CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND STUDY
The supply of energy for various operations such as transportation, power
generation and heating is of critical concern in the world today. Fossil fuels like
crude oil that have been the traditional source of energy are non-renewable.
Prices of fossil fuels like crude oil and natural gas have increased significantly in
the past five years. This, along with increasing concerns about global warming,
has led to a search for alternatives to fossil fuels. Hence, the use of new sources
of energy like fuel cells, solar energy or bioethanol has become a priority. Ethanol
in particular shares some of the storage and distribution advantages traditional
fuels hold over other energy sources like hydrogen. Ethanol, which is one
important industrial chemical can be produced extensively from biomass such as
corn (maize), corn cob, rice, sweet sorghum, cassava and other diversified
carbohydrate-containing materials, Its production has increased all over the world
in the last few years through both expansion of existing plants and construction
of new facilities. Ethanol from corn is a more environmentally sustainable fuel
than oil says Jeff Tweedy of Syngenta. It represents a crucial boost to the rural
economy. Jeff and his colleagues are keen to strengthen the position of corn in
this forwardlooking sector. Syngenta is currently developing a corn that could
raise the efficiency of ethanol plants. At this moment, producers have to add
special enzymes needed in the conversion of starch into sugar, Tweedy say. Our
aim is to have a corn already containing the important alpha amylase enzyme,
which is one of the key enzymes required for ethanol production. In the United
States, ethanol is usually produced using a technology called the Dry-grind
process that utilizes corn kernels as feedstock to produce ethanol. As a result of
the effort to sustainably substitute ethanol for gasoline as transportation fuel, the
production of ethanol in the United States has risen up to 6 billion gallons per
year in 2006 (Singh, 2006). Growers of corn in the US now devote over one-ninth
of the crop area to corn for biofuels. Each bushel of corn produces about

2.8gallons of ethanol. That works out approximately 760litres per hectare. One
acre of corn can produce enough ethanol to run a car for about 115,000km on a
1:9 mix with conventional unleaded gasoline.
Historically, early internal combustion engines were built to run on a variety of
fuels, including alcohols and alcohol-hydrocarbon blends. In 1907 the United
States Department of Agriculture investigated the use of alcohol as a motor fuel.
A subsequent study by the United States Bureau of Mines concluded that engines
could provide up to 10% higher power on alcohol fuels than on gasoline. Mixtures
of alcohol and gasoline were used on farms in the United States in the early
1900s. For transportation purposes, the first Ford Model T automobiles could be
run on either gasoline or ethanol using a manually adjustable carburetor.
However, the development of low cost gasoline displaced other automobile fuels
and the diesel engine further solidified the hold of petroleum fuels on the
transportation sector. Ethanol was occasionally used, particularly in rural regions,
when gasoline supplies were short or when corn prices were low.
More recently Brazil has been producing bioethanol on a large scale and now runs
most of its vehicles on ethanol-gasoline blends, thus proving the viability of
ethanol as a fuel. It also provides proof that the market can accommodate a
major shift in automative fuel. In the United States there are some Flexible Fuel
Vehicles (FFVs) that run on a blend of ethanol and gasoline called E85 (85%
ethanol and 15% gasoline).

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The issue of feasibility of ethanol as a fuel has been under considerable debate.
Early research indicated that the net energy balance in the production of cornbased ethanol is negative (Pimentel, 1991), in the sense that more energy is
required to produce a unit of ethanol than what it provides when burned. More
recent studies based on newer process data that also includes co-product energy
credits indicate a positive net energy balance (Shapouri et al., 1995).
Fuel ethanol also presents some challenges. It is corrosive, and materials that
normally would not be affected by low percentage ethanol blends, have been

found to dissolve in the presence of higher ethanol concentrations. Dedicated

ethanol vehicles must use unplated steel, stainless steel, black iron or bronze,
which have all shown acceptable resistance to ethanol corrosion, or they have to
use non-metallic materials such as thermoset reinforced fiberglass or neoprene
rubber (IFQC, 2004).

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work is to design a plant model for the production of motor-grade
ethanol (that can be used with gasoline) using corn syrup as feedstock. The
objectives are as follows:
1. Designing a process plant with production capacity of 100,000-metric
tons/year of fuel ethanol from corn syrup.
2. Determining methods for energy reduction of the fuel ethanol plant
3. Use of pervaporators to replace separation columns in the process.
4. Total Cost estimation for the plant

SCOPE OF WORK
This design work entails creating a model for producing fuel grade ethanol from
corn syrup using Aspen HYSYS, calculating material and energy balances for the
various streams, determining equipment specification and estimating total cost
for the plant using Aspen HYSYS.

RELEVANCE OF WORK
This study can be used to improve the design and optimize the structure in the
ethanol production process thereby minimizing the energy input and increasing
energy efficiency.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
ETHANOL
Ethanol (ethyl alcohol) is an alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It is most often
used as a motor fuel, mainly as a biofuel additive for gasoline. World ethanol
production for transport fuel tripled between 2000 and 2007 from 17 billion to
more than 52 billion liters. From 2007 to 2008, the share of ethanol in global
gasoline type fuel use increased from 3.7% to 5.4%. In 2011 worldwide ethanol
fuel production reached 22.36 billion U.S. liquid gallons (bg) (84.6 billion liters),
with the United States as the top producer with 13.9 bg (52.6 billion liters),
accounting for 62.2% of global production, followed by Brazil with 5.6 bg (21.1
billion liters). Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency" (GGE) value of 1.5
US gallons (5.7 L), which means 1.5 gallons of ethanol produces the energy of
one gallon of gasoline.
Ethanol fuel is widely used in Brazil and in the United States, and together both
countries were responsible for 87.1% of the world's ethanol fuel production in
2011. Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10%
ethanol, and ethanol represented 10% of the U.S. gasoline fuel supply derived
from domestic sources in 2011. Since 1976 the Brazilian government has made it
mandatory to blend ethanol with gasoline, and since 2007 the legal blend is
around 25% ethanol and 75% gasoline (E25). By December 2011 Brazil had a
fleet of 14.8 million flex-fuel automobiles and light trucks and 1.5 million flex-fuel
motorcycles that regularly use neat ethanol fuel (known as E100). Corn ethanol is

ethanol made from corn that is used as a biomass. Corn ethanol is produced by
means of ethanol fermentation and distillation. Corn ethanol is mainly used as an
oxygenate in gasoline to produce a low level blend. To a lesser extent, it is used
as fuel for E85 flex-fuel vehicles.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

Since most U.S. ethanol is produced from corn and the required electricity from
many distilleries comes mainly from coal plants, there has been considerable
debate on the sustainability of corn-based bio-ethanol in replacing fossil fuels.
Controversy and concerns relate to the large amount of arable land required for
crops and its impact on grain supply, direct and indirect land use change effects,
as well as issues regarding its energy balance and carbon intensity considering
the full life cycle of ethanol production, and also issues regarding water use and
pollution due to the increase expansion of ethanol production.
The initial assumption that biofuels were good for the environment because they
had a smaller carbon footprint is in debate over the contention that the
production of grain alcohol, and therefore E85, may actually have a greater
environmental impact than fossil fuel.
That view says that one must consider:
The impact of fertilizers and carbon requiring inputs vs carbon offsetting
byproducts like distillers grains.
The carbon footprint of the agricultural machinery run to plant, harvest and
apply chemicals.
The environmental impact of those chemicals themselves, including
fertilizers and pesticides necessary for efficient mass-production of the
grains used.
The larger amount of energy required to ship and process the grains and
turn them into alcohol, versus the more efficient process of converting oil
into gasoline or diesel.

Even resources such as water, needed in huge amounts for grain production, can
have serious environmental impact, including ground water depletion, pollution
runoff, and algae blooms from waste runoff.
The U.S. Department of Energy has published facts stating that current cornbased ethanol results in a 19% reduction in greenhouse gases, and is better for
the environment than other gasoline additives such as MTBE. Ethanol produced
today results in fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline and is fully
biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives.
Today, on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced from corn results in about a 20
percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to gasoline. With improved efficiency
and use of renewable energy, this reduction could be as much as 52 percent.
In the future, ethanol produced from cellulose has the potential to cut life cycle
GHG emissions by up to 86 percent relative to gasoline.
Ethanol blended fuels currently in the market whether E10 or E85 meet
stringent tailpipe emission standards.
Ethanol readily biodegrades without harm to the environment, and is a safe, highperformance replacement for fuel additives such as MTBE.
Others say that ethanol from corn, as a fuel available now, and cellulosic ethanol
in the future are both much better fuels for the environment. Ethanol derived
from sugar-beet as used in Europe or sugar-cane as grown in Brazil in industrial
scale is generally seen as having a very positive CO2 balance with up to 80%
reduction in well-to-wheel CO2. A University of Nebraska study in 2009 showed
corn ethanol directly emits 51% less greenhouse gas than gasoline. However this
study does not take into account the greenhouse gasses involved in production
and transportation

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CORN ETHANOL

The use of ethanol for fuel has had a damaging impact on food markets,
especially in poorer countries. In the United States, ethanol is mostly made from

yellow corn, and as the market boomed for alternative fuel, yellow corn went up
in price. Many farmers saw the potential to make more money, and switched from
white corn to yellow corn. White corn is the main ingredient of tortillas in Mexico,
and as the supply dropped, the price doubled, making the base of most Mexican
foods unaffordable. Many people see this as unacceptable, and want no overlap
between food crops and fuel crops. Others point out that the earth is thought to
be able to support double the current human population, and press that the
resources available, such as unused farmable land, should be better handled.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the ethanol industry's lobby group, claims
that ethanol production does increase the price of corn by increasing demand.
RFA claims that ethanol production has positive economic effect for US farmers,
but it does not elaborate on the effect for other populations where field corn is
part of the staple diet. An RFA lobby document states that "In a January 2007
statement, the USDA Chief Economist stated that farm program payments were
expected to be reduced by some $6 billion due to the higher value of a bushel of
corn. Corn production in 2009 reached over 13.2 billion bushels, and a per acre
yield jumped to over 165 bushels per acre.
On March 9, 2011, Senator Dianne Feinstein from California introduced a bill that
repealed the corn subsidies in the U.S. She is quoted, telling Congress "Ethanol is
the only industry that benefits from a triple crown of government intervention: its
use is mandated by law, it is protected by tariffs, and companies are paid by the
federal government to use it. It's time we end this practice once and for all".
Alternatives to corn as a feedstock
Remnants from food production such as corn stover could be used to produce
ethanol instead of food corn.
The use of cellulosic biomass to produce ethanol is a new trend in biofuel
production. Fuels from these products are considered second generation biofuels
and are considered by some to be a solution to the food verses fuel debate. The
possibility of using this material has been acknowledged by the scientific
community and the political community as well. Bioethanol is a form of quasi-

renewable energy that can be produced from agricultural feedstocks. It can be

made from very common crops such as sugar cane, potato, cassava and corn.
There has been considerable debate about how useful bioethanol is in replacing
gasoline. Concerns about its production and use relate to increased food prices
due to the large amount of arable land required for crops, as well as the energy
and pollution balance of the whole cycle of ethanol production, especially from
corn.

Recent

developments

with

cellulosic

ethanol

production

and

commercialization may allay some of these concerns.

Cellulosic ethanol offers promise because cellulose fibers, a major and universal
component in plant cells walls, can be used to produce ethanol. According to the
International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to play a
much bigger role in the future than previously thought.

CHEMISTRY OF FERMENTATION
During ethanol fermentation, glucose and other sugars in the corn (or sugarcane
or other crops) are converted into ethanol and carbondioxide.

C6H12O6 2C2H5OH+ 2CO2 + heat

Like any fermentation reaction, the fermentation is not 100% selective, and other
side products such acetic acid, glycols and many other products are formed to a
considerable extent and need to be removed during the purification of the
ethanol. The fermentation takes place in aqueous solution and the resulting
solution after fermentation has an ethanol content of around 15%. The ethanol is
subsequently isolated and purified by a combination of adsorption and distillation
techniques. The purification is very energy intensive.
During combustion ethanol reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, water,
and heat:

C2H5OH + 3O2 2CO2 + 3H2O + heat

Starch and cellulose molecules are strings of glucose molecules. It is also possible
to generate ethanol out of cellulosic materials. That, however, requires a
pretreatment that splits the cellulose into glycose molecules and other sugars
that subsequently can be fermented. The resulting product is called cellulosic
ethanol, indicating its source.
Ethanol may also be produced industrially from ethene (ethylene), by hydrolysis
of the double bond in the presence of catalysts and high temperature.

C2H4 + H2O C2H5OH

By far the largest fraction of the global ethanol production, however, is produced
by fermentation.

