Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Techno-economic evaluation of thermo-chemical biomass-to-ethanol

Jie He, Wennan Zhang ⇑
Department of Natural Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics, Mid Sweden University, 851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bio-ethanol has received considerable attention as a basic chemical and fuel additive. Bio-ethanol is pres-
Received 3 May 2010 ently produced from sugar/starch materials, but can also be produced from lignocellulosic biomass via
Received in revised form 6 October 2010 hydrolysis-fermentation route or thermo-chemical route. In terms of thermo-chemical route, a few pilot
Accepted 7 October 2010
plants ranging from 0.3 to 67 MW have been built and operated for alcohols synthesis. However, com-
Available online 3 November 2010
mercial success has not been found. In order to realize cost-competitive commercial ethanol production
from lignocellulosic biomass through thermo-chemical pathway, a techno-economic analysis needs to be
Keywords:
done. In this paper, a thermo-chemical process is designed, simulated and optimized mainly with ASPEN
Ethanol
Syngas
Plus. The techno-economic assessment is made in terms of ethanol yield, synthesis selectivity, carbon and
Biomass CO conversion efficiencies, and ethanol production cost. Calculated results show that major contributions
BTL to the production cost are from biomass feedstock and syngas cleaning. A biomass-to-ethanol plant
Efficiency should be built around 200 MW. Cost-competitive ethanol production can be realized with efficient
Economy equipments, optimized operation, cost-effective syngas cleaning technology, inexpensive raw material
with low pretreatment cost, high performance catalysts, off-gas and methanol recycling, optimal system-
atic configuration and heat integration, and high value byproduct.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction automotive fuel [3]. With regard to raw material potential,

In the transport sector, energy consumption accounts for more
than 30% of the total energy supply in developed countries, which
is 98% dependent on fossil fuel and difficult to be replaced with
sustainable and CO2 neutral bio-automotive fuel in the transport
fuel market. Bio-ethanol is the major bio-automotive fuel today,
and is rapidly expanding as a fuel additive in addition to its use
as a chemical raw material. It is already commonly used in gasoline
blended with 10% ethanol, and can be blended up to 85% by flexible
fuel technology [1]. Through on-board reforming to hydrogen, eth-
anol is also suitable to be applied in future fuel cell vehicles [2]. As
an alternative to methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) which raises
serious health risks, ethanol enhances octane rating of gasoline
and reduces emissions of CO, VOC (volatile organic carbon) and
particulates [2].
Ethanol is commercially produced via two routes, hydrolysis-
fermentation of sugars from corn or sugar cane and hydration of
petroleum-based ethylene. The ethylene hydration route is unat-
tractive for large-scale ethanol production, which is dependent on
imported crude oil and the volatile price of crude oil. Bio-ethanol
feedstock can be divided into two major groups, sugar/starch
materials and lignocellulosic biomass. Ethanol produced from
sugar/starch materials is referred to as the 1st generation bio-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 73 655 69 66/60 14 86 39; fax: +46 60 14 88 20.
E-mail addresses: jie.he@miun.se (J. He), wennan.zhang@miun.se (W. Zhang).
sustainability, fossil fuel consumption, farmland occupation, con-
flict with productions of food and high value chemicals, as well
as net CO2 emission, bio-ethanol produced from lignocellulosic
biomass is more attractive, which is referred to as the 2nd
generation bio-automotive fuel. Production of the 2nd generation
bio-automotive fuels is too expensive at present due to complex
conversion process and its demands on large scale and big invest-
ment. However, the production cost is expected to drop down as
the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock is cheap, abundant, and does
not compete with food production. Lignocellulosic biomass is
envisaged to provide a significant portion of the raw materials
for bio-ethanol production in the medium and long-term.
Lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into bio-ethanol by
gasification-synthesis, gasification-fermentation, and hydrolysis-
fermentation. In the hydrolysis-fermentation route, the biomass-
to-ethanol conversion efficiency is fairly low since 25–30 wt.%
biomass as lignin cannot be broken down, and hydrolysis of cellulose
and hemicellulose is difficult. A significant portion of 5-carbon sug-
ars from hemicellulose hydrolysis cannot be completely metabo-
lized into alcohol. Further achievements strongly depend on the
development of cheaper and more efficient enzymes and microor-
ganisms [4–7]. The techno-economic assessment of production of
ethanol (hydrolysis-fermentation) from lignocellulosic biomass
has been made [8–14].
In the gasification-synthesis route, biomass is gasified into raw
syngas which is further reformed, cleaned, compressed, heated and

