Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
8 Technological
specifications
This section describes the full set of scenarios 8.1 The full set of scenarios
analyzed and the design specifications for The number of combinations was increased in order
production. First, the choice of scenarios using to address some technical issues, resulting in a total
combinations of technical options for sugar, of twenty-five distinct scenarios based on relevant
ethanol, and electricity production are described. and feasible combinations of the technological
Then the design specifications for expected product options. These are given in Table 19. The
yields and energy requirements for the sucrose scenarios in the table are grouped by cogeneration
utilization strategies are provided. Next, additional option. Some additional minor distinctions required
co-products, with emphasis on stillage from ethanol additional scenarios to be explored.
production, are discussed. Finally, the detailed One such addition was made in order to allow a
process energy requirements and accounting for the distinction between the choice of A and B molasses
bagasse utilization strategies are listed. as feedstock for ethanol production, which affects
43
Stockholm Environment Institute
the sugar and ethanol yields. This choice pressurized gasification is adopted (for the BIG-CC
effectively represents the likely boundaries for scenarios).
flexible production strategies, since the key
economic tradeoff between sugar and ethanol 8.2 Product yields
production would occur in this range. The scenarios Sugar and alcohol yields for the main product
added to reflect this distinction are designated by strategies are given in Table 20. Sugar yields
A or B in the scenario titles below. The lack of an depend on both agronomic and industrial factors,
A or B designation where ethanol is being produced while ethanol yields depend mainly on the
means that the configuration is based on ethanol- fermentable sugar content of the feedstock used.
only or fixed-quantity sucrose strategies, the latter Where cane juice is used in the Ethanol Only
case implying that C molasses is being used. sucrose strategy, essentially all of the potential
Another distinction arises with respect to fermentable sugars are being utilized, and the
mechanical power demand at the factory, which can maximum ethanol yield is 75.8 liters per tonne of
be based on partial or full electrification. The cane (tc). The remaining strategies differ in yield
scenarios designated by P or F in the scenario titles as a result of stopping at the first, second, or third
below reflect this distinction. Older factory designs strike in sugar production, the outputs of which are
have used exhaust steam turbines to run knives, A, B, or C molasses, respectively. The Sugar plus
shredders, and other equipment needed for Ethanol strategy is equivalent to the fixed
processing. Redesigning the factory to be fully production strategy eluded to earlier. A producer
electrified and running these processes with electric would pursue such a strategy when sugar is the
motors can improve the overall efficiency of these higher-valued product, and the remaining sugars in
plants. Full electrification would always be optimal the final or C molasses cannot be economically
where the sugar factory is well integrated into the extracted. A producer would pursue flexible
national electricity grid and the option to buy and production strategies when the relative market
sell from/to the grid is relevant. In the conventional values of sugar and ethanol are fluctuating and/or
case where back-pressure steam turbines are used, deemed uncertain.
full electrification need not be considered since the Output Sucrose Strategy
advantages would be insignificant and not Sugar Ethanol Sugar Flexible Flexible
exploitable, because there is no surplus electricity. Only Only plus Production Production
Ethanol A B
The option of full factory electrification is quite
Sugar Yield 115.5 N/A 115.5 91.3 108.8
relevant where advanced cogeneration technologies (tonnes/tc)
like CEST are employed. Consequently, the CEST Alcohol Yield N/A 75.8* 8.8 22.9 12.7
configurations were split into two cases. In the case (Liters/tc)
of BIG-CC, only full electrification should be *Note that the feedstock here is cane juice rather than molasses.
considered because of the high efficiency of
electricity production. Table 20: Sugar and alcohol yields by sucrose strategy
A final distinction was based on two possible
techniques for the biomass gasifier unit:
8.3 Energy requirements and outputs
atmospheric pressure or pressurized gasification.