SOURCES
Ethanol is a quasi-renewable energy source because while the energy is partially
generated by using a resource, sunlight, which cannot be depleted, the
harvesting process requires vast amounts of energy that typically comes from
non-renewable sources.
Creation of ethanol starts with photosynthesis causing a feedstock, such as sugar
cane or a grain such as maize (corn), to grow. These feedstocks are processed
into ethanol.
About 5% of the ethanol produced in the world in 2003 was actually a petroleum
product. It is made by the catalytic hydration of ethylene with sulfuric acid as the
catalyst. It can also be obtained via ethylene or acetylene, from calcium carbide,
coal, oil gas, and other sources. Two million tons of petroleum-derived ethanol are
produced annually. The principal suppliers are plants in the United States, Europe,

and South Africa. Petroleum derived ethanol (synthetic ethanol) is chemically

identical to bio-ethanol and can be differentiated only by radiocarbon dating.
Bio-ethanol is usually obtained from the conversion of carbon-based feedstock.
Agricultural feedstocks are considered renewable because they get energy from
the sun using photosynthesis, provided that all minerals required for growth (such
as nitrogen and phosphorus) are returned to the land. Ethanol can be produced
from a variety of feedstocks such as sugar cane, bagasse, miscanthus, sugar
beet, sorghum, grain, switchgrass, barley, hemp, kenaf, potatoes, sweet
potatoes, cassava, sunflower, fruit, molasses, corn, stover, grain, wheat, straw,
cotton, other biomass, as well as many types of cellulose waste and harvesting,
whichever has the best well-to-wheel assessment.
An alternative process to produce bio-ethanol from algae is being developed by
the company Algenol. Rather than grow algae and then harvest and ferment it,
the algae grow in sunlight and produce ethanol directly, which is removed
without killing the algae. It is claimed the process can produce 6,000 US gallons
per acre (56,000 litres per ha) per year compared with 400 US gallons per acre
(3,750 l/ha) for corn production.
Currently, the first generation processes for the production of ethanol from corn
use only a small part of the corn plant: the corn kernels are taken from the corn
plant and only the starch, which represents about 50% of the dry kernel mass, is
transformed into ethanol. Two types of second generation processes are under
development. The first type uses enzymes and yeast fermentation to convert the
plant cellulose into ethanol while the second type uses pyrolysis to convert the
whole plant to either a liquid bio-oil or a syngas. Second generation processes
can also be used with plants such as grasses, wood or agricultural waste material
such as straw.

PRODUCTION PROCESS
There are two main types of corn ethanol production: dry milling and wet milling.
The products of each type are utilized in different ways.

In the dry milling process the entire corn kernel is ground into flour and referred
to as "meal." The meal is then slurried by adding water. Enzymes are added to
the mash that converts starch to dextrose, a simple sugar. Ammonia is added to
control the pH and as a nutrient for the yeast, which is added later. The mixture is
processed at high-temperatures to reduce the bacteria levels and transferred and
cooled in fermenters. This is where the yeast is added and conversion from sugar
to ethanol and carbon dioxide begins.
The entire process takes between 40 to 50 hours, during which time the mash is
kept cool and agitated in order to facilitate yeast activity. After the process is
complete, everything is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is
removed from the "stillage". The ethanol is dehydrated to about 200 proof using
a molecular sieve system and a denaturant such as gasoline is added to render
the product undrinkable. With this last addition, the process is complete and the
product is ready to ship to gasoline retailers or terminals. The remaining stillage
then undergoes a different process to produce a highly nutritious livestock feed.
The carbon dioxide released from the process is also utilized to carbonate
beverages and to aid in the manufacturing of dry ice.
The process of wet milling takes the corn grain and steeps it in a dilute
combination of sulfuric acid and water for 24 to 48 hours in order to separate the
grain into many components. The slurry mix then goes through a series of
grinders to separate out the corn germ. Corn oil is a byproduct of this process and
is extracted and sold. The remaining components of fiber, gluten and starch are
segregated out using screen, hydroclonic and centrifugal separators.
The gluten protein is dried and filtered to make a corn gluten- meals co-product
and is highly sought after by poultry broiler operators as a feed ingredient. The
steeping liquor produced is concentrated and dried with the fiber and sold as corn
gluten feed to in the livestock industry. The heavy steep water is also sold as a
feed ingredient and is used as an environmentally friendly alternative to salt in
the winter months. The corn starch and remaining water can then be processed
one of three ways: 1) fermented into ethanol, through a similar process as dry
milling, 2) dried and sold as modified corn starch, or 3) made into corn syrup.

The production of corn ethanol uses water in two ways irrigation and
processing. There are two types of ethanol processing, wet milling and dry
milling, and the central difference between the two processes is how they initially
treat the grain. In wet milling, the corn grain is steeped in water, and then
separated for processing in the first step. Dry milling, which is more common,
requires a different process. According to a report by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, "Over 80% of U.S. ethanol is produced from corn by the dry
grind process".
The basic steps for large-scale production of ethanol are: microbial (yeast)
fermentation of sugars, distillation, dehydration (requirements vary), and
denaturing (optional).
Prior to fermentation, some crops require saccharification or hydrolysis of
carbohydrates such as cellulose and starch into sugars. Saccharification of
cellulose is called cellulolysis. Enzymes are used to convert starch into sugar.

FERMENTATION
Ethanol

is

produced

by

microbial

fermentation

of

the

sugar.

Microbial

fermentation currently only works directly with sugars. Two major components of
plants, starch and cellulose, are both made of sugarsand can, in principle, be
converted to sugars for fermentation. Currently, only the sugar (e.g., sugar cane)
and starch (e.g., corn) portions can be economically converted. There is much
activity in the area of cellulosic ethanol, where the cellulose part of a plant is
broken down to sugars and subsequently converted to ethanol.

DISTILLATION
For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, the majority of the water must be
removed. Most of the water is removed by distillation, but the purity is limited to
9596% due to the formation of a low-boiling water-ethanol azeotrope with
maximum (95.6% m/m (96.5% v/v) ethanol and 4.4% m/m (3.5% v/v) water). This
mixture is called hydrous ethanol and can be used as a fuel alone, but unlike
anhydrous ethanol, hydrous ethanol is not miscible in all ratios with gasoline, so

the water fraction is typically removed in further treatment to burn in

combination with gasoline in gasoline engines.

DEHYDRATION
There are basically three dehydration processes to remove the water from an
azeotropic ethanol/water mixture. The first process, used in many early fuel
ethanol plants, is called azeotropic distillation and consists of adding benzene or
cyclohexane to the mixture. When these components are added to the mixture, it
forms a heterogeneous azeotropic mixture in vaporliquid-liquid equilibrium,
which when distilled produces anhydrous ethanol in the column bottom, and a
vapor mixture of water, ethanol, and cyclohexane/benzene.
When condensed, this becomes a two-phase liquid mixture. The heavier phase,
poor in the entrainer (benzene or cyclohexane), is stripped of the entrainer and
recycled to the feedwhile the lighter phase, with condensate from the stripping,
is recycled to the second column. Another early method, called extractive
distillation, consists of adding a ternary component that increases ethanol's
relative volatility. When the ternary mixture is distilled, it produces anhydrous
ethanol on the top stream of the column.

ENERGY REDUCTION METHODS FOR DEHYDRATION

With increasing attention being paid to saving energy, many methods have been
proposed that avoid distillation altogether for dehydration. This new process
includes:
1. USE OF MOLECULAR SIEVES: In this process, ethanol vapor under
pressure passes through a bed of molecular sieve beads. The bead's pores
are sized to allow absorption of water while excluding ethanol. After a
period of time, the bed is regenerated under vacuum or in the flow of inert
atmosphere (e.g. N2) to remove the absorbed water. Two beds are often
used so that one is available to absorb water while the other is being
regenerated. This dehydration technology can account for energy saving of
3,000 btu/gallon (840 kJ/L) compared to earlier azeotropic distillation.

2. PERVAPORATION: A definition of the process is provided by Yeom et al.,

(1996) and Chang et al., (1998), pervaporation is a membrane process
used for the separation of liquid mixtures by means of partial vaporization
across a permselective membrane. The permeate is then obtained as a
liquid by condensation. The driving force for permeation is established by
maintaining a difference in partial pressure of the permeate across the
membrane. This is accomplished in vacuum pervaporation by lowering the
total pressure on the downstream side of the membrane. The separation
process is mainly due to the polarity difference and not on the volatility
difference of the components in the feed. There are three different types of
pervaporation processes namely:
Batch Pervaporation
Continuous Pervaporation
Vapour phase permeation
BATCH PERVAPORATION: These systems are simple and flexible, but a buffer
tank is required. They are ideal for smaller throughputs. The liquid feed from a
batch tank is pumped through heat exchangers to recover the heat content from
the product stream. It is then passed continuously through the membrane
separation modules. The membrane modules are contained within vacuum
chambers. The permeate is condensed and the retenate is returned back to the
tank. With every pass, the retenate gradually becomes more and more
concentrated. The process is then repeated until the desired purification level is
achieved.
CONTINUOUS PERVAPORATION: This process consumes very little energy,
operates best with low impurities in the feed and is best for larger capacities.
Continuous units are typically used in a manufacturing environment where larger
throughputs are required. Feed is preheated and continuously passed through a
series of membrane separation modules, which are located in a vacuum chamber.
Permeate from the modules is then condensed. A vacuum pump removes the
incondensable from the system. To maintain a high removal efficiency of
permeating components, the heat of vaporization is provided by the inter-stage
heaters.

Flow diagram for Batch Pervaporation

Flow Diagram for Continuous Pervaporation

VAPOUR PHASE PERMEATION: This process is preferred for direct feeds from
distillation columns or for streams with dissolved solids. However as there are no
dissolved solids in the feed for this plant, this method does not need to be
considered any further.

ETHANOL-BASED ENGINES
Ethanol is most commonly used to power automobiles, though it may be used to
power other vehicles, such as farm tractors, boats and airplanes. Ethanol (E100)

consumption in an engine is approximately 51% higher than for gasoline since

the energy per unit volume of ethanol is 34% lower than for gasoline.
The higher compression ratios in an ethanol-only engine allow for increased
power output and better fuel economy than could be obtained with lower
compression ratios. In general, ethanol-only engines are tuned to give slightly
better power and torque output than gasoline-powered engines. In flexible fuel
vehicles, the lower compression ratio requires tunings that give the same output
when using either gasoline or hydrated ethanol. For maximum use of ethanol's
benefits, a much higher compression ratio should be used. Current high
compression neat ethanol engine designs are approximately 20 to 30% more fuel
efficient than their gasoline-only counterparts.
Ethanol

contains

soluble

and

insoluble

contaminants.

These

soluble

contaminants, halide ions such as chloride ions, have a large effect on the
corrosivity of alcohol fuels. Halide ions increase corrosion in two ways; they
chemically attack passivating oxide films on several metals causing pitting
corrosion, and they increase the conductivity of the fuel. Increased electrical
conductivity promotes electric, galvanic, and ordinary corrosion in the fuel
system. Soluble contaminants, such as aluminum hydroxide, itself a product of
corrosion by halide ions, clog the fuel system over time.
Ethanol is hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs water vapor directly from the
atmosphere. Because absorbed water dilutes the fuel value of the ethanol
(although it suppresses engine knock) and may cause phase separation of
ethanol-gasoline blends, containers of ethanol fuels must be kept tightly sealed.
This high miscibility with water means that ethanol cannot be efficiently shipped
through modern pipelines, like liquid hydrocarbons, over long distances.
Mechanics also have seen increased cases of damage to small engines, in
particular, the carburetor, attributable to the increased water retention by
ethanol in fuel.
A 2004 MIT study and an earlier paper published by the Society of Automotive
Engineers identify a method to exploit the characteristics of fuel ethanol

substantially better than mixing it with gasoline. The method presents the
possibility of leveraging the use of alcohol to achieve definite improvement over
the cost-effectiveness of hybrid electric. The improvement consists of using dualfuel direct-injection of pure alcohol (or the azeotrope or E85) and gasoline, in any
ratio up to 100% of either, in a turbocharged, high compression-ratio, smalldisplacement engine having performance similar to an engine having twice the
displacement. Each fuel is carried separately, with a much smaller tank for
alcohol. The high-compression (for higher efficiency) engine runs on ordinary
gasoline under low-power cruise conditions. Alcohol is directly injected into the
cylinders (and the gasoline injection simultaneously reduced) only when
necessary to suppress knock such as when significantly accelerating. Direct
cylinder injection raises the already high octane rating of ethanol up to an
effective 130. The calculated over-all reduction of gasoline use and CO2 emission
is 30%. The consumer cost payback time shows a 4:1 improvement over turbodiesel and a 5:1 improvement over hybrid. The problems of water absorption into
pre-mixed gasoline (causing phase separation), supply issues of multiple mix
ratios and cold-weather starting are also avoided.
Ethanol's higher octane rating allows an increase of an engine's compression
ratio for increased thermal efficiency. In one study, complex engine controls and
increased exhaust gas recirculation allowed a compression ratio of 19.5 with fuels
ranging from neat ethanol to E50. Thermal efficiency up to approximately that for
a diesel was achieved. This would result in the fuel economy of a neat ethanol
vehicle to be about the same as one burning gasoline. Since 1989 there have also
been ethanol engines based on the diesel principle operating in Sweden. They
are used primarily in city buses, but also in distribution trucks and waste
collectors. The engines, made by Scania, have a modified compression ratio, and
the fuel (known as ED95) used is a mix of 93.6% ethanol and 3.6% ignition
improver, and 2.8% denaturants. The ignition improver makes it possible for the
fuel to ignite in the diesel combustion cycle. It is then also possible to use the
energy efficiency of the diesel principle with ethanol. These engines have been
used in the United Kingdom by Reading Transport but the use of bioethanol fuel is
now being phased out.

ENGINE COLD START DURING WINTER

High ethanol blends present a problem to achieve enough vapor pressure for the
fuel to evaporate and spark the ignition during cold weather (since ethanol tends
to increase fuel enthalpy of vaporization). When vapor pressure is below 45 kPa
starting a cold engine becomes difficult. To avoid this problem at temperatures
below 11 C (52 F)), and to reduce ethanol higher emissions during cold
weather, both the US and the European markets adopted E85 as the maximum
blend to be used in their flexible fuel vehicles, and they are optimized to run at
such a blend.
At places with harsh cold weather, the ethanol blend in the US has a seasonal
reduction to E70 for these very cold regions, though it is still sold as E85. At
places where temperatures fall below 12 C (10 F) during the winter, it is
recommended to install an engine heater system, both for gasoline and E85
vehicles. Sweden has a similar seasonal reduction, but the ethanol content in the
blend is reduced to E75 during the winter months.
Brazilian flex fuel vehicles can operate with ethanol mixtures up to E100, which is
hydrous ethanol (with up to 4% water), which causes vapor pressure to drop
faster as compared to E85 vehicles. As a result, Brazilian flex vehicles are built
with a small secondary gasoline reservoir located near the engine. During a cold
start pure gasoline is injected to avoid starting problems at low temperatures.
This provision is particularly necessary for users of Brazil's southern and central
regions, where temperatures normally drop below 15 C (59 F) during the winter.
An improved flex engine generation was launched in 2009 that eliminates the
need for the secondary gas storage tank. In March 2009 Volkswagen do Brasil
launched the Polo E-Flex, the first Brazilian flex fuel model without an auxiliary
tank for cold start.

