DESIGN OF AN ETHANOL FERMENTATION PLANT

By

John Schrilla

Approved:

Dean Kashiwagi Director

Jacob Kashiwagi Second Committee Member

Accepted:

_____________________________________

Dean, Barrett, the Honors College

Abstract

Ethanol is a widely used biofuel in the United States that is typically produced

through the fermentation of biomass feedstocks. Demand for ethanol has grown

significantly from 2000 to 2015 chiefly due to a desire to increase energy independence

and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with transportation. As demand

grows, new ethanol plants must be developed in order for supply to meet demand. This

report covers some of the major considerations in developing these new plants such as the

type of biomass used, feed treatment process, and product separation and investigates

their effect on the economic viability and environmental benefits of the ethanol produced.

The dry grind process for producing ethanol from corn, the most common method of

production, is examined in greater detail. Analysis indicates that this process currently

has the highest capacity for production and profitability but limited effect on greenhouse

gas emissions compared to less common alternatives.

 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Design of an Ethanol Fermentation Plant

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................................1

Properties ....................................................................................................................................1

Uses .............................................................................................................................................2

Environmental Impacts ...............................................................................................................4

Market .........................................................................................................................................7

Design ............................................................................................................................................11

Process ......................................................................................................................................11

Plant ..........................................................................................................................................12

Analysis.....................................................................................................................................16

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................20

References ......................................................................................................................................21

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................22
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Executive Summary

This report covers the design of a plant for producing ethanol from the fermentation of

biomass and investigates its potential for profitability and environmental benefit. Ethanol is a

common fuel additive and $33 billion industry in the United States with the potential to

simultaneously reduce foreign energy dependence and domestic carbon emissions. The proposed

plant converts corn into ethanol and several valuable byproducts through dry grind processing

and fermentation. It yields 7.3 million gallons of ethanol each year at an estimated annual profit

of $1.8 million, with the potential to reduce annual carbon emissions by 13.7 thousand metric

tons when substituted for pure gasoline. This process is the most common because it is the most

economically viable, but there are alternatives with greater environmental benefits.

Background

Properties

Ethanol (C2H5OH), also known as ethyl alcohol or simply alcohol, is an organic chemical

most known for its use as a fuel additive and beverage. At ambient temperatures and pressures,

it is a clear, colorless liquid. It is relatively volatile and can typically be identified by its

noticeable, characteristic alcoholic odor. Compared to water, it is a relatively low freezing point

(-114°C), low boiling point (78°C), and low density (0.789g/mL) liquid1. Despite these

differences in properties, ethanol and water are commonly mixed and are very miscible due to

their similar intermolecular forces. Both molecules contain hydroxyl (-OH) groups which

increase polarity and allow for hydrogen bonding2. In Figure 1 on the following page, the

hydroxyl group is visible as a part of the overall ethanol chemical structure.

1
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Figure 1: Ethanol Chemical Structure Drawing2

The hydroxyl group is also an important factor in most chemical reactions involving ethanol. It

serves as a reactive site in organic reactions such as dehydration, dehydrogenation and

esterification. Through these reactions, ethanol can be used to form common industrial chemical

feedstocks such as ethylene and acetaldehyde2. For these reasons, pure ethanol should be stored

and transported separately from other reactive organic compounds and metals in order to avoid

side reactions that produce undesirable byproducts.

The chief risks associated with ethanol production and use are its high flammability and

its potential to cause intoxication or even poisoning when consumed. Its flash point is 14°C and

vapor concentrations as low as 3.3% by volume are potentially explosive2. To avoid risk of

explosion, it should be stored at lower temperatures and kept away from any source of ignition.

Although ethanol vapors are typically not toxic, liquid doses as low as 75–80g can cause

intoxication and 250–500g can be fatal2. It should therefore be consumed sparingly and in low

doses.

Uses

Ethanol produced in the United States has three major applications: fuel ethanol,

beverage ethanol, and industrial ethanol. Fuel ethanol is blended with gasoline for use as motor

fuel. Beverage ethanol is used to produce beer, wine, and other spirits. Industrial ethanol is a

chemical feedstock typically used to produce pharmaceutical products and polymers3. Currently,

2
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

the US ethanol market is dominated by fuel ethanol, with 92% of ethanol used in fuel, 4% in

beverages, and 4% in other industrial applications4.

Fuel ethanol can be found in nearly every gas station in the country – in fact, over 95% of

gasoline currently sold in the US is blended with ethanol5. For the most part, gasoline blended

with ethanol is the norm and is not even noticeable aside from a small sign located at the pump.

