Process design and evaluation of butanol production from lignocellulosic biomass

Presented at Bioenergy2009 4th International Bioenergy Conference and Exibition on 31st August to 4th September 2009 Jyvskyl - Finland

C.M. Daza Montao

ECN-L--09-117

September 2009

PROCESS DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF BUTANOL PRODUCTION FROM LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS

Claudia Daza Montao

Presentation Outline
Why Butanol? ABE (acetone, butanol, ethanol) fermentation background and state of the art Developed conceptual process design Economic evaluation Environmental Impact assessment (LCA) Conclusions

8-9-2009

BUTANOL (C4H9OH): Bulk chemical and fuel

Butanol is better biofuel than ethanol due to its more favorable chemical/physical properties. But even more valuable as chemical

Properties LHV (MJth/kg) Solubility (ml/100 ml H2O) Vapor pressure (mmHg) Flash point (oC)

1-Butanol C4H9OH 33 9 5 37

Ethanol C2H5OH 27 miscible 44 15

Butanol can be shipped and distributed through existing pipelines and filling stations Butanol can be blended with diesel and with gasoline Butanol is a widely used solvent in industry

8-9-2009

Acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation

Clostridia strains A:B:E 3:6:1 wt. Sugars and starch

Biofuels

USA Canada South Africa China Japan URSS Others

Pict. source: Jones, D. Clostridium X Workshop

Chemicals Traditional fermentation Petrochemicals ABE revival

DuPont & BP in UK USA China Brazil Others

1920

1950

2008

2015

8-9-2009

Challenges and research on butanol fermentation

high cost of raw material butanol toxicity (10 gr/l) dilute product streams low productivity low solvent yields

expensive DSP

Metabolic and Genetic engineering Broad substrate range agricultural and food industry residues Solvent tolerant strains Thermophilic strains Selective product formation
8-9-2009

Process technology Upstream: Pre-treatment and hydrolysis Fermentation configuration In Situ Product Removal ISPR DSP and process integration

Definition of process designed

Plant capacity 100 kton/year bio-butanol (167 kton/year ABE) Wheat straw

Lignocellulosic feedstock

Input 1416 kton/year (d.m) Cost: 31/ton (d.m.) Mode of operation Continuous Gas stripping

In situ product removal technique

8-9-2009

ABE fermentation parameters

Solvent-producing Clostridia beijerinckii NACIMB 8052
Wild type - Anaerobic bacteria Saccharolytic: C6 (glucose) and C5 (xylose) and sugar polymers (starch, xylan) Typical yield: 0.3 kg A.B.E/kgsugar with 3:6:1mass ratio
Compound Sugars Acetone Butanol Ethanol Acetic acid Butyric acid Hydrogen Microbial cells Carbon dioxide
7 8-9-2009 Acidogenic Phase H2 production

Formula CH2O C3H6O C4H9OH C2H5OH CH3COOH C4H8O2 H2 CH1.8O0.5N0.2 CO2

wt % 9 18 3 1.5 1.5 1.6 12.7 49.7

Product recovery
Product Removal (ISPR) required to optimize fermentation productivity
Technology Distillation Gas Stripping Solvent Extraction Pervaporation Adsorption Efficiency High Medium High High High
Gas recycle

State of development Complete Research Research Development Research

Scale Commercial Lab Lab Pilot Commercial

Capital cost Med High Med High High

Operating cost High High Med High Low

Technology status Commercial Research Research Research Research

Gas stripping advantages:

CO2 ABE Water Hydrolisate
Fermentation with membrane cell retention

Condenser -50 oC ABE Water Decanter

Gas

Simple technology Selective removal of volatile compounds

ABE Water

Use of fermentation off gas (CO2) No toxicity to cells

Purge

Water ABE

8-9-2009

Main process sections

CHP 2 HEAT & POWER GENERATION H2 What straw Gas Turbine H&P Flue gases

Water SIZE REDUCTION + Sulph. acid MILD ACID PRETREATMENT ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS + SOLIDS-LIQUID SEPARATION

Gas purge ABE FERMENTATION + IN SITU PRODUCT REMOVAL (ISPR) CH4 Water CO2 Butanol Acetone PRODUCT UPGRADING Ethanol

Lime

Enzymes

RESIDUES TREATMENT

Nutrients
Water, N

Anaerobic Digestion 1 Air

Anaerobic Digestion 2 Digestate Digestate CHP 1 HEAT & POWER GENERATION Combustion

Water Flue Gases Ashes

Steam Turbine H&P

8-9-2009

Overall mass & energy balance

Inputs Wheat straw (d.w., 9 wt% ash) Heat demand Electricity demand Total input Outputs Acetone Butanol Ethanol Heat generation in CHPs Electricity generation in CHPs Total output Net heat surplus Net electricity surplus
*(LHV basis)