ETHANOL FUEL MIXTURES

To avoid engine stall due to "slugs" of water in the fuel lines interrupting fuel flow,
the fuel must exist as a single phase. The fraction of water that an ethanol-

gasoline fuel can contain without phase separation increases with the percentage
of ethanol. This shows, for example, that E30 can have up to about 2% water. If
there is more than about 71% ethanol, the remainder can be any proportion of
water or gasoline and phase separation does not occur. The fuel mileage declines
with increased water content. The increased solubility of water with higher
ethanol content permits E30 and hydrated ethanol to be put in the same tank
since any combination of them always results in a single phase. Somewhat less
water is tolerated at lower temperatures. For E10 it is about 0.5% v/v at 70 F and
decreases to about 0.23% v/v at 30 F.
In many countries cars are mandated to run on mixtures of ethanol. All Brazilian
light-duty vehicles are built to operate for an ethanol blend of up to 25% (E25),
and since 1993 a federal law requires mixtures between 22% and 25% ethanol,
with 25% required as of mid July 2011. In the United States all light-duty vehicles
are built to operate normally with an ethanol blend of 10% (E10). At the end of
2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol. In
January 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a waiver to
authorize up to 15% of ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to be sold only for
cars and light pickup trucks with a model year of 2001 or newer. Other countries
have adopted their own requirements.
Beginning with the model year 1999, an increasing number of vehicles in the
world are manufactured with engines that can run on any fuel from 0% ethanol
up to 100% ethanol without modification. Many cars and light trucks (a class
containing minivans, SUVs and pickup trucks) are designed to be flexible-fuel
vehicles using ethanol blends up to 85% (E85) in North America and Europe, and
up to 100% (E100) in Brazil. In older model years, their engine systems contained
alcohol sensors in the fuel and/or oxygen sensors in the exhaust that provide
input to the engine control computer to adjust the fuel injection to achieve
stochiometric (no residual fuel or free oxygen in the exhaust) air-to-fuel ratio for
any fuel mix. In newer models, the alcohol sensors have been removed, with the
computer using only oxygen and airflow sensor feedback to estimate alcohol
content. The engine control computer can also adjust (advance) the ignition

timing to achieve a higher output without pre-ignition when it predicts that higher
alcohol percentages are present in the fuel being burned. This method is backed
up by advanced knock sensors used in most high performance gasoline engines
regardless of whether they are designed to use ethanol or not that detect preignition and detonation.

HYDROUS ETHANOL CORROSION

High alcohol fuel blends are reputed to cause corrosion of aluminum fuel system
components. However, studies indicate that the addition of water to the high
alcohol fuel blends helps prevent corrosion. This is shown in SAE paper 2005-013708 Appendix 1.2 where gasoline/alcohol blends of E50, nP50, IP50 nB50, IB50
were tested on steel, copper, nickel, zinc, tin and three types of aluminum. The
tests showed that when the water content was increased from 2000ppm to 1%,
corrosion was no longer evident except some materials showed discolouration.

FUEL ECONOMY
In theory, all fuel-driven vehicles have a fuel economy (measured as miles per US
gallon, or liters per 100 km) that is directly proportional to the fuel's energy
content. In reality, there are many other variables that come into play that affect
the performance of a particular fuel in a particular engine. Ethanol contains
approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory,
burning pure ethanol in a vehicle reduces miles per US gallon 34%, given the
same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline. Since ethanol has a
higher octane rating, the engine can be made more efficient by raising its
compression ratio. In fact, using a variable turbocharger, the compression ratio
can be optimized for the fuel, making fuel economy almost constant for any
blend. For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when
compared to conventional gasoline,[56] and even smaller (12%) when compared
to oxygenated and reformulated blends. For E85 (85% ethanol), the effect
becomes significant. E85 produces lower mileage than gasoline, and requires
more frequent refueling. Actual performance may vary depending on the vehicle.
Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85

vehicles resulted 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline. The EPA-rated mileage of
current United States flex-fuel vehicles should be considered when making price
comparisons, but E85 is a high performance fuel, with an octane rating of about
9496, and should be compared to premium.
In one estimate the US retail price for E85 ethanol is 2.62 US dollar per gallon or
3.71-dollar corrected for energy equivalency compared to a gallon of gasoline
priced at 3.03-dollar. Brazilian cane ethanol (100%) is priced at 3.88-dollar
against 4.91-dollar for E25 (as July 2007).

CONSUMER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

While biodiesel production systems have been marketed to home and business
users for many years, commercialized ethanol production systems designed for
end-consumer use have lagged in the marketplace. In 2008, two different
companies announced home-scale ethanol production systems. The AFS125
Advanced Fuel System from Allard Research and Development is capable of
producing both ethanol and biodiesel in one machine, while the E-100 MicroFueler
from E-Fuel Corporation is dedicated to ethanol only.

EXPERIENCE BY COUNTRY
The world's top ethanol fuel producers in 2011 were the United States with 13.9
billion U.S. liquid gallons (bg) (52.6 billion liters) and Brazil with 5.6 bg (21.1
billion liters), accounting together for 87.1% of world production of 22.36 billion
US gallons (84.6 billion liters).[2] Strong incentives, coupled with other industry
development initiatives, are giving rise to fledgling ethanol industries in countries
such as Germany, Spain, France, Sweden, China, Thailand, Canada, Colombia,
India, Australia, and some Central American countries.

ENVIRONMENT
1. Energy balance
All biomass goes through at least some of these steps: it needs to be grown,
collected, dried, fermented, and burned. All of these steps require resources and

an infrastructure. The total amount of energy input into the process compared to
the energy released by burning the resulting ethanol fuel is known as the energy
balance (or "energy returned on energy invested"). Figures compiled in a 2007 by
National Geographic Magazine point to modest results for corn ethanol produced
in the US: one unit of fossil fuel energy is required to create 1.3 energy units from
the resulting ethanol. The energy balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in
Brazil is more favorable, with one unit of fossil-fuel energy required to create 8
from the ethanol. Energy balance estimates are not easily produced, thus
numerous such reports have been generated that are contradictory.
For instance, a separate survey reports that production of ethanol from
sugarcane, which requires a tropical climate to grow productively, returns from 8
to 9 units of energy for each unit expended, as compared to corn, which only
returns about 1.34 units of fuel energy for each unit of energy expended. A 2006
University of California Berkeley study, after analyzing six separate studies,
concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses much less petroleum than
producing gasoline. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is emitted during
fermentation and combustion. This is canceled out by the greater uptake of
carbon dioxide by the plants as they grow to produce the biomass. When
compared to gasoline, depending on the production method, ethanol releases
less greenhouse gases.
2. Air pollution
Compared with conventional unleaded gasoline, ethanol is a particulate-free
burning fuel source that combusts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, water and
aldehydes. The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce
carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently
being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an
attractive alternative additive. Current production methods include air pollution
from the manufacturer of macronutrient fertilizers such as ammonia.
A study by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that E85 fuel
would increase the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los

Angeles, US: a very large, urban, car-based metropolis that is a worst-case

scenario.

Ozone

levels

are

significantly

increased,

thereby

increasing

photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma.

3. Manufacture
In 2002, monitoring the process of ethanol production from corn revealed that
they released VOCs (volatile organic compounds) at a higher rate than had
previously been disclosed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
subsequently reached settlement with Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, two of
the largest producers of ethanol, to reduce emission of these VOCs. VOCs are
produced when fermented corn mash is dried for sale as a supplement for
livestock feed. Devices known as thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers can be
attached to the plants to burn off the hazardous gases.
4. Carbon dioxide
The calculation of exactly how much carbon dioxide is produced in the
manufacture of bioethanol is a complex and inexact process, and is highly
dependent on the method by which the ethanol is produced and the assumptions
made in the calculation. A calculation should include:

The cost of growing the feedstock

The cost of transporting the feedstock to the factory
The cost of processing the feedstock into bioethanol
Such a calculation may or may not consider the following effects.
The cost of the change in land use of the area where the fuel feedstock is

grown.
The cost of transportation of the bioethanol from the factory to its point of
use
The efficiency of the bioethanol compared with standard gasoline
The amount of Carbon Dioxide produced at the tail pipe.
The benefits due to the production of useful bi-products, such as cattle feed
or electricity.
The January 2006 Science article from UC Berkeley's ERG, estimated reduction
from corn ethanol in GHG to be 13% after reviewing a large number of studies. In

a correction to that article released shortly after publication, they reduce the
estimated value to 7.4%. A National
Geographic Magazine overview article (2007) puts the figures at 22% less CO 2
emissions in production and use for corn ethanol compared to gasoline and a
56% reduction for cane ethanol. Carmaker Ford reports a 70% reduction in CO 2
emissions with bioethanol compared to petrol for one of their flexible-fuel
vehicles.
An additional complication is that production requires tilling new soil which
produces a one-off release of GHG that it can take decades or centuries of
production reductions in GHG emissions to equalize. As an example, converting
grass lands to corn production for ethanol takes about a century of annual
savings to make up for the GHG released from the initial tilling.

5. Change in land use

Large-scale farming is necessary to produce agricultural alcohol and this requires
substantial amounts of cultivated land. University of Minnesota researchers
report that if all corn grown in the U.S. were used to make ethanol it would
displace 12% of current U.S. gasoline consumption. There are claims that land for
ethanol production is acquired through deforestation, while others have observed
that areas currently supporting forests are usually not suitable for growing crops.
In any case, farming may involve a decline in soil fertility due to reduction of
organic matter, a decrease in water availability and quality, an increase in the
use of pesticides and fertilizers, and potential dislocation of local communities.
New technology enables farmers and processors to increasingly produce the
same output using less inputs.
Cellulosic ethanol production is a new approach that may alleviate land use and
related concerns. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant material,
potentially doubling yields, in an effort to minimize conflict between food needs
vs. fuel needs. Instead of utilizing only the starch by-products from grinding

wheat and other crops, cellulosic ethanol production maximizes the use of all
plant materials, including gluten. This approach would have a smaller carbon
footprint because the amount of energy-intensive fertilisers and fungicides
remain the same for higher output of usable material. The technology for
producing cellulosic ethanol is currently in the commercialization stage.
6. Using biomass for electricity instead of ethanol
Converting biomass to electricity for charging electric vehicles may be a more
"climate-friendly" transportation option than using biomass to produce ethanol
fuel, according to an analysis published in Science in May 2009 "You make more
efficient use of the land and more efficient use of the plant biomass by making
electricity rather than ethanol", said Elliott Campbell, an environmental scientist
at the University of California at Merced, who led the research. "It's another
reason that, rather than race to liquid biofuels, we should consider other uses of
bio-resources".
For

bioenergy

to

become

widespread

climate

solution,

technological

breakthroughs are necessary, analysts say. Researchers continue to search for

more cost-effective developments in both cellulosic ethanol and advanced vehicle
batteries.
7. Health costs of ethanol emissions
For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the
US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline,
$472952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural
gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123208 million for cellulosic
ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or
switchgrass).
8. Efficiency of common crops
As ethanol yields improve or different feedstocks are introduced, ethanol
production may become more economically feasible in the US. Currently,
research on improving ethanol yields from each unit of corn is underway using

biotechnology. Also, as long as oil prices remain high, the economical use of other
feedstocks, such as cellulose, become viable. By-products such as straw or wood
chips can be converted to ethanol. Fast growing species like switchgrass can be
grown on land not suitable for other cash crops and yield high levels of ethanol
per unit area.
Reduced petroleum imports and costs
One rationale given for extensive ethanol production in the U.S. is its benefit to
energy security, by shifting the need for some foreign-produced oil to
domestically produced energy sources. Production of ethanol requires significant
energy, but current U.S. production derives most of that energy from coal, natural
gas and other sources, rather than oil.[97] Because 66% of oil consumed in the
U.S. is imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas
(2006 figures), the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produces a net shift
from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.
According to a 2008 analysis by Iowa State University, the growth in US ethanol
production has caused retail gasoline prices to be US $0.29 to US $0.40 per
gallon lower than would otherwise have been the case.

CRITICISM
There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with
biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and
scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs
fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable
biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on
water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency.
Motorsport
Leon Duray qualified third for the 1927 Indianapolis 500 auto race with an
ethanol-fueled car. The IndyCar Series adopted a 10% ethanol blend for the 2006
season, and a 98% blend in 2007. In drag racing, there are Top Alcohol classes for
dragsters and funny cars since the 1970s.

The American Le Mans Series sports car championship introduced E10 in the
2007 season to replace pure gasoline. In the 2008 season, E85 was allowed in the
GT class and teams began switching to it.
In 2011, the three national NASCAR stock car series mandated a switch from
gasoline to E15, a blend of Sunoco GTX unleaded racing fuel and 15% ethanol.
Ethanol fuel may also be utilized as a rocket fuel. As of 2010, small quantities of
ethanol are used in lightweight rocket-racing aircraft.

REPLACEMENT OF KEROSENE
There is still extensive use of kerosene for lighting and cooking in less developed
countries, and ethanol can have a role in reducing petroleum dependency in this
use too. A non-profit named Project Gaia seeks to spread the use of ethanol
stoves to replace wood, charcoal and kerosene. There is also potential for
bioethanol replacing some kerosene use in domestic lighting from feedstocks
grown locally. Pure ethanol is a very flammable fuel and hence dangerous to use
in rural households. Thus a specially designed stove cum lantern running on 50%
ethanol water mixture has been tested by Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute
in rural areas.

