorenery technologies. Each of these highly successful projects significantly advanced the state of the biomass R&D. Also during this time the two largest enzyme companies, Genencor and Novozymes, worked (separately) with the Department of Energy (DOE) and NREL to signicantly reduce the cost of cellulase enzymes for biomass conversion processes. Each of these enzyme

123

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545 Fig. 3 Sensitivity analysis for several parameters in the corn stover conversion process

543

companies over a 4-year period was successful in reducing the enzyme costs by over 20-fold through a series of production and genetic enhancements. Also during this time, a group of leading biomass pretreatment researchers was assembled to form the Biomass Rening Consortium for Applied Fundamental and Innovation, or CAFI for short. This project was signicant because it generated comparable data for many of the leading biomass pretreatment technologies. As part of the CAFI, technoeconomic models for each technology were also developed in order to provide the proper process and economic framework for comparison. The results of the rst phase of CAFI (Dale 2005) showed that each particular pretreatment technology possessed its own merits and no single pretreatment possessed an economic advantage over the others. Many economic tradeoffs within each process were identied. At NREL, signicant process was made in successfully increasing the overall solids loadings during pilot scale pretreatment operations. This is an important consideration for improving economies of scale and reducing overall capital intensity of a biorenery. In the 2002 timeframe, 20% solids

loading to pretreatment was the upper limit that could be regularly achieved in 1-ton per day pilot plant (Brochure 2008) and the design report established 30% solids loading as the research target. Only 2 years later, regular operation at 30% solids loadings was achieved with no xylose yield decrease. When these results were modeled at the commercial scale, a 12% decrease in MESP resulted from these process improvements. This represents just one of the many factors inuencing the overall recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass. In order to overcome these recalcitrance barriers, the Biomass Surface Characterization Laboratory (BSCL; Himmel et al. 2005) at NREL is applying microscopy techniques and tools to these biomass systems to understand at a more fundamental level what exactly takes place during and after pretreatment, and even during enzymatic hydrolysis. The images and data generated from these microscopes are being applied to develop new realizations and new paradigms that will lead to overall process enhancements. In order to quantify progress towards the $1.33/ gallon cost target, analysts at NREL have developed what are known as State of Technology (SOT)

123

544

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545

assessments (Aden 2008). These could also be thought of as experimentally veried cases since the data supplying these models is generated from actual bench- and pilot-scale experiments. In this fashion, the actual data is input into the technoeconomic models to assess what the plant economics might be if research results were scaled to commercial scale. As the SOT costs reduce over time, progress can easily be quantied as can the level of challenge remaining. This is depicted graphically in Fig. 4. Signicant progress can be seen in years 20012005 primarily as a result from the enhanced enzymes and other improvements mentioned above. The SOT ethanol price for 2007 was $2.43/gallon. In order to further reduce costs, process improvements must be made in several areas, including pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. Reductions in delivered feedstock price are also being targeted. Much has been learned from R&D since the design report was last published in 2002. In order to capture the new data and new ideas for converting corn stover to ethanol, the design report is being updated. All major assumptions from plant size to fermentation conguration are being revisited and documented to ensure that the latest thinking and industrial developments are captured. This update is scheduled for completion in early 2009. Once again the Harris Group will provide engineering guidance and expertise to this process.

acid pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation. Ethanol costs of $1.33/gallon (in year-$2007) are being targeted for this commercial scale conversion process. Current state of technology models, which take actual research results and project them to commercial scale estimate an ethanol cost of $2.43/gallon. In order to further reduce costs, process improvements must be made in several areas, including pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. As the biomass industry develops, new fuels and new feedstocks are being targeted. Technoeconomic analysis will play a key role in process development and targeting of technical and economic barriers.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Ofce of the Biomass Program under contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

