Cargando…

Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?

BACKGROUND: Sugarcane is the most efficient crop for production of (1G) ethanol. Additionally, sugarcane bagasse can be used to produce (2G) ethanol. However, the manufacture of 2G ethanol in large scale is not a consolidated process yet. Thus, a detailed economic analysis, based on consistent simul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Furlan, Felipe F, Filho, Renato Tonon, Pinto, Fabio HPB, Costa, Caliane BB, Cruz, Antonio JG, Giordano, Raquel LC, Giordano, Roberto C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3851823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-142
_version_ 1782294358841622528
author Furlan, Felipe F
Filho, Renato Tonon
Pinto, Fabio HPB
Costa, Caliane BB
Cruz, Antonio JG
Giordano, Raquel LC
Giordano, Roberto C
author_facet Furlan, Felipe F
Filho, Renato Tonon
Pinto, Fabio HPB
Costa, Caliane BB
Cruz, Antonio JG
Giordano, Raquel LC
Giordano, Roberto C
author_sort Furlan, Felipe F
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sugarcane is the most efficient crop for production of (1G) ethanol. Additionally, sugarcane bagasse can be used to produce (2G) ethanol. However, the manufacture of 2G ethanol in large scale is not a consolidated process yet. Thus, a detailed economic analysis, based on consistent simulations of the process, is worthwhile. Moreover, both ethanol and electric energy markets have been extremely volatile in Brazil, which suggests that a flexible biorefinery, able to switch between 2G ethanol and electric energy production, could be an option to absorb fluctuations in relative prices. Simulations of three cases were run using the software EMSO: production of 1G ethanol + electric energy, of 1G + 2G ethanol and a flexible biorefinery. Bagasse for 2G ethanol was pretreated with a weak acid solution, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis, while 50% of sugarcane trash (mostly leaves) was used as surplus fuel. RESULTS: With maximum diversion of bagasse to 2G ethanol (74% of the total), an increase of 25.8% in ethanol production (reaching 115.2 L/tonne of sugarcane) was achieved. An increase of 21.1% in the current ethanol price would be enough to make all three biorefineries economically viable (11.5% for the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery). For 2012 prices, the flexible biorefinery presented a lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) than the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery. The impact of electric energy prices (auction and spot market) and of enzyme costs on the IRR was not as significant as it would be expected. CONCLUSIONS: For current market prices in Brazil, not even production of 1G bioethanol is economically feasible. However, the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery is closer to feasibility than the conventional 1G + electric energy industrial plant. Besides, the IRR of the 1G + 2G biorefinery is more sensitive with respect to the price of ethanol, and an increase of 11.5% in this value would be enough to achieve feasibility. The ability of the flexible biorefinery to take advantage of seasonal fluctuations does not make up for its higher investment cost, in the present scenario.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3851823
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38518232013-12-06 Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible? Furlan, Felipe F Filho, Renato Tonon Pinto, Fabio HPB Costa, Caliane BB Cruz, Antonio JG Giordano, Raquel LC Giordano, Roberto C Biotechnol Biofuels Research BACKGROUND: Sugarcane is the most efficient crop for production of (1G) ethanol. Additionally, sugarcane bagasse can be used to produce (2G) ethanol. However, the manufacture of 2G ethanol in large scale is not a consolidated process yet. Thus, a detailed economic analysis, based on consistent simulations of the process, is worthwhile. Moreover, both ethanol and electric energy markets have been extremely volatile in Brazil, which suggests that a flexible biorefinery, able to switch between 2G ethanol and electric energy production, could be an option to absorb fluctuations in relative prices. Simulations of three cases were run using the software EMSO: production of 1G ethanol + electric energy, of 1G + 2G ethanol and a flexible biorefinery. Bagasse for 2G ethanol was pretreated with a weak acid solution, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis, while 50% of sugarcane trash (mostly leaves) was used as surplus fuel. RESULTS: With maximum diversion of bagasse to 2G ethanol (74% of the total), an increase of 25.8% in ethanol production (reaching 115.2 L/tonne of sugarcane) was achieved. An increase of 21.1% in the current ethanol price would be enough to make all three biorefineries economically viable (11.5% for the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery). For 2012 prices, the flexible biorefinery presented a lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) than the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery. The impact of electric energy prices (auction and spot market) and of enzyme costs on the IRR was not as significant as it would be expected. CONCLUSIONS: For current market prices in Brazil, not even production of 1G bioethanol is economically feasible. However, the 1G + 2G dedicated biorefinery is closer to feasibility than the conventional 1G + electric energy industrial plant. Besides, the IRR of the 1G + 2G biorefinery is more sensitive with respect to the price of ethanol, and an increase of 11.5% in this value would be enough to achieve feasibility. The ability of the flexible biorefinery to take advantage of seasonal fluctuations does not make up for its higher investment cost, in the present scenario. BioMed Central 2013-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3851823/ /pubmed/24088415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-142 Text en Copyright © 2013 Furlan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Furlan, Felipe F
Filho, Renato Tonon
Pinto, Fabio HPB
Costa, Caliane BB
Cruz, Antonio JG
Giordano, Raquel LC
Giordano, Roberto C
Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title_full Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title_fullStr Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title_full_unstemmed Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title_short Bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
title_sort bioelectricity versus bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: is it worth being flexible?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3851823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-142
work_keys_str_mv AT furlanfelipef bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT filhorenatotonon bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT pintofabiohpb bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT costacalianebb bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT cruzantoniojg bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT giordanoraquellc bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible
AT giordanorobertoc bioelectricityversusbioethanolfromsugarcanebagasseisitworthbeingflexible