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE

MATERIAL BALANCE
If the ethanol plant is taken as a single system, the overall inputs and outputs at
the system boundary will be as represented in the figure below. The inputs are
corn and water plus energy, while the outputs are ethanol, solids (byproducts),
wastewater, and CO2.

ENERGY ENZYMES

CORN

ETHANOL

WATER

SOLIDS

CO2

WASTEWATER

The above single unit can be further broken down into smaller unit operations
which includes: milling, mashing, cooking, liquefaction, saccharification,
fermentation, pervaporation, solids separation, evaporation, and drying. To
resolve the material balance for the corn to ethanol plant, we first define the unit
operations of the block diagram which will subsequently guide us in the
development of the process flow diagram and mass balance across each of the
units.

WATER

+ SO2

Bi2

CORN

MILLING

WASTEWATER
Ai
(A)
Co1

STEAM
Ci2

Ci3

MEAL MASHING MASH

Ao

Bi1

ENZYMES

(B)

COOKING/LIQUEFACTION

Bo

Ci1

(C)

Co2
YEAST

ENZYMES
Di3

Di2

(E)

Fi1

FERMENTATION
(D)

Do1

Do2

Fo2

WASTEWATER
Io1

H2O

RESIDUE FROM FILTER

PERVAPORATOR 1
(G)

Hi

DR
YER
(H)
Io2

Go1

ETHANOL + WATER

Ho2

Ei1
Eo2

Gi

H 20

CO2

CO2

WASTEWATER

FILTRATE

Go2

WATER

Di1
Ei2

FERMENTED
ULTRA-FILTRATION
MASH

SCRUBBER Eo1
Fo1
(F)

LIQUIDIFED MASH

PERVAPORATOR 2
(H)

Ho1

0
Ethanol > 97%

STORAGE

Ji

TANK
(J)

Block Diagram of the Corn-Ethanol Plant.

DDGS

Process Flow Diagram of the Corn-Ethanol Plant.

For each of the block the material balance is written as:
Materials In = Materials Out
i.e

Mi = Mo (i = input; o = output)

The mass balance calculation starts with corn inputs. The table below lists the
composition of corn.

CORN COMPOSITION
COMPONENT

MASS CONTENT (%)

WATER
STARCH
PROTEIN
OIL
OTHER
TOTAL

15.0
59.5
7.7
3.4
14.5
100

ETHANOL PRODUCTION: Process Calculations

Starch Hydrolysis

[C6H10O5]n + (n-1) H2O

n [C6H12O6]

Hydrolytic gain:
Molecular wt. of Glucose: 12 X 6 +1 X 12 + 16 X 6 = 180g/mol
Avg. Monomer weight of starch/ cellulose:
12 X 6+1 X 10 + 16 X 5 = 162g/mol
Mol. Wt of Water: 18g/mol
Hydrolytic gain = (n 180)/ (n 162+18) = 1.11
For every glucose monomer, one molecule of water is added during hydrolysis and
therefore results in increased substrate weight during starch/cellulose hydrolysis. This
increase is referred to as Hydrolytic gain.
Efficiency of hydrolysis process is determined by many factors including composition,
pretreatment, enzyme concentration and operating conditions.
Efficiency of enzymatic starch hydrolysis (70-95%) is dependent on amylose/amylopectin
ratio and resistant starch.

Fermentation:

C6H12O6

2C2H5OH + 2CO2 + Heat

Fermenting one mole glucose, results in 2 moles of ethanol and 2 moles of carbon
dioxide.
On a weight basis:
180 g of glucose

92 g ethanol + 88 g Carbon dioxide

i.e. Ethanol = 0.51 glucose (w/w);

Carbon dioxide=0.49 glucose (w/w)
Efficiency of well controlled fermentation is very high (>95% conversion efficiency).

Ethanol Yield Calculation:

What is the yield of corn ethanol (gal per bushel) in a conventional dry grind process?
Basis: Corn (10% moisture, 70% starch, 7% protein, 6% oil, 5% fiber, 2% ash)
Assume:

Resistant starch is 3% of total starch

Efficiency of hydrolysis is 95%.
Efficiency of fermentation is 98%.
DDGS moisture content as 12% (wb)

Calculations:
One bushel = 56lb = 56 / 2.2 = 25.45kg
Total starch= 25.45 x 0.70 = 17.82kg
Resistant starch = 0.03 x 17.82 = 0.54kg
Hydrolysable starch = 17.82 - 0.54 = 17.28kg
Glucose produced = 0.9 x 1.11 x 17.28 = 17.27kg
Ethanol produced = 0.98 x 0.51 x 17.27= 8.63kg
Gal of ethanol = 8.63 / 3 = 2.88 gallons of ethanol
DDGS (dry weight) = 17.82 x (0.07 + 0.06 + 0.05 + 0.02) + Resistant starch + residual
starch = 3.564 + 0.54 + 17.28 X 0.1 = 5.83kg
DDGS (Assuming 12% moisture) = 1.12 x 5.83 =6.53kg
Ethanol Yield = 2.88 Gal/ bushel of corn
Overall process efficiency = 0.9 x 0.98 = 0.882
From the yield gotten, we can further evaluate the amount of corn needed to produce
100,000 metric tonnes of ethanol since it requires 25.45kg to produce 8.63kg of ethanol
(i.e 8.63 / 25.45 = 0.339).
METRIC TONNES TO KG (PLANT CAPACITY)
100,000 metric tonnes = 100,000 X 1000 = 100,000,000kg of ethanol / year
REQUIRED CORN FEEDSTOCK
100,000,000 / 0.339 = 294,985,250.74kg of corn
Expressed in bushel = 294,985,250.74 / 25.45 = 11,590,776 bushel of corn.
Assuming plants uptime of 95% per annum, plants operating hours is calculated by:
0.95 X 365 X 24 = 8322 hours
Corn feedstock per hour = 294,985,250.74 / 8322 = 35,446.44kg corn / hour.
To help simplify our design basis, we will be working with a flow rate expressed in
seconds. That is, 35,446.44kg corn / hour to kg corn / sec = 35,446.44 / 3600 = 9.84 kg
corn / sec.

Process Flow Calculations Biofuel Feedstock and

Production
Basis: 9.8 kg of Corn / sec. (10% moisture, 70% starch, 7% protein, 6% fiber,
5% oil, 2% ash)

Assume:

Resistant starch is 3% of total starch

Efficiency of hydrolysis (liquefaction and saccharification) is 95%.
Efficiency of fermentation is 98%.
Efficiency of Scrubbing is 90%
Efficiency of Ultra-filtration is 98%
Efficiency of Pervaporation is 95%
Composition of stream leaving fermenter 15% ethanol, 75% water and 10% mash.
DDGS moisture content as 12% (wb)
Mash solids content is 34%

From the feedstock calculation above, it is clear that we require a corn feed rate of 9.8
kg/sec to be able to deliver an annual production sum of 100,000 metric tonnes
(100,000,000kg) ethanol per year with our assumed plant operating hour of 95% per
annum (8322 hours).
The mass balance calculation starts with corn inputs. The starch (the actual material that
makes ethanol) is then mixed with water and turns into glucose followed by fermentation
and production of ethanol.

MILLING (A):
Input
Corn

Starch in corn

9.84kg corn/sec
:

At 70% starch content in corn = 0.7 X 9.84 =

6.89kg starch
Water

0 kg

Output
Corn grits (grinded)
Starch

in corn

Water

9.84kg corn/sec
:

6.89kg corn/sec

0kg

MASHING (B):
Input
Corn grits (from mill)

9.84kg corn/sec

Water

15kg/sec

24.84kg/sec

Output
Corn Mash

Compositions in the output stream:

Water (15kg of 24.84kg)

15

= 60.39%

24.84
Corn grits

9.84 X 100= 39.61%

24.84

Starch

at 70% corn grits = 39.61% X 0.7 = 27.74% starch content in corn

mash leaving mash.

Assumptions:
In determining the amount of water required to prepare the mash, we assumed
equal volume of water to corn grits to help ensure that a well-watered slurry is
formed. The density of corn grits and water are given as 673kg/m3 and
1000kg/m3 respectively. Therefore:
Volume of 9.84kg corn grits = 9.84 = 0.015m3
673
Mass of water with that volume of 0.015m3 = Volume X Density = 0.015 X 1000
= 15kg water
These expressions are from the basic mass, density, volume relationship i.e
Volume = Mass
Density

COOKING/LIQUIFACTION (C)
Input
Corn mash

Steam
Enzymes

24.84kg
:

0.5kg
1.24kg

Output
Liquified Mash
Wastewater

:
:

25.22kg
1.36kg

Assumptions:
In determining the amount of steam and enzymes used in the liquefaction stage,
we looked up literature for the exact specifications prescribed for this process.
0.0555kg is the amount of water required for every 1kg of starch hydrolyzed.
Regarding the enzymes needed in the reactions, the amount of -amylase to be
added is 0.05% w/w of the corn. (Ramkumar, et. al, 2008)
Hydrolysis:
Since 1kg of starch requires 0.0555kg water, 6.89kg starch will require 6.89 X
0.0555 = 0.38kg starch. But we fed water in excess of 0.12kg to help ensure that
the starch is the limiting reactant in the hydrolytic process. This excess 0.12kg
water is recovered alongside resistant starch and enzymes waste in the
wastewater.
0.05 w/w of enzymes to corn mash = 0.05 X 24.84 =

1.24kg -amylase

This is how we came about the steam requirement of 0.5kg and 1.24kg
enzymes for the hydrolysis process.
Wastewater:

Since only 0.38kg/sec water is used up in the hydrolysis phase, the remaining
water of 0.12kg and enzymes 1.24kg are removed from the system as waste.
Since the enzymes are solely involved in catalyzing the process, they are
removed alongside the excess water after hydrolysis. Therefore;
Wastewater=

0.12 + 1.24 = 1.36kg/sec wastewater

SACCHARIFICATION/FERMENTATION (D)
Input
Liquified Mash

25.22kg

Enzymes

0.03kg

Yeast

2.72X10-3kg

Fermented Mash

21.53kg

Fermenter

3.72300kg

Output

Assumptions:
In determining the amount of glucoamylase needed for saccharification and the
yeast required for fermentation, we again consulted the work of Ramkumar, et.
al. For fermentation 2.76510-4 kg yeast per kg corn feed processed while the
required glucoamylase is 0.12% w/w of the incoming mash. (Ramkumar, et. al,
2008)
Saccharification:
0.0012kg w/w of glucoamylase to incoming mash = 0.0012 X 25.22 = 0.03kg
glucoamylase/sec fed in.
Fermentation:
The amount of yeast used in the fermenter is a function of the amount of corn feed.

(Ramkumar, et. al, 2009). Corn feed is 9.84kg. Therefore:

Yeast required = 9.84 X fermentation 2.765X10-4 = 2.72X10-3kg/sec required
The reaction stoichiometry on a weight basis can be written as:

HYDROLYSIS OF STARCH

2(C6H10O5)n + nH2O
244g

-amylase

18g

C12H22O11

254g

1kg starch + 0.0555kg water

-amylase

1kg maltose + 0.0526kg water

-amylase

1.0555kg maltose
1.0526kg glucose

FERMENTATION REACTION

C6H12O6

yeast

2C2H5OH + 2CO2

Glucose

Ethanol

Carbon

dioxide
132g
1g

62g

56g
0.47g

0.42g

From our design assumptions:

0.97 = % of hydrolysable starch.
0.95 = % efficiency of hydrolysis.
Hydrolysable starch = 97%. Therefore starch in fermenter is gotten as:
0.97 X 6.89 X 0.95 = 6.35kg/sec hydrolysable starch. Where 6.89kg is the total
starch content in the corn. Relating the hydrolysable starch in the process to the
chemical equations above, it is deducible that since 1kg starch yields 1.0555kg
maltose, 6.35kg starch will produce 6.35 X 1.0555 = 6.70kg maltose. This
maltose will further yield 6.70 X 1.0526 = 7.05kg glucose since 1kg maltose is
known in chemistry to produce 1.0526kg glucose.

From the fermentation reaction on mass basis, we observe that 1kg glucose
yields 0.47kg ethanol and 0.42kg carbon dioxide. Considering this, our 7.05kg/sec
of glucose will yield:
ETHANOL: 7.05 X 0.47 = 3.31kg ethanol/sec
CO2

7.05 X 0.42 = 2.96kg CO2/sec

But since 98% efficiency is assumed for the fermentation process, this yield
cannot be obtained in practice, we must multiply through by 0.98 to get the
obtainable yield. i.e:
ETHANOL at 98% Efficiency: 3.31 X 0.98 = 3.23kg ethanol/sec
CO2 at 98% Efficiency: 2.90 X 0.98 = 2.90kg CO2/sec
Also from our design assumption of 15% of alcohol content in the fermented
mash, we have total mash mass = 3.23 = 21.53kg/sec fermented mash leaving
fermenter.
0.15
75% water in this stream is: 21.53 X 0.75 = 16.15kg H20 in stream / sec
10% mash in stream:

21.53 X 0.10 = 2.15kg mash in stream / sec

Since there are only two outlets in the fermenter, every other component leaves
via Do2 as unfermented starch, other corn components and resistant starch. This
feed is gotten by subtracting the fermented mash from the total feed mass. i.e:
Total feed Output 1 = Output 2
25.22 + 0.03 + 2.72X10-03 - 21.53 = 3.72300kg/sec
This is how the outputs from the fermenter were determined.

