Scitation | AIP Journals | Librarians | View MyArticles
  • Volume/Page
  • Keyword
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
   
 
 
 

JRSE has just been upgraded with many new features, including a mobile edition. Feedback is welcome.

You are Logged In You are logged in to this journal.

J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 1, 063102 (2009); doi:10.1063/1.3259170 (15 pages)

Energy recovery from sugarcane biomass residues: Challenges and opportunities of bio-oil production in the light of second generation biofuels

W. Alonso-Pippo 1,
Carlos Luengo 1,
F. Felfli 1,
Pietro Garzone 2,
and Giacinto Cornacchia 2

1 Grupos Combustíveis Alternativos, DFA/IFGW/UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil Map This map
2 ENEA's Trisaia Research Centre, CAP 75026, Rotondella, Matera, Italy Map This map

Full Text: Read Online | Download PDF (564 KB) | View Cart View Items in Cart
The lack of an alternative energy carrier to electricity with storage capability for use in off-season has to date been an unsolvable question for the sugar agroindustry. The improvement in cogeneration capacity via implementation of condensing extraction steam turbines or biomass integrated gasifier/gas turbine combined cycle and the barriers for their implementation were analyzed. The introduction of a fast pyrolysis (3 tons/h) module (FPM3) as a solution for off-season energy demand in the sugarcane agroindustry was also analyzed. The production cost of 1 ton of bio-oil for FPM3 condition was calculated at 87 USD/ton of bio-oil (0.104 USD/l of bio-oil). The economic feasibility of the FPM3 was estimated, comparing the added values for two alternatives: first alternative regarding the sugar and bioethanol simultaneous production (first generation biofuel production) and second alternative regarding the sugar and bio-oil simultaneous production (second generation biofuel production). Although the highest added value figure for a ton of sugarcane (49.30 USD) was gotten by the second alternative, the bioethanol production for cars fuel continues to be most attractive business option because of large fuel ethanol market demand.

© 2009 American Institute of Physics

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors want to thank to Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) TRIL PROGRAMME and Brazilian National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) (Process 150604/2009–2) for the support to this work.

Article Outline

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. BARRIER TO PLANT COGENERATION IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION (CONDENSING EXTRACTION STEAM TURBINE AND BIOMASS INTEGRATED GASIFIER/GAS TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE)
  3. FAST PYROLYSIS AT SUGAR MILL
    1. Advantages and disadvantages
    2. Energy requirement for bagasse and SCAR FPM3 at medium size sugar mills
  4. FAST PYROLYSIS AT SUGAR MILL: THE OPPORTUNITIES
    1. Technical and economical assessment
      1. Feedstock value estimation
      2. FPM3 and bio-oil production cost
      3. Methodology of added value/added production cost analysis
        1. Added production cost and added value analysis: First generation biofuel (bioethanol) versus second generation biofuel (bio-oil)
  5. CONCLUSIONS

RELATED ARTICLES

loading
View more related articles.

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

agriculture, biofuel, cogeneration, pyrolysis, steam turbines

PACS

ARTICLE DATA

History
Received 23 March 2009
Accepted 14 October 2009
Published 6 November 2009
Permalink
http://link.aip.org/link/JRSEBH/v1/i6/p063102/s1

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:

19417012 (print)  
19417012 (online)

Publisher:

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef American Institute of Physics

