Biorefining Biorefining Chemical Engineering Team Chemical - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Biorefining Biorefining Chemical Engineering Team Chemical Engineering Team Tejas Patel, John Truong, Tony Tran, Trenika Iland, Tejas Patel, John Truong, Tony Tran, Trenika Iland, Bambo Ibidapo- -Obe, Jeremy Constantino, Adam Adler, Obe,
Chemical Engineering Team Chemical Engineering Team Tejas Patel, John Truong, Tony Tran, Trenika Iland, Tejas Patel, John Truong, Tony Tran, Trenika Iland, Bambo Ibidapo Bambo Ibidapo-
Obe, Jeremy Constantino, Adam Adler, Blake Adams Blake Adams
– – What is What is biorefining biorefining
– – Fermentation processes Fermentation processes – – Purification processes Purification processes – – Utilities Utilities – – Waste Waste – – Economics of each process Economics of each process
– – Model Description Model Description – – Inputs into the Model Inputs into the Model – – Results of Model Results of Model – – Sensitivity and Risk of Model Sensitivity and Risk of Model
What is a bio based product? What is a bio based product? – – Made from renewable resources Made from renewable resources – – Plant material as main ingredient Plant material as main ingredient – – Biodegradable Biodegradable Why bio Why bio-
refining? – – National and local policies promote bio National and local policies promote bio-
refining – – Strict environmental regulations Strict environmental regulations
Increased cost of products made from fossil fuels Increased cost of products made from fossil fuels
– – Extraction, processing, disposal Extraction, processing, disposal
– – Advantages Advantages
Rural economic development, lower economic costs, Rural economic development, lower economic costs, environmentally safe environmentally safe
http://www.pnl.gov/biobased/docs/prodplas.pdf
Each of these acids are generated using nearly identical fermentation processes with different bacteria which dictate the end result
Figure 1: Chemicals, Microorgansims, and End Products of Fermentation Processes
http://www.pnl.gov/biobased/docs/prodplas.pdf
www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles.htm
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year Mass (10
6 lb m)
Acetic Acid Citric Acid Fumaric Acid Succinic Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol Propionic Acid
Assumptions:
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year Price per Unit Mass (US$/lb
m)
Acetic Acid Citric Acid Fumaric Acid Succinic Acid Lactic Acid Ethanol Propionic Acid
Assumptions:
Conversions Conversions
Glucose + Water Bacteria
Acetic Acid
Clostridium thermocellum
Citric Acid
Aspergillus niger
Succinic Acid
Anaerobiospirillum succiniciproducens Propionibacterium acidipropionici
Propionic Acid
Acid
Propionic Acid Propionic Acid 66.7% 66.7% Propionibacterium Propionibacterium acidipropionici acidipropionici Fumaric Fumaric Acid Acid 69% 69% Rhizopus Rhizopus Succinic Acid Succinic Acid 87% 87% Anaerobiospirillum Anaerobiospirillum succiniciproducens succiniciproducens Citric Acid Citric Acid 66.7% 66.7% Aspergillus Aspergillus niger niger Acetic Acid Acetic Acid 100% 100% Clostridium Clostridium thermocellum thermocellum Product Product Yield Yield Bacteria Name Bacteria Name
Our Scope
Lactic Acid Lactic Acid 95% 95% Lactobacillus Lactobacillus delbrueckii delbrueckii Ethanol Ethanol 66.7% 66.7% Saccharomyces Saccharomyces cerevisiae cerevisiae
Similar processes Similar processes Formation Formation – – 10:1 mass ratio of water to 10:1 mass ratio of water to glucose glucose – – Heat sterilization Heat sterilization – – Compressed Air Compressed Air – – Ammonia Ammonia – – Batch Reaction Batch Reaction
Ethyl Lactate Subgroup
Fumaric Acid
Rhizopus
Blending/Storage Capacity: 21,000 gal Units: 3 Cost: $110,000 Sterilizer Units: 3 Cost: $200,000 Throughput: 80m3/hr Fermentor Capacity: 350,000L Units: 5 Cost: $1.2 Million Ion Exchange Column Cost: $75,000
