biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

A techno-economic evaluation of the effects of centralized

cellulosic ethanol and co-products refinery options with
sugarcane mill clustering

Joaquim E.A. Seabra a,*, Ling Tao a, Helena L. Chum a, Isaias C. Macedo b
a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA
b
Interdisciplinary Center of Energy Planning (NIPE), UNICAMP, ZIP: 13084-971. Campinas, SP, Brazil

article info abstract

Article history: This work compares the calculated techno-economic performance for thermochemical
Received 27 October 2009 and biochemical conversion of sugarcane residues, considering future conversion plants
Received in revised form adjacent to sugarcane mills in Brazil. Process models developed by the National Renewable
15 January 2010 Energy Laboratory were adapted to reflect the Brazilian feedstock composition and used to
Accepted 19 January 2010 estimate the cost and performance of these two conversion technologies. Models assumed
Available online 31 March 2010 that surplus bagasse from the mill would be used as the feedstock for conversion, while
cane trash collected from the field would be used as supplementary fuel at the mill. The
Keywords: integration of the conversion technology to the mill enabled an additional ethanol
Hydrolysis production of 0.033 m3 per tonne of cane for the biochemical process and 0.025 m3 t1 of
Gasification cane plus 0.004 m3 t1 of cane of higher alcohols for the thermochemical process. For both
Bioethanol cases, electricity is an important co-product for the biorefinery, but especially for
Saccharum officinarum biochemical conversion, with surpluses of about 50 kWh t1 of cane. The economic
CHP performance of the two technologies is quite similar in terms of the minimum ethanol
Brazil selling price (MESP), at 318 $ m3 (United States 2007 dollars) for biochemical conversion
and 329 $ m3 for thermochemical conversion.
ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction transport, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [1].

In 2004, two sectors, electricity and heat generation and
transport, produced nearly two-thirds of the global CO2
emissions from fuels. While electricity and heat generation
draws from various primary energy sources, the transport
sector relies almost entirely on oil (94% of the energy used for
transport came from oil in 2004), making it the strongest
driver of world oil dependence [1].
Compatible with many conventional engines and blendable
with current fossil fuels, biofuels have the potential to
contribute to energy security by diversifying supply sources for
Between 2004 and 2007, the use of biomass-derived trans-
portation fuels, primarily ethanol and biodiesel, doubled
globally to about 1.7 EJ, based on Licht’s estimated 2007
volumes, or to about 1.7% of all transport fuel demand world-
wide [2,3]. The production and use of biofuels is increasingly
being evaluated and pursued by many countries individually
and multilaterally [4]. Major reasons for this pursuit include
economic and social development, energy security, and envi-
ronmental benefits such as GHG emissions reduction [5,6].
Among the types of biofuels, ethanol has received special
attention, as it is already produced in large scale and used to

* Corresponding author. Dr. Shigeo Mori Street, 2013 - Cidade Universitária, CEP 13083-770 Campinas, SP, Brazil. Tel.: þ55 19 3289 3125.
E-mail address: jeaseabra@gmail.com (J.E.A. Seabra).
0961-9534/$ – see front matter ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.042
1066 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

fuel a subset of IC engines, namely spark ignition engines [7].

In 2007, the world fuel ethanol production was about 50 hm3,
with the United States and Brazil as main producers [8]. For
2020, the International Energy Agency projected a total
production of around 120 hm3 [9]. Significant regulatory
activities are ongoing in the United States [10,11] and Europe
[12], requiring that the significantly higher biofuels production
volumes come with environmental benefits. A definition of
a ‘‘global sustainable biofuels level’’ that will accommodate
food, feed, fiber, and bioenergy production while preserving
natural resources such as land, water, and biodiversity has yet
to emerge. In this context, the use of ligno-cellulosic materials
to produce ethanol is an alternative that amplifies fuel
production through the use of agricultural residues but does
not compete with food crops.
Ligno-cellulosic materials can be converted into ethanol
either biochemically or thermochemically. Though neither
technology is commercially available today, the first
commercial plants are in various phases of design, construc-
tion, and production [13]. Significant research, development
and demonstration (RD&D) efforts have occurred in the past
25 years, and the first commercial generation plants are
expected within the next 5 years [14]. In addition to conver-
sion technology issues, biomass availability at low cost is Fig. 1 – Cane plant parts [19].
another extremely important factor for the consolidation of
a sustainable biomass-to-fuels platform. Therefore, co-
location of conversion facilities with existing biofuel produc- and ethanol production) and 125 kg (dry) of fiber (the main dry
tion plants is advantageous. component of bagasse, which is used to generate process heat
In Brazil, a natural possibility is the utilization of sugarcane and electricity for cane processing). Tops and leaves (cane
residues to produce more ethanol in sugarcane mills as these trash) represent an additional 140 kg (dry) of residues per
new technologies reach technical and economic feasibility. tonne of stalks [19] but are not used for production today – the
This work examines which technologies are more attractive in material is either burnt on the field during the cane pre-
this context. harvesting or, increasingly, left in the field after the
The key objective of this work is to compare the calculated mechanical harvesting. In the near future, however, with the
techno-economic performance for thermochemical and complete elimination of burning practices, a huge amount of
biochemical conversion of sugarcane residues, considering cane trash will be available for use as an energy source. Cane
conversion plants adjacent to sugarcane mills. We used trash use in addition to bagasse for electricity generation will
process models developed by the National Renewable Energy likely be an attractive business option for cane mills; this is
Laboratory (NREL), which aim to define 2012 costs and tech- already happening in some units of Brazil Center-South.
nical performance targets so that progress in RD&D can be To evaluate the potential of these materials as energy
measured and to predict commercial market penetration. The sources, it is essential to know their composition. Good data
cost and performance of these two conversion technologies on proximate and ultimate analysis for Brazilian bagasse and
were estimated using previously reported Aspen Plus trash are available [19], but carbohydrate composition is not
simulation models [15,16] that were adapted to the Brazilian known with the level of compositional detail needed for
feedstock composition. A brief description of the selected proper process mass balance. In this work, we assembled
technologies is presented in section 3 with the respective information from different sources to define a composition to
process configurations. be used in the detailed process simulation models. Tables 1
and 2 present compositions used and the main assumptions
made. Future economic evaluations should include more
2. Sugarcane biomass complete composition data and an understanding of their
variability with time.
Sugarcane is one of the most important commercial crops in
the world. The estimates of sugarcane production for 2007
indicate a production greater than 1.5 Gt, from about 3. Selected systems
219,000 km2 harvested [17]. Brazil is the leading producer, with
more than 500 Mt produced per year and an increasing 3.1. Sugarcane mill
production trend [18].
Each wet metric tonne of cane stalks (or simply tonne of We adopted as a reference an autonomous distillery which
cane, which is the function unit – see Fig. 1) contains about does not produce sugar but only ethanol. The trend in Brazil is
150 kg (dry) of sugars (mostly sucrose, which is used for sugar for these to have a high pressure/temperature (e.g., 6.5 MPa/
 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1067

