See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284132293

Techno-economic and environmental aspects of the production of medium

scale ligno-cellulosic ethanol under Egyptian conditions

Article  in  Egyptian Journal of Petroleum · November 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.10.002

CITATION READS

1 664

3 authors, including:

Shadia Tewfik Abdelghani Abulnour

National Research Center, Egypt National Research Center, Egypt
31 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Technological and Engineering Development for Production of Desalination Hollow Fiber, Ministry of International Cooperation, National Research Center View project

Process simulation and optimization of ethylene and propylene production, Ph.D project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shadia Tewfik on 08 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Egyptian Journal of Petroleum (2015) 24, 375–381

H O S T E D BY
Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute

Egyptian Journal of Petroleum

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyjp
www.sciencedirect.com

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

Techno-economic and environmental aspects of the

production of medium scale ligno-cellulosic ethanol
under Egyptian conditions
Shadia R. Tewfik *, Abdel Ghani M.G. Abulnour, Mohamed H. Sorour

Chemical Engineering and Pilot Plant Laboratory, Engineering Research Division, National Research Center, Dokki,
Giza 12311, Egypt

Received 12 May 2014; revised 19 June 2014; accepted 1 July 2014

Available online 12 November 2015

KEYWORDS Abstract As a result of actual pilot experimental data and guided by international and national
Ligno-cellulosic ethanol; reported estimates, this techno-economic study on a 20,000 ton/y ethanol production plant from
Techno-economics; rice straw has been conducted. The process essentially comprises preparation of the raw materials,
Environmental; alkaline pretreatment, simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and dehydration. For
Rice straw; the proposed capacity, costs have been estimated based on published information for the equipment
Financial analysis; as updated to 2013. Operating costs have been estimated according to experimental results of the
Egyptian conditions research team and published information. Financial and sensitivity analyses have been conducted
for optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for investment and operating costs and varying sales price
of ethanol in the range $0.76/kg–$0.84/kg. Results indicate that positive present values have been
obtained at the prevailing discount rate of 3%. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) exceeds the dis-
count rate considerably for the optimistic assumptions and is rather marginal for the pessimistic sce-
narios. In general, the process is considered technically and economically viable.
Ó 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Egyptian Petroleum Research
Institute. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction on renewable sources. On the other hand, excess agricultural

residues constitute a nuisance for disposal in an environmen-
With the ever increasing need for fuels in general and transport tally sound manner. The extensive efforts undertaken by devel-
fuels in particular, increasing efforts are being directed by oped and developing countries for the use of several alternative
developed and developing countries to produce biofuels based ligno-cellulosic materials at bench, pilot and early demonstra-
tion stages have given positive results and commercial plants
are in early operational phase or under construction. Enor-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 2 33370933; fax: +20 2 33370931.
mous amounts of technical results have been published and
E-mail addresses: shadiatewfik@yahoo.com (S.R. Tewfik),
have been further techno-economically analyzed to explore
dr_agaboelnour@yahoo.com (A.G.M.G. Abulnour), msorourhs@
yahoo.com (M.H. Sorour).
the prospects for commercial application. The successive pro-
Peer review under responsibility of Egyptian Petroleum Research
cessing stages as undertaken by several optional schemes in
Institute. addition to the variation of costs and prices in general and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.10.002
1110-0621 Ó 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
376
Figure 1 Process flow diagram and overall material balance for the proposed plant.
for site specific factors in particular resulted in a wide variation
of economic indicators and appraisal as reported in the last
few years. The Research Energy Laboratory of the US Depart-
ment of Energy in collaboration with others published several
reports addressing the issue.[1–5]. In a recent report, [1] the
minimum price for sales of ethanol has been estimated to be
$2.15/gal (2007 estimates) for 2025 dry ton/day corn stover
using dilute acid pretreatment process. Widely varying
approaches and results have been reported. In a review [6],
Gnansounou and Dauriat focused on the studies in the United
States of America and in Europe, and investigated the different
natures of the techno-economic evaluations during the devel-
opment process of the supply chain by standard costing with
respect to Value Engineering, and Target Costing based on
the projected market price. The authors concluded that
ligno-cellulosic ethanol is expected to be commercial in the
next decade (following 2010). The capital cost and ethanol pro-
duct value for a pioneer plant as compared to an nth plant
constructed after n years for several optional biochemical pro-
cess technologies have been evaluated. The authors concluded
that the capital costs of a pioneer plant are substantially larger
than an nth plant [7]. Uncertainty analysis [8] has been recently
undertaken by a model which relates a process model with an
economic model to identify the absolute and relative uncer-
tainties in minimum ethanol selling price under varying pro-
cess yields based on previous reported experimental data of
S.R. Tewfik et al.
ligno-cellulosic ethanol from corn stover [1]. In a previous
work, the techno-economic analysis of a small-scale ethanol
plant from rice straw has been published [9]. In this work, a
medium–scale plant of capacity 20,000 ton/y has been investi-
gated. The substrate considered is rice straw. However, since
this residue is seasonally available and other agricultural resi-
dues could be utilized throughout the year, it is assumed that
various ligno-cellulosic wastes such as sugar-cane residues
and cotton stalks could be utilized. In the latter case, there
would be some variations in the adopted process with perhaps
even improved economics. The process as based on pilot exper-
imental results for rice straw, which is published elsewhere [10],
is first briefly described. Process development is then presented.
Cost estimation, financial analysis and economic indicators are
discussed.
2. Technical and environmental aspects
2.1. Process description
The main plant processes comprise the following sections as
presented in Fig. 1
1- Rice straw handling system, comprising weighting scale,
forklifts for unloading and transfer of rice straw bales,
rice straw storage slab and conveying belts.
Techno-Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Production of Ligno-cellulosic Ethanol 377

