Modeling and Analysis

Techno-economic assessment of
biogas to liquid fuels conversion
technology via Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis
Ikenna J. Okeke, Sudhagar Mani, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Received August 14, 2016; revised December 14, 2016; accepted January 10, 2017
View online at February 23, 2017 Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com);
DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1758; Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017)

Abstract: Biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of organic wastes, and lignocellulosic biomass
can be used to produce drop-in diesel fuel via Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. In this study, we
developed a process-based simulation model for the biogas to liquid fuel (BgTL) plant to conduct
mass and energy balances and to evaluate techno-economic assessment of producing drop-in FT
fuels. The BgTL plant operations consisted of biogas cleaning, biomethane reforming, FT synthesis
of syngas and hydrocracking and final distillation to produce drop-in liquid fuels. The unconverted
syngas and syncrude were utilized to generate steam and electricity to meet internal plant demand,
while the excess power was sold to the grid. The base case BgTL plant (2 000 Nm3/h) produced about
4.6 million gallons per annum of total FT fuels which consisted of 62% diesel, 32% gasoline, 6% LPG
with an overall biogas conversion of 54%. A discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFOROR) approach
for the Nth plant was used to estimate the capital and operating costs with the minimum selling price
for the FT drop-in fuels of about $5.67/gal ($5.29/GGE). The increase in plant feed capacity to 20
000 Nm3/h decreased the minimum selling price to $2.06/gal ($1.92/GGE). The sensitivity analysis
conducted on the base case plant demonstrated that the internal rate of return (IRR), FT conversion
rate, plant operating hours, and biogas cost were the most sensitivity parameters to the minimum
selling price. Overall, the BgTL technology is deemed to be economically feasible to meet US biofuels
demand. 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.

Keywords: biomethane; plant simulation; syngas; drop-in liquid fuel; biogas cost

Correspondence to: Sudhagar Mani, BioChemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
E-mail: smani@engr.uga.edu

