10.1007/s40095-022-00517-1

Predicting the techno-economic performance of a large-scale second-generation bioethanol production plant: a case study for Kenya

  • Wiseman Ngigi*1,
  • Zachary Siagi2,
  • Anil Kumar1,
  • Moses Arowo1,
  1. Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Moi University, Eldoret, 3900-30100, KE
  2. Department of Mechanical, Production and Energy Engineering, Moi University, Eldoret, 3900-30100, KE

Published in Issue 2022-07-20

How to Cite

Ngigi, W., Siagi, Z., Kumar, A., & Arowo, M. (2022). Predicting the techno-economic performance of a large-scale second-generation bioethanol production plant: a case study for Kenya. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 14(1 (March 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-022-00517-1
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates the effect of varying cost and process parameters on bioethanol production rate and the minimum bioethanol selling price (MBSP) during large-scale production of second-generation bioethanol from Sila sorghum stalks found in Kenya. Aspen Plus was used to model and simulate the process that was considered in this study. The flow rate of biomass was varied between 10,000 and 300,000 kg/h which gave rise to a bioethanol flow rate of between 2134.49 and 62,707.33 kg/h. Bioethanol production rate decreased from 21,759.5 to 19,397.6 kg/h when the feed stage position in the beer column increased from 2 to 8. MBSP increased from $0.81/L to $1.11/L when the cost of biomass was varied from $20/tonne to $100/tonne. MBSP increased from $0.9/L to $1.0/L when the cost of enzymes was varied by − 50% and + 50%. MBSP increased from $0.83/L to $1.54/L when discount rate varied by 5% and 30%. MBSP increased from $0.85/L to $1.06/L when fixed capital investment was varied by -35% and + 35%. MBSP reduced from $1.28/L to $0.95/L when plant life varied from 10 to 30 years. MBSP increased from $0.89/L to $0.99/L when income tax rate varied from 0 to 40%. The study indicates that second-generation bioethanol is able to compete with gasoline in Kenya when no levies and taxes are imposed on the MBSP, at a plant life of 15 years and beyond and at an income tax rate of between 0 to 40%.