Kton/year 1416

Value MW 835* 196 61 1091 181 * 431 196 808 235 136

50 100 17

Process energy demand (steam and electricity) fully covered + large electricity export Room for improvement via heat integration Surplus heat could be used for sterilization or for cooling generation via Absorption Refrigeration Plant

Energy efficiency =
10 8-9-2009

Energy content in ABE + Electricity output = 38% Energy input (feedstock)

Total production cost

Costs Raw materials Utilities Labor Maintenance Others Taxes Capital charge Total gross Total-electricity* sales
* 0.07 /kWh

/TonABE 421 5 21 110 71 30 204 862 408

Production cost distribution

Others Taxes 4% 8% Maintenance 13% Labour 2% Utilities 1% Capital charge 24% Straw 30% Raw materials Lime 0% Sulphuric acid 0% Nutrients 1% Water 1% Enzymes 16%

11

8-9-2009

Product sales revenues

CHEMICALS PRODUCT Selling Price /Ton 571 929 857 814 PRODUCTION ANNUAL SALES Kton/year 50 100 17 167 M/year 28 93 15 136 PRODUCT VALUE % 20 68 12 100

Acetone Butanol Ethanol Total ABE (3:6:1 wt)

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) = 9,6%

12

8-9-2009

Sensitivity analysis on Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Total ABE sales as chemicals: 136 M/year IRR=9,6%
Sensitivity analysis of main cost on IRR
40% 35% 30% 25% IRR 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -60% -40% -20% -5% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Butanol
ratio in ABE mixture

variation (%) ABE sale price sales

Product

Capital
Capital cost cost

Raw materials price cost

Raw materials

Electriciy output output

Electricity

PRODUCTS
*0.015 /MJth

Total ABE (3:6:1 wt)

LHV (MJth/kg) 31

FUELS Fuel value /Ton* 440

CHEMICALS Market Price /Ton 814

13

8-9-2009

Life Cycle Analysis LCA

Goal & scope definition

Inventory analysis

Interpretation

Impact assessment

Life Cycle Assessment framework, with different steps of LCA and their interactions according to ISO standards

The goals of the screening LCA are to assess the environmental impacts of ABE production from straw, in a cradle to gate analysis and to compare these impacts with those of ABE petrol-based production and with those of gasoline production.

Software: SimaPro (version 7) www.pre.nl

14 8-9-2009

Inventory analysis and impact assessment

Wheat production (allocation 7%) Wheat straw Acetone Water Ethanol Sulph. acid Electricity Lime WHEAT STRAW TO ABE PROCESS Grain (average allocation 93%)

Butanol

Ecoinvent database Functional unit 1 MJ ABE =0.032 kg ABE

CML method (Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) Impact categories Abiotic depletion Global warming Ozone layer depletion Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation Acidification Eutrophication

Water

Enzymes

Gas purge
Process emissions

Nutrients N, P

CHPs Flue Gases

Air

Ashes

15

8-9-2009

Comparison ABE from wheat straw with gasoline and with petrochemical ABE
1,E-13

8,E-14

6,E-14

4,E-14

Process emissions

Wheat Straw

Normalization

2,E-14

Enzymes & Nutrients

0,E+00 Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global w arming (GWP100) Ozone layer depletion (ODP) Human toxicity Fresh w ater aquatic ecotox. Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Photochemical oxidation

-2,E-14

Electricity output

-4,E-14

-6,E-14

Normalization set: West Europe, 1995

16 8-9-2009

Straw to ABE

Gasoline

ABE from petrol

Functional unit: 1 MJ

Overall conclusions and recommendations

Wheat Straw to ABE as chemicals = CLOSE TO be economically competitive.
o Raw materials are the major cost driver

Increase of butanol ratio to A:E produced improves energy efficiency and economics Environmental performance: straw-ABE better than petrol-based ABE o Residues conversion into heat and electricity are a key parameter o Major environmental impacts: eutrophication o Recovery of nutrients and production of useful by-products would improve LCA OPTION: Retrofit existing ethanol plants for butanol production

17

8-9-2009

Thank for your attention

Claudia M. Daza Montao. daza@ecn.nl www.ecn.nl Project website: www.biobased.nl/eosbiobutanol Acknowledgement
Project partner: Agrotechnology & Food Sciences Group. Wageningen University & Research Centre WUR This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs through the program EOS (Subsidy for Research on Energy), and partly financed by SenterNovem. www.senternovem.nl/eos

18

8-9-2009