472 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
Introduction
he global demand for transportation fuels is a con-
T ditio sine qua non for everyday living in the twenty-
first century. There is a high global demand for
liquid fuels that oil importation could be resorted to meet
the domestic fuel needs for any country. In 2016, the US
Energy Information Administration 1 reported a high
consumption rate of petroleum products of approximately
14 million barrels per day in the US alone. In addition, the
increase in the global population and the relative increase
in the standard of living of people from developing coun-
tries could further trigger the demand for transportation
fuels. These high global dependencies on petroleum fuels
could cause fuel price instability in addition to increasing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Developed countries are making specific rules to accom-
modate the use of petroleum fuels, and to reduce the
extent of emissions associated with its combustion due to
the increased interests in environmental sustainability.
The US has enacted the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
to regulate several renewable fuel blends, such as ethanol
from corn and lignocellulosic biomass-derived-diesel
(advanced biofuels) in liquid transportation fuels.2 For
example, ethanol produced from corn grain, corn stover,
switchgrass, etc., has been blended with gasoline in line
with achieving the RFS target. The RFS sets goals to pro-
duce up to 1.28 billion gallons of renewable diesel from
biomass and ultimately to achieve a 20% reduction in
GHG emissions.2 For instance, the annual bioethanol pro-
duction in the US has reached about 14.8 million gallons
and blended up to 10% with gasoline.3 On the other hand,
lignocellulosic feedstock and other sources of unutilized
organic sources (e.g. municipal solid waste (MSW), food
waste, and animal manure) can open a new pathway to
produce transportation fuels via anaerobically generated
biogas into drop-in liquid fuels.
Anaerobic digestion is a well-studied commercial tech-
nology to produce biogas from organic waste sources that
can further be converted to produce compressed natural
gas (CNG), and heat and power generation. A recent study
by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has
reported that approximately 7.9 million tonnes of methane
can be produced annually from organic wastes generated
in the US.4 Lignocellulosic biomass such as agricultural
crop residues and energy crops can be either co-digested
with organic wastes5 or dry digested to produce biogas.
Currently, a LemvigBiogas plant in Europe co-digests liq-
uid and solid feedstocks to produce 10.2 million Nm3 per
annum of biogas.6 This single biogas plant illustrates the
2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
I Okeke, S Mani
potential of an anaerobic digestion (AD) technology in
producing large volume of biogas that can be used for wide
range of applications, namely: a feedstock for both domes-
tic and industrial possesses and production of multiple
fuels and chemicals.
Biogas is a mixture of methane (4060%) and carbon
dioxide (3040%) with other impurities such as H2S,
NH3, O2 , N2, H2O, etc., depending on the source of feed-
stock.7,8 Biogas in its raw form could be utilized in an
internal combustion engine, to produce heat and power
and cooking applications.9 An upgraded form of biogas,
biomethane can be used as a substitute for natural gas
or further converted into drop-in diesel or gasoline fuels
(biogas-to-liquid, BgTL) to meet both US and global
transportation fuel demands.10 However, the technical
and economic feasibilities of this technology need to be
further investigated.
A study on biogas cleaning to remove CO2 and H2S
has been experimentally carried out by Tippayawong
et al., 11 in a packed column reactor to achieve a 90%
CO2 reduction efficiency and a below detectable level of
H2S reduction efficiency with chemical solvents such as
NaOH, Ca(OH)2 , monoethanolamine (MEA). Although
the process was technically feasible, the economic aspect
of this cleaning approach was high due to solvent cost,
solvent regeneration challenges, and stability issues. On
the other hand, high pressure water scrubbing (HPWS) is
a commercially employed biogas cleaning method with an
effective cost of $0.22 per Nm3 of biogas upgraded (2015
US$), with a gas purity of 98%.12 A Kristianstad biogas
plant located in Sweden processes about 70 000 tonnes
of organic wastes (50% organic manure, 45% food waste,
and 5% household) 9 with an attached biogas water scrub-
bing facility that produces 50 000 MWh/y of upgraded
biogas consisting of 97% methane as vehicle fuels.13 The
upgraded biogas can be reformed into syngas using steam
and further converted into liquid fuels or power. A recent
experimental study by Rakass et al.,14 conducted a steam
reforming of methane in the presence of unsupported
Ni catalyst that achieved a 98% conversion of methane
to syngas at 700oC with high H2 yield and CO selectiv-
ity. Other studies on the steam reforming of methane
has reported a complete conversion of methane at a high
steam to carbon (S/C) ratio of no less than 415 in the pres-
ence of Ni/Al 2O3 catalyst. The produced syngas can be
subjected to Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis to produce
liquid hydrocarbons operating at 473K and 20 bar in the
presence of cobalt catalyst with high conversion of H2
and CO at a gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of about 37
Nml.gcat1.h1.16
473
I Okeke, S Mani
The gas-to-liquid (GTL) and coal-to-liquid (CTL) process
technologies are well-established liquid fuels production
processes operated by different companies such as Sasol,
Shell, Syntroleum, and ExxonMobil in various parts of the
world. Exploring various GTL plants, Greene17 reported
that the plant capacity and capital investments were criti-
cal in estimating the project profitability. Similar to the
GTL and CTL, thermochemical conversion of biomass to
liquid fuels production has gained tremendous attention
in the recent years. The pathways such as biomass-to-liq-
uid (BTL), biomass-to-butanol (BTB), biomass-to-ethanol
(BTE), and biomass-to-methanol (BTM) fuels processes
have been studied recently as possible commercial routes
to produce liquid biofuels.18-23 A techno-economic
assessment (TEA) study on natural-gas-to-liquid (GTL)
fuels plant conducted by Betchel,18 reported that 44 940
barrels/d (BPD) of liquid fuels could be produced from 412
MMSCF/day of natural gas with a total capital investment
of $1842.5 million (1993 US$). Williams et al.22 conducted
a TEA of a 3000 tonne/day biomass to methanol plant
estimated a methanol selling price of $12/GJ ($1.42/GGE)
for a 1995 US$ cost year. Similarly, a techno-economic
analysis performed by Phillips,24 for ethanol produc-
tion from hybrid poplar wood with a feed plant capacity
of 2000 tonne/day estimated a minimum selling price of
$1.01/gal ($1.49/GGE). Tijmensen et al.19 estimated a mini-
mum selling price of $9/GJ of FT fuels from an 80 tonne/h
(1741 tonne/day) poplar wood plant worth $380 million
(1999 US$) in capital investment. The cost analysis of 1327
tonne/yr of switchgrass biomass to FT fuels (gasoline and
diesel) studied by Larson et al.20 produced 3897 BPD of
FT fuels with a capital investment of $541 million (2003
US$) which was discounted to attain a plant gate fuel cost
of $15.25/GJ. In 2010, the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) reported an economic-study of a 2 000
tonne/day corn- stover to FT fuels plant and estimated a
product value of $4.80/GGE and $4.30/GGE, respectively,
in low- and high-temperature scenarios with a total capi-
tal investment (TCI) of $498 million and $606 million
(2007 US$), respectively.21 Finally, Okoli et al.25 carried
out an economic study of butanol liquid fuel production
from a 75 tonne/h pine woody biomass plant with a TCI of
$357 million (2012 US$) and a minimum butanol selling
price of $0.83/L ($3.14/gal). While these biomass conver-
sion routes are promising for liquid fuels production, the
techno-economic feasibility of BgTL fuels production
route and the interrelationship between the plant size and
capital investment was deemed vital to be explored as
there is no published work in these areas to the knowledge
of the authors.
474 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
Biogas produced from AD of lignocellulosic biomass
can be converted to drop-in liquid fuels. The anaerobic
digestion plants can be strategically located as depots
(intermittent processing facility) with a plant capacity of
50200 dry tonne/day. The biogas from AD depot can be
fed to BgTL plant to produce renewable diesel and gasoline
derived from lignocellulosic biomass. Also, the feedstock
quality specifications for AD plants are less stringent than
that of biomass gasification26 or biochemical conversion
routes to produce liquid fuels. The work by Tijmensen et
al.19 estimated that the preprocessing cost contributed the
highest installed cost (21%) of a biofuel plant compared to
other major operations. In addition to a high gasifier cost,
the presence of contaminants such as particulates, tars,
alkali compounds19 in the biomass-gasified syngas nega-
tively affect the downstream process and poisons the cata-
lysts27 if not removed. Boerrigter et al.28 reported that the
technology in achieving biomass-gasified syngas cleaning
and conditioning operations pose significant challenges
in the liquid fuels production pathway along with high
installed cost.20,21,29 Contrary to the challenges associated
with the biomass gasification route, the biogas reform-
ing route could be less capital intensive due to the high
purity level of biomethane. Although the biomass gasifica-
tion route is relatively expensive, the rate of conversion
of biomass to syngas up to 72%21 is high when compared
with biomass to biogas with a maximum conversion of
30% before its subsequent reforming to syngas. This high
conversion to syngas achieved via biomass gasification
route presents a trade-off between relatively large invest-
ment cost and conversion. Nevertheless, given the proven
technology in converting solid organic matter either as
a standalone feed or in an integrated anaerobic digester
(iAD), biogas production challenges have been consider-
ably addressed.
Therefore, the main objectives of this paper were to
develop a process simulation model to produce drop-in-
liquid fuels from biogas via F-T synthesis and to conduct a
detailed techno-economic assessment of BgTL fuels tech-
nology to estimate capital investment, operating cost and
minimum selling price of biofuels.
Methodology
Process description
A baseline BgTL fuels production technology via FT
synthesis (Figure 1) was developed with a biogas pro-
cessing capacity of 2 000 Nm3/h that could be received
from a single, large-scale anaerobic digestion plant.6
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
Figure 1. A schematic of a biogas to liquid fuels production technology.
Raw biogas from an anaerobic digestion plant consists
mainly of CH4, and CO2 , and trace amounts of H2S, N2 ,
O2 and saturated water vapors and serves as a feedstock
for producing drop-in diesel fuel. The presence of trace
gases and carbon dioxide should be removed or stripped
to enhance downstream conversion process. In this study,
the biogas upgrading section was simulated to remove the
impurities (CO2 and H2S) present in the biogas stream.27
It employed the commercial high-pressure water scrub-
bing process30,31 which produces biomethane with 97%
methane composition. The biomethane (cleaned biogas)
product was sent to the syngas production area where two
reforming processes (steam and partial oxidation reform-
ing) were employed to attain the desired syngas ratio 18
and maintain an energy efficient syngas production.32 So,
the biomethane stream was split and sent to the steam
and partial oxidation reforming processes that produced
syngas of different compositions. Mixing the syngas
streams from the respective reformers helped to achieve
desired hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio (H2/CO) of
two. The conditioned syngas was cooled to remove excess
water in the syngas before it was sent to the FT synthesis
process. Catalytic conversion of syngas occurred at a low-
temperature slurry phase reactor in the presence of cobalt
catalyst 27 to yield FT syncrude with high selectivity for
the heavy chain fractions due to the probability of chain
growth model used in this study. The FT syncrude was
subjected to product upgrading to obtain different fuel
fractions. Hydrocracking, hydrotreating, distillation, and
separation were the major upgrading operations employed
to produce the desired fi nal products of drop-in fuel frac-
tions: LPG, gasoline, and diesel. Process steam was gen-
erated from the recovered heat produced by exothermic
reactions in certain processes. The unconverted methane
and syngas were combusted to produce electricity through
a combined cycle (gas and steam turbine) to meet internal
electricity demand, and the excess power was sold to the
grid.
2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
I Okeke, S Mani
Process design and simulation
Each process in the BgTL plant was simulated with the
optimal operating conditions using industry data and
relevant literature sources using an Aspen Plus simula-
tion software. The raw biogas composition was defined
based on various literature sources as shown in Table
1. The raw biogas also consists of sediments and dust
particles that should be separated using a settling tank
upstream to the upgrading process. 33 Two isentropic
compressors were designed to operate at 2 and 8 bars,
respectively, to satisfy the pressure demands on the
system. And each of the compressor outlets was con-
nected to Tubular Exchanger Manufactures Association
(TEMA) coolers (20 oC) so as to control the temperature
of the process. The raw biogas exiting the settling tank
was then passed through the series of compressors and
coolers to achieve the absorber packed tower operating
conditions at 20 oC and 8 bar. 30 The absorber and strip-
ping columns are counter-current columns designed
and filled with a plastic, INTALOX structured packed
bed that would enhance mass transfer during the vapor-
liquid interaction. The plastic INTALOX packing was
chosen as it is resistant to corrosion, has minimum liq-
uid hold-up and causes lower pressure drop compared
to other packing materials. 34 Non-random two-liquid
(NRTL) database with Henrys constant was used as the
activity coefficient for the property method calculations.
The solubility of biogas mixtures in water that occurred
in the absorption column was estimated by Henrys law
to simulate the biogas upgrading section of the plant.
The loss of methane during the upgrading process was
minimized by dropping the pressure of the solute-rich
water stream to 2 bar in the flash drum before the
recycling and stripping operations. 30 The top product
of the flash drum containing some methane was sent
back to the absorber column through the compressors
and coolers, while the bottom product containing the
475
I Okeke, S Mani Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas

Table 1. Raw biogas composition.