Keywords

  • Bioethanol,
  • Biomass,
  • Enzymes,
  • Sila sorghum stalks

References

  1. Dias et al. (2011) Second generation ethanol in Brazil: compete with electricity production (pp. 8964-8971) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.098
  2. Mustafa et al. (2008) Progress in bioethanol processing (pp. 551-573) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2007.11.001
  3. Kumar et al. (2016) Recent updates on lignocellulosic biomass derived ethanol—a review (pp. 347-356) https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2016.3.1.4
  4. Sims et al. (2010) An overview of second-generation biofuel technologies (pp. 1570-1580) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046
  5. Hector, H., Hughes, S., Liang-Li, X.: Developing yeast strains for biomass to ethanol production. Ethanol Producer Magazine, June 2008 Issue (2008)
  6. Mosier et al. (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass (pp. 673-686) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.06.025
  7. Li et al. (2009) Improving enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat straw using ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium diethyl phosphate pretreatment (pp. 3570-3575) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.040
  8. Salimi et al. (2017) Conversion of rice husk into fermentable sugar by two stage hydrolysis https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/908/1/012056
  9. Svetlana et al. (2016) Challenges in bioethanol production: utilization of cotton fabrics as a feedstock (pp. 375-390) https://doi.org/10.2298/CICEQ151030001N
  10. Chang and Holtzapple (2000) Fundamental factors affecting biomass enzymatic reactivity (pp. 5-37) https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:84-86:1-9:5
  11. Kumar et al. (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production (pp. 3713-3729) https://doi.org/10.1021/ie801542g
  12. Zhang and Lynd (2004) Towards an aggregated understanding of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: non complexed cellulase systems (pp. 797-824) https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20282
  13. Afsahi et al. (2007) Immobilization of cellulase on non-porous ultrafine silica particles 14(4) (pp. 379-383)
  14. Lili et al. (2005) Immobilization of cellulase in nano fibrous PVA membranes by electrospinning (pp. 167-173) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.10.024
  15. Muktham et al. (2016) A review on 1st and 2nd generation bioethanol production—recent progress (pp. 72-92) https://doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2016.63008
  16. Joshi et al. (2011) Lignocellulosic ethanol production: current practices and recent developments: review (pp. 172-182)
  17. Tan et al. (2008) Role of energy policy in renewable energy accomplishment: the case of second-generation bioethanol (pp. 3360-3365) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.016
  18. Agfax On-line: Super Sorghum: high yielding and drought tolerant.
  19. http://www.agfax.net
  20. (2011)
  21. Mailu S.K., Mulinge, W.: Excise tax changes and their impact on Gadam sorghum demand in Kenya. In: 5th International Conference of AAAE, United Nations Conference Centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 23–26th September (2016)
  22. Lopes et al. (2019) Process simulation and techno-economic assessment for direct production of advanced bioethanol using a genetically modified Synechocystis sp (pp. 113-122) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.02.010
  23. Boakye-Boaten et al. (2017) Techno-economic analysis for the biochemical conversion of Miscanthus x giganteus into bioethanol (pp. 85-94) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.017
  24. Unknown (2000) Aspen Technology, Inc.
  25. Tgarguifa et al. (2017) Modeling and optimization of distillation to produce bioethanol (pp. 43-48) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.170
  26. Zhao et al. (2015) Techno-economic analysis of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass in China: dilute-acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover (pp. 4096-4117) https://doi.org/10.3390/en8054096
  27. da Silva et al. (2016) Techno-economic analysis of different pretreatment processes for lignocellulosic-based bioethanol production (pp. 561-570) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.007
  28. Porzio et al. (2012) Modeling lignocellulosic bioethanol from poplar: estimation of the level of process integration, yield and potential for co-products (pp. 66-75) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.028
  29. Quintero et al. (2013) Techno-economic analysis of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic residues in Colombia: a process simulation approach (pp. 300-307) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.04.048
  30. PIEA. Petroleum Institute of East Africa: quarterly industry report on petroleum sale in Kenya, Nairobi, PIEA (2019)
  31. Dalberg. Scaling up clean cooking in urban Kenya with LPG & bio-ethanol, a market and policy analysis (2018)
  32. Ministry of Energy Kenya: National Energy Policy. Kenya Government Press, Nairobi (2018)
  33. Kazi et al. (2010) Techno-economic comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover (pp. S20-S28) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.001
  34. Aspen Plus V8.4. AspenTech Inc., Burlington, MA (2013)
  35. Barreraa et al. (2016) Technical and economical evaluation of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic residues in Mexico: case of sugarcane and blue agave bagasses (pp. 91-101) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.10.015
  36. Humbird et al. (2011) National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden https://doi.org/10.2172/1013269
  37. Ngigi (2017) Optimizing the conversion of pretreated sila sorghum stalks to simple sugars using immobilized enzymes (pp. 1-5)
  38. Sinnott (2002) Butterworth-Heinemann Linacre House
  39. EPRA: Clarification on the high petroleum pump prices for the period 15th March to 14th April 2021, Press release, Nairobi (2021)
  40. Tgarguifa et al. (2018) Energy efficiency improvement of a bioethanol distillery, by replacing a rectifying column with a pervaporation unit (pp. 239-250) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.112
  41. Frankó et al. (2016) Bioethanol production from forestry residues: a comparative techno-economic analysis (pp. 727-736) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.011
  42. Osborne, S.: Energy in 2020: assessing the economic effects of commercialization of cellulosic ethanol, office of competition and economic analysis, manufacturing and services competitiveness report (2007)
  43. Unknown (2021) Kenya Government Press
  44. Li et al. (2021) Feasibility study on bioethanol production by one phase transition separation based on advanced solid-state fermentation https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196301
  45. Piccolo and Bezzo (2009) A techno-economic comparison between two technologies for bioethanol production from lignocellulose (pp. 478-491) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.008