Ethanol fuel blends have grown in popularity over the last 15 years due to their ability to

simultaneously reduce air pollution associated with fuel combustion and lower dependence on

foreign oil. Ethanol functions as an oxygenating agent when mixed with gasoline, which means

that the fuel burns more cleanly and more completely. This limits the production of carbon

monoxide, a harmful byproduct of incomplete combustion6. Additionally, ethanol is

overwhelmingly produced in the US from domestically grown corn – as opposed to gasoline

which is chiefly derived from imported petroleum7. In this way, ethanol blends diversify the

energy sources relied upon by the US and shift them from unreliable foreign sources to more

easily controlled domestic sources.

Ethanol can be blended into fuel at a variety of specifications depending on the needs of

the consumer. The blend most likely seen by consumers contains 10% ethanol with 90%

gasoline and is commonly known as E105. This blend is popular chiefly because it is able to

offset large amounts of gasoline use without having a significant effect on engine performance.

Other high-level ethanol blends, such as E15 and E85, are growing in popularity but they are

only intended for use in specialty vehicles known as flexible-fuel vehicles5.

The high ethanol content has significant effects on the properties of the fuel which can

have unforeseen results in the engines of traditional vehicles. The differences can mostly be

traced back to the differing vapor properties between ethanol and gasoline. Ethanol is more

3
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

compressible than gasoline, which allows for more fuel to be combusted and therefore more

power to be delivered by the engine6. This is reflected in the high octane rating of ethanol,

which is actually higher than gasoline itself. Ethanol is blended with gasoline to increase its

octane rating, making it more suitable for use in high performance engines. This benefit is offset

by the relatively low energy density of ethanol. On a per volume basis, ethanol contains about

30% less energy than gasoline5. This means that combustion of fuel blends releases less energy

than pure gasoline and in practice results in more frequent refueling. In the E10 blend that is

common today these effects are minimal, but as higher level blends become more widely used

they will be an important consideration for vehicle manufacturers and consumers.

Environmental Impacts

Ethanol fuel owes most of its success to its low environmental footprint in comparison to

pure gasoline. The earliest environmental benefit observed in ethanol fuel was its ability to

function as an oxygenating agent, improving the combustion performance of the fuel and

reducing carbon monoxide emissions6. Emissions of carbon monoxide associated with

transportation rose throughout the 1980s until the US Environmental Protection Agency stepped

in to regulate them. Amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1992 mandated lower carbon

monoxide emissions and were an important first step in the development of cleaner-burning

fuels8. However, it would take another 10 years before ethanol was utilized as a fuel additive on

a large scale. In the meantime, methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was used. However, in the

early 2000s it was found that MTBE was contaminating groundwater and could have harmful

effects on public health8. It was at this time that ethanol came to the forefront as a safe,

environmentally friendly fuel additive able to reduce carbon monoxide emissions without

poisoning local water supplies. There are drawbacks, however. Ethanol fuel has notably higher

4
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

emissions of acetaldehyde, a pollutant and potential carcinogen, than traditional gasoline. The

emission of other air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) is not significantly reduced and may not be affected at all8. Ethanol offers

improvements in some respects, but it is far from a perfect fuel and comes with problems of its

own.

Increased awareness regarding fossil fuel use and its effect on global climate change has

also brought ethanol to the forefront as a potentially carbon-neutral transportation fuel.

Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the environment have been linked to climate

change in numerous studies by research groups across the world, and carbon dioxide emissions

can be easily traced back to the widespread combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, methane, and

most relevantly, oil8. Extracting and burning these fossil fuels releases carbon that has long been

trapped underground and leaves it in the atmosphere with no pathway for it to be removed.

Ethanol and other fuels derived from biological sources are very attractive as an alternative to

fossil fuels because they are theoretically carbon-neutral – any carbon emitted by their

combustion is then quickly converted back into organic form when the feedstock is regrown. In

the case of ethanol, carbon cycles between the atmosphere and the corn crop but the overall

carbon concentration never changes.