Table 1a Technical specifications of equipment for the ethanol production plant: feed handling and conditioning.
Serial no. item Technical specification Qty
Feed/handling and conditioning
- Weighing scale Weighbridge, 30 ton, with weight indication and recording 1
- Unloading/moving fork Capacity 1 ton, (diesel) 4
lift
- Shredded straw storage 1 m above ground level, slab of reinforced concrete, shed of epoxy coated steel, area 2000 m2 4
slab
- Bales conveyor Capacity 10 t/hr, belt conveyor width 1 m, length 20 m, variable speed, 7.5 kW 2
- Bales unwrapping Belt conveyor, 10 t/1hr, width 1 m, length 10 m variable speed 5.5 kW 2
conveyor
- Shredder feeding Belt conveyor, 10 t/hr, width 1 m, length 60 m variable speed 4 kW 2
conveyor
- Magnetic separator Belt type variable speed 5.5 kW 2
- Shredder Knife type, 10 t/hr product size (to 62 mm), body of epoxy coated steel, knifes of special alloy steel, variable 2
speed, 75 kW
- Fine straw conveyor Screw conveyor, coated steel 1.10 t/hr, variable speed, 7.5 kW 2
- Washing screw Screw conveyor, capacity 20 t/hr with bottom strainers (mesh50), SS316, variable speed, 11 kW 2
conveyor
- Wash water tank Steel, epoxy coated, 200 m3 capacity 1
- Wash water pump Centrifugal, cast iron, 50 m3/hr, 20 m head, 4 kW 2
- Effluent wash water Centrifugals submersible non-clogging, CI, 50 m3/hr, 20 m head, 4 kW 2
pump
- Clarifier/thickener Steel, epoxy coated 100 m3 capacity with sludge scraper (0.3 kW) 2
- Sludge pump Progressive cavity type, 10 m3/hr, 50 m head, 3 kW 2
- Belt filter press Capacity 10 m3/hr, cake moisture content 70% 2
- Clear water pumps Centrifugal, 50 m3/hr, 20 m head, 4 kW 2
- Filter cake conveyor Screw conveyer, SS316, variable speed capacity 3 t/hr, 0.2 m diameter, length 6 m, 1.5 kW 2
- Slurrying tank SS 316 tank with variable speed mixer of SS 316, 11 kW, 20 m3 capacity 2
- Slurry pump Progressive cavity type, 100 m3/hr 20 m head, variable sped, 11 kW 2
- Alcohol solution Continuous bowl type, 100 m3/hr, with cake discharge mechanism 75 kW 3
centrifuge
- Alcohol sol. holding SS316, cladded steel, 200 m3 capacity 2
tank
- Wash water tank Steel epoxy coated 200 m3 capacity 1
- Wash water pump Centrifugal, CI, 50 m3/hr, 30 m head, 7.5 kW 3
- Acetic acid tank SS 316, 50 t capacity centrifuge, SS316, 5 m3/hr, 40 m head 1.5 kW 2
- Filter cake conveyor Screw conveyor, SS 316, 15 t/hr diameter 0.3 m, length 10 n, variable speed, 7.5 kW 2