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.022
 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232
converted into mixed alcohols from which ethanol and higher alco-
hols are obtained through a series of separation and purification
treatments. This route has the following advantages: short reaction
time, inexpensive and abundant raw materials, nearly complete
biomass conversion and so on. However, commercialization of cat-
alytic synthesis of ethanol from syngas is under development [15].
On the other hand, catalytic synthesis of methanol from H2 + CO
is an existing commercially available technology. It was reported
[16] that MeOH yield is 0.31 kg per kg dry biomass (Japanese cedar
400 t_dry/d), and the production cost lies between 12.8 and 78.0
¥/m3_MeOH. The lowest production cost is achieved when the
shortfall of heat and power is compensated by an auxiliary CHP
plant fed with biomass, char, off-gas, etc.
The present work aims at commercial ethanol production via
thermo-chemical route in the near future. The thermo-chemical
process is designed, simulated and optimized. ASPEN Plus is the
main software used in the simulation. Techno-economic evalua-
tion is conducted in terms of ethanol yield, synthesis selectivity,
carbon and CO conversion efficiencies, and ethanol production
cost. Sensitivity of the important techno-economic parameters is
also analyzed.
2. Process design and simulation
Before setting up the mathematic model, an optimal thermo-
chemical biomass-to-ethanol process is designed as shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. The process is established with five steps: biomass
pretreatment, gasification, syngas cleaning and conditioning, alco-
hol synthesis and alcohol separation. In the end, a significant quan-
tity of higher alcohols as the byproduct is produced simultaneously
with ethanol in the synthesis reactor.
In comparison with methanol and ethanol, higher alcohols have
lower vapour pressure, better oil solubility, improved water toler-
ance and higher heating value, so they are more attractive to be
blended with gasoline for octane number enhancement [17]. In
the process, off-gas and MeOH from ethanol synthesis and separa-
tion steps are recycled to increase conversion efficiency. A CHP
plant is integrated from economic and environmental points of
view.
As shown in Fig. 2 of the process flowsheet, mass streams are
classified into five groups distinguished by lines of different types
and colors. The red solid line represents the ‘‘main stream” from
feedstock, syngas, mixed alcohols to ethanol and higher alcohols.
The red dashed line stands for fresh air stream and streams associ-
ated with air, e.g., flue gas. The combustion flue gas is used to dry
biomass. The blue dashed line stands for H2O streams representing
water and steam at different temperatures. Steam is used as fluid-
izing agent and reactant in gasification. Energy contained in super-
heated steam can be transferred into mechanical or electric energy
in the CHP plant. The green dashed line stands for recycle streams
Fig. 1. Block flow diagram of biomass-to-ethanol process.
1225
of MeOH and off-gas from alcohol synthesis and separation. The
dotted line stands for other substances such as chemical additives,
catalysts, sulfur, ash, etc. The symbols in Fig. 2 are briefly described
in Table 1. R means a reactor, C – cleaning equipment, D – distillation
column, H – heat exchanger, M – mechanical equipment, P – pressure
changer, S – separation equipment, T – tank. Critical operation
parameters are annotated in Fig. 2. The biomass-to-ethanol process
is described stepwise in detail below.
2.1. Biomass pretreatment
Fresh biomass has high moisture content up to 50 wt.%, is inho-
mogeneous in shape and size, and needs pretreatment before gas-
ification. The pretreatment process is shown in Fig. 2. Weighed
(M11) wood chips are screened (S11). Metal debris is removed
through magnetic separator (M12). Particles larger than 10 mm
are conveyed to hammer mill (M13) for further size reduction.
By direct contacting with hot flue gas from char combustor (R22)
and regenerator (R32) of reforming catalyst, wet biomass is dried
(M14) to moisture content of around 5 wt.%. Before being pumped
(P11) to the atmosphere, flue gas passes through cyclone (S12) to
separate particulates. Temperature of stack gas is controlled by
cooling hot flue gas with two steam boilers (H12, H13).
2.2. Gasification
Gasification is carried out in the indirect dual-bed gasifier (R21).
Gasification heat is transferred from hot bed material returned
from the combustor (R22) where a part of biomass in addition to
tars and char from the coupled gasifier are combusted with air.
Particles separated (S23) from raw syngas are first cooled and
mixed with water in a sand/ash cooler (M21) and then are land
filled. This complex thermo-chemical process begins with thermal
decomposition followed by partial oxidation, reduction and
reforming. A small amount of MgO is added to raise the ash melt-
ing point, and to avoid the agglomeration that would result from
the interaction of biomass potassium with silicate compounds [18].
The composition and quality of syngas from biomass gasifier are
dependent on a number of factors: gasifier design, feedstock, gasi-
fying agent, equivalent ratio or steam to biomass ratio, tempera-
ture, pressure, catalyst, etc. Syngas with H2/CO molar ratio of 1–2
is suitable for ethanol synthesis [1,17,19]. Air-blown gasifier pro-
duces syngas with too low concentration of H2 and CO to be useful
for ethanol synthesis. When steam or O2 is used as gasifying agent,
the produced syngas is suitable for ethanol synthesis [3]. Use of O2
requires large capital investment on O2 production. In this model,
allothermal dual-bed gasifier is chosen as an oxygen production
plant is avoided.
The sub-model of the biomass gasifier mainly composed of the
single units of gasifier, combustor and gas-solid separator is
1226 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232

Fig. 2. Biomass-to-ethanol flowsheet (interpretation of symbols in Table 1).