In reality, biofuels do not live up to the promise of carbon-neutrality. There are carbon

emissions associated with growing corn and transporting ethanol that are not offset, not to

mention the remaining 90% of the fuel blend that consists of gasoline. These factors have been

heavily investigated in recent years due to the widespread deployment of ethanol fuel blends and

so they are fairly well understood and quantified. The results of a study carried out by the Center

5
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory to determine the actual emissions

balance are presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Emissions Balance of Ethanol from Various Sources9

These results show that a large amount of energy derived from fossil fuels is actually consumed

in order to provide ethanol fuel to consumers. In every case, ethanol fuel requires more energy

to produce than gasoline. However, when accounting for only energy derived from fossil fuels

the requirements for ethanol are substantially lower. This is because a large portion of the

energy required is derived from renewable sources, a substantial benefit over gasoline. This

section also introduces the differences between corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. Corn is by

far the most common source of ethanol due to its availability and ease of production in the US7.

However, ethanol produced from cellulosic sources such as switchgrass are significantly more

effective at reducing carbon emissions. This is reflected in the results of an EPA study presented

in Figure 3 on the following page.

6
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

100%

Percent GHG Emissions of

80%

Petroleum Counterpart
60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%
Petroleum Corn Ethanol Sugarcane Switchgrass
Gasoline Ethanol Ethanol

Figure 3: Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Biofuels, Compared to their Petroleum Substitutes10

It can be seen here that corn ethanol, despite its popularity, only reduces carbon

emissions by 21%. Switchgrass ethanol is a very effective alternative, reducing carbon

emissions by an incredible 110% due to its ability to trap carbon within the soil and its biomass.

Cellulosic ethanol as a whole is a very promising alternative to corn ethanol, and can even be

produced from corn stover, or the leaves and stalks of the corn crop10. This has the added benefit

of leaving the corn kernel for use as food when compared to typical corn ethanol which uses the

entire plant. Although cellulosic ethanol is not commonly used due to a more complex and

expensive fermentation process, but it should not be ignored as a potential source for ethanol in

the future.

Market

The market for ethanol has experienced tremendous growth over the past 15 years,

chiefly due to government mandates and incentives regarding vehicle emissions. The driving

force behind these regulations is the corn industry. The ready availability of corn is a large part

of why the US has pushed corn ethanol so heavily and why it is the number one producer of

ethanol fuel worldwide4. As the primary feedstock for all ethanol fuel, corn benefits from the

7
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

growth of the ethanol industry more than any other. Figure 4 below shows corn production over

the last 15 years since corn ethanol became widespread.

16,000
Corn Production (Billions of Bushels)

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000 Total Production

Used for Ethanol
6,000

4,000

2,000

0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Figure 4: US Corn Production and Use for Fuel11

Although total corn production has risen steadily over this time period, the more significant trend

is the growth in the fraction of corn that is used for producing ethanol. Since 2000, this fraction

has risen from less than 10% to greater than 40% of the total corn crop, making corn producers

very reliant on the ethanol market. Based on this data, it is safe to assume that the corn industry

will lobby heavily in favor of corn ethanol for the predictable future and any efforts to phase it

out will be difficult and slow.

Thanks to the ready availability of corn as a feedstock and assistance from government

mandates, the growth of the ethanol industry has been remarkable. Over 13.3 billion gallons

were sold in 2013 at an average value of approximately $2.50 per gallon, making ethanol a $33

billion industry12,13. The growth of US ethanol production is presented in Figure 5 on the

following page.

8
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

16
14
12
Production (billion gal)
10
8 Capacity

6 Production

4
2
-
2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 5: US Ethanol Capacity and Production12

It can be seen that US ethanol production has increased from less than 2 billion gallons per year

to over 13 billion gallons per year, an increase of over seven times. This is an incredible rate of

growth over a very short time. However, production has actually leveled off over the last few

years. The industry grew so quickly due to the introduction of the E10 fuel blend, but now that it

has been so widely distributed the potential for growth is limited. The market has reached a

saturation point and in order for growth to increase, a new market must be found.

Enter flexible-fuel vehicles. These vehicles are specially designed to run on high-level

ethanol fuel blends in addition to pure gasoline or E10 blends. These vehicles represent a market

for E85, which contains over eight times the ethanol content of E10 and has the potential to bring

about another significant increase in ethanol demand. Although they are currently niche and not

very well understood by the general public, they are becoming increasingly common (thanks

again to government mandates of the automotive industry). It is estimated that there are more

than 15 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road in the US currently, and this number will likely

continue to grow. Figure 6 on the following page shows how flexible-fuel vehicle availability

has grown in the US since 2000.

9
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

Vehicles Sold 1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

Figure 6: E85 Fuel Vehicles in Use in the US14

It is obvious that the number of flexible-fuel vehicles being sold is increasing, especially in the

years since 2010. This is likely a response to the plateau in ethanol demand and a need to

expand the market for E85 fuel. Although this market looks promising, its potential is currently

untapped. The majority of Americans who own flexible-fuel vehicles are not even aware of it

and continue to use standard fuels14. Additionally, E85 is not yet widely available so even those

who understand their vehicle cannot always make use of it.