O H CO O H C O O H C
2 2 7 8 6 bacteria 2 6 12 6
8 6 2 27 2 + + → +
Water – 1249786 kg/batch Glucose – 112480.7 kg/batch, 89.9%mass Salts – 12525 kg/batch, 10.1% Nutrients waste Ammonia: 62489.3 kg/batch Air: 6242930 kg/batch
Exit Stream Mass % Byproducts – 7.1% Glucose – 0.4 Water – 85.9 Citric Acid – 3.78 Flowrate – 1,400,000 kg/batch Stream to Purification
Rotary Drum Capacity: 65 m2 Units: 2 Cost : $ 115,250
Capacity: 27,500 L Units: 3 Cost: $323,000 Capacity: 65 m3 Units: 2 Cost: $115,250 Capacity: 35,000L Units: 7 Cost: $364,200 Capacity: 47 m2 Units: 2 Cost: $91,200 Capacity: 30,000L Units: 1 Cost: $35,000
Citric Acid: 56975.4 kg/batch Water: 75236.6 kg/batch Ca(OH)2: 35000 kg/batch
Product Precipitation
Calcium Citrate: 80363.9 kg/batch 48.06 % Water: 10,000 kg/batch Ca(OH)2 waste: 20.36% Water: 79.64% Total 18125.5 kg/batch Sulfuric Acid: 75000 kg/batch Gypsum Formation Air: 237.1 kg/batch Citric Acid: 54268.7 kg/batch 23.2 %mass Water: 100,000 kg/batch Gypsum: 40146.5 kg/batch 45.4 mass% Sulfuric Acid: 32061.7 kg/batch Water: 155303 kg/batch Ca Citrate: 4018.2 kg/batch
Citric Acid Product: 54268.7 kg/batch
Units: 1 Cost: $60,000 Units: 1 Trays: 10 Cost: $95,000
Acetic Acid: 1780 kg/hr Water: 1591 kg/hr Acetic Acid: 64.7 lbmol/hr Water: 333 lbmol/hr EtAc: 777.9 lbmol/hr EtAc: 68600 lb/hr Water: 2500 lb/hr Water: 30.2 lb/hr Acetic Acid: 2.23 lb/hr Water: 333 lbmol/hr EtAc: 777.9 lbmol/hr Acetic Acid: 64.4 lbmol/hr Water: 2.33 lbmol/hr 96.5% Purity
FCI vs Capacity
y = 1.6241x + 4.3017 R
2 = 0.9955
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Capacity (MM lb) FCI (MM
22.50 22.50 Total ($ MM) Total ($ MM) 1.01 1.01 Operating supplies Operating supplies 4.43 4.43 Maintenance and repairs Maintenance and repairs 3.01 3.01 Utilities Utilities 1.34 1.34 Operating labor Operating labor 12.68 12.68 Raw materials Raw materials 35 MM lb 35 MM lb Capacity Capacity
Operating cost breakdown
Raw materials 56 % Maintenance 19.7 % Operating labor 13.4 % Utilities 5.9 % Supplies 5.5 %
Operating cost vs Production
y = 0.31x + 0.652 5 10 15 20 25 30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Capacity (MM lb/yr) Operating cost (MM $
48.1 48.1 66.0 66.0 59.9 59.9 63.3 63.3 Final Conversion Final Conversion to Sell(%) to Sell(%) 2.97 2.97 3.79 3.79 4.24 4.24 4.83 4.83 Fermentation Fermentation Broth Mass (%) Broth Mass (%) Propionic Acid Propionic Acid Citric Citric Acid Acid Succinic Succinic Acid Acid Acetic Acetic Acid Acid
Raw Material Markets Plant Locations 3 Product Markets 7 Products Begin Operations Raw Material Markets Plant Locations 7 Products 3 Product Markets Begin Operations
30 Raw Material Markets 45 Plant Locations 3 Product Markets 7 Products
28,350 Combinations
Input Input FCI based on Capacity FCI based on Capacity Operating Costs based Operating Costs based
Raw Materials & Raw Materials & Chemicals Chemicals Locations & Distances Locations & Distances Demand Demand Material & Mass Material & Mass Balances Balances Product Prices Product Prices
– –Maximizes the Net Present Value Maximizes the Net Present Value – –Disregards possible variation in Inputs Disregards possible variation in Inputs
– –Maximizes the Net Present Value Maximizes the Net Present Value – –Considers Variations in inputs Considers Variations in inputs – –Scenario Generation Scenario Generation – –Risk Assessment Risk Assessment
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Time Raw Material Price ($) Scenarios Mean
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 250000000 270000000 290000000 310000000 330000000 350000000 370000000NPV ($) Probability
Most economic raw material Most economic raw material Potential plant locations Potential plant locations Possible market locations Possible market locations