developed with ASPEN Plus to determine the syngas composition. mined to be in the range of 1.1  1.5 at 750  900°C [20]. Values
The simulated process begins with pyrolysis and continues with of a and b are taken to be 0.9 and 1.4 respectively, which shows
combustion and gasification [20]. the best agreement with experimental data [20].
Combustion reaction:
2.3. Gas cleaning
C þ aO2
2ð1  aÞCO þ ð2a  1ÞCO2 ð1Þ
Raw syngas contains various impurities such as tars, sulfurous
and nitrogenous compounds, alkali metal species, ash, and char.
Steam gasification reactions:
These impurities are potential threats to ethanol synthesis cata-
lysts. The cleaning process employed in the model is illustrated
C þ H2 O
CO þ H2 ð2Þ
in Fig. 2.
CO þ H2 O
CO2 þ H2 ð3Þ First, tars are cracked down by a catalytic reformer (R31) before
C þ 2H2 O
CO2 þ 2H2 ð4Þ syngas temperature drops down. The reforming unit consists of a
C þ bH2 O
ðb  1ÞCO2 þ ð2  bÞCO þ bH2 ð5Þ catalytic reformer (R31) and a catalyst regenerator (R32). Energy
for endothermic reforming is transferred from the circulating cat-
Here, ‘‘a” is a mechanism factor, and a function of temperature and alytic bed material that acts as heat carrier as well. Tars are re-
average diameter of char particles. ‘‘b” is experimentally deter- formed into additional CO and H2 through the following reactions:
 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232 1227

Table 1
Interpretation of symbols in Fig. 2.

Pretreatment Reforming, cleaning, compression and preheating Distillation

H11–H13 flue gas cooler C31 scrubbing and quenching unit D51 ethanol/propanol distillation column
M11 scale C32 acid gas separation–amine unit D52 methanol/ethanol distillation column
M12 conveyor and separator C33 H2S redox unit H51 syngas cooler
M13 hammer mill H31–H33 reformed syngas cooler H52 molar sieve super-heater
M14 biomass dryer H34–H35 recycle syngas cooler H53– H56 product cooler
P11 flue gas blower H36 H2S gas mixture pre-heater S51 alcohols condenser
S11 screener P31 five-stage compression unit S52 pre-flash
S12 cyclone R31 tar reformer S53 molecular sieve unit
R32 catalyst regenerator Steam cycle and power generation
Gasification S31 tar reformer cyclone H61 steam turbine condenser
M21 sand/ash cooler S32 catalyst regenerator cyclone H62 blowdown water cooler
P21 air blower M61 softening system
R21 biomass gasifier Synthesis M62 turbine/generator
R22 char combustor H41 syngas pre-heater P61–P64 pump
S21 combustor cyclone H42–H49 post synthesis cooler S61 blowdown flash drum
S22 electrostatic precipitator H410 recycle syngas heater T61 condensate collection tank
S23 gasifier cyclone P41 purge gas expander T62 condensate surge drum
P42 there-stage compression unit T63 deaerator
R41 the mixed alcohols reactor T64 steam drum