480  C) boiler and CHP generation with reduced steam

Table 1 – Characteristics of bagasse and trash used in this
analysis.a consumption for cane processing (<400 kg t1 of cane). Table 3
presents a summary of the main characteristics assumed for
Bagasse Trash
this reference mill.
Proximate analysis (wt%, dry basis) Since scale is an important factor for the feasibility of
Fixed carbon 18.0 12.8 future technologies, this study was based on a mill with
Volatile matter 79.8 83.3
milling capacity of 4 Mt y1. Currently, more than 30 units
Ash 2.2 3.9
process > 3 Mt y1 in Brazil [18], and many of the new projects
Moisture (wt%, wet basis)b 50 15
(including autonomous distilleries) present milling capacities
Ultimate analysis (wt%, dry basis) close to 4 Mt y1. The cane area needed to serve mills with
Carbon 45.6 46.1
such capacity is about 56,000 ha, with typical transport
Hydrogen 5.9 6.2
Oxygen 45.5 43.1
distances from the field to mill between 20 and 30 km.
Nitrogen 0.6 0.6 In addition to bagasse, we considered that 40% (i.e., 56 kg
Sulfur 0.1 0.1 (dry) per tonne of cane) of the trash available in the field
HHV (MJ kg1)c 18.1 17.4 would be recovered to be used as supplementary fuel at the
LHV (MJ kg1)d 7.2 13.3 mill. To avoid eventual storage problems, we assumed that
a Adapted from Linero and Lamônica [20]. Values for ultimate all trash would be burnt in the mill’s boiler during the cane
analysis were normalized (original ash kept) to 100%. season (on average 6–7 months) and that only the surplus
b Usually, cane crushers produce a bagasse stream at 50% mois- bagasse would be used as raw material in the ligno-cellulosic
ture content (MC), suitable for use in the boilers. Trash, on the other conversion plant (see Fig. 2). Cane trash is more hetero-
hand, is an agriculture residue composed of different parts of the
geneous and may contain more impurities (contaminants),
plant at different MC. Tops and green leaves usually have high MC,
which makes bagasse a preferable material for conversion
while dry leaves present MC as low as 10–15% [19]. The trash
recovery route also influences the MC, and some drying may a priori. However, in practice, some trash will be part of the
naturally occur during storage. Linero and Lamônica [20] originally bagasse, because of the increased levels of cane vegetal
report trash MC as 29.4%, but here it was considered that trash impurity due to unburned cane harvesting and handling.
would be available for use at 15% MC. This issue was not considered here in the base case, but the
c Higher heating value. Values on dry basis. effect of different bagasse/trash ratios in the feed stream was
d Lower heating value. Values on wet basis – bagasse at 50% MC
investigated in the sensitivity analysis.
and trash at 15% MC.

Table 3 – Characteristics of the mill.