Biogas Constituents Unit Monnet20 Appari21 Persson et al.9 Dirkse12 Present work Aspen Model
Methane Vol % 5570 5075 5370 6070 60
Carbon dioxide Vol % 3045 2550 3047 3040 37.5
Nitrogen Vol % 02 010 0.2 <1 0.5
Hydrogen sulfide ppm ~500 0-300 <1000 104 000 400
Oxygen Vol % 0 0 <0.2 0.2
Water RH% 0 0 0 100 0.0176

solute-rich water was sent to a packed bed air stripping where

column. The air stripping column operating at 20 oC and Ri = reaction rates of ith reactions in mol/ (kgcat s),
1 bar 30 was employed to regenerate the process water ki = pre-exponential factors of ith reactions with reac-
continuously for the absorption operation, while 10% of tions 1 & 3 in mol Pa1/2/ (kgcat s) and reaction 2 in (mol/
the recovered water was purged to reduce the build-up (kgcat sPa)), Pj = partial pressure of individual compo-
of undesired gas before it was recycled into the absorber nents in the biomethane in bar, Kj = pre-exponential fac-
column. tor of adsorption of jth components in biomethane (Pa1),
Biomethane, a main product of the absorption process, Ei = activation energy of ith reactions in J/mol, Hj =
was the feedstock for syngas production via steam reform- enthalpy of adsorption of jth component in biomethane
ing and partial oxidation processes. The two reforming (J/mol), T= Temperature of the overall reaction in K, R =
processes ensured that the FT syngas ratio was achieved.32 ideal gas constant (J/mol K).
The two processes were coupled to attain proper energy The SMR catalyst consumption was estimated from
efficiency using exothermic heat from the partial oxida- the work of Swanson et al.21 on an hourly basis (kg/h)
tion reaction to drive the steam reforming process. The assuming a catalyst life of 3 years. Syngas production via
steam reformer modeled as a plug flow reactor (PFR) was partial oxidation (POR) reaction is an exothermic non-
operated at a temperature of 850oC and a pressure of 15 catalytic reaction with an optimal operating condition of
bar 35 in the presence of a NiAl2O3 catalyst. The feed to the 1127oC37 and 50 bar38 and the process was modeled as a
PFR was maintained at a steam to carbon (S/C) ratio of Gibbs reactor (RGibbs) which follows the minimization
4.015 which enhanced the complete conversion of methane of Gibbs free energy to perform a phase equilibrium and
to syngas. The reaction rate and conversion were pre- chemical equilibrium. 39 The two syngas streams from
dicted by the steam methane reforming (SMR) Langmuir SMR and POR were mixed and cooled to 50oC 40 and the
Hinshelwood Hougen-Watson (LHHW) kinetics devel- excess water present in the syngas was separated before
oped by Xu et al., 36 as shown in Eqns (1)(3). The tempera- sending it to the slurry reactor. The overall syngas com-
ture dependent Arrhenius expression for the reactions are position had a H 2/CO ratio of 2.19 and was required to
also shown in Eqns (4) and (5). produce drop-in fuels via FT synthesis process, while the
3 excess hydrogen was used for the syncrude upgrading.
1 CH4 H2O H 2 CO 1)
R1 = 2. 5 2 (1) The various reactions occurred during steam reforming,
H2 DEN 1
partial oxidation reforming and FT synthesis are shown
2 CO H2O (P H2 P CO2 2)
R2 = (2) in Table 2.
P H2 DEN 21
The FT liquid fuels synthesis was modeled similar to
2 4
3 CH4 P H2O (P H2 P CO2 3) the Bechtels slurry phase reactor design as our desired
R 3= 3. 5 (3)
H2 DEN 21 product is a diesel fraction.41 The low-temperature pro-
cess took place at a temperature of 200oC and 30 bar
KH2O PH2O
where DEN1 = 1 + KCOPCO + KH2PH2 + KCH4PCH4 + PH2
in the presence of cobalt catalyst.27,42,43 Sequel to the
operating condition of the slurry reactor, the syngas was
ki = koi eEi/RT i = 1, 2, 3 (4) conditioned using a heater and a compressor upstream
to the FT slurry reactor. We assumed a 55% single pass
Kj = Koj x eHj/RT j = CO, H2, CH4, H2O (5) conversion with separation and the unconverted stream

476 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
Table 2. Different process reactions.
Processes Reaction
Steam CH4 + H2O CO + 3H2
Reforming CO + H2O CO2 + H2
CH4 + 2H2O CO2 + 4H2
Partial CH4 + 0.5O2 CO + 2H2
Oxidation
Fischer- nCO + (2n+1)H2 CnH2n+2 + nH2O
Tropsch nCO + 2nH2 Cn H2n + nH2O
synthesis nCO + 2nH2 Cn H2n+1OH + (n-1) H2O
was recycled to achieve an overall syngas conversion of
80% in the slurry reactor as reported by Tijmensen et al.19
The reaction rate for the formation of the syncrude was
proportional to the weight of a catalyst which is a func-
tion of the GHSV.41 The catalyst consumption rate per m3
of syngas processed was determined using the GHSV of
2.38 m3/hr.kgcatalyst reported by Fox et al.41 Although the
use of cobalt catalyst promotes the formation of diesel
fractions, it also eliminates the formation of water-gas
shift reaction.42,44 Since the FT process is an exothermic
process, the heat integration approach was employed to
maximize energy recovery which was used in the entire
process thus ensuring high energy efficiency. The length
of hydrocarbon product formed during FT synthesis is
dependent on the alpha chain growth probability model
predicted byAnderson-Schulz-Flory mechanism43
according to Eqn(6).
Wn = n(1)2 n1
where
Wn = mass fraction of product with n carbon atoms,
n = number of carbon atoms, = probability of chain
growth, (1) = probability of chain termination.
A basic Fortran expression was written in Aspen Plus
that estimates the ASF value based on the syngas feed
parameters and reactor operating conditions using the
alpha correlation parameter developed by Song et al.,45 as
shown in Eqn (7).
= [0. 2332 + 0. 663 ] [1 0. 0039 533 )] (7)
2 amount of NOx in the exhaust gas. The hot gas was fed to
where
ASF = Anderson-Schulz-Flory alpha distribution, yco=
mole fraction of carbon monoxide in syngas, yH2 = mole
fraction of hydrogen in syngas, T = Temperature of F-T
slurry phase reactor.
The estimated ASF variable solves the Fortran product
distribution expressions developed in Aspen calculator
2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
I Okeke, S Mani
block using equation 6 that yields the FT syncrude
products.
Reference
36
The FT syncrude predominantly consists of long chain
paraffi ns, olefins, and oxygenates42 as shown in Table 2.
The FT liquid fuels have to be refined as similar to crude
38
oil product to produce drop-in fuel fractions. Initially,
the light gas in the syncrude was separated in high-
46, 47 pressure hydrocarbon recovery unit which was collected
as the LPG (C3) fractions, while the heavy hydrocarbons
of wax, distillates and naphtha were further processed.
Hydrocracking of the wax fractions occurred at 380oC and
50 bar48 in the presence of a platinum catalyst with a liq-
uid hourly-space velocity (LHSV) of 1.1 hr1. 49 The distil-
late and naphtha fractions were selectively hydrotreated in
a distillate and naphtha hydrotreaters18 on a CoMo/Al2O3
catalyst with an LHSV of 1.2 hr1. 50 Distillate hydrotreat-
ing specifically improved the diesel fraction cetane num-
ber, while naphtha hydrotreating saturated the olefins51
for higher paraffi n formation (gasoline fuels). The different
drop-in fuel fractions of gasoline and diesel were obtained
by distillation using the principle of the relative volatility
of the hydrocarbons with some wax (C30) fractions recov-
ered as heavy bottom products and sold as a co-product.
The Underwood equation of the DSTWU block was
employed to achieve product slits by initially performing
an iteration to determine the minimum reflux ratio (R min).
Hence, the actual reflux ratio was obtained using the cor-
relation (1.5*R min)52 which was used to calculate the actual
number of stages in the column.
The unconverted syngas from the FT process was used
(6) as a fuel gas for electricity generation. A combined cycle
approach was employed to utilize the flue gas heat effi-
ciently in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). For
optimal energy usage, the fuel gas was subjected to a lay-
down system operating at 8 bar which utilizes the internal
energy of the fuel gas to produce electricity before it was
combusted in a burner in the presence of excess air and
steam. Air with 20% excess oxygen served as an ignition
medium in the burner which was calculated from the stoi-
chiometric air-fuel ratio using the Aspen Plus calculator
block. Steam was used as a thermal NOx control medium
and was varied according to Chiesa et al.53 to reduce the
the gas turbine to generate electricity while the hot flue gas
heat was recovered in an HRSG for steam and additional
power generation in a steam turbine. The rate of water cir-
culation for the Rankine cycle depended on the amount of
heat recovered from the flue gas by the HRSG which was
calculated using the Aspen calculator block. The operating
conditions of the key unit operations are given in Table 3.
477
I Okeke, S Mani Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas

Table 3. Operating condition for different unit operation.