Steam and electricity production are shown by
The pressurized unit would be more efficient but it
sucrose strategy in Table 21. The main differences
is not fully commercially tested and would also
arise from the steam and electricity requirements of
come at a higher capital cost. It should also be
cane preparation and sugar production, since
noted that the integration of a BIG-CC unit of either
ethanol production requires very little external
type would require some redesign in the factory for
energy input due to the exothermic (heat-producing)
steam extraction. The cost of such design changes
nature of the fermentation process. Therefore, the
is very small in comparison to the high cost of the
Sugar Only strategy has the highest energy
BIG-CC unit itself, and thus has not been included
requirements: 460 kg steam and 15 kWh of
in capital cost estimates.
electricity per tonne of cane (tc) processed. Sugar
The scenario designations in Table 19 indicate:
plus Ethanol and Flexible Production strategies
the cogeneration option; the sucrose strategy (1-4);
have lower electricity needs because ethanol
the molasses used for ethanol production (for the
production itself contributes positively to the overall
flexible production scenarios); whether partial or
energy balance. The energy requirements for the
full electrification is adopted (for the CEST option
Ethanol Only strategy are attributed to extracting
scenarios); and whether atmospheric pressure or
ane juice from the cane stalks.
44
Sugarcane Resources for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Luena, Zambia
Consumption Sucrose Strategy ethanol from C molasses). For the Reference (low-
Sugar Ethanol Sugar Flexible pressure) and CEST cases, the analysis was
Only Only plus Production conducted for two alternative mill sizes (250 or 300
Ethanol tonnes/hour), the choice of which would depend on
Steam/Cane 460.0 420.0 460.0 460.0
(kg/tonne)
the length of the harvest season and related
Steam/Alcohol N/A 4.8 N/A N/A parameters.
(kg/liter) The most significant parameter for comparison
Electricity/Cane 15.0 11.0 12.5 13.0
(kWh/tonne)
across the three cases is the surplus power available.
Electricity/Alcohol N/A 0.1 N/A N/A In the conventional case, less than one MW of
(kWh/liter) surplus capacity is available and this would not be
Table 21: Steam and electricity consumption by sucrose sufficient to justify export sales. In the case of
strategy CEST, the surplus is 31 to 34 MW, while with BIG-
CC it is 60 to 76 MW. This means that with BIG-
The energy characteristics of the factory are CC, electricity generation will be nearly two orders
summarized in Table 22, Table 23 and Table 24 for of magnitude higher than in the conventional case.
the three basic cogeneration options (bagasse There would even be a surplus of bagasse during
strategies) under the sugar plus ethanol sucrose the harvest season, which might be sold if there
strategy scenarios (fixed quantities of sugar and were other market options.
Mill Size
300 Tonnes of Sugarcane per Hour 250 Tonnes of Sugarcane per Hour
Steam demand (kg/tc) 460 460
Steam demand (t/h) 138 115
Steam raised (t/h) 141 118
Boilers capacity (t/h) 150 120
Mechanical power demand (kWh/tc) 15 15
Mechanical power (kW) 4,500 3,750
Electricity demand (kWh/tc) 13 13
Power requirement (kW) 3,750 3,125
Power capacity (kW) 4,708 3,708
Surplus of power (kW) 958 583
Annual bagasse consumption (t/year) 227,023 195,972
Bagasse availability (t/year)* 299,520 249,600
Surplus of bagasse (t/year) 72,497 53,628
Mill Size
300 Tonnes of Sugarcane per Hour 250 Tonnes of Sugarcane per Hour
Harvest Off-season Harvest Off-season
Steam demand (kg/tc) 350 0 350 0
Steam demand (t/h) 105 0 87 0
Steam raised (t/h) 220 110 220 110
Boilers capacity (t/h) 220 220
Mechanical power demand (kWh/tc) 15 0 15 0
Mechanical power (kW) 4,500 0 3,750 0
Electricity demand (kWh/tc) 12 0 12 0
Power requirement (kW) 3,750 0 3,125 0
Power capacity (kW) 40,055 23,016 41,046 23,016
Surplus of power (kW) 31,805 23,016 34,171 23,016
Annual bagasse consumption (t/year) 299,520 249,600
Bagasse availability (t/year)* 299,520 249,600
Surplus of bagasse (t/year) 0 0
Trash Availability (t/year) 225,000 — 225,000
Hours of Operation off-season 3,237 — 2,198
Table 23: Energy characteristics with Condensing Extraction Steam Turbine (CEST3P)
45
Stockholm Environment Institute
Table 24: Energy characteristics with Biomass Integrated Gasifier/Combined Cycle (BIG3A)
46
Sugarcane Resources for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Luena, Zambia
47
Stockholm Environment Institute
48