Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery A computational tool to compare sustainability impacts of different production strategies in a biorefinery context Otávio Cavalett Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais - CNPEM Laboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol CTBE
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais - CNPEM Laboratório Nacional de Ciência 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 Luz Síncrotron Lab Nacional de Biociências Lab. Nacional de Nanotecnologia
sugarcane production chain
sugarcane biorefinery Sugar Sugarchemistry -Bioplastics -Buthanol -MEG/PEG -Others Sugarcane Stalks Juice (sucrose) Ethanol Ethanolchemistry -Ethylene -Diethyl ether -Others Sugarchemistry -Chemical products Trash Field Bagasse Lignocellulosic material Pretreatment Hydrolysis Pentoses liquor Glucose liquor Lignocellulosic residue Xylitol, other chemicals Second gen. ethanol Biogas Second generation ethanol Lignochemistry -Chemical products Fuel Energy to the plant (thermal and electric) Electricity (to the grid) 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
Pt CanaSoft outputs environmental results economic results Other 0,020 0,015 Fossil depletion Agricultural land occupation Particulate matter formation Other 1% 19% Fossil depletion 11% 4% 41% 0,010 rvesting 0,005 Mechanized harvesting Climate change on human health Agricultural land occupation Particulate matter formation 24% 0,000 Manual harvesting Mechanized harvesting Climate Agricultural change operations on human health Transport Land Inputs Vinasse spreading 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 systems sweet sorghum reduced tillage straw recovery
agricultural technological alternatives assessed harvesting systems sweet sorghum reduced tillage straw recovery
US$/TC sugarcane production costs Planting Harversting, loading and transportation Cultivation Land and taxes 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 5,38 5,38 4,21 4,46 9,57 8,63 5,27 5,27 Manual harvesting Mechanized harvesting
US$ / tc 5,00 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 harvesting, loading and transportation costs 3,46 2,71 0,99 Harvesting and loading 0,99 Manual harvesting Labor Tractors and Harvesters Fuel and lubricating oil Transportation Labor Trucks Fuels and tires 1,11 4,74 1,51 0,44 0,30 0,20 0,82 Mechanized harvesting 0,90
Pt relative environmental impacts - ReCiPe 0,020 Other 0,015 Fossil depletion 0,010 Agricultural land occupation 0,005 Particulate matter formation 0,000 Manual harvesting Mechanized harvesting Climate change on human health
Sugarcane Straw techonlogical routes assessed Steam and Electricity Cleaning Lignocellulosic material Heat and power cogeneration Residual solids Extraction of sugars Bagasse Biogas ethanol 1G ethanol 2G butanol 1G2G FDCA Pretreatment Cellulose Hydrolysis Ethylene Glycol Juice treatment Pentoses liquor Glucose liquor FDCA production PEF polymerization Juice treatment Juice concentration Biodigestion PEF Juice concentration Molasses Fermentation ABE Fermentation Distillation Crystallization Distillation and Rectification Ethanol Distillation Acetone Drying Dehydration Distillation Sugar Anhydrous Ethanol Catalytic reaction Liquid-Liquid sepatation Butanol Hydrated Ethanol Distillation Distillation Hexanol
Sugarcane Straw techonlogical routes assessed Steam and Electricity Cleaning Lignocellulosic material Heat and power cogeneration Residual solids Extraction of sugars Bagasse Biogas ethanol 1G ethanol 2G butanol 1G2G FDCA Pretreatment Cellulose Hydrolysis Ethylene Glycol Juice treatment Pentoses liquor Glucose liquor FDCA production PEF polymerization Juice treatment Juice concentration Biodigestion PEF Juice concentration Molasses Fermentation ABE Fermentation Distillation Crystallization Distillation and Rectification Ethanol Distillation Acetone Drying Sugar Dehydration Anhydrous Ethanol Distillation integrated Catalytic reaction or Liquid-Liquid not to 1G Butanol biorefinery sepatation 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 technology future technology stand alone use of trash (50%) surplus electricity 90 bar boilers dehydration using molecular sieves reduction on steam consumption 60% hydrolysis yield 10% solids pentose biodigestion high investment and enzyme costs 70% hydrolysis yield 15% solids pentose fermentation to ethanol lower investment and enzyme costs Future technology Receiving feedstock from a 1G (optimized) with surplus bagasse
outputs 1G 82 ethanol (anhydrous) 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 1G - SB 82 107 116 L/TC 2G - FT 35 1G 173 electricity 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 77 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) investment 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 1G - SB 218 2G - FT 200 263 346 316 M$ internal rate of return 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 1G - SB 2G - FT 10.0 14.9 13.4 16.8 14.9 % per yr ethanol cost 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 1G - SB 0.33 2G - FT 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.39 $/L 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 2G ethanol (current technology) 2G ethanol(future technology) $ 0.37/L $ 0.39/L $ 0.35/L Future technology allows a competitive production cost.
global warming potential environmental impacts 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 0.39 0.39 0.35 1G - SB 0.41 2G - FT 0.15 kg CO 2 eq energy use (human)toxicity land use 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 2.66 2.76 2.40 1G - SB 3.07 2G - FT 1.04 1G 75 1G2G - CT 80 1G2G - FT 72 1G - SB 80 2G - FT 34 1G 1G2G - CT 1G2G - FT 1.40 1.36 1.20 1G - SB 1.47 2G - FT 0.50 MJ g 1,4-DBeq m 2 /year 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 1 st and 2 nd Gen Ethanol Production (Current Technology) 1G2G-F: Integrated 1 st and 2 nd Gen Ethanol Production (Future Technology) 1G-LM: Autonomous Distillery with Surplus Lignocellulosic Material 2G-F: 2 nd Gen Ethanol Production (Future Technology)
environmental impacts sensitivity global warming potential
Obrigado!! otavio.cavalett@bioetanol.org.br Antonio Bonomi Bruna Morais Charles D.F. Jesus Edgardo O. Gomez Edvaldo R. Morais Elmer C. Rivera Henrique C. J. Franco Isabelle L. M. Sampaio João Luis Nunes Carvalho Lucas G. Pavanello Lucas G. Pereira Marcelo P. Cunha Marcelo Zaiat Marcos B. D. Watanabe Marina O.S. Dias Mateus F. Chagas Mylene C. A. F. Rezende Nathalie Sanghikian Otávio Cavalett Paulo Eduardo Mantelatto Rubens Maciel Filho Tassia L. Junqueira Terezinha F. Cardoso Vera L. R. Gouveia
Investment data 1G - Autonomous distillery US$ 150 million Dedini (2010) 2,000,000 TC/year 22 bar boiler Azeotropic distillation 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) 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 Pentoses biodigestion (2) : US$ 13 million for processing 76,000 Nm³ biogas/day Enzyme Costs Current technology: US$ 0.11/L cellulosic ethanol (producer s estimate) Future technology : US$ 0.05/L cellulosic ethanol (CTBE estimate) (1) Bioetanol combustível: uma oportunidade para o Brasil, CGEE, 2009 (2) Dedini turn key stillage biodigestion unit