Raw material density graphs Raw material density graphs were used to determine were used to determine potential locations of raw potential locations of raw material supply material supply USDA USDA-
NASS: Crop yield by county for 2002 county for 2002 Data was obtained for each of Data was obtained for each of the 5 raw materials considered the 5 raw materials considered
– – Wheat Wheat – – Oats Oats – – Corn Corn – – Rice Rice – – soybeans soybeans
http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/cropmap.htm
Pheonix Pheonix, Yuma, Bakersfield, Fresno, Napa, Greeley, Pueblo, Louisville, , Yuma, Bakersfield, Fresno, Napa, Greeley, Pueblo, Louisville, Cedar Cedar-
Rapids, Dubuque Mountain Mountain-
Home, Danville, Peoria, Quincy, Evansville, Fort-
Wayne, Meade, Bastrop, Denton, Billings Lexington, Clovis, Las Lexington, Clovis, Las-
Cruces, Roswell, Cincinatti Cincinatti, Dayton, Heppner, Dumas, El , Dayton, Heppner, Dumas, El-
Paso, Yakima
30 locations were 30 locations were considered as considered as possible sources for possible sources for raw material supply raw material supply Locations were Locations were chosen based on chosen based on crop yield of raw crop yield of raw materials materials
Economic growth of cities Economic growth of cities was used to determine was used to determine potential plant locations potential plant locations Plant locations Plant locations considerations considerations
– – Population Population – – Number of existing Number of existing companies in area companies in area – – Expected rate of area Expected rate of area growth growth
http://www. www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/reports/lma.pdf
Anniston, Tuscaloosa, Gadsden, Talladega, Hot Anniston, Tuscaloosa, Gadsden, Talladega, Hot-
Springs, Los-
Angeles, Dubuque, Ottumwa, Fort-
Wayne South South-
Bend, Columbus, Monroe, Detroit, Grand-
Rapids, Kalamazoo, Minneapolis, St-
Cloud, Fergus-
Falls Mankato, Joplin, Tupelo, Greensboro, Hickory, Manchester, Keene, Mankato, Joplin, Tupelo, Greensboro, Hickory, Manchester, Keene, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo Youngstown, Findlay, Tulsa, Eugene, Medford, Greenville, Dallas, Youngstown, Findlay, Tulsa, Eugene, Medford, Greenville, Dallas, Ft Ft-
Worth, Waco, Longview, Lufkin Sherman, Milwaukee, Racine, Green Sherman, Milwaukee, Racine, Green-
Bay, Appleton, Wasau Wasau, Sheboygan , Sheboygan
46 Potential plant 46 Potential plant locations locations Location choices Location choices Based on: Based on:
– – Agricultural supply Agricultural supply – – Economic growth Economic growth
Markets broken Markets broken down by the down by the following Regions: following Regions:
– – West West – – Central Central – – East East
The markets are for The markets are for all 7 processes all 7 processes
Most profitable plant Most profitable plant Which of the 7 processes to develop Which of the 7 processes to develop Plant Capacity: Reactant & product Plant Capacity: Reactant & product flow rates flow rates
Mass flow rate of Mass flow rate of product/reactant product/reactant = = stoichiometric stoichiometric coefficient * mass flow rate of coefficient * mass flow rate of reactant reactant Mass flow rate of Mass flow rate of product/reactant product/reactant = = Σ Σ of the process
’ mass flow rate of chemicals from one process to another mass flow rate of chemicals from one process to another + + Σ Σ of mass flow rate of
sold/purchased chemicals chemicals aA aA + + bB bB cC cC + + dD dD
This relationship is based on the reaction coefficient of each m This relationship is based on the reaction coefficient of each material aterial Compared to the main chemical & the conversion data for the reac Compared to the main chemical & the conversion data for the reaction. tion. Process H2O Glucose Salt Air Cal Hyd Sulf Acid Succinic Acid 2.3 3 0.36 4.22 1.65 3.93 Citric Acid 2.2 3 3.14 6.14 2.93 3.69 Lactic Acid 2.1 3 3.10 5.41