Unit Operation Type Temp (oC) Pressure (bar)
Inlet Tank Fixed roof 20 1
Compressor 1 Isentropic 2
Compressor 2 Isentropic 8
Cooler (1&2) TEMA 20
Valve ASME 2
Absorber Packed Tower 20 8
Flash Fixed roof 20 2
Stripper Packed Tower 20 1
Pump (1&2) Centrifual 8
Air Compressor Isentropic ASME 1.1
POX-Heater TEMA 1 127 50
SMR-Heater TEMA 850 15
Partial Oxidation Reformer (POX) POX 1 127 50
Heat exchanger TEMA 1 127
Separator & Cooler TEMA 50
Steam methane reformer (SMR) SMR 850 15
Compressor Isentropic ASME 90
Heater TEMA 180
Pressure Swing Absorber (PSA) Packed bed Swing
Slurry Phase FT reactor Slurry Phase 200 40
Separator & Recycle TEMA 50
Depropanizer Tray Tower 20
Hydrocarbon Recovery Tray Tower 250 Atm
Hydrocracker UOP 380 50
Naphtha hydrotreater UOP 300 41.37
Distillate hydrotreater UOP 315 40
Distillation 1 Tray Tower/Vacuum 1.2
Distillation 2 Tray Tower/Vacuum 1.7
LPG Storage Tank Fixed roof Atm Atm
Gasoline Storage Tank Fixed roof Atm Atm
Diesel Storage Tank Fixed roof Atm Atm
Boiler TEMA Sat
Pump Centrifual 15
Laydown Isentropic ASME 8
Burner Generic 1 370
Air Compressor Isentropic ASME 1.1
Steam Turbine Isentropic ASME 0.1
Gas Turbine Isentropic ASME 6
Heat Recovery Steam Generator TEMA 120
Pump Centrifual 125

478 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas I Okeke, S Mani

The BgTL plant simulated in Aspen Plus was used to Table 4. Total capital investment approach.
conduct the mass and energy balances for the base case
Estimate Approach
BgTL (2 000 Nm3/h) plant. The mass and energy balance
Base Equipment Cost (BEC) Aspen Process Economic Analyzer
data was used to carry out the techno-economic assess-
ment of the BgTL plant. For subsequent evaluation of Direct Equipment Cost (DEC) Aspen Process Economic Analyzer

the effect of plant capacity on the overall project cost, we Balance of Plant (BOP) 12% of BOE
employed the design specification of the base case model Total Direct Equipment Cost DEC + BOP
to develop three additional models of different feed capac- (TDEC)

ity: 500, 10 000, and 20 000 Nm3/h. These four BgTL Indirect Equipment Cost 89% of TDEC
models were used in evaluating the potential of biogas as a (IEC)*

future drop-in fuels route for conversion to liquid fuels via Total Plant Cost (TPC) TDEC + IEC
FT synthesis. Contingency fee 20.4% of TPC
Fixed Capital Investment TPC + Contingency
Techno-economic assessment Working capital 15% of FCI
Land 8% of BEC
TEA of BgTL was performed using Aspen Process
Economic Analyzer (APEA) v8.8 on a 2014 US$ pric- Total capital Investment (TCI) FCI + WC + Land

ing basis. The sizing of the unit operation was carried ISBL Section (A-D)
out using the Icarus cost estimator and mapped to the OSBL Section (E-F)
appropriate equipment in APEA to obtain the base * (32% Engineering and supervision, 23% Contractors and leg-
equipment cost (fob) and installed cost. All estimated acy fees, and 34% Construction expenses)

installed costs were inflated to 2015 US$ using the

chemical engineering cost index. A discounted cash Table 5. Summary of variable operating costs.
flow rate of return (DCFROR) at a net present value Variable Cost Literature source
(NPV) of zero was performed to obtain the minimum Biogas $4/GJ Beddoes et al.58
selling price (MSP) of fuel with an assumed plant life of Process water $0.0002/kg Peter et al.56
20 years. The internal rate of return (IRR) of 10% was
Cooling water $0.0000792/kg Peter et al.56
used for this analysis. 54 The plant was assumed to be
Electricity $0.1045/kWh EIA59
100% equity financed which is one major assumption of
Waste water disposal $0.000528/kg CostWater60
a Nth plant. 55
In addition to the use of Aspen Plus Economic Analyzer Nickel catalyst $35.36/kg Swanson et al.21
for the cost estimation, we resorted to literature data Cobalt catalyst $35.36/kg Swanson et al.21
for some equipment costs along with the appropriate Platinum catalyst $56.29/kg Brown et al.61
cost exponents (Supporting Information). The literature Oxygen $90/tonne Romeshni62
derived equipment costs were inflated using the chemi- CoMo/Al2O3 $35.36/kg Assumed
cal engineering cost index to account for the time value Wax $1.13/kg Argus63
of money. Other costs associated with equipment instal-
lation that constituted the total capital investment were
ing the net present value of the accumulated financial
estimated using Peter et al.s56 capital costs estimation
inventory to zero using the revised version of the NREL
relationship as shown in Table 4. The mass and energy
DCFROR spreadsheet model.64 The minimum selling price
balance data obtained from the process simulation model
of FT fuels for various plant capacity was similarly esti-
were used to estimate the variable operating cost. The
mated and compared.
unit price of different resources used in this study is sum-
marized in Table 5. The fi xed operating costs consisting
of plant employees were estimated based on the work of
Sensitivity analysis
Humbird et al.57 (Supporting Information). A discounted Sensitivity analysis on the base case BgTL plant was con-
cash flow rate of return (DCFROR) analysis was conducted ducted to determine the effects of key input process and
to estimate the capital and operating costs of a plant with a cost parameters on the minimum selling price of the FT
life time of 20 years and the selling price of the FT drop-in fuels. The sensitive input parameters selected include the
fuel. The minimum selling price was calculated by iterat- plant-specific (plant operating hours, IRR, contingency