Although the ethanol market has reached a plateau in recent years, it is poised to undergo

another period of rapid growth when E85 fuel becomes more well-known. It is already priced

competitively with gasoline with a current cost of $1.85 per gallon for E85 and $2.30 per gallon

for E1015. Factoring in the lower energy density of ethanol, these two fuels cost approximately

the same amount per unit of energy delivered. Currently the only limiting factor is consumer

awareness and demand. Increasing this awareness will drive more gas stations to carry E85 and

further increase demand. Advertising of these high-level ethanol blends should therefore be a

priority for the ethanol industry moving forward, and if properly executed it could have huge

impacts on ethanol demand across the country.

10
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Design

Process

Ethanol intended for use in fuel is typically produced through the fermentation of corn.

In a fermentation process, microorganisms called yeast are used to metabolically convert sugars

into ethanol and carbon dioxide via the simplified chemical reaction below16.

𝐶6 𝐻12 𝑂6 → 2𝐶2 𝐻5 OH + 2𝐶𝑂2

The process is considerably more complex than a single reaction, however, and requires a good

deal of preparation before exposing the corn feed to the yeast. Additionally, there are several

valuable products and byproducts that must be purified and separated after fermentation has

taken place. Ethanol plants typically carry this preparation and purification out through one of

two major processes: dry grind and wet mill. The steps involved in each of these processes are

outlined in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Comparison of Ethanol Fermentation Processes17

11
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

In the dry grind process, the whole corn kernel is milled into a floury mash then mixed

with water to form a liquid mash. Enzymes are added to convert the starch within the mash into

sugars, and then yeast is added to ferment these sugars into ethanol. The resulting mixture is

separated into three major groups of byproducts: carbon dioxide, distiller’s dry grains (DDGS),

and purified ethanol. This process is favored for its lower capital costs and energy requirements,

but this simplicity results in some loss of value in unrecovered byproducts17.

In the wet mill process, the corn kernel is first steeped in a sulfurous acid solution to

separate it into its germ, fiber, gluten, and starch components18. This allows for oil and gluten to

be recovered before the remaining starch is liquefied, converted into sugars and fermented. The

oil and corn gluten feed products represent added value in addition to the ethanol and carbon

dioxide products also found in the dry grind process. This comes at the cost of greater capital

investment in equipment and higher energy use so it is not always economically viable17.

Due in large part to the greater simplicity of the dry grind process, it is significantly more

common and is utilized in approximately 75% of all ethanol production processes17,19. This

project will therefore examine the dry grind process in greater depth in the following sections.

Plant

The plant proposed in this project will produce approximately 900 gallons (2700 kg) of

ethanol per hour. Based on typical industrial yields of 2.8 gal ethanol per bushel of corn, this

will require a feed of just over 320 bushels of corn per hour17. Assuming that the plant operates

8150 hours per year, this corresponds to 22,000 metric tons of ethanol produced every year. This

is relatively small scale for an industrial ethanol plant – the largest plant in the US produces

1,250,000 MT of ethanol yearly, with many more in the range of 325,000–350,000 MT per year4.

12
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

The first major section of ethanol plant operation involves the preparation of the corn

feedstock for fermentation. This section includes the milling, liquefying, and starch converting

steps. In the dry grind process, this section is very simple. Whole corn kernels are fed into a

hammer mill and ground until they can be fed through a 30 mesh screen17. The resulting meal is

then slurried with water to form mash. At this stage, the plant must accommodate approximately

8050 gal mash per hour (based on industrial records of 22 gal mash per bushel of corn)17. It must

be adjusted to pH 6.0 before being exposed to alpha-amylase, the enzyme that begins the

conversion of starch to glucose. The mash is then heated to 100°C and held for 30–40 minutes

before being cooled slightly, adjusted to pH 4.5 and exposed to the second enzyme glucoamylase.

This second enzyme completes the conversion of starch into glucose and the resulting mixture is

ready for fermentation.

The second major section of the ethanol plant consists of the fermentation reaction itself.