SCRUBBER (E)

Input
Low conc. CO2
Water

3.723kg

1kg

Highly Conc. CO2

2.61kg

Wastewater

2.113kg

Output

Assumptions:
Since the efficiency of the scrubber is taken to be at 90% and the feed to the
scrubber is 3.7230kg/sec of which 2.90kg is CO2 (from calculations in fermenter
above). A 90% scrubber will only be able to extract CO2 of 2.90 X 0.9 = 2.61kg
CO2/sec.
Assuming a wash water with feed rate of 1kg/sec into the scrubber, the output
from the bottom of the scrubber is gotten as:
Wash water + unextracted CO2 + mash = 1kg + (2.90 2.61= 0.29) + (3.7230
2.90 = 0.823) = 2.11kg wastewater / sec.
ULTRA-FILTRATION (F)

Input
Fermented Mash

21.53kg

Water

1kg

Output
Filtrate

19.03kg

Residue

2.50kg

Assumptions:

Filter is supposed to remove the 10% solids that in the fermented mash from the
fermenter i.e (0.1 X 21.53 = 2.153kg). But at 98% ultra-filter efficiency only 0.98
X 2.153 = 2.11kg solids are removed. The inefficiency of 2% also results in the
removal of 2% ethanol and water. i.e:
0.02 X 3.23 = 0.065kg Ethanol removed alongside solids by filter.
0.02 X 16.15 = 0.32kg Water removed alongside solids by filter.
Total mass of residue = water removed + ethanol removed + solids removed =
0.32 + 0.065 + 2.11 = 2.50kg wet residue / sec
Filtrate is gotten by simply subtracting the amount of residue from the feed into
filter:
Total feed residue = filtrate
21.53

2.50

= 19.03kg filtrate /sec

Composition of feed leaving filter:

Mass of components in feed mass removed in residue = new mass stream
Ethanol:
Water:
Mash :

3.23 -- 0.065 = 3.17kg ethanol / sec

16.15 0.32 = 15.83kg water / sec
2.15 -- 2.11 = 0.043kg mash / sec

PERVAPORATOR 1 (G)

Input

Filtrate from filter

19.03kg

Output
Water removed

15.67kg

Impure Ethanol

3.36kg

Assumptions:
Since the pervaporator is assumed to operate at a 99% efficiency, it will be able
to remove 0.99 X 15.83 = 15.67kg water / sec. This leaves our second output
with a mass of 3.36kg/sec with new water content of 15.83 15.67 = 0.16kg
H2O / sec now left in the stream, ethanol of 3.17 kg/sec and solid mash of
0.043kg mash / sec
Composition:
Total mass of stream to pervaporator 2 = Input - Permeate
19.03 15.67 = 3.36kg feed to second pervaporator.
Ethanol:
3.17kg of the 3.36kg fed to pervaporator 2 is ethanol, this gives an ethanol
concentration of:
3.17 X 100 = 94.35% ethanol
3.36
Water:
0.16 X 100 = 4.76% water
3.36
Solid Mash:
0.043 X 100 = 1.3% mash
3.36
PERVAPORATOR 2 (H)

Input

Impure ethanol

3.36kg

Water removed

0.157kg

Conc. Ethanol

3.20kg

Output

Assumptions:
Pervaporator 2 is assumed to operate at a 98% efficiency, it will be able to
remove 0.98 X 0.16 = 0.157kg water / sec. This leaves our second output with
a mass of (3.36 0.157) = 3.203kg/sec with new water content of 0.16 0.157
= 0.003kg H2O / sec now left in the stream, ethanol of 3.17 kg/sec and solid
mash of 0.043kg mash / sec
Composition:
Total mass of ethanol stream to storage = Input - Permeate
3.36 0.15 = 3.21kg / sec feed to storage.
Ethanol:
3.17kg/sec of the 3.21kg / sec to storage is ethanol, this gives an ethanol
concentration of:
3.17 X 100 = 98.75% ethanol
3.21
Water:
0.003 X 100 = 0.09% water
3.21
Solid Mash:
0.043 X 100 = 1.33% mash
3.21
This ethanol concentration of 98.75% is considered commercial grade and pure
enough for automobile usage, therefore we can afford to store till it is transported
to either point of sale or use.

DRYER (I)

Input
Residue from Filter

2.50kg

DDGS

2.4kg

Wastewater

0.1kg

Output

Assumptions:
For a feed of 2.50kg/sec coming into the dryer from the filter:
We have already established in the material balance for the filter that 2.11kg/sec
is solid mash, which 2.11 X 100 = 84.4% solids. This means we have a moisture
content of 100 - 84.4 = 15.6%.
2.5
It is required that the moisture content in the DDGS be reduced to 12%.
At 12% moisture, DDGS weight will be 88% = 2.11 = 2.40kg/sec. This means
the mass of the
0.88
DDGS and moisture combined must be reduced to 2.40kg/sec, this can only be
achieved in the dryer by removal moisture of 2.5 2.4 = 0.1kg moisture / sec.

ENERGY BALANCE
The energy balance for the various streams are shown in the workbook for each
of them from the ASPEN HYSYS Simulation. The molar enthalpy, heat flow and
molar entropy for each stream is presented in a table below the workbook.

STREAMS

MOLAR ENTHALPY

CORN MASH
CO2
ALPHA-AMYLASE
ACID WATER
GLUCO-AMYLASE
99.5% ETHANOL

(KJ/KGMOLE)
-2312000
-361300
-284900
-416500
-339400
-278800

HEAT FLOW (KJ/H)

MOLAR ENTROPY

-3.378E+08
-4.696E+07
-7.907E+07
-2.447E+08
-3.394E+07
-1.285E+07

(KJ/KGMOLE-OC)
293.6
168.7
6.559
-26.80
89.59
-6.635

ENERGY BALANCE AROUND PUMP AND COOLER

CHAPTER 4
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION AND SIZING
4.1

FERMENTER

The fermenter has a cylindrical geometry and is vertical in orientation. For a

fermenter design, a Conversion Reactor is preferable to a batch reactor or
continuous stirred tank reactor for several reasons which include: Large
throughput, easier online analysis, simplicity and Batch reactor would require
inoculation with new microbes following each batch. The required volume for the
fermenter is 2600 m3, some allowance is needed in order to take account of the
volume displaced by cooling tubes. It is also wise to apply a safety factor in
design so the final volume will stand at 2700 m 3. Modeling the fermenter as a
cylinder and a hemisphere, a further spreadsheet can be created to allow various
parameters to be altered and the relevant overall dimensions can be found. From

these dimensions, it is then feasible to calculate the surface area of the

fermenter.
The heat transfer coefficient between the vessel fluid and the wall can be found
from the relation:
Nu = 0.023Re0.8Pr0.4
Where Reynolds number (Re) is given by:
D2N/
Here D is the impeller diameter whilst N is the motor speed in revs per second.
For the heat transfer coefficient between the vessel wall and the air, the relevant
correlation can be found to be:
Nu = 0.13(GrPr) 1/3
Due to its relatively low cost, good structural properties and high availability,
steel is the material of choice for construction. However, steel is prone to
corrosion (rusting) and although only trace amounts of oxygen should be present
in the fermenter (a prerequisite for rust), some form of galvanizing will be
required. Stainless steel has not been considered due to its high cost. Carrying
out a simple stress analysis on the vessel, the hoop stress can be found to be a
maximum of 245kPa. Analyzing the fermenter as a thin walled pressure vessel,
the thickness required to just prevent yield is 6.2mm. Applying a safety factor of
2, the thickness of the fermenter needs to be 12.4mm. The CO 2 stream will pass
through a water trap so as no oxygen can enter into the fermenter.
Overall height (m)
Overall Diameter (m)
Material
Wall thickness (mm)
Surface area (m2)
Maximum stress in shell (Mpa)
Number of cooling tubes
Length of cooling tubes (m)
Volume (m3)
Diameter of cooling tubes (inches)

26
12
Mild steel (coated)
12.4
1093
120
600
160
2700
1

HYDROLYSIS REACTOR
This reactor has a cylindrical shape with a hemisphere head shape, it is vertical in
orientation. The design specification for the reactor is given in the table below.
PARAMETER
VOLUME
DIAMETER
HEIGHT
AREA
WEIGHT
VESSEL DESIGN CODE
PIPE/PLATE FABRICATION DIAMETER
DESIGN ALLOWANCE
WELD EFFICIENCY
DESIGN DEFLECTION
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPERATURE

MEASUREMENT/UNIT
1300 FEET3
4 FEET
9 FEET
120 FEET2
5 TONS
ASME
10 INCHES
3%
85%
0.5%
150OC

4.1.2 PUMP
A centrifugal pump was used for this design; it had a size of 4" x 4" (102 mm x
102 mm) and a maximum operating pressure of 74 psi (510KPa). The impeller
shaft is made of Carbon steel and other hardware elements of the pump are
made of standard plate steel, the radial bearing is the open single row ball type
while the thrust bearing is the open double row ball type. Driver powers for these
pumps were calculated with 75% efficiency in ASPEN HYSYS. These values were
used to calculate the cost of pumps including their motor drivers.
PARAMETER
MASS
RADIUS OF GYRATION
FRICTION LOSS FACTOR
ROTATIONAL INERTIA
FIRST ORDER TIME CONSTANT
MOTOR INERTIA
MOTOR FRICTION FACTOR
SYNCHRONOUS SPEED
GEAR RATIO
FULL LOAD POWER

MEASUREMENT/UNIT
50 KG
0.1 M
0.05 KG-M2/S
0.5 KG-M2
10
1000 KG-M2
0.1 KG-M2/S
1800 RPM
1
50KW

FULL LOAD TORQUE

FULL LOAD SPEED
MAXIMUM PRESSURE DROP
MAXIMUM SPEED EXPONENT
ROTATING SPARES

4.3

4000 N-M
2500 RPM
1.0 PSI
0.5
7%

ULTRA-FILTER

The ultra-filter is made from high strength, hollow fiber membranes that offer the
following features:
0.03 m nominal pore diameter for removal of bacteria, viruses, and
particulates including colloids
PVDF polymeric hollow fibers for high strength and chemical resistance
Hydrophilic PVDF fibers for easy cleaning and wettability that help maintain
long term performance
Outside-In flow configuration for high tolerance to feed solids and the use of air
scour cleaning
U-PVC housings eliminate the need for pressure vessels and are resistant to UV
light
The outside-In flow configuration is tolerant of wide ranging feed water qualities
and allows air scour cleaning. The dead-end flow offers higher recovery and
energy savings. The pressurized vertical shell-and-tube design eliminates the
need for separate pressure vessels and allows easy removal of air from cleaning
and integrity testing steps.
The hollow fiber membranes are 1.3 mm outside diameter and 0.7 mm inside
diameter and are made from PVDF polymer. The fibers are strong because of a
combination of the PVDF polymer, asymmetric dense spongy layer, and skins
formed on each side of the fiber. The PVDF membranes offer high chemical
resistance and are tolerant to temperatures of 40C. The hydrophilicity of the
PVDF fibers is increased by using a proprietary treatment during manufacturing.

The 0.03m nominal pore size combines high filtration performance and high
flux. The smaller pore size provides stabile long term filtration performance
compared to microfiltation. There are four connections on each module. The flow
enters the module through the side port located on the bottom end cap. Feed
begins on the outside of the fiber. The air feed is located on the bottom of the
end cap and is used for air scouring on the outside of the fiber during cleaning.
The concentrate (discharges flow from the outside of fiber) and filtrate ports
(inside of fiber) are located on the top cap.
4.4

PERVAPORATOR

The two pervaporators units are cuboidal in shape, vertical in orientation and
have the same dimensions. There are certain characteristic values that a
pervaporation module has that separate it from other pervaporation modules,
they include: Area of Membrane, Separation Factor, Permeation Rate, Operational
Temperature and Operational Pressure. The type of membrane used is hydrophilic
membrane because water needs to be removed. A good hydrophilic to use for
this procedure would be polyvinyl alcohol.
PARAMETERS
HEIGHT
LENGTH
WIDTH
VOLUME
WEIGHT
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPERATURE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESSURE
SEPARATION FACTOR ()
PERMEATION RATE
EFFECTIVE MEMBRANE AREA
TOTAL NUMBER OF TUBES

MEASUREMENT/UNITS
3.2 METRES
3.3 METRES
3.3 METRES
34.848 M3
60 KG
90OC
10 Kpa
55.4
1.372 kg/hr-m2
1372 M2
1000

4.5 COOLER
The cooler will have Coil(s) consisting of fully welded boxheaders with serpentine
coils and hot-dip galvanized after fabrication. Coils shall be tested to 400 psi air
pressure while immersed in water. Maximum operating design pressure shall be
225 psi. The coil shall be designed for free drainages of fluid at shutdown. The

fluid cooler and its components shall be designed to withstand a wind load of 20
psf and withstand shipping and hoisting loads of 2g horizontal or 3g vertical.
Handrails, where specified shall be capable of withstanding a 200 lb concentrated
live load in any direction.
PARAMETERS
WEIGHT
MAXIMUM PRESSURE DROP
PIPE HEAT TRACE FLUID
POWER SUPPLY FREQUENCY

MEASUREMENT/UNITS
100KG
3 PSI
STM
60 HERTZ

CHAPTER 5
PROJECT COSTING
5.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name
Project Description
Analysis Date and Time
Simulator Type
Simulator Version

ETH DESIGN
Fri Dec 05 08:23:52 2014
Hyprotech's HYSYS
Aspen HYSYS Version 2006

Simulator Report Date

(20.0.0.6728)
Thursday, December 04,

Economic Analysis Type

Version
Scenario Name
Scenario Description
CAPITAL COST EVALUATION BASIS
Date
Country
Units of Measure

2014
IPE
15.0.0
Scenario1
DESIGN
4-Dec-14
NIGERIA
I-P

Currency (Cost) Symbol

Currency Conversion Rate
System Cost Base Date
Project Type
Design code
Prepared By
Plant Location
Capacity
Time Difference Between System

USD/NAIRA

Days

U.S. DOLLAR
160
1Q 06
Grass roots/Clear field
ASME
Delta State, Nigeria
100,000 metric tons/year
-1915

Cost Base Date and Start Date for

Engineering
User Currency Name
User Currency Description
User Currency Symbol
TIME PERIOD
Period Description
Operating Hours per Period

Hours/perio

Year
8000

Number of Weeks per Period

d
Weeks/perio

52

Number of Periods for Analysis

d
Period

10

NAIRA
NAIRA
N

The cost estimation for this project was done using ASPEN Icarus cost evaluator.
Tables showing equipment cost, utility cost, capital cost and other operation cost
are shown below. As shown above, all costs are in US dollars. The equipment cost
was estimated based on correlations found in the internet. All equipment costs
were updated to December 2008, using Chemical Engineering Economic
indicators. The original price estimation data of equipment is dated to 2002. It is
considered that 1 $ USD = 0,633 = 160NGN. Conversions could be generated in
Nigerian Naira (NGN).