2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 479
I Okeke, S Mani Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas

fee, working capital, and income tax) and process specific Table 6. BgTL product distribution and energy
(FT conversion, feedstock, oxygen, and catalyst costs, co- usage from 2 000 Nm3/h base case plant.
products price: electricity and wax) input data. They were Drop-in fuels Quantity
varied to ascertain how the price of the fuels were affected.
LPG 0.309 million gallons/yr
A 20% increase or decrease on each of the parameter while
Gasoline 1.331 million gallons/yr
keeping other parameters constant was implemented.
Diesel 3.014 million gallons/yr
The catalyst lifetime of 3 years was varied between 1 and
5 years assuming a worst case and advanced catalyst per- Co-products
formance scenarios, respectively. Similarly, biogas price Wax 233 896 kg/yr
was varied between $2/GJ and $6/GJ to mimic the differ- Electricity 1 015 kWh
ence in the purchase price of biogas due to feedstock cost
variations. In general, sensitivity analysis paves an avenue
Table 7. Electricity and heat requirement in kWh.
for process optimization which ensures that the objective
function (selling price of FT fuels) is minimized to facili- BgTL plant sections Electricity Process heat
consumption
tate drop-in fuels from biogas become competitive.
Biogas upgrading 398.72 300.09
Syngas production 166.39 -891.13
Results and discussion Fischer-Tropsch synthesis 55.78 6656.77
Product upgrade 179.25
Process design and simulation Power generation -1014.89 -2971.17
A base-case process model for a BgTL fuel plant was suc-
cessfully developed and the overall product distribution
The recovered energy was used within the process to
and energy data were presented in Table 6. The process
account for proper energy efficiency. Syngas production
analysis of converting 2 000 Nm3/h (2381 kg/h) of raw
and FT synthesis operations were the other major con-
biogas produced 4.65 million gallons per year of liquid
sumers of electricity. Net heat utilization in the syncrude
LPG, gasoline and diesel fractions (Table 6). The amount
upgrade from the reboiler and condenser was partially
of liquid fuels produced from raw biogas showed a 54%
used to offset the energy demand of the other processes.
(mass basis) of overall product yield which is comparable
Furthermore, the exothermic reaction of the FT process
to a typical GTL yield of 4060% 17 and 63% for natural
generated the highest amount of heat which was used to
gas to liquid fuels yield by Bechtel.18 However, this yield
satisfy the internal heat demand of the process. Overall,
value for the BgTL process differs from the liquid fuels
efficient heat utilization in the entire system was achieved
production by biomass gasification works of Larson et al.20
and the amount of electricity required in this process was
and Swanson et al.21 Both authors reported a product yield
met from the internally generated power plant (excess
of less than 20% (mass basis) due to a huge loss encoun-
sold) with an overall thermal power efficiency of 36%.
tered during the reforming and conditioning of syngas
obtained from biomass gasification. The electricity [co-
Techno-economic analysis
product] obtained in this work depended on the extent of
conversion in the slurry reactor. Total energy consumption The base-case BgTL plant (2000 Nm3/h feed capacity)
in the entire process with regards to heat and electricity is produced about 4.65 million gallons/yr of FT drop-in
summarized in Table 6. fuels with a capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating
Table 7 shows the heat and power demand for the BgTL expenditure (OPEX) of $96.52 million and $11.45 million
plant. Biogas upgrading was the highest consumer (64%) (2015 US$) respectively. A discounted cash flow rate of
of electricity due to a series of compressors and pumps return (DCFROR) analysis on the base case plant esti-
installed to achieve the process design operating condi- mated an FT fuel MSP of $5.29 per gasoline gallon equiva-
tion. The total power consumption of 0.2 kWh/Nm3 of was lent (GGE). A summary of equipment installed costs for
consumed to upgrade biogas and was within the range of each section of the process classified as the inside battery
0.2 to 0.3 kWh/Nm3 of biogas reported by Bauer et al.65 limit (ISBL) is shown in Fig. 2. The syngas production sec-
For the given amount of electrical energy consumed, about tion contributed 41% of the total equipment cost which is
75% of heat was recovered in the TEMA coolers similar to typically the highest cost in all GTL process as reported
the HPWS electrical power recovery achieved by Dirkse.30 by Spath et el.27 Syncrude upgrade and power generation

480 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas I Okeke, S Mani

8%
13%
Biogas Cleaning

Syngas Production

Fischer-Tropsch Liquid fuels

30% 41%

Product Upgrade

Power Generation
8%

Figure 2. Percentage equipment installed cost distribution by section.

contributed 30% and 13%, respectively, while the FT syn- 100% 100%
Maintenance Working
thesis and biogas cleaning sections contributed to each 8% 90% & Insurance 90% Capital
Labor
of the ISBL cost. 80% 80%

Percent contribution
The breakdown cost distribution of overall CAPEX and Oxygen Land
Percent contribution

70% 70%
OPEX is depicted in Fig. 3. It can be observed that the 60% Waste 60%
equipment cost contributed to 49% of the fi xed capital 50%
Disposal
50% Contingency
Catalyst
investment and is usually the highest capital investment in 40% 40% fee
a typical chemical process. The engineering and construc- 30%
Electricity
30%
tion and contingency fee contributed to 22% and 14%, Process 20%
Const,
20% Engr,
respectively, as the former generally represents a huge per- Water
Superv &
10% Feedstock 10%
centage of the plant investment catering for the detailed legal fees
0% 0%
engineering on the construction site while the latter is OPEX CAPEX
a function of the total plant cost normally set aside for
mark-up. Working capital and land contributed the rest of Figure 3. Individual costs contribution to OPEX and CAPEX.
the capital investment with each contributing 13% and 2%,
respectively. Advancement in technological development is (16%). Other consumables such as catalyst, oxygen, elec-
vital, as it would enhance the technical know-how needed tricity, waste disposal, and process water costs contributed
in the design and fabrication of the equipment used in this to 8%, 4%, 4%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The inherently
process, thereby promoting competition amongst dealers cheap feedstock cost highlights the prospects for the use
and a resultant reduction in the investment cost tied to of biogas as feedstock in the BgTL process. However, the
equipment procurement. Such achievement would invari- increased feedstock demand or competition for other bio-
ably reduce the other costs (engineering, construction, mass conversion technologies would increase the biogas
supervision, land, working capital, etc.) that are estimated production cost.
from the base equipment cost. For the operating cost, We evaluated the effect of plant capacity on the CAPEX,
the fi xed operating cost usually accounts for the highest OPEX, MSP, and production capacity to ascertain the
expenses. Plant operation at full capacity is necessary to actual prospects of the BgTL process. Four biogas plant
offset these costs from product profit. Labor and main- scenarios: 500Nm3/h, 2000 Nm3/h (base case), 10 000
tenance costs contributed to 39% and 26% of the total Nm3/h, and 20 000 Nm3/h were considered with their
operating cost, respectively, followed by the feedstock cost relations shown in Fig. 4. Capital and operating costs for

2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 481
I Okeke, S Mani Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas

the 500 Nm3/h biogas plant had the least investment com- depicted in the selling price of fuel ($/gal) as a function of
pared with that of other plant sizes. Although the capital the production capacity. It is clear that operating the plant
and operating cost of $332.16 million and $42.72 million at a feed capacity of 500Nm3/h and 2 000Nm3/h is not eco-
per year respectively were invested in running the 20 000 nomically feasible, as the cost per production is high com-
Nm3/h capacity plant, economies of scale emanating from pared with that of 10 000 Nm3/h and 20 000 Nm3/h plant.
production capacity compensate for the large investment. The minimum selling price of drop-in fuels at a plant
Figure 5 shows the unit production cost of CAPEX capacity of 500Nm3/h was about $13.51/gal, which is
and OPEX with the increase in plant feed capacity. The clearly not feasible based on the market price. For the
increase in plant feed capacity decreased the unit cost of BgTL plant with a feed capacity of 20 000 Nm3/h, the MSP
CAPEX and OPEX ($/gal) as more product is manufac- was about $2.06/gal, which is economically feasible and
tured which offsets the investment and operating costs. competitive with the current energy market while meeting
It is noteworthy to observe that the trend was not linear the renewable hydrocarbon fuel price target of $3 per gaso-
since the costs do not double or quadruple when the plant line gallon equivalent (GGE).66 However, supply of large
capacity was increased by similar magnitude due to the volumes of low cost biogas near the BgTL plant could be
economies of scale and the synergistic effect on labor cost. challenging due to the variation in feedstock cost, quality,
Figure 6 confirms the synergy of an economy of scale as operating conditions (microbial activity and C/N ratio),
and other independent factors (plant location, climate,
350
332.16 seasonal variations, etc.).67
300
14
13.51
250
12
Minimum Selling Price ($/gal)

209.89
200 10
MM$

CAPEX (MM$)
150 8
OPEX (MM$/yr)
6 5.67
100 96.52
4
58.16 42.72 2.54
50 2.06
26.74 2
6.71 11.45
0 0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Plant Size (Nm3/h) Plant Size (Nm3/h)

Figure 4. OPEX and CAPEX as a function of plant capacity. Figure 6. Product selling price as a function of plant capacity.