CO þ H2 O
CO2 þ H2 ð6Þ It is reported [17] that synthesis of linear alcohols proceeds in a
Cx Hy þ xH2 O
ðx þ y=2ÞH2 þ xCO ð7Þ stepwise manner, and C–C bond is formed through insertion of
CO into CH3OH. Alcohols synthesis has a low yield and poor selec-
Cx Hy þ xCO2
ðy=2ÞH2 þ 2xCO ð8Þ
tivity due to the slow initial formation of C–C bond and fast chain
CH4 O
CO þ 2H2 ð9Þ growth of C2 intermediate [15]. Product often has high concentra-
Cx H2xþ2 O þ H2 O
CO þ 2H2 þ Cx1 H2ðx1Þþ2 O ð10Þ tion of methanol [18]. The conversion of CO can be as high as
Cx H2xþ2 O þ ð2x  1ÞH2 O
xCO2 þ 3xH2 ð11Þ 40%, alcohols selectivity is in the range of 70–80 wt.%, and ethanol
2H3 N
N2 þ 3H2 ð12Þ concentrations presented by Dow and SRI International are
34.5 wt.% and 46.1 wt.% respectively [18,21]. Utilized catalysts can
x, y = 1, 2, 3, – (natural numbers). be classified into modified Fischer–Tropsch catalysts, groups VI–VIII
The reformed syngas flows through a cyclone (S31) and is metal-based catalysts and modified methanol synthesis catalysts
cooled (H31–H33) to 150 °C, while the flue gas from the regenera- [22]. For instance, the commercial ‘‘Cu/Co/ZnO” methanol catalysts
tor is sent to biomass drier through another cyclone (S32). A ven- can be modified for alcohols synthesis with medium selectivity to-
turi scrubber and a quench chamber are included in the scrubbing wards ethanol [23]. Higher selectivity can be achieved with sup-
system (C31). Additional cooling is done via water scrubbing, and ported rhodium catalysts at around 275 °C, but these catalysts are
impurities like particulates, residual tars and ammonia are further too expensive to be used [23]. With regard to ‘‘yield”, ‘‘conversion”,
reduced. Subsequently, in a five-stage compressor (P31), the syn- ‘‘selectivity”, ‘‘sulfur tolerance”, and ‘‘economy”, the MoS2 catalyst
gas is compressed to 29 bar (43 °C) leaving NH3 and H2O con- is recommended, which has high specific surface area and pro-
densed. Afterwards, acid gases (CO2 and H2S) removal is carried moted with alkali metal salts (e.g., potassium carbonate). Catalyst
out in an amine (monoethanolamine or methyldiethanolamine) that achieves optimal performance at lower pressure can provide
system (C32) [1,18]. Other sulfurous compounds – if contained in significant cost saving.
raw syngas, will be easily converted into H2S by H2-rich syngas
and Ni–Mo-based or Co–Mo-based catalysts. The presence of some
CO2 (about 5 vol.%) is necessary for the function of methanol syn- 2.5. Alcohols separation
thesis catalyst, and may also be advantageous for ethanol synthesis
[15]. Eventually, H2S from the amine unit is pre-heated (H36) and Mixed alcohols are de-gassed, dried and separated into ethanol
oxidized (C33) (e.g., in iron chelate based liquid phase redox and higher alcohols. In flash separator (S52) alcohols are separated
processes). from off-gas. Off-gas containing CO2 and a small quantity of hydro-
carbons and alcohols can be recycled to alcohols synthesis reactor.
2.4. Alcohols synthesis However, to avoid accumulation of ‘‘inert” gases (CO2, CH4) in the
stream recycled to synthesis reactor, off-gas is diverted to gas
After cleaning, syngas is compressed (P42) and pre-heated cleaning section. A portion of off-gas (5 vol.%) is used to generate
(H41) to the synthesis conditions of 100 bar and 300 °C. Synthesis heat for tar reforming. Since the recycled gas is at high pressure,
(R41) is completed in seconds or minutes, and the product is it is further heated and applied (P41) to generate extra electricity
cooled (H42–H49) and initially purified to separate out (S51) the before being fed to the reformer and combustor. Depressurized
unconverted syngas. The temperature of the reactor with exother- alcohols stream is dehydrated with molecular sieve (S53) and then
mic alcohols synthesis is controlled by cooling water. The involved sent to the main distillation column (D51) where 99% of incoming
reactions are listed below [18,21]. ethanol, along with methanol is recovered in the overhead, and
99% propanol, 1% ethanol, and all of butanol and pentanol are re-
CO þ 2H2
CH3 OH ð13Þ mained in the bottom stream. The overhead is further processed
xCO þ 2xH2
Cx H2xþ1 OH þ ðx  1ÞH2 O ð14Þ in the second column (D52) to get high purity ethanol. Methanol
CO þ 2H2 þ Cx H2xþ1 OH
Cxþ1 H2ðxþ1Þþ1 OH þ H2 O ð15Þ in the overhead is used to rinse adsorbed water off the molecular
sieve, and the obtained methanol/water mixture is recycled for
3xCO þ 3xH2 þ xH2 O
2Cx H2xþ1 OH þ 2ðx  1ÞH2 O þ xCO2 ð16Þ
alcohols synthesis. Purified ethanol and higher alcohols are cooled
Cx H2xþ1 OH þ H2
Cx H2xþ2 þ H2 O ð17Þ (H53–H56) and stored.
1228 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232

2.6. Heat and power Table 3

3 Syngas composition (calculated).

The biomass-to-ethanol process is designed to be energy self- H2 43.5

sufficient, so that purchase of natural gas and grid power is avoided. CO 27.2
In the designed steam cycle and power generation system (Fig. 2), CO2 19.8
process water condensate and make-up water passes through the CH4 7.9
heat exchangers (H44, H61) and is pumped (P61, P62) to a conden- Tars (after cleaning) 10–40 mg/N m3
sate collection tank (T61). Condensate stream first passes through LHV (MJ/N m3) 12.5
condensate surge drum (T62), then is pumped (P62) and heated Gas yield (N m3/kg 1.0
biomass daf)
(H43) to the saturation temperature, and finally is undergone soft-
ening (M61) and degassing (T63) treatment. Water from the deaer- Conditions: indirect gasifier 850 °C S/B (mass ratio) 0.6
ator is first pressurized (P64) to 64 bar and then preheated to the Ni/olivine catalyst (20 wt.% of the bed material).