UTILITIES COSTS
Electricity
Rate
KW
Unit Cost
Cost/KWH
Total Electricity Cost
Cost/period
Potable Water
Rate

58.72
0.0354
16629.5

Unit Cost
Total Potable Water Cost
Rate
Unit Cost

Cost/MMGA

L
Cost/period
Fuel

Cost/MMBT

U
Total Fuel Cost
Cost/period
Instrument Air
Unit Cost
Cost/KCF
Total Instrument Air Cost
Cost/period
Subtotal Cost
Cost/period

2.56
25600
0
0
42229.5

OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Operating Labor
Operators per Shift
1
Unit Cost
Cost/Operator/
20
Total Operating Labor Cost
Cost/8000 Hours
Total Maintenance Cost

H
Cost/period
Maintenance
Cost/period
Supervision

Supervisors per Shift

Unit Cost
Total Supervision Cost
Total labor and maintenance Cost

EQUIPMENT TYPE
GRINDER
HYDROLYSIS
REACTOR

Cost/Supervisor
/H
Cost/period

EQUIPMENT COST
SYMBOL
EQUPMENT

CRV-100

PURCHASE COST
10000
104600

160000
0
0
1
35
280000
440000

EQUIPMENT
OPERATING COST
95000
223200

FERMENTER
COOLER
PUMP
ULTRA-FILTRATOR
1ST

CRV-101
E-100
P-100
V-100
V-101

120000
7000
5000
20800
13200

300000
20000
36500
94000
79900

PERVAPORATOR
2ND

X-100

15000

85000

295600

933600

PERVAPORATOR
TOTAL

ENGINEERING SUMMARY
Basic Engineering
Detail Engineering
Material Procurement
Home Office
Total

Cost

Man
hours
1020
1696

85500
138900
13900
39900
278200

578

CONSTRUCT

Total

Design,

ION

Cost

Eng,

on

on

on

Procurem

Material

Manpowe

Indirects

1316.6
186877

r
2326.8
3447.6

SUMMARY

Constructi Constructi Constructi

ent
Civil
Instrumentati

3643.3
190325

on
Electrical
Other
G and A

354037
464800
22038.1

309783
51000
16469.3

44253.5

278200
0

1500.8

135600
4068

Overheads
Contract Fee

73477.5

27541.8

23183.3

6131.9

16620.

10378.9

5
28131.

Contingencie

199498

s
Total

190781

Construction

8.9

Cost

55033.5

105953

PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY

Total Operating Labor and
440000
Maintenance Cost
Total Utilities Cost
Total Equipment Purchase Cost
Total Equipment Operating Cost
Total Construction Cost
Operating Charges
Plant Overhead
Total Project Cost for 1 year

42229.5
295600
933600
1907818.9
110000
220000
3949248.4

5.2 INVESTMENT PARAMETERS

Investment parameters to evaluate the profitability of a project were specified by
including a project life, salvage value, tax rate, depreciation method, desired rate
of

return,

escalation

rates,

working

capital

percentage,

operating

cost

parameters, and facility operation parameters.

A project life is defined as a specific length of time over which the profitability of
different projects is to be compared (Turton, 2003). The lives typically used for
this purpose are 10, 12 and 15 years (Turton, 2003). In this study, a ten-year
analysis period was chosen. Accordingly, all the equipment in each process was
assumed to equally have ten-year of useful lives for the sake of simplicity.
Salvage value is an estimated value of fixed capital investment at the end of the
project life. It was conservatively specified to be zero. As a depreciation method,
a straight line method most commonly used was selected. The escalation rates
for project capital, products, raw materials, operating and maintenance labour
and utilities were set at the default values of IPE. Working capital, which indicates
funds for the operating costs required for the early operation of the plant, was set
at 15% of fixed capital cost.
Operating cost parameters include operating charges, costs for plant overhead
and General and Administrative (G&A). Operating supplies and laboratory
charges cover the cost of the miscellaneous items required in order to run the
plant and the cost of analyzing products.

5.3 PROJECT EVALUATION

Project costing and evaluation were done using Aspen Icarus Project Evaluator.

PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
In the process of making an investment decision, the profit anticipated from an
investment must be judged relative to some profitability standards. A profitability
standard is a quantitative measure of profit with respect to the capital investment
required to generate that profit. Several methods are used for project evaluation,
and the methods can be divided into discounted techniques and non-discounted
techniques. Non-discounted cash flow techniques do not consider the time value
of money and therefore are not suitable for final project evaluation. The methods
include payback period and return on investment. Discounted cash flow
techniques are more rigorous profitability measures which involve consideration
of the time value of money and estimates of the cash flows throughout the life of
the process. The methods include the discounted payback period (DPP), net
present value (NPV), equivalent annual value (EAV) and discounted cash flow rate
of return (DCFROR).
Discounted payback period is the time required, after start-up, to recover the
fixed capital investment as all cash flows discounted back to time zero. It
corresponds to the time when the cumulative present value crosses over from
negative to positive hitting zero. The project with the shortest time is the more
favourable. However, it may lead to an economically incorrect decision, as it does
not reflect cash flows after payback. The project with the shortest DPP might not
produce the highest return at the end of the project life. Therefore, it should be
only used to provide initial screening or supplemental information in conjunction
with an analysis performed using different methods. Net present value is defined
as the sum of all cash inflows and outflows as they are discounted to the present
worth by the given interest rate. A positive NPV indicates that a project is
acceptable and the higher the NPV, the better the potential project. To calculate
NPV, an appropriate interest rate (or discount rate) needs to be defined first. This
internal interest rate usually represents the minimum acceptable rate of return

(MARR) that must be earned for a project to be accepted. It is normally adjusted

to account for the uncertainties and risks associated with the project.
Discounted cash flow rate of return also known as internal rate of return (IRR) is
defined as the interest rate at which all the cash flows are discounted in order to
bring the net present value to exactly zero. It represents the highest after-tax
interest at which the project can just break even (Turton 2003). If the IRR is
greater than the internal interest rate, the project is regarded to be profitable.
Among the various ways to measure profitability, DPP, NPV and DCFROR were the
interests of this study. The break-even price was defined as the price at which the
revenue from selling biodiesel product is the same as total manufacturing cost of
each process (Zhang et al., 2003).

ITEM

UNITS

TW (Number of Weeks per Period)

T (Number of Periods for Analysis)
DTEPC (Duration of EPC Phase)
DT (Duration of EPC Phase and Startup)
WORKP (Working Capital Percentage)
OPCHG (Operating Charges)
PLANTOVH (Plant Overhead)
CAPT (Total Project Cost)
RAWT (Total Raw Material Cost)
PRODT (Total Product Sales)
OPMT (Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost)
UTILT (Total Utilities Cost)
ROR (Desired Rate of Return/Interest Rate)
AF (ROR Annuity Factor)
TAXR (Tax Rate)
IF (ROR Interest Factor)
ECONLIFE (Economic Life of Project)
SALVAL (Salvage Value (Percent of Initial Capital

Weeks/period
Period
Period
Period
Percent/period
Percent/period
Percent/period
Cost
Cost/period
Cost/period
Cost/period
Cost/period
Percent/period
Percent/period
Period
Percent

52
20
0.538462
0.923077
5
25
50
963797
0
0
0
16629.5
20
5
40
1.2
10
20

Cost))
DEPMETH (Depreciation Method)

Straight

DEPMETHN (Depreciation Method Id)

ESCAP (Project Capital Escalation)
ESPROD (Products Escalation)

Line
1
5
5

Percent/period
Percent/period

ESRAW (Raw Material Escalation)

ESLAB
(Operating and Maintenance

Percent/period
Labor Percent/period

3.5
3

Escalation)
ESUT (Utilities Escalation)
Percent/period
START (Start Period for Plant Startup)
Period
PODE (Desired Payout Period (excluding EPC and Period

3
1

Startup Phases))
POD (Desired Payout Period)
Period
DESRET
(Desired Return on Project for Sales Percent/Period

10.5

Forecasting)
END (End Period for Economic Life of Project)
Period
GA (G and A Expenses)
Percent/Period
DTEP
(Duration of EP Phase before Start of Period

10
8
0.326923

Construction)
OP (Total Operating Labor Cost)
MT (Total Maintenance Cost)

Cost/period
Cost/period

440000
0

CASHFLOW CALCULATIONS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

R (Revenue)

Year 0
0

Year 1
-

Year 2
-901298

Year 3
-928337

Year 4
-956187

Year 5
-984873

6
77103.8

77103.8

77103.8

77103.8

77103.8

-978402

1.01E+0

1.03E+06

1.06E+06

6
0
-

0
-

0
-

1.47E+0
DEP
(Depreciation
Expense)
E (Earnings
Before Taxes)
TAX (Taxes)
NE (Net

1.54E+0
0
0

6
0
-

0
-978402

Earnings)

1.54E+0

1.01E+0

1.03E+06

1.06E+06

TED(Total

6
-

6
-928337

-956187

-984873

928337

956187

984873

-901298

Earnings)

1.47E+0

TEX (Total

6
1.47E+0 901298

Expenses

(Excludes Taxes
and
Depreciation))
CF(Cash Flow

for Project)
PVO (Present

-901298

-928337

-956187

-984873

6
1.22E+0 1.85E+

2.39E+0

2.85E+06

3.24E+06

06

-625901

-537232

-461124

-395798

1.22E+0 1.85E+

2.39E+0

2.85E+06

3.24E+06

1.47E+0
0

Value of
Cumulative
Cash Outflows)
PV (Present

Value of Cash
Flows)
NPV (Net

1.22E+0
6
-

Present Value)
IRR (Internal
Rate of Return)
MIRR (Modified

06

0
-100

Internal Rate of
Return)
NRR (Net

Return Rate)

99.13

PO (Payout

96
0

Period)
ARR
(Accounting
Rate of Return)

197.0
31

CASHFLOW CALCULATIONS FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS

R (Revenue)
DEP

Year 6
-

Year 7
-1.04E+06

Year 8
-

Year 9
-1.11E+06

Year 10
-1.14E+06

1.01E+06
77103.8

77103.8

1.08E+06
77103.8

77103.8

77103.8

(Depreciation
Expense)
E (Earnings

-1.12E+06

-1.19E+06

-1.22E+06

Before Taxes)
TAX (Taxes)
NE (Net

1.09E+06

1.15E+06

-1.12E+06

-1.19E+06

-1.22E+06

Earnings)
TED(Total

1.09E+06
-

-1.04E+06

1.15E+06
-

-1.11E+06

-1.14E+06

Earnings)
TEX (Total

1.01E+06
1.01E+06

1.04E+06

1.08E+06
1.08E+06

1.11E+06

1.14E+06

-1.04E+06

-1.11E+06

-900788

1.01E+06
3.58E+06

3.87E+06

1.08E+06
4.12E+06

4.34E+06

4.52E+06

-339727

-291599

-250289

-214831

-184397

-3.87E+06

-4.34E+06

-4.48E+06

Expenses
(Excludes Taxes
and
Depreciation))
CF(Cash Flow
for Project)
PVO (Present
Value of
Cumulative Cash
Outflows)
PV (Present
Value of Cash
Flows)
NPV (Net Present Value)
IRR (Internal
Rate of Return)
MIRR (Modified

3.58E+06

4.12E+06

-100

Internal Rate of
Return)
NRR (Net Return

-99.1396

Rate)
PO (Payout
Period)
ARR (Accounting
Rate of Return)

-197.031

DEPRECIATION CALCULATIONS
The straight line depreciation value for this project was evaluated using Icarus
project evaluator which gave a value of 77103.8 dollars every year for the period
of ten years.
RATE OF RETURN AND PAYBACK PERIOD
ROR =

Cummulative net cash flow at project end 100

Project life Original Investment

PAYBACK TIME = Reciprocal of ROR (when annual savings is constant)

CHAPTER SIX

SAFETY CONSIDERATION AND PLANT LOCATION

SAFETY CONSIDERATION
Every organisation has a legal and moral obligation to safeguard the health and
welfare of its employees and the general public. Safety is also good business; the
good management practices needed to ensure safe operation will also ensure
efficient operation. All manufacturing processes are to some extent hazardous,
but in chemical processes there are additional, special, hazards associated with
the chemicals used and the process conditions. The designer must be aware of
these hazards, and ensure, through the application of sound engineering practice,
that the risks are reduced to acceptable levels.
Safety in process design can be considered under the following broad headings:
1. Identification and assessment of the hazards.
2. Control of the hazards: for example, by containment of flammable and toxic
materials.
3. Control of the process, Prevention of hazardous deviations in process variables
(pressure, temperature, flow), by provision of automatic control systems,
interlocks,

alarms,

trips;

together

with

good

operating

practices

and

management.
4. Limitation of the loss. The damage and injury caused if an incident occurs:
pressure relief, plant layout, provision of fire-fighting equipment.
SAFETY DATA SHEET FOR FUEL ETHANOL
Product Name
Product Code
Synonyms

Fuel Ethanol
Multiple
ITEC MSDS

004,

ITECSOL

AC500,

ITECSOL AC600, Anhydrous Ethanol,

Fuel Ethanol, Ethanol for Fuel Blending,
Ethanol

for

Gasoline,

Ethanol,

Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, Denatured,

CAS #
MSDS #:
Intended Use
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

200 Proof Fuel Ethanol

64-17-5
004
Gasoline Blendstock

Can cause kidney, liver and blood disorders, May cause irritation to eyes, skin
and respiratory system. Avoid liquid, mist and vapor contact. Harmful or fatal if
swallowed.
Aspiration hazard; can enter lungs and cause damage. May cause irritation or
be harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Extremely flammable liquid,
vapors may explode.
Physical state: Liquid.
Emergency Overview: Danger! flammable liquid and vapor. Contains material
that can cause target organ damage. Possible cancer hazard - contains material
which may cause cancer, based on animal data.
Do not ingest. Avoid prolonged contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Keep away
from heat, sparks and flame. Keep container closed. Use only with adequate
ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Risk of cancer depends on duration
and level of exposure.
Routes of entry: Dermal contact, Eye contact, Inhalation, Ingestion.
Potential acute health effects:
Eyes: May cause severe irritation, redness, tearing, blurred vision and
conjunctivitis.
Skin: Prolonged or repeated contact may cause moderate irritation, defatting
(cracking), redness, itching, inflammation, dermatitis and possible secondary
infection. High pressure skin injections are SERIOUS MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.
Injury may not appear serious at first. Within a few hours, tissues will become
swollen, discolored and extremely painful.