$60
$56
$50
Investment Cost ($/gal)

$40

$50
$30
$23

$20
$21 $8
$10
$10 $6
$2 $9 $7
$1.15 $0.92
$0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Plant Size (Nm3/h)

OPEX CAPEX Total Cost

Figure 5. OPEX and CAPEX per production against plant size.

482 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas I Okeke, S Mani

Sensitivity analysis includes the fi xed operating cost (independent of pro-

Figure 7 shows the parameters that affected the selling
price of FT fuels. The highest impact on the selling price
was the conversion of the FT slurry reactor. It is evident
that the latest development in research on the conversion
of syngas in a slurry phase reactor is about 80% which is
higher than the conversion achieved in the conventional
fluidized reactor.29 The advancement in improving the
overall conversion of syngas via FT synthesis is important
as higher conversion resulted in a large amount of syn-
crude formation, thus reducing the MSP of the liquid fuels.
During the FT process, sintering of catalyst by impurities
in the feed could negatively affect the catalyst activity27
and could reduce the catalytic conversion of syngas to FT
syncrude. When the overall conversion was reduced to
64% in the slurry reactor due to catalyst poisoning, the
MSP increased to approximately $7.00/gal.
Plant operating time is inadvertently critical to the
profitability of the project. Since we assumed 91% of the
total operating hour, the overall cost of production that
duction) can be recovered with a minimal selling price.
This analysis showed the monetary loss involved during
a shutdown as portrayed by the 83% annual production
hours since the project handles payroll, employee benefits,
and equipment maintenance costs whereas no income
from product sales were made. Another sensitive param-
eter in the BgTL process is the feedstock cost. Biogas can
be produced from a feedstock with no monetary value
(manure) or from expensive lignocellulosic biomass. For
such scenarios, the selling price of biogas typically differs.
When the average biogas cost was reduced from $4/GJ to
$2/GJ due to negative biogas feedstock price (food waste
disposal, MSW disposal), the MSP dropped to $4.78/gal.
Also, the technological development on the life span of the
catalyst is crucial to the chemical industry to reduce the
operating cost invested in catalyst purchase. A reduction
in catalyst life by one year increased the MSP by 8% which
is undesirable. The purchase of oxygen for the partial
oxidation process was more economically feasible in this
BgTL process rather than investing an additional capital

A FT conversion, % (96, 80, 64)

4.78
6.99
Plant operating hour, h (8760, 8000, 7240) 5.22 6.21

Feedstock cost, $/GJ (2, 4, 6) 5.45 5.88

Catalyst life, y (5, 3, 1) 5.58 6.12

Catalyst price, $/kg (-20%, 162, +20%) 5.62 5.71

Oxygen gas price, $/tonne (-20%, 90, +20%) 5.64 5.69

Wax Sales price, $/kg (+20%, 1.34, -20%) 5.65 5.68

Electricity price, $/kWh (+20%, 0.11, -20%) 5.65 5.68

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

B
IRR, % (8, 10, 12) 5.13 6.24

Income tax, % (-20%, 35, +20%) 5.51 5.86

Contingency fee, % (-20%, 20.4, +20%) 5.54 5.79

Working capital, % (-20%, 15, +20%) 5.59 5.74

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

Change in minimum selling price of
FT Fuels ($/GGE)

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of process (A) and cost (B) parameters on the
minimum selling price FT fuels.

2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 483
I Okeke, S Mani Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas

Table 8. Comparison of the techno-economic analysis of BgTL and other related processes
BgTL Bechtel,18 Tijmensen Hamelinck Larson et al. 20 Swason et al.21 Bao et al.68
Model et al.19 et al.40
Feedstock Biogas Natural Gas Poplar Wood Switchgrass Corn Stover Natural Gas
Feedstock cost ($/tonne) 4 ($/GJ) N/A 33 38 46 75 44a
Plant size (dry tonne/day) 57 8 391 1 741 400MWth 4 536 2 000 21 600
Product FT FT liquids FT liquids FT diesel Diesel, gasoline FT liquids Synfuels
liquids
Cost year 2015 1993 2000 2002 2003 2007 2010
Capital investment (million $) $96.5 $1842.5 $339 $303.5 $541b $610c $10,800
Product value ($/GGE) $5.29 N/A $2.00 $1.92 $1.85 $4.30 $1.41d
Product value ($/GGE) 2015 $5.29 N/A $2.86 $2.73 $2.59 $4.61 $1.44d
Note:
a = calculated based on $8/1 000 SCF natural gas price with a density of 0.8 kg/m3
b = without spare scenario
c = high temperature scenario
d = reported in $/bbl which was converted to $/gal

for the air separation unit (ASU). It can be observed that
the oxygen cost of $90/tonne did not have a significant
impact on the FT fuel price. Co-products such as electric-
ity and wax obtained from the plant played a vital role in
minimizing the selling price of the fuel with co-product
credits. It can be observed that a reduction in the co-
product selling price negatively affected the selling price,
as more money was needed from the sale of the liquid fuels
to maintain cash flow. Therefore, the design of the process
to produce high-value co-products usually aids the project
profitability. Overall, this is an arduous task of process
engineers to design and develop an efficient and optimal
system that can help attain the desired profit from a given
investment.
The IRR conventionally employed in assessing the profit-
ability of a project proved to have a significant effect on
the selling price. For every project, the IRR measures the
extent of risk involved in the investment where company
managers and/or investors tend to make the critical deci-
sion. Tax rate, which included the federal and State taxes,
directly influenced the overall project as it is a direct
function of the profit. Since the State taxes differ in the
USA, the overall tax rate varies depending on the State
where the plant is located. The budget for contingency fee
accounting during a project can be open ended as differ-
ent percentages of the fi xed capital investment have been
used. The variations in the capital investment and oper-
ating costs have been explored to highlight the level of
uncertainty.
Table 8 summarizes the techno-economic analysis of FT
liquid fuels from natural gas and biomass sources from
the literatures. GTL and CTL have been the commercial
routes for liquid fuels production with limited or no
detailed economic analysis data available in the literature.
The GTL process analysis by Bechtel,18 provided no selling
price of the FT products while Bao et al.68 reported a least
selling price of $58/bbl (2010 US$). A techno-economic
assessment of converting different types of biomass have
been conducted by several researchers reported a product
value range of $2.864.61/GGE.19-21, 40 The GTL fuels price
proves to be competitive, whereas the thermochemical
route seemed to be slightly higher when compared with
the fuel price ($5.29/GGE) of our base case model. At a
plant capacity of 20 000Nm3/h, the fuel value was esti-
mated to be $1.92/GGE which offers a better prospect for
the liquid fuels production from biogas.
Conclusions
The production of drop-in biofuel from biogas via FT syn-
thesis was successfully simulated using Aspen Plus simula-
tion platform to conduct the techno-economic assessment.
For the base case plant capacity of 2 000 Nm3/h, the mini-
mum selling price of FT fuels was about $5.67/gal ($5.29/
GGE) with an annual plant capacity of 4.6 million gal/yr.
This selling price for a biofuel is not very competitive judg-
ing from the $3/gal target set by the EPAs RFS. Given the
current drop in crude oil price, the economic feasibility of
a BgTL plant could be challenging. Nevertheless, a further
drop in fuel price could be achieved at a higher plant size
with a selling price of $2.37/GGE for 10 000 Nm3/h plants
and $1.92/GGE for the 20 000Nm3/h plant. Therefore, a
BgTL plant has a potential for rapid commercialization and
could compete with fossil-based liquid fuels in the USA.