Parameter Units Value
Table 2 – Composition of bagasse and trash used in this
1
analysis (wt%, dry basis). Milling capacity th 1000
Effective operating h y1 4000
Bagassea Trashb
hours
Glucan 39.5 32.5 Total milling Mt y1 4.0
Xylan 21.9 20.5 Bagasse availability kg t1 of cane 260 (50% moisture
Lignin 25.1 17.9 content)
Ash 2.2 3.9 Trash availability kg t1 of cane 66 (15% moisture
Acetate 3.4 5.6 content)
Protein <0.1 2.3 Ethanol yielda m3 t1 of cane 0.091 (from cane juice)
Extractives 4.6 8.4
Energy demanda
Arabinan 1.8 3.5
Steamb kg t1 of cane ~360 (0.25 MPa)
Galactan 0.7 1.1
Electricity kWh t1 of cane 28
Mannan 0.0 0.5
Soluble solids 0.8 3.8 Cogeneration 6.5 MPa/480  C;
system backpressure turbine
a Values from NREL database. The original values were normalized
(2.2% ash content) to 100%. Conservatively, here the small amount a Based on values projected to 2015 by Rossell [22]. Since infor-
of sucrose present in the bagasse composition (probably carried mation about steam consumption is not available in detail, some
away after cane juice extraction) was classified as soluble solids, steam losses were also considered, as well as a small demand for
and its eventual conversion into ethanol was neglected. medium pressure steam.
b Detailed carbohydrate composition of trash was not found in b Today, mills’ steam consumption is about 500 kg t1 of cane for
literature. Therefore, some assumptions have been made to obtain units producing sugar and ethanol [23], though commercial tech-
a final detailed composition to be used in the model. Mass fractions nologies can lead to consumptions as low as 340–350 kg t1 of cane,
of acetate, protein, extractives, and soluble solids were assumed to or even 280–300 kg t1 of cane [24]. For distilleries producing
be the same as in corn stover (normalized from NREL database, hydrous ethanol, the current technologies lead to 380 kg t1 of
with 3.9% ash content), considering the similarities between these cane, and for the future, with the optimization of the current
biomass feedstocks. The values for cellulose, hemicellulose, and options and introduction of new technologies, considerable
lignin were estimated proportionally to the major distribution reductions can be achieved [25]. Some of these new technologies
presented by Peláez [21], and the hemicellulose sugars were (e.g., membrane pervaporation) are now being implemented at
calculated proportionally according to the corn stover composition. a commercial scale in Brazil.
1068 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

Cane jui ce Juice Ethanol

processing Adjacent
MILL 1 Conversion
Steam Electricity Plant

Cane trash
Mill’s power
Electricity
plant
Bagasse
Bagasse Bagasse
surplus surplus

Bagasse
surplus

Adjacent Ethanol
conversion
plant
Co-products
(electricity, higher alcohols)
Fig. 2 – Schematic representation of the sugarcane
biorefinery: mill D adjacent conversion plant.
To evaluate how much biomass would be available for
conversion, a simplified model of the mill’s power plant was
developed using Aspen Plus. Considering the assumptions
made, the final biomass availability to the adjacent conver-
sion plant was estimated at 361.9 dry thousand tonnes per
year (see details in Table 4). As for power generation, the mill’s
turbine would produce 238 GWh during the cane season, of
which 126 GWh could be exported to the grid.
Another approach we considered was to increase the
biomass availability through the integration of mills into
clusters, a trend observed for new projects in Brazil. In this
study, sets of two and three mills (with similar characteristics
and close to each other) would supply additional biomass to
the conversion plant (see Fig. 3). For these cases, the final
biomass availabilities would be as follows (considering 5%
biomass losses during transportation):
 Reference case – 1 mill: 361.9 dry thousand tonnes per year
 Case 1 – cluster with 2 mills: 705.7 dry thousand tonnes per
year
 Case 2 – cluster with 3 mills: 1049.5 dry thousand tonnes per
year.
3.2. Biochemical conversion
The biochemical conversion process design is based on an
updated version of the 2002 NREL process design
report [16,26] for corn stover conversion into ethanol using
Table 4 – Biomass availability (kt yL1).a
Biomass Bagasse
Available at the mill 520.0
Losses 26.0
Used in mill’s boiler 118.1
Other uses 14.0
Available for conversion 361.9
a Dry basis. Values estimated for a mill with capacity of 4 Mt of
cane per year.
MILL 2 MILL 3
Fig. 3 – Schematic representation of a cluster with three
mills.
dilute acid pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis
and co-fermentation.
In the process design considered here (see Fig. 4), the
sugarcane biomass is first pretreated with dilute sulfuric acid
catalyst at a high temperature for a short time, liberating the
hemicellulose sugars and other compounds. The whole slurry
from the pretreatment reactor is neutralized with ammonia
before going into enzymatic hydrolysis.
Enzymatic hydrolysis coupled with co-fermentation of the
conditioned hydrolyzate slurry is carried out in continuous
hydrolysis tanks and anaerobic fermentation tanks in series.
In the base case, a purchased cellulase enzyme preparation is
added to the hydrolyzate in the hydrolysis tanks. Alterna-
tively, the enzyme could be produced on-site using part of the
hydrolyzed liquor as a sugar source.
The fermenting organism Zymomonas mobilis is first grown
in a series of progressively larger batch anaerobic fermenters
to make enough cells to inoculate the main fermenters. The
inoculum and other nutrients are added to the first ethanol
fermenter along with the partially saccharified slurry at
a reduced temperature. The cellulose continues to be hydro-
lyzed, although at a slower rate, at the lower temperature.
After a few days of separate and combined saccharification
and co-fermentation, most of the cellulose and xylose will
have been converted to ethanol, and the resulting beer is sent
to product recovery.
Product recovery involves distilling the beer to separate
ethanol from the water and residual solids. A mixture of
nearly azeotropic water and ethanol is purified to pure ethanol
Trash using a vapor-phase molecular sieve. Solids from the distil-
lation bottoms are separated and sent to the boiler. Concen-
224.0 tration of the distillation bottoms liquid is performed by
11.2
evaporation using low grade heat recovery. The evaporated
212.8
–
condensate is returned to the process and the concentrated
– syrup is sent to the combustor. Part of the evaporator
condensate, along with other residue streams, is treaded by
anaerobic digestion and aerobic polishing. The methane-rich
biogas from anaerobic digestion is sent to the combustor for
 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1069

Fig. 4 – Schematic process flow diagram for biochemical conversion of bagasse to ethanol (adapted from [16]).

energy recovery. The treated water is suitable for recycling
and is returned to the process.
The solids from distillation, the concentrated syrup from
the evaporator, and the biogas from anaerobic digestion are
combusted in a fluidized bed combustor to produce high-
pressure steam for electricity production and process heat,
similar to the cogeneration cycles used in Brazilian mills. The
process produces excess steam that is converted to electricity
for use in the plant and for sale to the grid.
3.3. Thermochemical conversion
The thermochemical conversion process design is based on
the 2007 NREL design report [15] for hardwood conversion to
mixed alcohols using indirect steam gasification. In this
design (see Fig. 5), sugarcane biomass must be dried from the
as-received moisture content to that required for proper
feeding into the gasifier (using flue gases from the char
combustor and tar reformer catalyst regenerator).