At this point, yeast is added and the mixture is fed into a fermentor. A fermentor is a specialized

vessel with a motorized impeller for stirring and outlets for regular testing of the contents. This

allows for mixture to be uniformly exposed to the yeast and for the progress of the reaction to be

monitored over time. The fermentor is held at 32°C and left for 48–72 hours to allow the yeast

to fully metabolize the sugars and convert as much as possible into ethanol17. Due to the long

processing times required, fermentation is typically implemented as a batch process. Upon

completion, the fermentor outputs 12680 gal per hour of a mixture that consists of mostly water,

carbon dioxide, and ethanol with small amounts of other alcohols, glycerol, and acetic acid. This

mixture must then be separated so the various valuable byproducts can be recovered.

13
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

The third and final major section of the ethanol plant consists of the separation and

purification stages. This section has been modeled in Aspen HYSYS® software to allow for a

more detailed look, presented in Figure 8 below20.

Figure 8: Ethanol Separation Process Flow Diagram

This model shows that the separation process consists of five major pieces of equipment: the

CO2 Vent Separator, CO2 Wash Tower, Concentrator, Lights Tower, and Rectifier.

The fermentor output first flows into the CO2 Vent Separator for the simplest separation.

Here the gas and liquid phases of the reaction mixture are allowed to separate naturally by

density, with the gas flowing up into the CO2 Wash Tower and the liquid flowing down into the

Concentrator.

The gaseous component of the reaction mixture consists of mostly carbon dioxide, but

also trace amounts of ethanol that must be recovered. In the CO2 Wash Tower, the gas stream is

washed with water over 10 stages in order to condense the remaining ethanol. This separates the

stream into purified carbon dioxide, which can be captured and sold or vented, and a water and

ethanol mixture that can be recycled back into the fermentor feed.

14
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

The ethanol rich liquid that exits the fermentor is typically called beer, and it contains

ethanol as well as most of the valuable byproducts. It undergoes a multi-stage purification

process beginning in the Concentrator, where it is mixed with steam. This separates the mixture

by boiling point through a 17 stage distillation, with light components being sent to the Lights

Tower, middle components sent to the Rectifier through a side draw, and heavy components

removed as stillage. The stillage consists of mostly water, with trace amounts of glycerol and

acetic acid.

The light components sent to the Lights Tower contain ethanol mixed with residual water,

carbon dioxide and other alcohols. These components are separated by 5 stage distillation, with

most of the carbon dioxide and methanol vented through the condenser at the top, some ethanol

recovered after being condensed, and the remaining mixture of ethanol and other byproducts

collected at the bottom and sent to the Rectifier.

The final and most important separation takes place in the Rectifier. The side draw from

the Concentrator and the bottoms product of the Lights Tower are fed into the Rectifier where

they are again separated through distillation, this time over 29 stages. The lightest components

are collected as vapor and contain chiefly ethanol that is contaminated by methanol. The ethanol

product is collected at a higher purity through a side draw. Fusel oil, consisting of most of the

remaining propanol, butanol, and pentanol, is removed through a lower side draw. The bottoms

product consists of mostly water and is also removed as stillage.

Overall, this separation process utilizes the fermentor reaction mixture as well as 11,000

kg per hour of steam at 140°C and 2340 kg per hour of water at 25°C. Several valuable

byproducts are separated and collected. Stillage can be repurposed and sold as wet or dry

distiller’s grains and fusel oil can also be sold for industrial use. There are three ethanol-rich

15
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

streams, with 21 kg per hour being recycled to the fermentor and 3060 kg per hour recovered as

valuable product. The product is collected at 88% purity with balance water, the highest allowed

by azeotropic conditions. If necessary, further processing is possible to obtain 100% purity.

Analysis

The proposed plant is on a very small scale compared to the overall US ethanol market –

its output of over 7.3 million gallons per year represents less than 0.1% of annual US ethanol

production capacity, and less than 0.01% of annual US gasoline consumption. This is more

representative of the sheer size of the US ethanol market than the actual size of the plant,

however. The proposed plant consumes over 2.6 million bushels of corn each year, a number

that corresponds over 15 thousand acres of land used21. When substituted for gasoline, the

ethanol produced has the capability to reduce annual US carbon emissions by 13.7 thousand

metric tons22. While these numbers are small compared to the US as a whole, they are certainly

significant for a single plant. A look at the total resource use and associated economics of this

plant are presented in Table 1 below.