saturation temperature using a series of heat exchangers (R41,

H11–H13, H31, H35). Saturated steam is collected in steam drum
(T64). To prevent solids from building up, a small portion of steam
is periodically discharged from the steam drum and then flows
through a flash drum (S61) where the overhead is recycled to the
deaerator, and the bottom stream is cooled (H62) and then sent
to a cooling water system. Saturated steam from the steam drum
is superheated (485 °C, 60 bar) (R41, H33). Water accumulates heat
throughout the plant. Heat in the superheated steam is transformed
into power (steam turbine/generator, M62). Afterwards, conden-
sate from steam turbine is re-circulated back to condensate collec-
tion tank; and the low pressure steam is split with one portion
being injected into gasifier and another portion being heated and
pumped back to condensate collection tank.
3. Process simulation and assumption
3.1. Mass and energy balances
Based on the process flow diagram in Fig. 2, the mass and
energy balance over each process and unit is made with help of
ASPEN Plus software package. This package consists of many
sub-models simulating every single unit and component. The cal-
culation is performed for every sub-model to compute the thermo-
dynamic and transport properties and to describe the behavior of
single components and mixtures. Equations and data required for
the calculation are accessed from Aspen Plus databanks. The input
data are collected from a variety of sources including experimental
and literary data. The process assumptions and intermediate sim-
ulation results are summarized in Tables 2–4. It is calculated that
the total ethanol productivity is 0.25 kg ethanol/kg dry biomass,
fresh water demand is 3.3 kg water/kg ethanol, and system power
requirement is about 0.36 kW h/kg ethanol.
A number of terms presented in this simulation are expressed
as follows:
C Conversion Efficiencyðwt:%Þ
carbon mass in products stream
¼  100%
carbon mass in feedstock stream
Table 2
Properties of biomass (woody fuel [24]).
Proximate analysis
Moisture content 9.1
Fixed carbon 15.2
Volatile matter 84.1
Ash 0.7
Ultimate analysis (wt.% dry basis)
Ash 0.70
C 48.28
H 7.31
N 0.25
S 0.23
O 43.41
CO Conversion Efficiencyðwt:%Þ
¼ total CO conversion  total alcohols concentration
 ethanol concentration  100% ð19Þ
ethanol mass
Ethanol Selectivityðwt:%Þ ¼  100% ð20Þ
total alcohols mass
energy in ethanol
Ethanol Yieldðwt:%Þ ¼  100% ð21Þ
feedstock energy
‘‘C Conversion Efficiency” is adopted to quantify the conversion of C
in biomass into final product. Performance of catalyst is character-
ized by ‘‘CO Conversion Efficiency”. The catalytic selectivity towards
ethanol is indicated by ‘‘Ethanol Selectivity”. ‘‘Ethanol Yield” is the
token of overall energy conversion efficiency.
The syngas cleanup is one of the key issues in commercializa-
tion of the biomass-to-ethanol conversion technology since it is
an intensive energy consumption process that requires high
investment. The mass and energy balance computed with Aspen
modules throughout every step or unit in the cleanup system is
illustrated in Fig. 3. The data of mass flow (kg/h), temperature
(°C), pressure (bar) and energy flow (MJ/h) are indicated at each
conjunction point of two units. As can be seen, a large amount of
electricity is consumed to compress the stream (3675 MJ/h)
(43 °C 28.6 bar) into a high pressure stream (64567 MJ/h) (300 °C
68.3 bar) that flows afterwards into the ethanol synthesizer. A con-
siderable amount of electricity is also required for compressing of
the stream injected into the condensation process. External heat is
supplied for the endothermic reforming process. Heat released
from the cooling of the output stream of the reformer can be recy-
cled. The facilities employed in the cleanup system account for a
great part of the total investment. The operation cost will be added
by the catalyst, chemical additive, water, etc. These lead to the
highest cost share by the syngas cleanup in the total ethanol pro-
duction cost.
ð18Þ 3.2. Economic analysis
Calculated mass and energy balances are referred to the speci-
fication or design of equipments and assessment of operation cost.
Equipment cost is obtained based on data from literature, vendors,
engineering companies, and software. Although identifying the
cost of specially designed equipment is difficult, an elaborate and
reasonable estimation with equations below is rather facile and
feasible.
 n
Q1
I1 ¼ I2  ð22Þ
Q2
CI1
I1 ¼ I2  ð23Þ
CI2
(I – investment; Q – production capacity or equipment size; CI –
cost year index).
 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232 1229

Table 4
Mass and energy balances.

Mass balance Energy balance (LHV)

Input kg/h Input % of biomass energy
Biomass 87,719 Biomass 1 (370 MW)
Fresh water 73,473 Air 0.0018
Air into the combustor 195,232 Water 0.105
Air into the regenerator 130,134 Total 0.8968
Air into the h2s redox unit 118 Output
Catalysts 248 Ethanol 0.44
Amine 117 The higher alcohols 0.115
Total 487,041 Evaporation 0.0168
Output Flue gas 0.056
Ethanol 22,102 Sulfur 0.00032
The higher alcohols 3987 Compressors 0.15
Sulfur 49 Air-cooled heat exchangers 0.17
Solid waste (catalyst/ash/char/h2o) 1136 Vent to the atmosphere 0.00063
Wastewater 528 Sand and ash 0.014
Blowdown 7584 Wastewater 0.00095
Waste gas 451,655 Other 0.065
Total 487,041 Total 0.8968

Fig. 3. Detail of the mass and energy balance throughout the syngas cleaning system.