Fig. 5 – Schematic process flow diagram for thermochemical conversion of bagasse to ethanol (based on [15]).
1070 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

Table 5 – Main operating parameters of thermochemical Table 7 – Financial parameters assumption.a

conversion process.
Parameter Units Value
Parameter Units Value
Reference year 2007
Gasifier Economic lifetime Years 25

Temperature C 843 Discount rate % y1 12
Pressure MPa 0.16
Depreciation
H2:CO ratio after gasifier 0.52
Civil works Years 25 (straight line)
All others Years 10 (straight line)
Char combustor

Temperature C 937 Income tax % 34
Pressure MPa 0.15 Financing % equity 100
Ratio Actual:Minimum air for combustion 1.20 Construction period Years 2.5
Working capital % FCIb 5
Tar reformer Start-up time Months 6

Inlet temperature C 544 On-line time h y1 8406
Inlet H2:CO ratio 1.13
 Biomass cost
Outlet temperature C 843
Bagasse $ t1 dry 0
Outlet H2:CO ratio 1.20
Trash $ t1 dry 15
Alcohol synthesis Co-products values
Conditioned syngas H2:CO ratio 1.20 Electricity $ MWh1 70
Recycled gas H2:CO ratio 1.55 Higher alcohols $ m3 304

Temperature C 299
Pressure MPa 6.83 a Applied only to conversion plants.
b Fixed capital investment.
Selectivity (CO2 free)
Alcohols % 90.1
Hydrocarbons % 9.9 through the gasifier, wherein biomass is chemically converted
into a mixture of syngas components, tars, and a solid ‘‘char’’.
This process uses indirect gasification, in which the heat Cyclones at the exit of the gasifier separate the char and
for the endothermic gasification reactions is supplied by sand from the syngas. These solids flow by gravity from the
circulating hot synthetic olivine ‘‘sand’’ between the gasifier cyclones into the char combustor. Air is introduced to
and the char combustor. Steam is injected into the gasifier to the bottom of the reactor and serves as a carrier gas for the
aid in stabilizing the entrained flow of biomass and sand fluidized bed and as the oxidant for burning the char and coke.
The heat of combustion heats the sand to more than 980  C
(1800  F). The hot sand and residual ash from the char is
carried out of the combustor by the combustion gases and
Table 6 – Main operating parameters of biochemical
separated from the hot gases using another pair of cyclones.
conversion process.
The hot sand captured by the first cyclone flows by gravity
Parameter Units Value back into the gasifier to provide the heat for the gasification
Pretreatment reaction. Ash and sand particles captured in the second
Acid concentration % (wt) 1.6 cyclone are cooled, moistened to minimize dust, and sent
Total solids % (wt) 30 back to the cane field. This practice needs further

Temperature C 190
Pressure MPa 1.2
Cellulose to glucose % 10
Xylan to xylose % 90
Galactan to galactose % 90
Mannan to mannose % 90
Arabinan to arabinose % 90

Saccharification

Temperature C 48
Pressure MPa 0.1
Residence time Days 2.2
Cellulose to glucose % 90

Fermentation
Total solids % (wt) 19.8

Temperature C 32
Pressure MPa 0.1
Residence time Days 0.8
Glucose to ethanol % 95
Xylose to ethanol % 85
Minor sugars to ethanol % 85
Fig. 6 – Comparison of alcohol yields of the adjacent
Contamination loss % 3
conversion plants.
 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1071

alcohols. The overheads are topped in a second column, and

the methanol leaving in the overheads is used to flush the
adsorbed water from the molecular sieves. This methanol/
water mixture is recycled back to the entrance of the alcohol
synthesis reactor in order to increase the yield of ethanol and
higher alcohols.
A conventional steam cycle produces heat (as steam,
raised in pre-heaters, steam generators, and super-heaters)
for the gasifier and reformer operations and electricity for
internal power requirements (with the possibility of exporting
excess electricity as a co-product).