484 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
Acknowledgement
This project was supported by the USDA NIFA Biomass
Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) grant (Grant
# 2012-1008-2032).
References
1. EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration: Monthly Energy
Review (2016). [Online]. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/total-
energy/data/monthly/archive/00351605.pdf [June 30, 2016].
2. CBO, The Renewable Fuel Standard: Issues for 2014 and
Beyond. Congressional Budget Office (2014). [Online].
Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-
congress-2013-2014/reports/45477-Biofuels2.pdf [February
15, 2016].
3. RFA, World Fuel Ethanol Production 2016. [Online].
Available at: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/
statistics/#1454098996479-8715d404-e546 [April 19, 2016].
4. NREL, Energy Analysis-Biogas Potential in the United States.
[Online]. US Department of Energy (2013). Available at: http://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60178.pdf [May 12, 2016].
5. Li YB, Park SY and Zhu JY, Solid-state anaerobic digestion for
methane production from organic waste. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 15(1):821826 (2011).
6. LemvigBiogas, Website. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lem-
vigbiogas.com [March 10, 2016].
7. Yang LC, Ge XM, Wan CX, Yu F and Li YB, Progress and per-
spectives in converting biogas to transportation fuels. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 40:11331152 (2014).
8. Weiland P, Biogas production: current state and perspectives.
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85(4):849860 (2010).
9. Persson M, Jnsson O and Wellinger A, Biogas upgrading to
vehicle fuel standards and grid injection. IEA Bioenergy Task
37 (2006) [Online]. Available at: http://www.energyineduca-
tion.ie/Renewables/Bioenergy/Biogas_upgrading_to_vehi-
cle_fuel_standards_and_grid_connection_IEA.pdf [December
15, 2015].
10. EPA. Final Renewable Fuel Standards for 2014, 2015 and 2016,
and the Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017. [Online].
EPA (2015). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/renewa-
ble-fuel-standard-program/final-renewable-fuel-standards-
2014-2015-and-2016-and-biomass-based [April 20, 2016].
11. Tippayawong N and Thanompongchart P, Biogas quality
upgrade by simultaneous removal of CO2 and H2S in a packed
column reactor. Energy 35(12):45314535 (2010).
12. Hullu JD, Waassen J, Van Meel P, Shazad S and Vaessen
J, Comparing Different Biogas Upgrading Techniques.
Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (2008).
13. Lennart Erfors, Biogas Kristianstad 2009. [Online]. Available
at: https://www. kristianstad.se/upload/Sprak/doku-
ment/2%20Biogas%20Kristianstad%20 brochure%202009.
pdf [June 12, 2016].
14. Rakass S, Oudghiri-Hassani H, Rowntree P and Abatzoglou
N, Steam reforming of methane over unsupported nickel cata-
lysts. J Power Source 158(1):485496 (2006).
15. Oliveira ELG, Grande CA and Rodrigues AE, Steam methane
reforming in a Ni/Al2O3 catalyst: kinetics and diffusional limita-
tions in extrudates. Can J Chem Eng 87(6):945956 (2009).
16. Rafiq MH, Jakobsen HA, Schmid R and Hustad JE,
Experimental studies and modeling of a fixed bed reactor
2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
I Okeke, S Mani
for FischerTropsch synthesis using biosyngas. Fuel Process
Technol 92(5):893907 (2011).
17. Greene DL, An assessment of energy and environmental
issues related to the use of gas-to liquid fuels in transporta-
tion. [Online]. DOE Contract DE-AC05-96OR22464, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN (1999). Available at: http://
cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_1999_258.
pdf [February 10, 2016].
18. Bechtel, Baseline Design/Economics for Advanced Fischer-
Tropsch Technology, in Topical Report Volume VI, DOE
Contract No.DE-AC22-91PC90027. US Department of Energy
(1996) [Online]. Available at: http://www.fischer-tropsch.
org/DOE/DOE_reports/90027/90027_01/90027_01_toc.htm
[March 18, 2016].
19. Tijmensen MJ, Faaij AP, Hamelinck CN, and van Hardeveld
MR., Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer-
Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. Biomass
Bioenerg 23(2):129152 (2002).
20. Larson ED, Jin H and Celik FE, Large-scale gasification-based
coproduction of fuels and electricity from switchgrass. Biofuel
Bioprod Bioref 3(2):174194 (2002).
21. Swanson RM, Platon A, Satrio JA and Brown RC, Techno-
economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on
gasification. Fuel 89:S11S19 (2010).
22. Williams RH, Larson ED, Katofsky RE and Chen J, Methanol
and hydrogen from biomass for transportation. Energ Sustain
Dev 1(5):1834 (1995).
23. Qureshi N, Saha B, Cotta M and Singh V, An economic evalu-
ation of biological conversion of wheat straw to butanol: a
biofuel. Energ ConversManage 65:456462 (2013).
24. Phillips S, Technoeconomic analysis of a lignocellulosic biomass
indirect gasification process to make ethanol via mixed alcohols
synthesis. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(26):88878897 (2007).
25. Okoli C and Adams TA, Design and economic analysis of a
thermochemical lignocellulosic biomass-to-butanol process.
Ind Eng Chem Res 53(28):1142711441 (2014).
26. Faaij A, Meuleman B and van Ree R, Long Term Perspectives
of Biomass Integrated Gasification with Combined Cycle
Technology: Costs and Efficiency and a Comparison with
Combustion. NOVEM, The Netherlands Agency for Energy and
the Environment, The Netherlands (1998).
27. Spath PL and Dayton DC, Preliminary screening-technical and
economic assessment of synthesis gas to fuels and chemicals
with emphasis on the potential for biomass-derived syngas.
[Online]. NREL/TP-510-34929 (2003). Available at: http://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34929.pdf [March 16, 2016].
28. Boerrigter H, den Uil H and Calis HP, Green Diesel from
Biomass via Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: New Insights in Gas
Cleaning and Process Design. CPL Press, Newbury, UK, pp
371383 (2003).
29. Larson ED, Jin H and Celik FE, Gasification-based Fuels and
Electricity Production from Biomass, Without and With Carbon
Capture and Storage. Princeton Environmental Institute,
Princeton University, NJ, USA (2005).
30. Dirkse E, Biogas Upgrading Using the DMT TS-PWS
Technology. DMT Environmental Technology, The Netherlands
(2007).
31. Petersson A and WeLLInGer A, Biogas upgrading technologies
developments and innovations. IEA Bioenergy Task 37 [Online].
Available at: https://www.iea-biogas.net/files/daten-redaktion/
download/publi-task37/upgrading_rz_low_final.pdf [November
30, 2015]. (2009).
485
I Okeke, S Mani
32. York AP, Xiao T and Green ML, Brief overview of the partial
oxidation of methane to synthesis gas. Topics Catal 22(3-
4):345358 (2003).
33. Malmberg, Upgrade biogas to biomethane with reliable tech-
nology. [Online] Sweden (2014). Available at: http://cee-envi-
ronmental.com/public/data/companyCatalogue1296813476.
pdf [June 10, 2016].
34. Backhurst JR and Harker JH, Process Plant Design:
Heinemann Chemical Engineering Series. Butterworth-
Heinemann, London, UK (2013).
35. Samuel P, GTL technology- challenges and opportunities in
catalysis. Bulletin of Catalysis Society of India 2(5):8299 (2000).
36. Xu JG and Froment GF, Methane steam reforming, methanation
and water-gas shift .1. intrinsic kinetics. AIChE J 35(1):8896 (1989).
37. Liu, JA, Kinetics, Catalysis and Mechanism of Methane Steam
Reforming. M.Sc. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA,
USA (2006).
38. Eilers J, Posthuma S and Sie S, The shell middle distillate syn-
thesis process (SMDS). Catal Lett 7(14):253269 (1990).
39. Aspen Technology Inc., Aspen Plus 12.1 User Guide
Cambridge, MA, USA (2003).
40. Hamelinck CN, Faaij AP, den Uil H and Boerrigter H,
Production of FT transportation fuels from biomass; technical
options, process analysis and optimisation, and development
potential. Energy 29(11):17431771 (2004).
41. Fox JM, Fischer-Tropsch reactor selection. Catal Lett 7(1):281
292 (1990).
42. Dry ME, High quality diesel via the FischerTropsch processa
review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 77(1):4350 (2002).
43. Bartholomew CH and Farrauto RJ, Fundamentals of Industrial
Catalytic Processes. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
USA (2011).
44. Espinoza R, Steynberg A, Jager B and Vosloo A, Low tem-
perature FischerTropsch synthesis from a Sasol perspective.
Appl Catal A 186(1):1326 (1999).
45. Song HS, Ramkrishna D, Trinh S and Wright H, Operating strat-
egies for Fischer Tropsch reactors: A model-directed study.
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 21(2):308317 (2004).
46. Demirbas A, Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel econ-
omy and global biofuel projections. Energ Convers Manage
49(8):21062116 (2008).
47. Abatzoglou N, Dalai A, Gitzhofer F, Markatos N, Stamou
A, Beltrao J, Panagopoulos T, Helmis C, Stamatiou E and
Hatzopoulou A. Green diesel from FischerTropsch synthe-
sis: challenges and hurdles. 3rd IASME/WSEAS International
Conference on Energy, Environment, Ecosystems and
Sustainable Development. August 2426, Athens, Greece (2007).
48. Leckel D, Noble metal wax hydrocracking catalysts supported
on high-siliceous alumina. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(11):3505
3512 (2007).
49. Shah PP, Strutevant GC, Gregor JH, Humbach MJ, Padrta
FG and Steigleder KZ. Fischer-Tropsch was characteriza-
tion and upgrading: Final Report, DOE/PC/80017-T1, NTIS,
US Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA (1988).
[Online]. Available at: http://fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_
reports/88014638/de88014638_toc.htm [April 8, 2015].
50. Lamprecht D, Nel R and Leckel D, Production of on-speci-
fication fuels in coal-to-liquid (CTL) Fischer Tropsch plants
based on fixed-bed dry bottom coal gasification. Energy Fuel
24(3):14791486 (2009).
51. Jones DS and Pujad PP, Handbook of Petroleum Processing.
Springer Science & Business Media B.V., The Netherlands (2006).
486 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas
52. Green DW, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook. Vol. 796.
McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (2008).
53. Chiesa P, Lozza G and Mazzocchi L, Using hydrogen as
gas turbine fuel, in ASME Turbo Expo 2003, co-located with
the 2003 International Joint Power Generation Conference.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, June 1619,
Atlanta, GA, USA (2003).
54. Short W, Packey DJ and Holt T, A Manual for the Economic
Evaluation of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Technologies. NREL/TP-462-5173, NREL, Golden, CO,
USA (1995). Available at:http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/
old/5173.pdf [May 15, 2016].
55. Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J
and Wallace B, Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process
design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehy-
drolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. [Online].
NREL Golden, CO, USA (2002). Available at: http://www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy02osti/32438.pdf [May 30, 2015].
56. Peters MS and Timmerhaus KD, Plant Design and Economics
for Chemical Engineers. 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York
(2003).
57. Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D and Aden A,
Process design and economics for biochemical conversion
of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol: dilute-acid pretreat-
ment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. [Online]. NREL/
TP-5100-47764 (2011). Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy11osti/47764.pdf [cited January 2, 2016].
58. Beddoes JC, Bracmort KS, Burns RT and Lazarus WF, An
analysis of energy production costs from anaerobic digestion
systems on US livestock production facilities. [Online]. USDA
NRCS Technical Note 1, Washington, DC. (2007) Available
at: http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/manuredigesters_
FC5C31F0F7B78.pdf [June 02, 2016].
59. EIA, Electricity. [Online] EIA (2014). Available at: http://www.
eia.gov/electricity/state [March 30, 2016].
60. CostWater, Running costs of water. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.costwater.com/runningcostwastewater.htm [April
5, 2016].
61. Brown TR, Zhang Y, Hu G and Brown RC, Techno-economic
analysis of biobased chemicals production via integrated cat-
alytic processing. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 6(1):7387 (2012).
62. Rameshni M, Cost Effective Options to Expand SRU Capacity
Using Oxygen. WorleyParsons, Arcadia, CA, USA (2002)
63. Argus, Argus Global Wax. [Online]. Argus (2015). Available at:
http://argusmedia.com [April 2, 2016].
64. NREL, NREL Biorefinery Analysis Process Models. [Online].
NREL (2012). Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/extranet/biore-
finery/aspen_models/ [December 15, 2015].
65. Bauer F, Persson T, Hulteberg C and Tamm D, Biogas upgrad-
ingtechnology overview, comparison and perspectives for
the future. Biofuel Bioprod Bioref 7(5):499511 (2013).
66. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Energy
department announces $11.3 million available to Mega-Bio.
[Online]. EERE (2016). Available at: http://energy.gov/eere/
bioenergy/articles/energy-department-announces-113-mil-
lion-available-mega-bio-bioproducts. [May 8, 2016].
67. Sarapatka B, Factors influencing biogas production dur-
ing full-scale anaerobic fermentation of farmyard manure.
Bioresource Technol 49(1):1723 (1994).
68. Bao B, El-Halwagi MM and Elbashir NO, Simulation, integra-
tion, and economic analysis of gas-to-liquid processes. Fuel
Process Technol 91(7):703713 (2010).
Modeling and Analysis: Cost of producing liquid biofuels from biogas I Okeke, S Mani