Here, ‘‘n” denotes characteristic scaling exponent of either over-
all plant or single equipment. Typically, ‘‘n” equals 0.6, i.e., ‘‘0.6
exponent method”. ‘‘n” has different referential values for different
processes and equipments. Equipment installation cost is esti-
mated 1.45 times the equipment purchase cost. Operation cost
consists of fixed and variable operation costs. Labour cost equals
national per capita income multiplied by a factor 1.2. Variable
operation cost is calculated according to the stream flow rate. Price
of cost item equals the temporal market price at the time when
economic analysis is performed. Biomass procurement cost is set
as 58.66 €/dry ton. The fixed operation cost is supposed to stay
invariable within a certain range, while variable operation cost is
varied with the production scales. Since capital recovery charge
is related to capital investment, ‘‘0.6 exponent method” is adopted
As shown in Fig. 4, the production cost per liter ethanol in Euro
is expressed as a function of the ethanol plant scale in biomass
thermal input, which is made up of two parts, total capital invest-
ment and total operation cost. Obviously, the production cost de-
creases with the plant size due to the economical scaling effect.
In particular under small scales up to 200 MW, the production
cost decreases rapidly and levels off. This suggests that a thermo-
chemical biomass-to-ethanol plant should be built around 200 MW.
Table 5
Assumptions for economic analysis.
Cost items Values

to calculate the charge. Once total capital and operation costs are Total capital investment 100,726,500 €
determined, ethanol production cost is calculated by ‘‘discounted Total operation cost (TOC) 29,915,770 €/y
cash flow analysis” when the ‘‘net present value” is zero. Assump- The fixed operation cost
tions for techno-economic analysis in the reference case are listed Labor 5.6% of TOC
Administrative 5.3% of TOC
in Table 5.
Maintenance 9.3% of TOC
Tax and insurance 9.3% of TOC
Variable operating cost
4. Calculated results Biomass 62.0% of TOC
Catalysts 4.5% of TOC
Water 1.0% of TOC
4.1. Production cost Other 3.0% of TOC
Reference plant scale 370 MW
A mathematic model of thermo-chemical biomass-to-ethanol Plant hours per year 8405 h
process has been established based on the material and energy bal- Tax 39%
ances over each process included in the well-designed production Internal rate of return (after-tax) 10%
flow diagram in Fig. 2. The production cost is calculated in the con- Steam plant depreciation DDB (life 20 years, factor 150%)
General plant depreciation DDB (life 7 years, factor 200%)
text of the economical situation in a typical developed country as
shown in Figs. 4–6. DDB – double declining balance depreciation method.
1230 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232

The production cost in this scale is around 0.33 €/l ethanol, which
0,7 Total Production Cost
Total Capital Investiment
might be reduced further to 0.25 €/l ethanol in the scale of
1000 MW. However, a 1000 MW ethanol plant based on biomass
Ethanol Production Cost ( /l)

Total Operation Cost

0,6
is not realistic due to limit to feedstock availability. The favorable
locations of 200 MW ethanol plants can be found in many places,
0,5
for instance, close to harbors, in paper & pulp mills, in forest rich
0,4
countries. The biomass price is held constant in the present model
calculation, but it will also rise dramatically for the large plant and
0,3 leads to a high operation cost.
The economical scaling effect is mainly attributed to the capital
0,2 investment. For a small ethanol plant, the capital investment is
much higher than the operation cost as shown in Fig. 4. The gap be-
0,1 tween the capital investment and the operation cost is becoming
smaller and smaller as the plant is becoming larger and the process
0,0 equipments are utilized more efficiently. The first huge capital
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 investment plus the risk in the thermo-chemical conversion tech-
Plant Scale (MW) nologies is the biggest barrier to BTL commercialization.
The capital investment is broken down by the costs of individ-
Fig. 4. Ethanol production cost as a function of plant scale.
ual processes, pretreatment, gasification, syngas cleaning, alcohols
synthesis, alcohols separation and purification, power generation,
and the utilities as shown in Fig. 5. The biggest share of total capital
investment is allocated to the syngas cleaning including tars/CH4
Alcohols Synthesis reforming by about 38%, followed by about 16% of biomass pre-
50 MW
14,59% treatment and about 15% of alcohols synthesis. The capital cost dis-
Ethanol Purification tribution is not sensitive to the ethanol plant size as revealed in
Cleaning 4,92% Fig. 5 by the comparison of the cost distributions at two different
38,41% scales of 50 MW and 800 MW.
Power Generation
The huge cost in the syngas cleaning in response to a limited
12,39%
size of ethanol plant is the most important factor limiting commer-
cial production of ethanol from biomass via thermo-chemical con-
Utilities
3,19% version. This is a big drawback compared with biochemical
Pretreatment conversion.
Gasification
16,29% The purity of syngas is dictated by synthesis catalysts. A balance
10,2%
between the degree of syngas cleaning and the effect on synthesis
800 MW 15,18%
catalysts should be made for economical reason.
The total production cost is broken down by individual items,
8,75%
biomass, pretreatment, gasification, syngas cleaning, alcohols syn-
37,28% thesis, alcohols separation, power generation and other utilities as
shown in Fig. 6 for four different scales, 50, 150, 400 and 800 MW.
11,64% The costs of biomass raw material and syngas cleaning are the two
biggest shares of the total production cost. As the ethanol plant is
2,13% becoming larger, the raw material cost becomes more dominating
in the total production cost, while the syngas cleaning and other
8,14% 16,89% capital investment cost shares are getting smaller. On the other
hand, higher alcohols are also produced as the valuable byproduct
Fig. 5. Capital cost breakdown. to ethanol. The higher alcohols credit exerts a negative effect on
the ethanol production cost, and compensates the big cost of bio-
mass raw material. This cost compensation by the higher alcohols
credit is much clearer when the plant size is bigger.
800 MW
4.2. Parameter sensitivity