4. Techno-economic evaluation

4.1. Technical modeling

Aspen Plus models developed by NREL [15,16,26] were used

Fig. 7 – Specific electricity generation of the conversion
in this analysis with the 2012 ethanol cost performance
plants (per cubic meter of ethanol produced in the
targets. The base case modeling considers only bagasse as
conversion plant).
feed, but different biomass feed compositions were also
addressed in the sensitivity analysis. The summary of the
main process parameters related to base case simulations are
investigation in order to verify, for instance, the suitability of
presented in Tables 5 and 6 for thermochemical and
such material as fertilizer.
biochemical conversion, respectively.
The next step is gas cleanup and conditioning, which
consists of multiple operations: reforming of tars and other
hydrocarbons to CO and H2; syngas cooling/quench; and acid 4.2. Economics
gas (CO2 and H2S) removal with subsequent reduction of H2S
to sulfur. Once cleaned and conditioned, the syngas is con- The economic analysis involved the evaluation of the
verted to alcohols in a fixed bed reactor. The mixture of minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) related only to
alcohol and unconverted syngas is cooled through heat the adjacent conversion plants (i.e., all flows associated with
exchange with the steam cycle and other process streams. the sugarcane mill – ethanol, electricity – were not accounted
The liquid alcohols are separated by condensing them away
from the unconverted syngas, which is recycled as feed to the
tar reformer.
The depressurized alcohol stream is dehydrated using
vapor-phase molecular sieves. The dehydrated alcohol stream
is introduced to the main alcohol separation column that
splits methanol and ethanol from the higher molecular weight

Fig. 9 – Cane’s energy use (based on LHV). Energy output

Fig. 8 – Biorefinery overall yields (includes products from includes the products from cane juice and residual
cane juice and residual biomass). biomass.
1072 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

Fig. 10 – Total project investment breakdown – related to the adjacent conversion plants.

for). MESP is defined here as the price required (at the factory
level, without sales taxes) for a zero net present value for the
project when the cash flows are discounted at 12% real after-
tax income, considering 25 years of operation.
The economic model consisted of four main parts: capital
cost estimate, operating cost estimate, revenue summary, and
discounted cash flow calculation, following the same meth-
odology described in Phillips et al. [15] and Aden et al. [16].
Equipment costs and most operating costs were taken from
these references and updated to 2007 dollars using specific
indexes [27,28,29]. We assumed that capital costs (and oper-
ating costs) of a Brazilian nth plant would be similar to a U.S.
nth plant. This is reasonable, considering that the current
capital costs of ethanol plants with the same annual produc-
tion are similar in Brazil and the U.S. [30,31], although the
Brazilian plants operate only 6–7 months/year for alcohol

Fig. 11 – Minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) breakdown – related to the adjacent conversion plants. Co-product credits
are due to sales of electricity (biochemical conversion) and higher alcohols (thermochemical conversion) produced in the
adjacent conversion plant.
 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1073

Fig. 12 – Price paid to mills (without taxes) for anhydrous

ethanol in São Paulo State [37]. Original values are
presented in Brazilian Reais (R$ mL3) and have been
Fig. 14 – Sensitivity analysis of trash ratio in the biomass
converted to United States Dollars ($ mL3) using the
feed for conversion. White bars estimate the impact of 10%
exchange rate (provided by CEPEA) of the respective date.
ash content.
In 2007, exchange rate ranged between 1.74 and 2.15 Reais
per Dollar.

not yet well established in Brazil, and different alternatives

are under investigation. A detailed discussion about this issue
production and (in some cases) year-round for electricity
is presented by Hassuani et al. [19], reporting the results of
generation.
a comprehensive set of field tests performed by the Sugarcane
The enzyme price adopted here (when purchased) for the
Technology Center (CTC) in Brazil. In that evaluation, the
biochemical conversion case was such that the final contri-
trash cost estimate ranged from 13 to 30 $ t1 (dry), depending
bution for ethanol cost would be 32 $ m3 (0.12 $ gal1), which
on the route adopted for trash recovery. Of the alternatives
is the 2012 target established by the enzyme industry. Today
investigated, mechanical cane harvesting with partial clean-
this cost is estimated as 265 $ m3 (1 $ gal1), but with recent
ing was the lower cost option, resulting in a trash cost of
investments and continuous research efforts it is expected
13.70 $ t1 (dry). Based on these values, a 15 $ t1 (dry) cost was
that this value may drop to 130 $ m3 (0.5 $ gal1) by 2010 [32].
stipulated as the base case cost for trash, which was entirely
As for biomass, bagasse cost was considered to be zero,
allocated to the conversion plant, even though it is only used
since it is an industrial residue that is already available at
as fuel for the mill’s boiler in the base case.
suitable conditions for energy applications. The cane trash, on
For the cases involving clusters of mills, transportation
the other hand, is an agricultural residue, which still has to be
costs were considered in addition to trash costs. Recent
brought to the mill to be used. The route for trash recovery is
analyses [33,34] have estimated biomass transportation costs
between 10 and 15 $ t1 (dry) for biorefinery systems based on

Fig. 15 – Sensitivity analysis of trash ratio in the biomass

Fig. 13 – Sensitivity analysis of initial bagasse moisture feed for biochemical conversion. Error bars estimate the
content. impact of 30% lignin content.
1074 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