2.3 3 3.10 5.41
2.3 3 2.05 3.37
2.4 3 1.30 4.13
2.1 3 2.36 5.18
Relationship between the main chemical and other products in the Relationship between the main chemical and other products in the reaction reaction The relationship is based on mass balance rather than mole balan The relationship is based on mass balance rather than mole balance ce All the main chemical will have All the main chemical will have mu mu value of 1 value of 1 Process Product CO 2 Gypsum Calcium Succinic Acid 1 0.067 0.63
1 0.141 0.74 0.089 Lactic Acid 1 0.101
1 0.101
1 0.069
1 0.134
1 0.101
Net Present Worth Net Present Worth Plant expansion Plant expansion Selling price of product Selling price of product How much to invest (TCI) How much to invest (TCI)
CF = Cash Flow CF = Cash Flow tp tp = time period, 1 time period is 2 years = time period, 1 time period is 2 years total of 11 time periods from 2005 total of 11 time periods from 2005-
2027 i = nominal interest rate, 5% i = nominal interest rate, 5% Vs = salvage value, 10% of FCI Vs = salvage value, 10% of FCI Iw Iw = working capital, 15% of FCI = working capital, 15% of FCI Project Lifetime Project Lifetime – – 22 years 22 years ) ) 1 ( * ) ( ) 1 ( (
, plant tp plant plant plant tp tp plant tp plant
TCI i FCI Iw Vs i CF NPW − + + + + ∑ ∑ =
Ethyl Lactate Ethyl Lactate
– – Biomass/Waste Water Biomass/Waste Water
2 Production/Disposal
– – Return to fermentation unit for reuse Return to fermentation unit for reuse – – Sale biomass product to markets Sale biomass product to markets
– – Capital cost for water purification exceed storage cost Capital cost for water purification exceed storage cost – – Municipal water storage $100,000/yr Municipal water storage $100,000/yr
2
– – 500 ton/yr CO 500 ton/yr CO2
2 -
$75/ton
Minimal profit Minimal profit
– – CO CO2
2 Recovery unit
Recovery unit
$20 million capital cost $20 million capital cost
2 into
– – Aug. 23, 2003, President Bush:
Clean Air Act Clean Air Act says that CO says that CO2
2 can
can’ ’t be t be regulated as a pollutant regulated as a pollutant – – Petroleum based products emit Petroleum based products emit 4000X ethanol processes 4000X ethanol processes
Cost at markets Cost at markets
Transportation Cost Transportation Cost
– – Cost to ship raw materials and Cost to ship raw materials and products products
Linearly variable with Linearly variable with distance distance
– – Distance to raw material and Distance to raw material and product markets determined product markets determined – – Amount shipped Amount shipped
– – Determined for each product market Determined for each product market – – 1 year later 1 year later
More competition More competition
– – Assumed 80% of Demand Supplied to Market Assumed 80% of Demand Supplied to Market – – Actual demand determined by model Actual demand determined by model
– – No expansion first two years No expansion first two years – – Cannot expand 2 years consecutively Cannot expand 2 years consecutively
– – Continuous straight line depreciation Continuous straight line depreciation – – Equipment depreciable for 10 year period Equipment depreciable for 10 year period
1 initial capital investment – – Revenue used to re Revenue used to re-
invest in capital investments for future expansions future expansions
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 5 10 15 20 Time (yr, 1 = 2005) Selling Price ($/lb)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 year (1 = 2005)
million lb/year
Anniston Dayton Youngstown Toledo
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
5 10 15 20 25
Year (1 = 2005) Million lb/year
Product Flow Total Capacity
2 4 6 8 10 12 5 10 15 20 25
Year (1 = 2005) Million $/year
Anniston Dayton Youngstown Toledo
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20
Year (1 = 2005) Million lb/year .