400 MW After synthesis, most off-gas is recycled to reformer with a min-

or part being simultaneously combusted in catalyst regenerator. As
illustrated in Fig. 7, with increasing percentage of off-gas recycled
into reformer, C conversion efficiency is somewhat enhanced, and
150 MW Other Utilities ethanol yield is increased from 25% to 31%, while ethanol selectiv-
Power Generation
ity is slightly decreased, and less power is generated as less com-
Alcohols Separation
Alcohols Synthesis bustible off-gas is used for electricity generation. In order to
50 MW Cleaning maximize the ethanol and higher alcohols production, more off-
Gasification
Biomass Pretreatment
gas should be recycled and reformed rather than combusted for
Feedstock energy production under the condition that self-sufficient power
is guaranteed.
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% Methanol as a component of synthesis product is entirely recy-
cled into the synthesizer as designed in this model. As shown in
Fig. 6. Production cost contribution chart. Fig. 8, the methanol recycling raises the ethanol selectivity from
 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232 1231

80 8,20 Synthesis Catalyst Cost ( /kg)

75 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0,50
8,15
70

reference
C Conversion Efficiency
0,45

Ethanol Production Cost ( /l)

65 Ethanol Selectivity 8,10
0,40
60 Ethanol Yield

Generated Power
8,05
55 0,35

MW
%

50 8,00
0,30
45
7,95 0,25
40
35 7,90 0,20

reference
30 0,15
7,85
25 Plant Scale - 370 MW
Plant Scale - 370 MW 0,10
20 7,80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Biomass Cost ( /dry ton)
Percentage of off-gas to Reforming Reactor (%)
Fig. 9. Ethanol production cost as a function of biomass and catalyst costs.
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis of the recycling of off-gas to reformer.

0,33
82
0,30

Ethanol Production Cost ( /l)

46
0,27
44 80
0,24
C Conversion Efficiency
42 Ethanol Yield 0,21
Ethanol Selectivity 78
0,18
40
%