conversion was estimated at 0.278 m3 t1 dry, plus 0.049 m3 t1

Table 8 – Parameters for sensitivity analysis of scale and
costs. dry of higher alcohols, while biochemical conversion leads to
0.370 m3 t1 dry. For electricity (see Fig. 7) the differences are
Parameter Units Value
higher, because the thermochemical conversion process has
Reference Low High essentially been designed to produce the power required by
Mill scale Mt y1
4 2 6
the process. Gas compression represents the major part of the
Mill’s LP steam kg t1 of cane 353 280 500 work required, but since compressors are coupled to turbo-
consumption expanders, the electricity generation/consumption is rela-
Trash recovery % 40 0 70 tively small.
Electricity price $ MWh1 70 40 110 By the biochemical route, the high amount of residues that
Higher alcohols price $ m3 304 152 608
cannot be converted into ethanol leads to a high potential to
Enzyme cost $ m3 ethanol 32 26 132
export power, at 557 kWh m3 ethanol. Power requirements
Discount rate % y1 12 8 20
are not yet well defined for some areas. The feed handling
system, for instance, may vary according to the feedstock and
corn stover and switchgrass. Though bagasse has a higher its initial condition. For bagasse, the power required will
moisture content and lower density than corn stover, which probably be lower than the estimations considered here (for
would increase costs, the costs would be offset by the smaller both technologies), since it leaves cane crushers at suitable
transportation distances involved with Brazilian mills. In conditions (impurity level, particle size, etc.) to be directly fed
a 2003 survey presented by Oliveira et al. [35], for distances into reactors.
less than 200 km, the bagasse transportation costs were less As presented in Fig. 8, the integration of the biochemical
than 13 $ t1 (35% moisture content) for most cases. To make conversion technology to the mill would enable an overall
a comparison, using the general equation for wood chips ethanol production of 0.124 m3 t1 of cane (0.091 m3 t1 of cane
transportation (45% moisture content) with trucks suggested from cane juice), plus a total generation of 50 kWh t1 of cane of
by Mahmudi and Flynn [36], the result for 100 km would be electricity surplus (32 kWh t1 of cane related to the mill’s
~16 $2004 t1. Considering all of these values, we adopted backpressure turbine). For the thermochemical conversion,
20 $ t1 (dry) as the base case cost, but the impacts of different these values would be reduced to 0.116 m3 t1 of cane for
values, as well as biomass costs, are addressed in the sensi- ethanol and 32 kWh t1 of cane for electricity, but with
tivity analysis below. production of more than 0.004 m3 t1 of cane of higher alcohols.
Once the overall costs were defined, the discounted cash It is important to stress that these values could only be achieved
flow was calculated for each project, assuming 2.5 years of with the use of trash as a supplementary fuel to bagasse, leading
construction and 0.5 year of start-up. Table 7 summarizes the to overall energy outputs of ~2.7 GJ t1 of cane and ~2.8 GJ t1 of
main parameters used in this analysis. cane, considering respectively thermochemical and biochem-
ical conversion plants adjacent to the mill (see Fig. 9).
Although there are technical differences, the economic
5. Results performance of the two technologies is quite similar when
comparing the minimum ethanol selling prices (see Figs. 10
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the alcohol yields and and 11). The total investment estimated for the biochemical
annual production for both technologies, considering the 2012 conversion plant is around 152 M$, while the thermochemical
performance targets. The ethanol yield for thermochemical route involves a total value close to 127 M$. This difference is

Fig. 16 – Sensitivity analysis of scale.

 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078 1075

Fig. 17 – Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters.

offset by the differences in ethanol yield, leading to final MESP

values of 318 $ m3 for biochemical conversion and 329 $ m3
for thermochemical conversion.
The MESP values estimated here are similar to values
presented in other studies [15,16]. Even though the previous
analyses involved higher scales, the low biomass costs keep
the ethanol cost at a reasonable level in the sugarcane
context. Furthermore, we can say that both technologies for
bagasse conversion would already present competitive costs
in the short-term, considering the current prices verified in
Brazil for anhydrous ethanol (see Fig. 12). And improvements
are still on the horizon, creating expectations for even lower
costs as the technologies progress.
6. Sensitivity analysis
6.1. Biomass characteristics
This section presents the sensitivity analyses of bagasse
initial moisture content and trash ratio in the biomass feed for
conversion, along with the impact of high levels of ash
content and lignin content on overall yields (see Figs. 13–15).
Bagasse moisture content is usually around 50%, but a wide
range was evaluated here assuming that (unlikely) consider-
able variations may occur during storage, depending on the
ambient conditions.

Fig. 18 – Sensitivity analysis of biomass cost.

1076 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078

Fig. 19 – Sensitivity analysis of transportation costs when clusters of mills are considered (in all cases bagasse at 0 $ tL1 dry
and trash at 15 $ tL1 dry).

As shown in Fig. 13, moisture content has an important
effect on the thermochemical process yields, which makes
trash a promising material for conversion because of its lower
moisture content. However, trash may also have high mois-
ture and ash content, depending on the recovery route and
feedstock handling, compromising, thus, the conversion
yields. For biochemical conversion, the preference for trash is
not the same since the sugar content is lower, even though
there are uncertainties about biomass composition.
6.2. Scale and cost parameters
Table 8 presents the limits considered for selected parame-
ters, and Figs. 16 and 17 show the results. Sensitivity of
biomass cost is presented separately in Fig. 18, while Fig. 19
shows the results for the alternative strategy of mill clusters.
Scale is an important factor for cost-effective production of
ethanol, and different strategies to increase the biomass
availability are analyzed here. Further reductions of mill’s
steam consumption are not likely in the near future (espe-
cially for distilleries), but a higher trash recovery level seems
to be a good alternative, although recovery costs probably are
going to be higher. In this analysis the recovery cost was kept
constant, but it is important to stress that costs as high as
30 $ t1 dry may compromise the gains due to scale.
For the particular case of clusters, even with high trans-
portation costs, the final MESP would still be within an
economically feasible range. This is not true, however, when
higher bagasse or trash costs are considered, as illustrated in

