Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery

A computational tool to compare sustainability

impacts of different production strategies in a
biorefinery context

Otvio Cavalett

Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais - CNPEM

Laboratrio Nacional de Cincia e Tecnologia do Bioetanol CTBE
 Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais - CNPEM
Laboratrio Nacional de Cincia e Tecnologia do Bioetanol - CTBE

CTBE was founded to solve main technological

bottlenecks of sugarcane ethanol
Agriculture
Industry
Basic Science
Sustainability
Technological Assessment

Lab. Nacional de Lab Nacional de Lab. Nacional de

Luz Sncrotron Biocincias Nanotecnologia
sugarcane production chain
 sugarcane biorefinery

Sugarchemistry
-Bioplastics
Sugar -Buthanol
-MEG/PEG
-Others

Juice Ethanolchemistry
Stalks Ethanol -Ethylene
(sucrose)
-Diethyl ether
Sugarcane -Others

Sugarchemistry
-Chemical products

Bagasse Glucose liquor Second generation

Trash
Pretreatment ethanol
Hydrolysis Lignocellulosic
residue Lignochemistry
Field Lignocellulosic -Chemical products
material Pentoses Xylitol, other
liquor chemicals Energy to the plant
(thermal and electric)
Second gen. Fuel
ethanol Electricity
(to the grid)
Biogas

Source: Lago et al., 2012. Sugarcane as a carbon source. Biomaas and Bioenrgy.
sugarcane production chain
virtual sugarcane biorefinery
Fraction of area with
mechanical harvesting

Quantity of straw
transported with stalks
Herbicide application

Selecting type of tractor

for this operation
 CanaSoft outputs
environmental results economic results
Other
4%
Fossil depletion
0,020 19%
Agricultural land 41%
Other
occupation 1%
0,015
Particulate matter
Fossil depletion
11%
formation
0,010 Climate change on
Pt

human health Agricultural land

arvesting Mechanized occupation
harvesting 24%
0,005 Particulate matter
formation

0,000 Climate change operations

Agricultural on Inputs
human health
Manual harvesting Mechanized Transport Vinasse spreading
harvesting Land Taxes
 sensitivity analysis - Morris method
top 15 variables at the sugarcane agricultural sector
1. intensification factor of sugarcane area
2. yield
3. processing capacity of the plant
4. cost of trucks
5. global agricultural operation efficiency (man, maintenance, operational)
6. cost of land
7. effective days of the harvesting season
8. number of harvestings per cycle
9. life spam of trucks
10.number of harvesting lines for the harvester
11.salvage value of trucks
12.fraction of cane transported by truck with trailer
13.fraction of mechanical harvesting
14.fraction of sugarcane harvest with 12 months
15.cost of diesel
 agricultural technological alternatives assessed

harvesting sweet reduced straw

systems sorghum tillage recovery
 agricultural technological alternatives assessed

harvesting sweet reduced straw

systems sorghum tillage recovery
 sugarcane production costs
Planting Harversting, loading and transportation Cultivation Land and taxes
30,00

25,00
5,38 5,38
20,00
US$/TC

4,21 4,46
15,00

10,00 9,57 8,63

5,00
5,27 5,27
0,00
Manual harvesting Mechanized harvesting
 harvesting, loading and transportation costs
Harvesting and loading
Labor
5,00 Tractors and Harvesters 4,74
4,50 Fuel and lubricating oil
4,00 Transportation
3,46
3,50 Labor
3,00 Trucks
2,71
US$ / tc

Fuels and tires

2,50
2,00
1,51
1,50
0,99 0,99 1,11
1,00 0,82 0,90
0,44
0,50 0,30 0,20
0,00
Manual harvesting Mechanized harvesting
 relative environmental impacts - ReCiPe
0,020
Other
0,015
Fossil depletion

0,010
Pt

Agricultural land
occupation
0,005 Particulate matter
formation

0,000 Climate change on

human health
Manual Mechanized
harvesting harvesting
 Sugarcane Straw
techonlogical routes assessed Steam and
Electricity

Lignocellulosic Heat and power

Cleaning
material cogeneration

Residual solids
Extraction of
ethanol 1G sugars
Bagasse
ethanol 2G
Pretreatment Cellulose
butanol 1G2G
Hydrolysis
Biogas
FDCA
Ethylene Glycol

Juice treatment Glucose liquor

Pentoses liquor
PEF
FDCA production
polymerization

Juice
Juice treatment Biodigestion
concentration
PEF

Juice
Fermentation ABE Fermentation Distillation
concentration
Molasses
Distillation and
Crystallization Distillation Acetone
Rectification
Ethanol

Drying Dehydration Distillation

Anhydrous Liquid-Liquid
Sugar Catalytic reaction Butanol
Ethanol sepatation

Hydrated Ethanol Distillation Distillation Hexanol

 Sugarcane Straw
techonlogical routes assessed Steam and
Electricity

Lignocellulosic Heat and power

Cleaning
material cogeneration

Residual solids
Extraction of
ethanol 1G sugars
Bagasse
ethanol 2G
Pretreatment Cellulose
butanol 1G2G
Hydrolysis
Biogas
FDCA
Ethylene Glycol

Juice treatment Glucose liquor

Pentoses liquor
PEF
FDCA production
polymerization

Juice
Juice treatment Biodigestion
concentration
PEF

Juice
Fermentation ABE Fermentation Distillation
concentration
Molasses
Distillation and
Crystallization Distillation Acetone
Rectification
Ethanol

Drying Dehydration Distillation

Sugar
Anhydrous
Ethanol
integrated or not to 1G biorefinery
Catalytic reaction Liquid-Liquid
sepatation
Butanol