  1. J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 14288 (2006). [MEDLINE]
  2. B Walsh, “Solving the biofuels versus food problem,” Time, January 7, 2008.
  3. Earth Policy Institute, “World may be facing highest grain prices in history,” January 2007.
  4. D. Meier and O. Faix, Bioresour. Technol. 68, 71 (1999).
  5. C. de Armas, “Biomass Gasification for Ethanol and Energy Production: First Approach,” Proceedings of the First National Workshop on Ethanol Starting from Lignocellulosic Residues (original in Spanish), Cuban Institute of Research on Sugarcane Derivates (ICIDCA), Havana, Cuba, 31 January 2008 (unpublished).
  6. C. E. Vaz Rossell, Proceedings of the Workshop on Bioethanol from Sugarcane Residues, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 18 March 2008 (unpublished).
  7. T. W. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
  8. W. Alonso Pippo and J. Del Rey Ocampo, Technology for Biofuels and Bio-Syn Fuels Production: Preliminary Results (Institute of Material and Reagent University of Havana, internal restricted report, 2004) (original in Spanish).
  9. J. Finguerut, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bioethanol Production, Lorena, São Paulo, Brazil, 2006 (unpublished) (original in Portuguese).
  10. L. V. Leal and M. Regis, Proceedings of the Workshop on Energy Cane, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 5 October 2007 (unpublished).
  11. J. Finguerut, Proceedings of the Workshop on Sugarcane Bagasse and Trash Hydrolysis, Institute of Technological Research, São Paulo, Brazil, 2006 (unpublished).
  12. J. P. Lange, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 1, 39 (2007).
  13. J. S. Yuan, K. H. Tiller, H. Al-Ahmad, N. R. Stewart, and C. Neal, Jr., Science 13, 421 (2008).
  14. O. J. Sanchez Toro and C. A. Cardona Alzate, Fuel Ethanol Production: An Alternative to Agro-Industry Development, PNUD and Colombian National University, Campus Manizales, Manizales, Colombia, 2007 (in Spanish).
  15. W. Alonso-Pippo, C. A. Luengo, J. Koehlinger, P. Garzone, and G. Cornacchia, Energy Policy 36, 2163 (2008).
  16. B. M. Jenkins, L. L. Baxter, T. R. Miles, Jr., and T. R. Miles, Fuel Process. Technol. 54, 17 (1998).
  17. A. Demirbas, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 30, 219 (2004).
  18. R. Zanzi, K. Sjöström, and E. Björnbom, Fuel 75, 545 (1996).
  19. E. Hugot, Handbook of Cane Sugar Engineering, 3rd ed. (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1986).
  20. W. Alonso Pippo, P. Garzone, and G. Cornacchia, Waste Manag. 27, 869 (2007). [MEDLINE]
  21. EC-ASEAN, COGEN Programme, Proceedings of the POWER-GEN Asia Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, 5–7 October 2004 (unpublished).
  22. E. D. Larson, R. H. Williams, L. V. Leal, and M. Regis, Energy for Sustainable Development 5, 54 (2001).
  23. IEA, Renewables for Power Generation. Status and Prospect. OECD, http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/renewpower_2003.pdf (2003).
  24. A. V. Ensinas, M. Modesto, S. A. Nebra, and L. Serra, “Reduction of irreversibility generation in sugar and ethanol production from sugarcane,” Energy 34, 680 (2008) (ScienceDirect). [Inspec]
  25. S. C. Kamate and P. B. Gangavati, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 1187 (2009) (ScienceDirect). [Inspec]
  26. A. Kumar, P. Pallav, R. Santosh, and C. K. Tara, Biomass Bioenergy 22, 195 (2002).
  27. EnerCon, Consultancy Service “Burning Bagasse,” http://energyconcepts.tripod.com/energyconcepts/bagasse.htm (2005).
  28. B. M. Jenkins, Biomass Bioenergy 13, 1 (1997).
  29. Phyllis, Database for biomass and waste, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis (2005).
  30. R. J. Fernández, J. A. Pérez, S. O. Pérez, and W. Alonso Pippo, Proceedings of the International Conference of Sugarcane Derivates, Diversification 2004, Cuban Research Institute of Sugarcane Derivates, ICIDCA, Havana, Cuba, June 2004 (unpublished).
  31. C. Z. Wu, H. Huang, S. P. Zheng, and X. L. Yin, Bioresour. Technol. 83, 65 (2002). [MEDLINE]
  32. Matches, Reactor cost estimate, http://www.matche.com/equipcost/reactor.htm (2003).
  33. Marshalll, Marshall & Swift equipment cost index, http://www.che.com/pindex/index.php (2003).
  34. A. V. Bridgwater, Economics of Primary Fuels Production from Biomass (Energy Research Group, Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry Department, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, United Kingdom, 1990).

Figures (6) Tables (9)

Figures (click on thumbnails to view enlargements)

FIG. 1
Traditional cogeneration scheme BPST; sugar production only (52% steam/ton of milled cane).
FIG. 1 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)
FIG. 2
Improved variant of sugar mill cogeneration scheme; simultaneous sugar-ethanol production.
FIG. 2 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)
FIG. 3
Sugar mill cogeneration scheme; CEST; and simultaneous sugar-ethanol production.
FIG. 3 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)
FIG. 4
Sugar mill cogeneration scheme; CEST; and cogeneration system (sugar production only).
FIG. 4 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)
FIG. 5
Sugar mill cogeneration scheme; CEST; and bio-oil production starting from SCAR.
FIG. 5 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)
FIG. 6
Pilot plant (20 kg/h) for biomass residues thermoconversion into liquid and gaseous biofuels.
FIG. 6 View Enlargement | Download High Resolution Image (.zip file)

Tables

Table I. Sugarcane energy content (average figures for currently commercial sugarcane varieties).
Table II. FPM3 main features.
Table III. Maximum acceptable price of sugarcane solid residues used as fuel. Data used: ηresidue and ηbunker C are 0.6 and 0.8, respectively; pricebunker = 193.7 USD/ton (crude oil price 180 USD/ton); HHVbunker C = 43 MJ/kg; LHVbunker C = 40.38 MJ/kg; additional cost = 0; sugarcane residues moisture content: 50% of weight; bunker C moisture content: 11% [USD (2008)].
Table IV. Estimated capital cost of FPM3 equipments.
Table V. FPM3 capital cost of investment.
Table VI. FPM3 operation cost and bio-oil production cost. Basis for estimation: (1) 1 metric ton of bio-oil; (2) two workers; (3) FPM3 (one module); (4) three work shifts; (5) milling season: 160 days/year; (6) depreciation period: 10 years; (7) FPM3 capital cost: $940 000.00; (8) bio-oil production: 48 tons/day (70% process efficiency); (9) annual bio-oil production: 7680 tons/year; (10) previous expenses R&D: $25 000.00.
Table VIII. Added value/added cost analysis. First alternative: 100 tons of cane. The average yields the following: sugar—0.11 tons/1 ton of cane; ethanol—85 l/1 ton of cane.
Table IX. Added value/added cost analysis; second alternative (100 tons of cane).
Table VII. Alternatives production schemes of a sugar factory.

Close
Close Map Window

Advertising Info

Copyright © American Institute of Physics
Rights and Permissions  |   Disclaimer   |   Subscriptions and Pricing

crossref