Table 1b Technical specifications of equipment for the ethanol production plant: SSF.
Serial no. item Technical specification Qty
SSF
- Slurrying tank SS316 tank, 20 m3 capacity, with SS316 mixer, variable speed, 11 KW 2
- Slurry pump Progressive cavity type, 100 m3/hr, 20 m head variable speed, 11 kW 3
- SSF reactor Cylindrical, closed, dish end bottom, 4 m diameter, 10 m length, steel internally cladded with SS 316, 32
equipped with 6 agitators with external variable speed motor, each 5.5 kW, with internal heating
- Yeast preparation and Jacketed tanks of 5, 10, 20, 40 m3 capacity with mixers 11, 16, 30 kW with internal pumps & auxiliaries 1
handling unit 18 kW
- SSF reactor transfer Centrifugal, non-clogging, SS316, 100 m3/hr, 10 m head, 7.5 kW 3
pump
- Pervaporation unit feed Steel SS316 cladded, 200 m3 capacity 1
tank
- Pervaporation unit feed Progressive cavity type, 10 m3/hr, 50 m head. 3
pump
- Pervaporation unit The unit consists of 2 major components and include but not limited to the following: 3
1- Ultrafiltration Unit: rate of feed 10 m3/hr, 80% recovery, spiral wound membrane (cut off 300,000
Dalton) operating pressure up to 10 bars, casing and piping SS316, filtration rate 500 l/h m2(min),
pH range 2–11, temperature max 90 °C with CIP unit, power 5.5 kW
2- Pervaporation unit: Capacity 8 m3/hr, 3% ethanol product alcohol 24% flux1.2 kg/m2 hr ethanol
(min). 4.4 kg/m2 hr water min. Pressure 3 bar vacuum 5–10 m bar temperature 80 °C (max). Mem-
brane Type: organophilic, spiral wound
378 S.R. Tewfik et al.

Table 1c Technical specifications of equipment for the ethanol production plant: Alcohol distillation and evaporation.
Serial no. item Technical specification Qty
Alcohol distillation and evaporation
- Distillation feeding Centrifugal, SS 316, 100 m3/hr, 20 m head, 4 kW 2
pump
- Distillation unit Capacity 100 m3/hr (alc 3%), final product alc P90%, valve tray type, 20 tray 1 m diameter with reflux, provided 1
with condenser, reboiler and all necessary auxiliaries & instrumentation, material special steel/SS316
- 90% Alc. tank Special steel, cylindrical tank 200 m3 capacity 2
- 90% Alc. tank Centrifugal, SS316 20 m3/hr, 30 m head, explosion proof motor, 3 kW 4
pumps
- 99% Alc. tank Special steel, cylindrical tank, 300 m3 capacity 2
- 99% Alc. tank Centrifugal SS316, 20 m3/hr, 30 m head, explosion proof. motor 3 KW 3
pump
- Pervaporation unit Capacity: 3 m3/hr 1
- Feed alcohol conc.: 90%
- Product alcohol conc.: 99%
- Membrane type: hydrophilic
- pH range 3–8
- Pressure: 5 bar max
- Vacuum: (5–10 mbar)
- Temp: 95 °C max (normal 70 °C)
- Flux: 2 kg/m2 hr
- ph: 3–8 range