Anniston Dayton Toledo
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000
NPV ($) Cumulative Probability
2 4 6 8 10 12 10000000 14000000 18000000 22000000 26000000 30000000 34000000 38000000 42000000 46000000 50000000 54000000 58000000 62000000 More
NPV ($)
Frequency .00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
– – Dubuque, Iowa Dubuque, Iowa
– – Corn Corn
– – $150 million $150 million
– – $295 million $295 million
– – 10% 10%
7 Potential Products 7 Potential Products Venture Will Include Production of 4 Venture Will Include Production of 4
Succinic Acid Succinic Acid
– – Annual Production: 63 million pounds Annual Production: 63 million pounds – – Fixed Capital Investment: $120,000,000 Fixed Capital Investment: $120,000,000 – – Annual Operating Cost: $40,000,000 Annual Operating Cost: $40,000,000
Ethanol Ethanol
– – Annual Production: 81 million pounds Annual Production: 81 million pounds – – Fixed Capital Investment: $130,000,000 Fixed Capital Investment: $130,000,000 – – Annual Operating Cost: $42,000,000 Annual Operating Cost: $42,000,000
Propionic Acid Propionic Acid
– – Annual Production: 13 million pounds Annual Production: 13 million pounds – – Fixed Capital Investment: $9,600,000 Fixed Capital Investment: $9,600,000 – – Annual Operating Cost: $3,000,000 Annual Operating Cost: $3,000,000
Fumaric Acid Fumaric Acid
– – Annual Production: 3 million pounds Annual Production: 3 million pounds – – Fixed Capital Investment: $2,200,000 Fixed Capital Investment: $2,200,000 – – Annual Operating Cost: $600,000 Annual Operating Cost: $600,000
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Prodcut Flow Rate (MM lbm)
Succinic Acid Ethanol Propionic Acid Fumaric Acid
Succinic Acid, $117,960,000, 46% Ethanol, $125,780,000, 49% Propionic Acid, $9,588,000, 4% Fumaric Acid, $2,156,200, 1%
$0 $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,200,000,000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 250000000 270000000 290000000 310000000 330000000 350000000 370000000
NPV ($) Probability
Histogram
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 250000000 280000000 320000000 360000000 More
NPV ($)
Frequency
.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Expected NPV = $321 MM
Plant Location: Plant Location:
– – Dubuque, IA Dubuque, IA Expected NPW of Expected NPW of $321 million $321 million
– – Initial Capital: $150 Initial Capital: $150 million million
Agricultural Product Agricultural Product
– – Corn Corn
Plant Production Plant Production Specification Specification
– – Succinic Succinic Acid Acid – – Ethanol Ethanol – – Propionic Propionic Acid Acid – – Fumaric Fumaric Acid Acid