Fig. 20 – Sensitivity analysis of enzyme supply strategy for biochemical conversion: impacts on (a) yields and (b) economics.
 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078
Fig. 17 for a single mill case. And in the near future, as mills
increase their profits from the cane’s ligno-cellulosic fraction,
it is likely that part of the cane cost will be attributed to
bagasse, especially within the context of Brazil’s sugarcane
supply system.
6.3. Enzyme supply
An alternative approach for biochemical conversion considers
on-site enzyme production using part of the hydrolyzed liquor
as a sugar source. In this case, the capital needed for the
project increases, as does the overall electricity demand of the
plant due to the additional compression work demanded by
the enzyme production section (see Fig. 20). Actually, the
incremental electricity demand would be such that part of
the biomass would be diverted to the boiler in order to match
the overall electricity demand, therefore compromising the
overall ethanol output. Alternatively, the electricity deficit
could be purchased from the grid to avoid biomass diversion,
but this option was not considered here. As a result of these
aspects, the final MESP for the on-site enzyme production
alternative would be far higher than for the base case
scenario. However, it is important to stress that the base case
scenario is based on enzyme costs targeted by the enzyme
industry, which may not be achieved within the time horizon
considered here.
7. Conclusions
Ligno-cellulosic materials can be converted to ethanol either
biochemically or thermochemically using sugarcane-derived
processing residues and agriculture residue trash. In this
work, a comparison of the projected techno-economic
performance of these processes is presented, considering
the conversion of sugarcane residues within the context of
a sugarcane biorefinery in the near future.
For both technologies, the mill’s ethanol production may
be considerably increased by using cane trash as a supple-
mentary fuel to bagasse. Biochemical conversion of cane
residues may lead to an additional 0.033 m3 of ethanol per
tonne of cane, while for thermochemical conversion the
additional ethanol yield would be 0.025 m3 t1 of cane, plus
0.004 m3 t1 of cane of higher alcohols. For both cases elec-
tricity would be an important co-product of the biorefinery,
but especially for biochemical conversion, with surpluses of
about 50 kWh t1 of cane; the thermochemical plant was
designed to be energy self sufficient instead of producing
additional electricity.
These values are preliminary; the overall yields estimated
here are based on comprehensive, detailed simulation models,
but uncertainties about future conversion yields and biomass
composition still exist. Therefore, in order to have a better
understanding of the potential of sugarcane residues as energy
sources, it is important to establish a reliable database for
biomass composition considering the particular case of Brazil
and their variability over time for different strategies of use.
In terms of economic performance, both systems lead to
very similar minimum ethanol selling prices, estimated here
as 318–329 $ m3 for the reference cases. These values are
1077
competitive with the current anhydrous ethanol market
selling price in Brazil, although many uncertainties about cost
estimates for advanced technologies exist.
Further improvements still can be achieved for both cases
as technologies progress. Different companies are investigating
different process designs and technology options, which
eventually may lead to higher yields and/or lower costs. For
biochemical conversion, important cost reductions may also be
achieved through process integration with the conventional
mill, avoiding capital expenses and increasing the utilization of
the existing installed capacity. For thermochemical conversion,
process integration is more difficult, but different options arise
when gasification systems are considered. Different biofuels (or
bioproducts) can be produced, and even systems set to produce
high amounts of surplus electricity can be considered,
depending on the commercial interests involved.
Despite the apparent cost-competitiveness of ethanol
production, it is important to point out that these processes
also have to compete with different options for biomass use.
Today, the only commercial option is electricity generation
through conventional steam cycles, which represents an
attractive business option in Brazil. But other alternatives may
arise in the future. Therefore it will be important to perform
this same type of detailed techno-economic analysis to eval-
uate these various options for the utilization of sugarcane
residual biomass.
Acknowledgements
Joaquim Seabra thankfully acknowledges the financial
support of the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cien-
tı́fico e Tecnológico – CNPq (process no. 201362/2008-2). The
authors gratefully thank the U.S. Department of Energy
Biomass Program and particularly Zia Haq, Paul Grabowski,
Valerie Sarisky-Reed, and Alison Goss Eng for their support.
This work was conducted as part of the U.S.-Brazil Bilateral
Colaboration in Advanced Biofuels and Strategic Analysis
NREL activities for the DOE’s Biomass Program. The authors
thank the staff of the Biorefinery Analysis Section at the
National Bioenergy Center – Andy Aden, Abhijit Dutta, and
David Humbird – and NREL’s management, Tom Foust and
Mike Cleary, for their technical support and Ms. Dee Scheaffer
for her administrative support.
references
[1] IEA – International Energy Agency. CO2 emissions from fuels
combustion: 1971–2004. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2006. 2006 Edition,
560 pp.
[2] Licht FO. World ethanol production growth may slow down
in 2008. World ethanol & biofuels report; October 2007.
[3] Licht FO. Sobering prospects – the world biodiesel production
estimate. World ethanol & biofuels report; February 2008.
[4] Global Bioenergy Partnership. A review of the current state of
bioenergy development, G8 þ 5 countries. Rome: FAO/GBEP.
Available from: http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/
user_upload/gbep/docs/BIOENERGY_INFO/0805_GBEP_
Report.pdf; 2008.
1078 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 1065–1078
[5] The Royal Society. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and
challenges. London: The Royal Society, ISBN 978 0 85403 662