Ikenna Joseph Okeke Sudhagar Mani

Ikenna Joseph Okeke is currently a
PhD candidate in the Department of
Chemical Engineering at the McMaster
University, Canada. His research is in
the design, modeling, and optimiza-
tion of flexible and sustainable poly-
generation systems using gPROMS.
He received a BEng (Chemical) from Nnamdi Azikiwe
University, Nigeria, and interned with the Process & In-
strumentation division of Total E&P Nigeria. He obtained
his MSc in BioChemical Engineering at the University of
Georgia, USA where he worked on Bio-Energy research
focusing on process modeling and simulation, techno-
economic assessment (TEA) and process life cycle as-
sessment (LCA) of Fischer-Tropsch drop-in fuels.
Dr Sudhagar Mani is an Associate
Professor of Engineering, College
of Engineering at the University of
Georgia, USA. His research focuses on
GIS-based assessment of sustainable
biomass supply logistics systems, pre-
processing (drying, pelleting, granula-
tion, and torrefaction) and thermo-chemical conversion
technologies (gasification, pyrolysis, and liquefaction)
and development of thermally stable Cellulose NanoFi-
brils (CNFs) for food/biomedical packaging. His group
also focuses on the techno-economic assessment and
life cycle assessment of biofuels, bioproducts, and
biochemicals. Dr. Mani is serving as an Associate Editor
for the Transactions of ASABE and Journal of Alternative
Energy Sources and Technologies.

2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:472487 (2017); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 487