0,15
38 76 0,12
reference

36
34
Plant Scale - 370 MW
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Methanol Recycled to Synthesis
Reactor (%)
Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis of the recycling of methanol to alcohols synthesizer.
about 74% to about 79% and the ethanol yield from about 33% to
about 35%. Recycling of MeOH to alcohols synthesizer is favorable
to ethanol production. According to the mechanism (Eqs. (15)–
(17)), both promoting and inhibiting functions will be exerted by
recycled MeOH (intermediate substance).
Evaluation is conducted on the influence of cost of biomass
feedstock or commercial catalyst on ethanol production cost. One
major problem with bio-ethanol production is the availability of
raw materials. The price of the raw materials is also highly volatile.
A considerable part of cost is ascribed to the collection and storage
of low density lignocellosic feedstock. Different from biomass feed-
stock, to some extent, the catalyst has little impact on ethanol pro-
duction cost (Fig. 9). However, rhodium or ruthenium promoter
can add considerable cost even at relatively low concentrations.
As discussed above from Fig. 6, the higher alcohols credit com-
pensates for the total ethanol production cost to a great extent,
especially for large-scale ethanol plants. The compensation degree
depends on higher alcohols’ end-use. At low value use as excellent
gasoline additive, higher alcohols would have the selling price sim-
ilar to fossil fuel (about 0.16 €/l) [18]. At high value use as chemi-
cals, higher alcohols would have the selling price of about 0.81 €/l
0,09
74 0,06 Plant Scale - 370 MW
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6
Higher Alcohols Credit ( /l)
72
Fig. 10. Sensitivity of higher alcohols credit to the ethanol production cost.
[18]. Fig. 10 shows the ethanol production cost against the higher
alcohols’ selling price. It can be seen clearly that the production
cost is reduced from 0.31 €/l when higher alcohols are used as gas-
oline additive to about 0.19 €/l when higher alcohols are used as
chemicals. An intermediate price of higher alcohols is chosen as
reference value.
5. Conclusions
A mathematic model for techno-economic assessment on ther-
mo-chemical biomass-to-ethanol process has been developed
mainly with ASPEN Plus. The assessment is made in terms of car-
bon and CO conversion efficiencies, ethanol yield, synthesis selec-
tivity and ethanol production cost.
Calculated results show that major contributions to the produc-
tion cost are from syngas cleaning and biomass feedstock. A bio-
mass-to-ethanol plant should be built around 200 MW as the
biomass input, which gives the ethanol production cost 0.33 €/l
in the context of a typical developed country. The capital invest-
ment is much higher than the operation cost and dominates the to-
tal ethanol production cost for S& M scale plants. This suggests that
the first huge capital investment with technological risk is a big
barrier to the commercialization of thermo-chemical biomass-
to-ethanol process. The costs of biomass raw material and syngas
cleaning are the two biggest shares of the total production cost.
1232 J. He, W. Zhang / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1224–1232
As the ethanol plant is becoming larger, the raw material cost be-
comes more dominating in the total production cost. This can be
off-set, to a certain extent, by the higher alcohols credit which
might reduce the ethanol production cost from 0.31 €/l to about
0.19 €/l when the higher alcohols are used as valuable chemicals.
In summary, the cost-competitive ethanol production can be
realized with efficient equipments, optimized operation, cost-
effective syngas cleaning technology, cheap raw material with
low pretreatment cost, high performance catalysts, off-gas and
methanol recycling, optimal systematic configuration and heat
integration, and high value byproduct.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the project support of
EU regional structure fond, Ångpanneföreningen Foundation for
Research and Development, LKAB, Västernorrland Länsstyrelsen,
FOKUSERA, Härnösand Kommun, Toyato, SCA BioNorr and SUNTIB.
References
[1] Piccolo C, Bezzo F. A techno-economic comparison between two technologies
for bioethanol production from lignocellulose. Biomass & Bioenergy
2009;33:478–91.
[2] Hamelinck CN, Hooijdonk GV, Faaij AP. Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass:
techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term. Biomass &
Bioenergy 2005;28:384–410.
[3] Zhang WN. Automotive fuels from biomass via gasification. Fuel Process
Technol 2010;91:866–76.
[4] Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol
production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass & Bioenergy
2008;32:422–30.
[5] Rajagopalan S, Datar RP, Lewis RS. Formation of ethanol from carbon monoxide
via a new microbial catalyst. Biomass & Bioenergy 2002;23:487–93.
[6] Younesi H, Najafpour G, Mohamed AR. Ethanol and acetate production from
synthesis gas via fermentation processes using anaerobic bacterium,
Clostridium ljungdahlii. Biochem Eng J 2005;27:110–9.
[7] Zheng Y, Pan ZhL, Zhang RH, Wang DH. Enzymatic saccharification of dilute
acid pretreated saline crops for fermentable sugar production. Appl Energy
2009;86(11):2459–65.
[8] Yu SR, Tao J. Economic, energy and environmental evaluations of biomass-
based fuel ethanol projects based on life cycle assessment and simulation. Appl
Energy 2009;86(Suppl. 1):S178–88.
[9] Qiu HG, Huang JK, Yang J, Rozelle S, Zhang YH, Zhang YH, et al. Bioethanol
development in China and the potential impacts on its agricultural economy.
Appl Energy 2010;87(1):76–83.
[10] Balat M, Balat H. Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-
ethanol fuel. Appl Energy 2009;86(11):2273–82.
[11] Eriksson G, Kjellström B. Assessment of combined heat and power (CHP)
integrated with wood-based ethanol production. Appl Energy 2010;87:
3632–41.
[12] Starfelt F, Thorin E, Dotzauer E, Yan J. Performance evaluation of adding
ethanol production into an existing combined heat and power plant. Bioresour
Technol 2010;101(2):613–8.
[13] Naqvi M, Yan J, Dahlquist E. Black liquor gasification integrated in pulp and
paper mills: a critical review. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(21):8001–15.
[14] Murphy JD, McCarthy K. Ethanol production from energy crops and wastes for
use as a transport fuel in Ireland. Appl Energy 2005;82(2):148–766.
[15] Subramani V, Gangwal SK. A review of recent literature to search for an
efficient catalytic process for the conversion of syngas to ethanol. Energy Fuels
2008;22:814–39.
[16] Kumabe K, Fujimoto S, Yanagida T, Ogata M, Fukuda T, Yabe A, et al.
Environmental and economic analysis of methanol production process via
biomass gasification. Fuel 2008;87:1422–7.
[17] Spath PL, Dayton DC. Preliminary screening-technical and economic
assessment of synthesis gas to fuels and chemicals with emphasis on the
potential for biomass-derived syngas. NREL Report No. NREL/TP-510-34929,
vol. 12; 2003. p. 1–160.
[18] Phillips SD. Technoeconomic analysis of a lignocellulosic biomass indirect
gasification process to make ethanol via mixed alcohols synthesis. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2007;46(26):8887–97.
[19] Wang LJ, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Contemporary issues in thermal
gasification of biomass and its application to electricity and fuel production.
Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:573–81.
[20] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed
reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1245–54.
[21] Wei L, Pordesimo LO, Igathinathane C, Batchelor WD. Process engineering
evaluation of ethanol production from wood through bio-processing and
chemical catalysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:255–66.
[22] He J, Zhang WN. Research on ethanol synthesis from syngas. J Zhejiang Univ-
SCI A 2008;9(5):714–9.
[23] Unger C, Schulzke T. Comparison of different routes from lignocellulose to
ethanol. In: 16th European biomass conference & exhibition, 2–6 June 2008,
Valencia, Spain; 2008. p. 2079–83.
[24] Wang TJ, Chang J, Lv PM. Synthesis gas production via biomass catalytic
gasification with addition of biogas. Energy Fuels 2005;19:637–44.