Hydrated Ethanol Distillation Distillation Hexanol

process flow diagram
 Main Technical Parameters
Parameter Value
Plant operation sugarcane processed (TC/year) 2,000,000
Sugarcane quality - fibers content (%) 13
- TRS content (%) 15.3
- trash produced in the fields (kg/TC, dry basis) 140
Efficiency sugar extraction in the mills (%) 96
fermentation (%) 90
boiler 90 bar (LHV basis) (%) 87
Sugarcane bagasse/trash cellulose content (dry basis) (%) 40.7
hemicellulose content (dry basis) (%) 26.5
lignin content (dry basis) (%) 21.9
Sugarcane bagasse/trash moisture (%) 50/15
Steam explosion hemicellulose conversion (%) 70
cellulose conversion (%) 2
Enzymatic hydrolysis (current/future technology) celullose conversion (%) 60/70
solids loading 10/15
reaction time 72h/48h
Pentoses fermentation to ethanol conversion (%) 80
 evaluated scenarios

1G 1G2G 1G2G 2G
optimized current future stand alone
technology technology
use of trash (50%)
60% hydrolysis yield 70% hydrolysis yield Future
surplus electricity technology
10% solids 15% solids
90 bar boilers Receiving
pentose biodigestion pentose
dehydration using feedstock from a
molecular sieves high investment and fermentation to
1G (optimized)
enzyme costs ethanol
reduction on steam lower investment
with surplus
consumption bagasse
and enzyme costs
 outputs
1G 82
1G2G - CT 107
ethanol 1G2G - FT 116 L/TC
(anhydrous)
1G - SB 82
2G - FT 35

1G 173
1G2G - CT 77
electricity 1G2G - FT 81 kWh/TC
1G - SB 34
2G - FT 42

Source: Dias et al., 2012. Integrated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production from
sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresource technology
 economic impacts
(anhydrous ethanol)

1G 263
1G2G - CT 346
investment 1G2G - FT 316 M$
1G - SB 218
2G - FT 200

1G 14.9
internal rate of 1G2G - CT 13.4
1G2G - FT 16.8 % per yr
return 1G - SB 14.9
2G - FT 10.0

1G 0.37
1G2G - CT 0.36
ethanol cost 1G2G - FT 0.33 $/L
1G - SB 0.39
2G - FT 0.35

Source: Dias et al., 2012. Integrated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production from
sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresource technology
estimated costs of second generation ethanol
Integrated to 1st generation plant

1G ethanol $ 0.37/L

2G ethanol (current technology) $ 0.39/L

2G ethanol(future technology) $ 0.35/L

Future technology allows a competitive

production cost.
 environmental impacts
1G 0.39
global warming 1G2G - CT 0.39 kg CO2eq
1G2G - FT 0.35
potential 1G - SB 0.41
2G - FT 0.15

1G 2.66
1G2G - CT 2.76 MJ
energy use 1G2G - FT 2.40
1G - SB 3.07
2G - FT 1.04
1G 75
1G2G - CT 80 g 1,4-DBeq
(human)toxicity 1G2G - FT 72
1G - SB 80
2G - FT 34
1G 1.40
1G2G - CT 1.36 m2/year
land use 1G2G - FT 1.20
1G - SB 1.47
2G - FT 0.50
Source: Based on Dias et al., 2012. Integrated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production
from sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresource technology
 environmental impacts

1G: Autonomous Distillery 1G2G-C: Integrated 1st and 2nd Gen Ethanol Production (Current Technology) 1G2G-F:
Integrated 1st and 2nd Gen Ethanol Production (Future Technology) 1G-LM: Autonomous Distillery with Surplus
Lignocellulosic Material 2G-F: 2nd Gen Ethanol Production (Future Technology)
environmental impacts sensitivity
global warming potential
Obrigado!!
otavio.cavalett@bioetanol.org.br
Antonio Bonomi Marcelo Zaiat
Bruna Morais Marcos B. D. Watanabe
Charles D.F. Jesus Marina O.S. Dias
Edgardo O. Gomez Mateus F. Chagas
Edvaldo R. Morais Mylene C. A. F. Rezende
Elmer C. Rivera Nathalie Sanghikian
Henrique C. J. Franco Otvio Cavalett
Isabelle L. M. Sampaio Paulo Eduardo Mantelatto
Joo Luis Nunes Carvalho Rubens Maciel Filho
Lucas G. Pavanello Tassia L. Junqueira
Lucas G. Pereira Terezinha F. Cardoso
Marcelo P. Cunha Vera L. R. Gouveia
 Investment data
1G - Autonomous distillery
US$ 150 million Dedini (2010)
2,000,000 TC/year
22 bar boiler
Azeotropic distillation
Technological improvements (optimized 1G):
+ 40 % on distillation sector (molecular sieves)
+ 40 % on cogeneration sector (90 bar boilers)
+ 10% on distillation sector (heat exchanger
network)
Transmission lines electricity credit
Costs (R$/km): R$ 480,000/km
Length: 40 km
R$ 19.2 million for transmission lines (1)
(2)
2G / Biodigestion
Current technology: US$ 70 million 268,350(1) t
bagasse/year (US$525/t dry bagasse)
Future technology: US$ 76 million 462,451(1) t
bagasse/year (US$ 327/t dry bagasse)
Pentoses biodigestion(2): US$ 13 million for
processing 76,000 Nm biogas/day
Enzyme Costs
Current technology: US$ 0.11/L cellulosic
ethanol (producers estimate)
Future technology : US$ 0.05/L cellulosic ethanol
(CTBE estimate)
Bioetanol combustvel: uma oportunidade para o Brasil, CGEE, 2009
Dedini turn key stillage biodigestion unit