Inhalation: Nasal and respiratory tract irritation, central nervous system effects
including excitation, euphoria, contracted eye pupils, dizziness, drowsiness,
blurred vision, fatigue, nausea, headache, loss of reflexes, tremors, convulsions,
seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, respiratory arrest and sudden death could
occur as a result of long term and/or high concentration exposure to vapors, May
also cause anemia and irregular heart rhythm. Repeated or prolonged exposure
may cause behavioral changes.
Ingestion: Toxic if swallowed. This product may be harmful or fatal if swallowed.
This product may cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and restlessness. DO NOT
INDUCE VOMITING. Aspiration into the lungs can cause severe chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema/hemorrhage, which can be fatal, may cause
gastrointestinal disturbances, symptoms may include irritation, depression,
vomiting and diarrhea, may cause harmful central nervous system effects, similar
to those listed under "inhalation".
Medical conditions
Over-exposure signs/symptoms: Nasal and respiratory tract irritation, central
nervous system effects including excitation, euphoria, contracted eye pupils,
dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision, fatigue, nausea, headache, loss of reflexes,
tremors, convulsions, seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, respiratory arrest or
sudden death could occur as a result of long term and/or high concentration
exposure to vapors, may also cause anemia and irregular heart rhythm.
FIRST AID MEASURES
Eye contact: Flush immediately with large amounts of water for at least 15
minutes. Eyelids should be held away from the eyeball to ensure thorough
rinsing. Seek medical advice if pain or redness continues.
Skin contact: Remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Wash exposed area
thoroughly with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing promptly and
launder before reuse. Contaminated leather goods should be discarded. If
irritation persists or symptoms described in the MSDS develop, seek medical

attention. High pressure skin injections are SERIOUS MEDICAL EMERGENCIES. Get
immediate medical attention.
Inhalation: If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. If
not breathing, give artificial respiration. Get medical attention.
Notes to physician: No specific treatment. Treat symptomatically, Contact
poison treatment specialist immediately if large quantities have been ingested or
inhaled.
Protection of first-aiders: No action shall be taken involving any personal risk
or without suitable training. If it is suspected that fumes are still present, the
rescuer should wear an appropriate mask or self-contained breathing apparatus.
It may be dangerous to the person providing aid to give mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation.

Wash

contaminated

clothing

thoroughly

with

water

before

removing it, or wear gloves.

FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
Flammability of the product: Flammable.
Products of combustion: These products are carbon oxides (CO, CO2), nitrogen
and sulfur oxides (NOX, SOX), particulate matter, VOC's.
Fire hazards in the Presence of various substances: Extremely flammable
in the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and
static discharge.
Explosion hazards in the presence of various substances: Explosive in the
presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static
discharge.
Fire-fighting media and instructions
Extinguishing media
Suitable: Use dry chemical, CO2, water spray (fog) or foam.

Not suitable: Do not use water jet.

Collect contaminated fire-fighting water separately. It must not enter the sewage
system, dike area of fire to prevent runoff. Decontaminate emergency personnel
and equipment with soap and water. Vapor may cause flash fire. Vapors may
accumulate in low or confined areas or travel a considerable distance to a source
of ignition and flash back. Runoff to sewer may create fire or explosion hazard.
Special protective equipment for firefighters: Fire-fighters should wear
appropriate protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
with a full face-piece operated in positive pressure mode.
Special remarks on Fire hazards: Dangerous when exposed to heat or flame.
Vapors form flammable or explosive mixtures with air at room temperature. Vapor
or gas may spread to distant ignition sources (pilot lights, welding equipment,
electrical equipment, etc.) and flash back. Vapors may accumulate in low areas.
Vapors may concentrate in confined areas. Flowing product can be ignited by selfgenerated static electricity. Use adequate bonding and grounding to prevent
static buildup. Runoff to sewer may cause fire or explosion hazard. Containers
may explode in heat of fire. Irritating or toxic substances may be emitted upon
thermal decomposition. For fires involving this material, do not enter any
enclosed or confined space without proper protective equipment, which may
include approved self-contained breathing apparatus with full face mask.
Clothing, rags or similar organic material contaminated with this product and
stored in a closed space may undergo spontaneous combustion.
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
Personal precautions: Immediately contact emergency personnel. Eliminate all
ignition sources. Keep unnecessary personnel away. Use suitable protective
equipment .Do not touch or walk through spilled material. Tanks, vessels or other
confined spaces which have contained product should be freed of vapors before
entering. The container should be checked to ensure a safe atmosphere before
entry. Empty containers may contain toxic, flammable/combustible or explosive
residues or vapors. Do not cut, grind, drill, weld or reuse empty containers that

contained this product. Do not transfer this product to another container unless
the container receiving the product is labeled with proper DOT shipping name,
hazard class and other information that describes the product and its hazards.
Environmental precautions: Avoid dispersal of spilled material and runoff and
contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Gasoline may contain
oxygenated blend products (Ethanol, MTBE, etc.) that are soluble in water and
therefore precautions should be taken to protect surface and groundwater
sources from contamination. If facility or operation has an "oil or hazardous
substance contingency plan", activate its procedures. Stay upwind and away from
spill, wear appropriate protective equipment including respiratory protection as
conditions warrant. Do not enter or stay in area unless monitoring indicates that
it is safe to do so. Isolate hazard area and restrict entry to emergency crew.
Review Fire Fighting Measures section before proceeding with clean up. Keep all
sources of ignition (flames, smoking, flares, etc.) and hot surfaces away from
release. Contain spill in smallest possible area. Recover as much product as
possible (e.g., by vacuuming). Stop leak if it can be done without risk. Use water
spray to disperse vapors. Spilled material may be absorbed by an appropriate
absorbent, and then handled in accordance with environmental regulations.
Prevent spilled material from entering sewers, storm drains, other unauthorized
treatment or drainage systems and natural waterways. Contact fire authorities
and appropriate federal, state and local agencies.
Methods for cleaning
Small spill: Stop leak if without risk. Move containers from spill area. Dilute with
water and mop up if water-soluble or absorb with an inert dry material and place
in an appropriate waste disposal container. Use spark-proof tools and explosionproof equipment. Dispose of via a licensed waste disposal contractor.
Large spill: If emergency personnel are unavailable, contain spilled material. For
small spills, add absorbent (soil may be used in the absence of other suitable
materials) and use a non-sparking or explosion-proof means to transfer material
to a sealable, appropriate container for disposal. For large spills, dike spilled

materials or otherwise contain it to ensure runoff does not reach a waterway.

Place spilled material in an appropriate container for disposal.
HANDLING AND STORAGE
Handling: Do not ingest. Avoid prolonged contact with eyes, skin and clothing.
Keep container closed. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep away from heat,
sparks and flame. To avoid fire or explosion, dissipate static electricity during
transfer by grounding and bonding containers and equipment before transferring
material.
Use explosion-proof electrical (ventilating, lighting and material handling)
equipment. Wash thoroughly after handling. Use only in well ventilated locations.
Keep away from heat, spark and flames. In case of fire, use water spray, foam,
dry chemical or carbon dioxide as described in the Fire Fighting Measures section
of this Safety Datasheet. Do not pressurize, cut, weld, braze, solder, drill on or
near this container. "Empty" container contains residue (liquid and/or vapor) and
may explode in heat of a fire. Use good personal hygiene practices. After
handling this product, wash hands before eating, drinking, or using toilet
facilities.
Keep out of reach of children. Failure to use caution may cause serious injury or
illness. Never siphon by mouth. For use as a motor fuel only, do not use as a
cleaning solvent or for other non-motor fuel uses. To prevent ingestion and
exposure - Do not siphon by mouth to transfer product between containers. Use
good personal hygiene practices. After handling this product, wash hands before
eating, drinking, or using toilet facilities.
Storage: Store in tightly closed containers in cool, dry, isolated and wellventilated area away from heat, sources of ignition and incompatible materials.
Use non-sparking tools and explosion proof equipment. Ground lines, containers,
and other equipment used during product transfer to reduce the possibility of a
static induced spark. Do not "switch load" because of possible accumulation of a

static charge resulting in a source of ignition. Use good personal hygiene

practices.
EXPOSURE CONTROL, PERSONNEL PROTECTION
Engineering measures: Use only with adequate ventilation. Use process
enclosures, local exhaust ventilation or other engineering controls to keep worker
exposure to airborne contaminants below any recommended or statutory limits.
The engineering controls also need to keep gas, vapor or dust concentrations
below any lower explosive limits. Use explosion-proof ventilation equipment.
Personal protection
Eyes: Safety eyewear complying with an approved standard should be used
when a risk assessment indicates this is necessary to avoid exposure to liquid
splashes, mists or dusts. Keep away from eyes. Eye contact can be avoided by
wearing safety glasses or chemical splash goggles.
Skin: Personal protective equipment for the body should be selected based on
the task being performed and the risks involved and should be approved by a
specialist before handling this product. Keep away from skin. Skin contact can be
minimized by wearing protective gloves such as neoprene, nitrile-butadiene
rubber, etc. and, where necessary, impervious clothing and boots. Leather goods
contaminated with this product should be discarded. A source of clean water
should be available in the work area for flushing eyes and skin. Flame Retardant
Clothing is recommended.
Respiratory: Use a properly fitted, air-purifying or air-fed respirator complying
with an Approved standard if a risk assessment indicates this is necessary.
Respirator selection must be based on known or anticipated exposure levels, the
hazards of the product and the safe working limits of the selected respirator. If
workplace exposure limits for product or components are exceeded, NIOSH
approved equipment should be worn. Proper respirator selection should be
determined by adequately trained personnel, based on the contaminants, the

degree of potential exposure and published respiratory protection factors. This

equipment should be available for non-routine and emergency use.
Hands: Chemical-resistant, impervious gloves complying with an approved
standard should be worn at all times when handling chemical products if a risk
assessment indicates this is necessary.
Personal protective
Equipment: Consult your Supervisor or S.O.P. for special handling directions.
Personal protection in Case of a large spill: Splash goggles, Full suit, Vapor
respirator, Boots, Gloves. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) should be
used to avoid inhalation of the product. Suggested protective clothing might not
be adequate. Consult a specialist before handling this product.
Recommended Monitoring Procedures: If this product contains ingredients
with exposure limits, personal, workplace atmosphere or biological monitoring
may be required to determine the effectiveness of the ventilation or other control
measures and/or the necessity to use respiratory protective equipment.
Hygiene measures: Wash hands, forearms and face thoroughly after handling
chemical products, before eating, smoking and using the lavatory and at the end
of the working period. Appropriate techniques should be used to remove
potentially contaminated clothing. Wash contaminated clothing before reusing.
Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are close to the workstation
location.
Environmental Exposure Controls: Emissions from ventilation or work process
equipment should be checked to ensure they comply with the requirements of
environmental protection legislation. In some cases, fume scrubbers, filters or
engineering modifications to the process equipment will be necessary to reduce
emissions to acceptable levels.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Physical state

Liquid

Color
Odor

Colorless
Alcohol-like,

Boiling point
Melting/freezing point
Specific gravity
Vapor density
Volatility
Evaporation rate
Solubility

Odor
73.89 to 79.45C (165 to 175F)
<-113.89C (<-173F)
0.79
1.6 [Air = 1]
Essentially 100%
1.7 (Butyl acetate = 1)
Soluble in the cold water and hot water

Characteristic

Gasoline

STABILITY AND REACTIVITY DATA

Stability: The product is stable.
Hazardous Polymerization: Under normal conditions of storage and use,
hazardous polymerization will not occur.
Conditions to avoid: Avoid all possible sources of ignition (spark or flame). Do
not pressurize, cut, weld, braze, solder, drill, grind or expose containers to heat or
sources of ignition. Do not allow vapor to accumulate in low or confined areas.
Avoid exposure - obtain special instructions before use.
Materials to avoid: Highly reactive or incompatible with the following materials:
oxidizing materials
Hazardous decomposition products: Under normal conditions of storage and
use, hazardous decomposition products should not be produced.
Conditions of reactivity: Extremely flammable in the presence of the following
materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and static discharge. Explosive in
the presence of the following materials or conditions: open flames, sparks and
static discharge
DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Waste disposal: The generation of waste should be avoided or minimized
wherever possible. Empty containers or liners may retain some product residues.
This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way. Dispose of

surplus and non-recyclable products via a licensed waste disposal contractor.