References
Aden A (2008) Biochemical production of ethanol from corn stover: 2007 state of technology model. NREL/TP-51043205, May 2008. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43205. pdf Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen KN, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J, Wallace R (2002) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. NREL report TP-510-32438, June 2002. http:// www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32438.pdf Badger Engineers, Inc. Cambridge, MA (1987) Economic feasibility of an acid-hydrolysis-based ethanol plant. Subcontract Report SERI-STR-231-3142, Prepared under subcontract No ZX-3-03096-2, April 1987 Biomass Multi-year Program Plan (MYPP) (2008) Ofce of the biomass program, energy efciency and renewable energy. US Department of Energy, March 2008. http:// www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biomass_program_ mypp.pdf Bull SR (1987) Comparative energetics and economics of alternative pathways for fuel production. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Energy from Biomass and Wastes X, Institute of Gas Technology (IGT), pp 1183 1192, January 1987 Chem Systems Inc Tarrytown, NY (1987) Economic feasibility study of an enzymatic hydrolysis-based ethanol plant with prehydrolysis pretreatment. Subcontract Report Report SERI-STR-231-3135, Prepared under subcontract No XX3-03097-1, April 1987 Dale BE (ed) (2005) Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies. Bioresou Technol 96(18): 19592032 (December 2005). http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/journal/09608524

Conclusions The process design and economic results for corn stover conversion to ethanol are captured using dilute
Minimum Ethanol Selling Price ($ per gal)
$7.00 Feedstock $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00
$1.33 $5.95

Conversion

$2.52

$2.43

$1.00 $0.00 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fig. 4 State of technology assessments. Values also in constant year 2007 dollars

123

Cellulose (2009) 16:535545 EERE OBP Brochure (2008) Modeling tomorrows biorenery: the NREL biochemical pilot plant, March 2008. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41334.pdf Galbe M, Zacchi G (1992) Simulation of ethanol production processes based on enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials using ASPEN PLUS. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 3435:93104. doi:10.1007/BF02920536 Himmel M, Vinzant T, Bower S, Jechura J (2005) BSCL use plan: solving biomass recalcitrance. NREL/TP-510-37902, August 2005. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37902.pdf Ibsen K (2006) Match the effort to the R&D investment. Chemical Engineering Progress (CEP), January 2006. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Ibsen KN, Wooley RJ, Aden A, Ruth M (2000) Using databases to streamline process design and analysis. AIChE Spring 2000 National Conference, 3/09/00 Kwiatkowski JR, Mcaloon AJ, Taylor F, Johnston D (2006) Modeling the process and costs of the production of fuel ethanol by the corn dry-grind process. Ind Crops Prod 23(3):288296 Landucci R, Goodman BJ, Wyman C (1994) Methodology for evaluating the economics of biologically producing chemicals and materials from alternative feedstocks. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 45/46:677696. doi:10.1007/BF02941840 NREL Final Subcontract Report (1994) Biomass to ethanol process evaluation. Chem Systems, Tarrytown, NY, Appendix V, December 1994 Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD (1991) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York Process Evaluator ICARUS (1997) Version 4.0 ICARUS Corporation, Rockville, MD (June):30. Now part of Aspen Technologies Ruth MF, Thomas S (2003) The effect of corn stover composition on ethanol process economics. Presentation to the 25th Annual Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, May 4, 2003. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ biomass/pdfs/34040.pdf

545 Schell DJ, Riley C (1991) Technical and economic analysis of an enzymatic hydrolysis based ethanol plant. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Technical Report, June 1991 Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T (1995) A manual for the economic evaluation of energy efciency and renewable energy technologies. NREL/TP-462-5173, March 1995 Stock Exchange Announcement (2005) Novozymes and NREL reduce enzyme cost. April 14, 2005. www.novozymes.com Stone & Webster Engineering Corp Boston, MA (1987) Economic feasibility of an enzyme-based ethanol plant. Subcontract Report SERI-STR-231-3138, Prepared under subcontract No ZX-3-03097-1, April 1987 Van Walsum P, Jayawardhana K (2004) Modeling of carbonic acid pretreatment process using aspen-plus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 115:10871102. doi:10.1385/ABAB:115:13:1087 Wooley RJ, Ibsen KN (1999) Updated database for biofuels components. December 1999, NREL Internal report (Database Doc#4141) Wooley RJ, Putsche V (1996) Development of an ASPEN PLUS physical property database for biofuels components. NREL, Golden, CO, Report MP-425-20685, April 1996 Wooley R, Ruth M, Glassner D, Sheehan J (1999a) Process design and costing of bioethanol technology: a tool for determining the status and direction of research and development. Biotechnology Process 15(5):794803 Wooley R, Ruth M, Sheehan J, Ibsen KN, Majdeski H (1999b) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis current and futuristic scenarios. NREL report TP-580-26157, July 1999. http://www. nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/26157.pdf Wright JD (1998) Economics of enzymatic hydrolysis processes. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Spring National Meeting, 610 March 1988, New Orleans, LA

123

Potrebbero piacerti anche