4.8 Article

Techno-economic analysis of ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse using a Liquefaction plus Simultaneous Saccharification and co-Fermentation process

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 208, Issue -, Pages 42-48

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.093

Keywords

Lignocellulose; Xylose; Ethanol; Hemicellulose; L plus SScF

Funding

  1. Project OTKA of the Hungarian National, Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) [PD-108389]
  2. New Hungary Development Plan [TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0002]
  3. U.S. Department of Agriculture [2011-10006-30358, 2012-67009-19596]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of International Affairs [DE-PI0000031]
  5. BASF
  6. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
  7. NIFA [578507, 2012-67009-19596] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A techno-economic analysis was conducted for a simplified lignocellulosic ethanol production process developed and proven by the University of Florida at laboratory, pilot, and demonstration scales. Data obtained from all three scales of development were used with Aspen Plus to create models for an experimentally-proven base-case and 5 hypothetical scenarios. The model input parameters that differed among the hypothetical scenarios were fermentation time, enzyme loading, enzymatic conversion, solids loading, and overall process yield. The minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) varied between 50.38 and 62.72 US cents/L. The feedstock and the capital cost were the main contributors to the production cost, comprising between 23-28% and 40-49% of the MESP, respectively. A sensitivity analysis showed that overall ethanol yield had the greatest effect on the MESP. These findings suggest that future efforts to increase the economic feasibility of a cellulosic ethanol process should focus on optimization for highest ethanol yield. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available