2- Rice-straw preliminary treatment, including conveyors,
shredders, for size reduction to less than 2 mm, continu-
ous washing with water, fine washed straw conveyors,
treatment of wash water effluents & recycling facility
including polyelectrolyte preparation & injection, clarifi-
cation, pumping in addition to sludge dewatering &
transfer (for disposal).
3- Alkali treatment, including fine washed straw slurrying,
pumping of slurry to treatment vessels, alkali treatment,
including treatment of fine straw slurry with NaOH of a
concentration of 10 g/l at 90 °C, for 1 hr. The treatment
is conducted in closed agitated jacketed vessels using
steam for heating. The alkali treatment products are fil-
tered, and the delignified straw is washed with water and
acetic acid then filtered. The filtrate is directed to waste
water treatment plant (WWTP). The filter cake is trans-
ferred to SSF section.
4- SSF section which includes the slurrying of pretreated
rice straw cake using treated water, pumping of slurry
to SSF reactors. Buffer solution is prepared and trans-
ferred to SSF reactors. The yeast is prepared in a sepa-
rate breeding and growing unit prior to feeding to SSF
reactors. SSF is conducted in jacketed stirred reactors
where heating and cooling is affected by steam and
water Partial SSF reaction content is continuously
withdrawn for treatment to remove alcohol by
pervaporation prior to recycling to SSF reactor. The
retentate is also recycled to SSF reactor while alcohol
rich stream is directed to the distillation section.SSF
reactor contents are collected in holding tanks and
filtered. Filter dry cake is used as fuel in the boilers.
The filtrate is pumped to alcohol distillation and
purification system.
5- Distillation and pervaporation section include holding
tanks for filtered raw alcohol solutions, feeding pumps
to distillation unit, distillation comprising column,
pre-heater, condenser and pumps for transfer of alcohol
and residue. The condensed alcohol (90% conc.) is direc-
ted to 90% alcohol tanks. The alcohol is dried by perva-
poration to alcohol concentration of 99% and pumped
to alcohol storage tanks.
6- Utilities section includes: steam-boilers which are pro-
vided with facilities for burning fossil fuel (gas or diesel),
dry rice straw and plant combustible wastes, water treat-
ment facility for boilers and process water, water cooling
towers including circulation pumps and auxiliaries, fuel
storage and handling facility for movable machineries,
standby electricity generator and medium/low tension
transformer stations and standby diesel generators in
addition to wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
2.2. Technical specifications
Technical specifications are provided in Table 1.
2.3. Energy balance
Gross energy balance of the plant for production of ethanol
from ligno-cellulosic materials as typical for rice straw is
summarized in Table 2. The electrical energy consumption in
operation electrically driven equipment is about 8 * 106 kWh/y.
The energy output in the produced ethanol is estimated to be
59 * 1010 kJ/y. The net gain per ton is estimated to be about
2.067 * 107 kJ/ton.
3. Environmental aspects
Ethanol production from rice straw has several environmental
benefits including alleviation of current practices of open burn-
ing of rice straw which causes severe air pollution especially
during the harvesting season. Further, ethanol has better envi-
ronmental characteristics as compared to conventional fuels as
Techno-Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Production of Ligno-cellulosic Ethanol 379

Table 2 Gross energy balance for ethanol production from 4. Economic aspects
rice straw.
4.1. Basis of estimates
Item Energy kJ/y
I. Energy input
The investment and operating costs have been estimated for
 Electrical energy 2.88 * 1010
the defined capacity on the following basis:
 Fuel (diesel) @41800 kj/kg 2.02 * 1010
 Rice straw used as fuel @15000 kJ/kg 11.58 * 1010
 Purchased equipment costs FOB have been estimated
Total 16.48 * 1010 according to published information for the selected
II. Energy output: ethanol 20,000 ton/y 59.04 * 1010
equipment as updated using (M&S Dec 2013) cost index.
III. Net energy gain 41.36 * 1010
Additional expenses for transportation, insurance and other
IV. Net gain/unit 2.067 * 107
 Per ton ethanol expenses for delivery to plant site in Egypt have been
V. Net equivalent diesel fuel (ton/y) 13,600 considered. Further, components of the fixed investment
costs have been estimated according to typical solid–liquid
new plants [11] as presented in Table 3.