2; 2008. Available from: http://royalsociety.org/
displaypagedoc.asp?id¼28914; 2008 [retrieved May 2008].
[6] IEA Bioenergy. The availability of biomass resources for
energy. summary and conclusions from the IEA bioenergy
ExCo58 workshop. Stockholm, Sweden: IEA Bioenergy.
Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/LibItem.
aspx?id¼5796; 2006 Oct 4 [retrieved May 2008].
[7] Hamelinck CN, van Hooijdonk G, Faaij APC. Ethanol from
lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in
short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass Bioenerg 2005;28:
384–410.
[8] RFA – Renewable Fuels Association. Washington: Renewable
Fuels Association. Available from: http://www.ethanolrfa.
org; 2005–2009 [retrieved April 2009].
[9] IEA – International Energy Agency. Biofuels for transport: an
international perspective. Paris: OECD/IEA. Available from:
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.
pdf; 2004.
[10] Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): regulations.
Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[retrieved July 2009]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/
OMSWWW/renewablefuels/index.htm#regulations.
[11] CEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency. Low
carbon fuel standard, vol. 5. Sacramento, CA: California Air
Resources Board. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/
fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs_isor_vol1.pdf; March 2009.
[12] Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council, of 23 April 2009, on the promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/
EC. Official Journal of the European Union 05.06.2009;
L140(16).
[13] Simms R, Taylor M, Saddler J, Mabee W. From 1st- to 2nd-
generation biofuel technologies – an overview of current
industry and RD&D activities. Paris: OECD/IEA Bioenergy.
Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/MediaItem.
aspx?id¼6060; November 2008.
[14] U.S. Department of Energy. Washington: U.S. Department of
Energy [retrieved March 2009]. Available from: http://www.
energy.gov.
[15] Phillips S, Aden A, Jechura J, Dayton D, Eggeman T.
Thermochemical ethanol via indirect gasification and mixed
alcohol synthesis of lignocellulosic biomass. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; April 2007. Report
no.: TP-510-41168.
[16] Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J, et al.
Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and
economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and
enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; June 2002. Report no.:
TP-510-32438.
[17] Zuurbier P, van de Vooren J, editors. Sugarcane ethanol:
contributions to climate change mitigation and the
environment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Academic
Publishers; 2008.
[18] UNICA – União da Indústria da Cana-de-açúcar [retrieved
March 2009]. Available from: www.unica.com.br.
[19] Hassuani SJ, Leal MRLV, Macedo IC. Biomass power
generation: sugar cane bagasse and trash, Série Caminhos
para Sustentabilidade. Piracicaba: PNUD-CTC; 2005.
[20] Linero FAB, Lamônica HM. Integração BIG/GT – Usina.
Geração de energia por biomassa: bagaço e palha de cana,
Seminário alternativas energéticas a partir da cana-de-
açúcar, Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, CTC. Piracicaba, SP,
Brasil: Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, CTC; 2005.
[21] Peláez MR. Use of a biofuel obtained from the fast pyrolysis
of sugarcane trash in an Otto engine [Master’s dissertation
(in Portuguese)]. Campinas: Faculdade de Engenharia
Mecânica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas; 2007. 118 pp.
[22] Rossell CEV. Tecnologias de conversão de biomassa em
etanol, hidrólise de celulose. V Workshop Internacional
Brasil-Japão em Biocombustı́vel, Meio Ambiente e Novos
Produtos da Biomassa. Campinas, SP, Brasil; 29 de outubro
de 2007.
[23] Lamônica HM. Produção de vapor e eletricidade – a evolução
do setor sucroalcooleiro. II GERA: Workshop de Gestão de
Energia e Resı́duos na Agroindustria Sucroalcooleira. FZEA –
USP, Pirassununga; 12 de junho de 2007.
[24] Pizaia W. Steam economy improvement, Report no. RLT-025
to MCT/PNUD, Project BRA/96/G31, Brazil; 1998.
[25] Olivério JL. Novas tecnologias para biocombustı́veis. 9
Encontro de negócios de energia, São Paulo; 14 de outubro
de 2008.
[26] Humbird D, Aden A. FY08 state of technology update,
Internal NREL milestone completion report. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; October 30, 2008.
[27] Economic Indicators Chemical Engineering Magazine; May
2008.
[28] Economic environment of the chemical industry, SRI
international chemical economics handbook. SRI
International. Available from: http://www.sriconsulting.
com/CEH/; March 2008.
[29] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington: U.S. Department of
Labor. Available from: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
[30] Tiffany DG, Morey RV, De Kam MJ. Economics of biomass
gasification/combustion at fuel ethanol plants. 2007 ASABE
annual international meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
17–20 June 2007.
[31] Rodrigues AP. Participação dos fornecedores de cana na
cadeia do açúcar e álcool. Congresso Internacional de
Tecnologias na Cadeia Produtiva, Concana, Uberaba (MG);
março de 2007.
[32] Bryant C. Step change in cellulosic ethanol – the future is
moving closer. Brussels: World Biofuels Market; 2009.
[33] Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Turhollow A, Kumar A, Bransby D,
Lynd L, et al. Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) – current technology and
envisioning a mature technology. Biofuel, Bioprod. Biorefin
2009;3:124–41.
[34] Kenney K, Wright C. Uniform format feedstock supply
system design for lignocellulosic biomass. Feedstock Supply
Syst Des Rev Dec 2007;13. Washington, DC.
[35] Oliveira AMK, Lima LM, Carletti Filho PT, Ferrari RC, Caixeta
Filho JV. Avaliação da Viabilidade Técnica e Econômica da
Utilização de Biomassas como Fonte Energética Alternativa
em Fornos Industriais. XLII Congresso da SOBER 2004,
Cuiabá, MT.
[36] Mahmud H, Flynn PC. Rail vs truck transport of biomass.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2006;129–132:88–103.
[37] CEPEA – Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia
Aplicada. Brazil: CEPEA; 2007 [retrieved April 2009]. Available
from: http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br.