Disposal of this product, solutions and any byproducts should at all times comply
with the requirements of environmental protection and waste disposal legislation
and any regional local authority requirements. Avoid dispersal of spilled material
and runoff and contact with soil, waterways, drains and sewers. Consult your
local or regional authorities.
TRANSPORT INFORMATION
DOT Shipping Description
Non-bulk Package Marking
Non-Bulk Package Label
Bulk Package Placard/Marking
Packing References
Emergency Response Guide

Ethanol, 3, UN1170, II
Ethanol, 3, UN1170
Flammable Liquid
Flammable Liquid/1170
49 CFR 173, 150, 173.202, 173.242
127

SAFETY CHECK LISTS

Check lists are useful aids to memory. A check list that has been drawn up by
experienced engineers can be a useful guide for the less experienced. However,
too great a reliance should never be put on the use of check lists, to the exclusion
of all other considerations and techniques. It should be noted that no check list
can be completely comprehensive, covering all the factors to be considered for
any particular process or operation. A short safety check list, covering the main
items which were considered in this design is given below.
I.

Materials

Flash-point, flammability range, auto-ignition temperature, composition, stability

(shock sensitive?), toxicity, corrosion, physical properties (unusual?), heat of
combustion/reaction
II.

Process
a) Reactors: Exothermic heat of reaction, temperature control, emergency
systems, side reactions (dangerous?), effect of contamination, effect of
unusual concentrations (including catalyst) corrosion
b) Pressure systems

Is there a need for pressure systems?, Is design in compliance with current codes
(BS 5500), Is materials of construction adequate?, pressure relief adequate?, safe
venting systems, flame arresters
III.

Control systems

fail safe, back-up power supplies, high/low alarms and trips on critical variables,
temperature, pressure, flow, level, composition, back-up/duplicate systems on
critical variables, remote operation of valves, block valves on critical lines,
excess-flow valves, interlock systems to prevent mis-operation, automatic shutdown systems
IV.

Storages

Floating roof tanks, dykeing, loading/unloading facilities safety, earthing and

ignition sources vehicles
V.

General

Inert purging systems needed, compliance with electrical codes, adequate

lighting, lightning protection, sewers and drains adequate, dust-explosion
hazards, build-up of dangerous impurities purges, plant layout, siting of control
rooms and offices, services safety showers, eye baths
VI.

Fire protection

Emergency water supplies, fire mains and hydrants, foam systems, sprinklers and
deluge systems, insulation and protection of structures, access to buildings, firefighting equipment.

PLANT LOCATION
The location of the plant can have a crucial effect on the profitability of a project,
and the scope for future expansion.
The principal factors considered are:
Location, with respect to the marketing area.

 Raw material supply: The availability and price of suitable raw materials will
often determine the site location. Plants producing bulk chemicals are best
located close to the source of the major raw material; where this is also close to
the marketing area.
Transport facilities: If practicable, a site should be selected that is close to at
least two major forms of transport: road, rail, waterway (canal or river), or a sea
port. Road transport is being increasingly used, and is suitable for local
distribution from a central warehouse. Rail transport will be cheaper for the longdistance transport of bulk chemicals.
Availability of labour/Qualification
Availability of utilities: water, fuel, power.
Availability of and cost of suitable land.
Environmental impact and effluent disposal.
Local community considerations/ Unemployment rate
Climate: Adverse climatic conditions at site will increase costs. Abnormally low
temperatures will require the provision of additional insulation and special
heating for equipment and piping. Stronger locations will be needed at locations
subject to high wind loads or earthquakes.
Political strategic considerations: Capital grants, tax concessions, and other
inducements are often given by governments to direct new investment to
preferred locations; such as areas of high unemployment. The availability of such
grants can be the overriding consideration in site selection.
Using the above criteria, and considering that the plant should be located
close to a refinery for easy supply, each factor was allocated a score on the basis
of 1 to 5 with 1 as the worse and 5 as best, the location with the highest point
was chosen. Warri in delta state was selected as the best location.
Location

Labour/

Cost

Unemploym

utilitie

Raw

Nearnes

tota

Qualificati

of

Lagos
Portharcour

on
5
4

land
2
4

t
Auchi
Abuja

4
4

5
1

ent rate

materi

s to

2
3

4
3

al
3
4

market
3
4

19
22

3
4

3
5

4
2

5
1

24
17

PLANT LAYOUT
The economic construction and efficient operation of a process unit will depend
on how well the plant and equipment specified on the process flow sheet is laid
out, this in turn determines the safety of workers in the area. The principal factors
considered are:
Economic considerations: construction and operating costs.
The process requirements.
Convenience of operation.
Convenience of maintenance.
Safety.
Future expansion.
Modular construction.
Costs
The cost of construction can be minimized by adopting a layout that gives the
shortest run of connecting pipe between equipment, and at least amount of
structural steel work. However, this will not necessarily be the best arrangement
for operation and maintenance.
Process requirements

An example of the need to take into account process consideration is the need to
elevate the base of columns to provide the necessary net positive suction head to
a pump or the operating head for a thermosyphon reboiler.
Operations
Equipment that needs to have frequent attention should be located convenient to
the control room. Valves, sample points, and instruments should be located at
convenient positions and heights. Sufficient working space and headroom must
be provided to allow easy access to equipment.
Maintenance
Heat exchangers need to be sited so that the tube bundles can be easily
withdrawn for cleaning and tube replacement. Vessels that require frequent
replacement of catalyst or packing should be located on the outside of buildings.
Equipment that requires dismantling for maintenance, such as compressors and
large pumps, should be places under cover.
Safety
Blast walls may be needed to isolate potentially hazardous equipment, and
confine the effects of an explosion. At least two escape routes for operators must
be provided from each level in process buildings.
Plant expansion
Equipment should be located so that it can be conveniently tied in with any
future expansion of the process. Space should be left on pipe alleys for future
needs, and service pipes over-sized to allow for future requirements.
Modular construction
In recent years there has been a move to assemble sections of plant at the plant
manufacturers site. These modules will include the equipment, structural steel,
piping and instrumentation. The modules are then transported to the plant site,
by road or sea. The advantages of modular construction are:

Improved quality control.

Reduced construction cost.

Less need for skilled labor on site.

Some of the disadvantages are;

Higher design costs & more structural steel work.

CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
CONCLUSION
The report has successfully outlined a proposal for motor-grade ethanol
production plant with a capacity of 100,000 metric tonnes/year of ethanol at a
purity of 98.75%, using corn as the feedstock.
A potential location for the plant is Auchi; primarily due to its location near where
the main feedstock (corn) for the process is readily available. It also has also
been known to experience a relatively high level of peace compared to other
Niger Delta regions where youth restiveness and sabotage of government efforts
at setting up similar plants have been rampant.
Such a project can bring many benefits to the local area including employment
and training opportunities as well as a boost to the local economy. However it is
important that support is generated and key allies made such as the fuel retailers
and more importantly the local residents.

RECOMMENDATION
From this work, it is recommended that gasoline should be replaced with fuel
ethanol where possible or in case where total replacement is not possible,
blending of ethanol with gasoline should be done. The fuel produced by the plant
will have a positive effect on climate change. The energy released from burning
the fuel is significantly less than that required to produce it. Its use will also result
in an estimated 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the petrol it will
replace. Ethanol fuel blends will help improve air quality by reducing the
emissions of components of smog and harmful additives.

An economic analysis has shown this product to be viable under a number of

market conditions; high and low government tax, oil prices and feedstock costs.
The product will yield large profits with the current government subsidy on
bioethanol fuel tax, and a cash-flow analysis shows that the payback period
would be 5 years from project initiation under these conditions.
Considering its benefits, this plant is an environmentally and economically viable
means for producing fuel ethanol for the Nigerian market. Further development of
this proposal would require more accurate costing of the Main Plant Items, using
up to date quotes. It would also be necessary to construct a fully integrated
flowsheet using a commercial software package and carry out a detailed analysis
of resource use, with a view to maximising resource efficiency.

It has been proposed that a full stakeholder analysis is undertaken to highlight

those affected by the project.
Lastly, due to inefficiency of equipments, it is observed from the material balance
that the output/sec i.e 3.21kg ethanol / sec if multiplied by 29,959,200 secs
which is the plants uptime expressed in seconds does not yield 100,000,000kg
ethanol which is the annual output, rather it gives : 96,169,032kg ethanol /
annum which is 3,830,968kg/annum short of the expected production capacity. To
remedy this deficit, the plants operating hours per year should be extended from
the initially assumed 95% to 98% since the production of ethanol from corn is not
a novel process, this is clearly within safe engineering practice for this plant. This
will

increase

the

production

capacity

99,205.9488 metric tonnes /annum.

to

99,205,948.8kg/annum

REFERENCES
Aden A, M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J; Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, B. Wallace (2002).
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current
Dilute Acid Prehydrolysisand Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. NREL,
NREL/TP-510-32438.
Bothast, R. J., and M. A. Schlicher. (2005). Biotechnological processes for
conversion of corn into ethanol. Appl. Microbiology Biotechnology 67: 19-25.
Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering: Chemical Engineering Design
v.6
European Union (2006) Commission Urges New Drive to Boost Production of
Biofuels European Union. Brussels, ip/06/135. Osterkorn, M. (2006) Nigeria to
Use Brazilian Blueprint to Found its New Biofuel Industry. Ethanol Producer
Newsletter. September Issue.
Ezeji TC, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP. (2004). Acetonebutanolethanol (ABE)
production from concentrated substrate: reduction in substrate inhibition by fedbatch technique and product inhibition by gas stripping. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol; 63:6538.
Fong, W. S., (1982). Ethanol for Gasohol, Stanford Research Institute, Process
Economics Program, SRI PEP 149.
Handbook on Bio-ethanol: Production and Utilization (Applied Energy Technology
S.) (1996)

Kadar Z, Maltha SF, Szengyel Z, Reczey K, Laat W. (2007)Ethanol fermentation of

various pretreated and hydrolyzed substrates at low initial pH. Appl Biochem
Biotechnol;136140:84758.
Kalyani S, Smitha B, Sridhar S, Krishnaiah A. (2008)Pervaporation separation of
ethanolwater

mixtures

through

sodium

alginate

membranes.

Desalination;229:6881.
Kwiatkowski, J. R., A. McAloon, F. Taylor, and D. B. Johnston. (2006). Modeling the
process and costs of fuel ethanol production by the corn dry-grind process. Ind.
Crops and Products 23: 288-296.
Lee YM, Shin EM, Yang KS (1991). Pervaporation separation of waterethanol
through modified chitosan membrane: 1. Chitosanacetic acid and metal ion
complex membranes. Polymer (Korea) ;15:18290.
McAloon, A., F. Taylor, W. Yee, K. Ibsen, and R. Wooley. (2000). Determining the
cost of producing ethanol from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks.
Washington, D.C. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy Laboratory.
McCabe, W. Smith, J. Harriott, P. (2001) Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,
(Sixth Edition): McGraw-Hill.
Milton, M.L., (1978). Gasohol Economic Feasibility Study: Final Report, Energy
Research and Dev. Center, Univ. Nebraska.
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) (2005)Nigeria to Earn US
$150m from Biofuels Intitatives of an 8 MWth Combined Heat and Power Plant.
International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering. 2007;5:1-19.
Olsson L, Hagerdal BH. (1996) Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for
ethanol production. Enzyme Microb Technol; 18:31231.
Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC. (2005)
Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical

feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. US Department of Energy, US

Department of Agriculture. DOE/GO-102005-2135 ORNL/TM-2005/66;
Perry, R. Green, D. (1984) Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, (Sixth Edition):
McGraw-Hill.
Rajagopalan, S., E. Ponnampalam, D. McCalla, and M. Stowers. (2004). Enhancing
profitability of dry mill ethanol plants: process modeling and economics of
conversion of degermed defibered corn to ethanol. Appl. Biochemistry and
Biotechnology 120: 37-50.
Ramkumar Karuppiah, Andreas Peschel, Mariano Martn, Ignacio E. Grossmann,
Wade Martinson, Luca Zullo (2008). "Energy Optimization for the Design of Cornbased Ethanol Plants".
Renewable Fuels Association, Growing innovation: 2009 ethanol industry outlook;
(2009).
Rosentrater, K. A., and K. Muthukumarappan. (2006). Corn ethanol coproducts:
generation, properties, and future prospects. Int. Sugar J. 108(1295): 648-657.
Shurson, J., and A. S. Alhamdi. (2008). Quality and new technologies to create
corn co-products from ethanol production. Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and
International Livestock and Poultry Industries. B. A. Babcock, D. J. Hayes, and J. D.
Lawrence, eds. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. p. 231-256.
Singh, V., K. Rausch, P. Yang, H. Shapouri, R. L. Belyea, and M. E. Tumbleson.
(2001) Modified dry grind ethanol process. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at
Urbana-

Champaign

Agricultural

Engineering

Department.

Available

at:

http://aberesearch. illinois.edu/pubs/k_rausch/Singh_etal_Modified_Dry_grind.pdf.
Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
Turton, R et al. (2003) Analysis, Synthesis and Design of Chemical Processes,
(Second Edition): Prentice Hall.

Urbanchuk, J. (2011) Contribution of the ethanol industry to the economy of the

United States. Washington, D.C.: Renewable Fuels Association. Available at:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/reports-and-studies.
Weigel, J. C., D. Loy, and L. Kilmer. (1997). Feed co-products of the dry corn
milling process. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC, and National Corn
Growers Association, St. Louis, MO.
Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G. (2003) Techno-economic evaluation of producing
ethanol from softwood: comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of
bottlenecks. Biotechnol Prog 2003; 19:110917.
Wingren A, Soderstrom J, Galbe M, Zacchi G. (2004) Process considerations and
economic evaluation of two-step steam pretreatment for production of fuel
ethanol from softwood. Biotechnol Prog 2004; 20:14219.