it combusts to CO2 and water without the formation of other

hydrocarbon products.
The preliminary environmental impact assessment (EIA) Table 4 Annual production costs for the pessimistic scenario.
of an ethanol production plant indicates that mitigation Item Quantity Unit/y Cost/unit $ Annual
measure for minimizing environmental impacts includes the cost
following: ($1000)
1-Materials & chemicals
 Proper handling of rice straw in all production stages. – Rice straw 86,000 ton 5 430
 Proper treatment of dust and gas emissions resulting from – NaOH 2100 ton 400 840
rice straw handling areas and controlled combustion of rice – Cellulase 1925 ton 1740 3350
straw or combustible solids generated in the plant. – Citric acid/Na-citrate 1500 ton 300 450
 Proper treatment of wastewater generated from the plant to – Other materials 10% of 0 0 462
comply with the legislation limits for discharge. chemicals materials &
 Proper handling and disposal of solid wastes generated dur- chemicals
ing the various processing stages and WWTP.
Total material 0 0 5531
costs
2-Maintenance % of 2 726
direct
Table 3 Investment cost for the pessimistic scenario. capital
No. Item Basis of Cost 3-Labor
estimate % $1000 Engineers 4 18,000 72
I Fixed capital Chemists 4 16,000 64
I.I Direct costs Administration 4 12,000 48
I.I.1 Purchased equipment (PE) 100 of (PE) 15,438 Technicians 15 8000 120
I.I.2 Equipment installation 30 of (PE) 4631 Labor 24 6000 144
I.I.3 Piping 20 of (PE) 3088
Total labor 51 448
I.I.4 Civil works 25 of (PE) 3860
I.I.5 Electrical works 10 of (PE) 1544 4-Utilities 0
I.I.6 Instrumentation and 20 of (PE) 3088 – Electricity 8,000,000 k Wh 0.05 400
control – Water 1,280,000 m3 0.15 192
I.I.7 others 30 of (PE) 4631 – Fuel 600,000 l 0.6 360
Total direct costs (TDC) 235 of (PE) 36279.3 Total utilities 952
I.II Indirect costs
5-Other 10% of total 851
I.II.1 Engineering and 8 of (TDC) 3922
operating costs
supervision
Total annual 8508
I.II.2 Contractors fees 8 of (TDC) 3922
operating costs
I.II.3 Contingencies 10 of (TDC) 4903
(TOC)
Total indirect cost 12,747 Depreciation 20 years Straight 2451
Total fixed capital 49,026 line
II Working capital 25 of (AOC) 2127 Total 10,959
Table 4 production
Total investment 51,153 costs
380 S.R. Tewfik et al.

Capital Cost (M$)

The depreciation is estimated assuming 10% salvage value,
20 years of a lifetime for direct costs and 10% for the indi-
Annual Operating Cost (M$)
rect costs.
60000  The investment cost is provided by 10% equity and the rest
through a loan at 3% interest rate and repayment over
50000 seven years.
 Two scenarios have been assumed: a pessimistic assumption
40000 and an optimistic assumption with 10% decrease in invest-
ment and in annual operating costs.
M$

30000
 The current ethanol price of $0.84/kg (about $2.5/gal as of
20000 2013 [12]) has been assumed and a sensitivity analysis has
been conducted for the selling price of ethanol in the range
10000 0.76–$0.84/kg
 Financial analysis has been undertaken following the
0 UNIDO Manual [13].
Pessimistc Optimistic

Figure 2 Capital and annual operating costs (M$) at pessimistic

and optimistic assumptions. 4.2. Results

Results of the economic analysis for the Pessimistic and the

optimistic scenarios are presented in Tables 2 and 3 and Figs
Materials 2–4.
22%
As presented in Tables 3 and 4 the investment and
Maintenance
annual production costs for the pessimistic scenario are
50% Labor about $M51 and $M11 respectively while comparison
8% between the pessimistic and the optimistic scenarios are
Ulies
depicted in Fig. 2. As presented in Fig. 3, it is demonstrated
Others
9%
that the materials represent 50% of the annual production
Depreciaon costs. Another major component is the depreciation which
4% represents about 22%. As depicted in Fig. 4 changes in esti-
7% mates of investment and operating costs have minor effect
Figure 3 Percentage distribution of annual production cost.
on the NPV and IRR%. On the other hand, considerable
effect on these indicators is denoted for varying sales price
of ethanol. At the current selling price of $0.84/kg for
 Operating costs have been estimated according to experi- ethanol, the IRR% is considerably higher than the current
mental results for materials and typical reported data for discount rate of 3%. However, for a lower selling price of
other components using Egyptian unit costs (Table 4). $0.76/kg, IRR% is marginal.

60 10

9
IRR
50
8
Net Present Value (NPV) M$

NPV Pes@2.5%IR
7
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) %

40 NPV Opt@2.5%IR
IRR
6
NPV NPV Pes@3%IR
30 5 NPV Opt@3%IR
4 IRR% Pes@2.5%IR
20 IRR% Opt@2.5%IR
3
IRR% Pes@3%IR
NPV 2
10 IRR% Opt@3%IR
1

0 0
0.76 0.8 0.84

Ethanol Price $/kg

Figure 4 Variation of NPV and IRR% for pessimistic and optimistic assumptions at varying ethanol price.
Techno-Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Production of Ligno-cellulosic Ethanol
5. Conclusions
The extensive R&D work on ethanol from ligno-cellulosic
materials on pilot and early demonstration stages has achieved
considerable success leading to the increase in the number of
commercial plants that are now under constructions. However,
efforts are directed to improve economics of the process. Based
on the findings of medium-scale production plant addressed in
this case steady for ethanol production from rice straw as typ-
ical of ligno-cellulosic materials, the process is feasible at the
currently prevailing selling price of ethanol and the presented
assumptions. Sensitivity analysis indicates that for pessimistic
and optimistic scenarios of different investment and operating
costs, the changes in NPV and IRR% are minor. For about
10% decrease in selling price of the product, the feasibility is
marginal. Further work should be attempted to improve the
feasibility and thoroughly address the utilization of other ligno
cellulosic residues.
Acknowledgements
This work is funded by Science and Technology development
Fund, STDF, Ministry of Scientific Research, Egypt; Project
No. 261 entitled ‘‘Ethanol Production: Prospects – Experimental
Investigations and Techno-Economic Studies of a Commercial
Demonstration Facility”.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the
late Prof. Dr. Hala A. Talaat who passed away before the
publication of this paper.
References
[1] D. Humbird, R. Davis, L. Tao, C. Kinchin, D. Hsu, et al.,
Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment
and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. NREL Report No.
TP-5100-47764 (May 2011).
[2] A. Dutta, N. Dowe, K.N. Ibsen, D.J. Schell, A. Aden, Using Z.
mobilis and Saccharomyces. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory NREL Report No. JA-510-45764 (January 2010).
View publication stats
381
[3] A. Aden, T. Foust, Technoeconomic Analysis of the Dilute
Sulfuric Acid and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Process for the
Conversion of Corn Stover to Ethanol. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory NREL Report No. JA-510-45977 (June
2009).
[4] A. Aden, M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, et al.,
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and
Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis
and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-510-32438 (June
2002).
[5] R. Wooley, M. Ruth, J. Sheehan, K. Ibsen, Lignocellulosic
Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing
Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic
Hydrolysis: Current and Future Scenarios. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL/TP-580-26157 (July
1999).
[6] E. Gnansounou, A. Dauriat, Techno-economic analysis of
lignocellulosic ethanol: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 101
(2010) 4980–4991.
[7] K.F. Kazi, J.A. Fortman, R.P. Anex, D.A. Hsu, A.A. Dutta,
et al, Techno-economic comparison of process technologies for
biochemical ethanol production from corn stover, Fuel 89 (2010)
S20–S28.
[8] K.J. Vicari, S.S. Tallam, T. Shatova, K. Joo, C.J. Scarlata, et al.,
Uncertainty in techno-economic estimates of cellulosic ethanol
production due to experimental measurement uncertainty,
<www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/5/1/23>.
[9] S.R. Tewfik, M.H. Sorour, A.M.G. Abulnour, H.A. Talaat, N.
R. Mitry, et al, Techno-economic investigations on the small-
scale production of ethanol from egyptian rice straw, Chem.
Eng. Trans. 21 (2010) 451–456.
[10] S.R. Tewfik, M.H. Sorour, A.M.G. Abulnour, Nader R. Mitry,
Amr Elsangedy, Fuel ethanol from rice straw: pretreatment-
hydrolysis-fermentation, in: Proceedings of 19th European
Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Berlin, Germany 6–10
June VP 2.6.30 (2011).
[11] M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, R.E. West, Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
[12] Ethanol Futures-Latest Price & Chart for Ethanol Futures,
<http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ethanol.aspx?timeframe=
2y>.
[13] UNIDO-Manual for Evaluation of Industrial Projects-Vienna
(1986).