Yearly Prod / Price per Unit Yearly

Resources Consumption Revenue / Cost
Products Ethanol 7,347,546 gallons $ 1.50 $ 11,021,319
DDGS 20,235 MT $ 190.00 $ 3,844,650
Fusel Oil 1,904 MT $ 860.00 $ 1,637,440
Raw Corn 2,624,123 bushels $ (4.00) $ (10,496,492)
Materials Water 3,524,428 gallons $ (0.01) $ (35,244)
Operating Natural Gas - - $ (1,760,400)
Costs Yeast, Enzymes - - $ (850,860)
Maint & Electric - - $ (725,500)
Labor - - $ (750,000)
Yearly Profit $ 1,884,913
Table 1: Plant Profitability Analysis

This table shows annual revenue for each valuable product and byproduct, annual costs

for each raw material, and estimates for the major operating costs based on records for actual

16
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

operating ethanol plants23. The most obvious takeaway from this table is the relative importance

of ethanol and corn to the profitability of the plant. Ethanol sales represent 67% of the total

revenue while corn purchases represent 72% of the total costs, making these two resources the

most important factors in determining the economic viability of the plant. That does not mean

that the other resources can be ignored. The byproducts of ethanol production (DDGS and fusel

oil) are not often considered by the public but they represent 33% of the total revenue of the

plant and can be the difference between making and losing money. This underscores the

importance of the multi-stage separation process in purifying and recovering these byproducts.

All of this analysis is based on current resource prices, but ethanol plants typically

operate for a period of 15–20 years. Conditions can change significantly over that much time

and so plants must plan for this fluctuation and maintain profitability. These changing

conditions can involve governmental regulation, resource availability, or resource prices, among

others. The government has been supportive of the ethanol industry in recent years and that

shows no signs of changing. Resource availability has been similarly positive due to the high

capacity of the US agricultural industry. The most likely change will come in resource prices.

As ethanol production has skyrocketed and demand has leveled off, prices have already begun to

fall. The effects of price fluctuations of up to 25% in each individual resource are examined in

Table 2 below.

Yearly Profit
Price -25% Base Price Price +25%
Ethanol $ (870,417) $ 1,884,913 $ 4,640,242.47
DDGS $ 923,750 $ 1,884,913 $ 2,846,075.22
Fusel Oil $ 1,475,552 $ 1,884,913 $ 2,294,272.72
Corn $ 4,509,035 $ 1,884,913 $ (739,210.28)
Water $ 1,893,723 $ 1,884,913 $ 1,876,101.65
Natural Gas $ 2,325,012 $ 1,884,913 $ 1,444,812.72
Table 2: Plant Profit Sensitivity to Resource Price Fluctuation

17
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

These results reinforce the conclusions that have already been drawn – ethanol and corn prices

have the most significant effect on plant profitability. The prices of other resources are less

impactful, with even 25% fluctuations remaining profitable. The most concerning scenarios

involve a 25% decrease in ethanol prices (to $1.13 per gallon) or a 25% increase in corn prices

(to $5.00 per bushel), both of which result in the plant operating at a loss. With all other prices

remaining constant, the plant will break even if ethanol prices drop below $1.24 per gallon or

corn prices rise above $4.72 per bushel. Both of these scenarios are unlikely in the near future

but important to be aware of when considering a possible lifetime of 20 years. Conditions can

change greatly over that much time and so extensive research into future prices is necessary

when deciding to invest in developing a new plant.

Profitability is not the sole driving factor in the development of the ethanol industry – it

and other biofuels have also been promoted due to their environmental benefits over traditional

fossil fuels. This has led to many of the tax credits and subsidies that are relied upon by ethanol

manufacturers and consumers. When considering whether an ethanol plant is worth constructing,

it is therefore important to consider the actual environmental benefits it will bring about. The

fermentation process varies based on the biomass used as a feedstock, and any change in

feedstock would require expensive alterations to the plant. The proposed plant uses starch from

corn kernels, the most common source of biomass, but there are several alternatives. One

alternative that shows promise but has not been widely implemented is cellulosic ethanol. This

utilizes feedstocks such as corn stover and switchgrass and has been proven to bring about a

greater reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than ethanol from corn kernels. The potential

benefits of each of these sources and multiple fuel blends being utilized on a national scale are

presented in Table 3 on the following page.

18
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

CO2 Emissions Reduction (MT)

Corn Ethanol Switchgrass Ethanol
Full E10 Adoption 2.55*107 (2.1%) 1.34*10
8
(11.0%)
8 9
Full E85 Adoption 2.17*10 (17.8%) 1.14*10 (93.5%)

Table 3: Potential US Carbon Emissions Reductions

This table shows the potential reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that could be accomplished

by replacing all gasoline with E10 or E85 fuel blends using ethanol produced from corn kernels

or switchgrass. The emissions reduction is shown in metric tons of carbon dioxide and as a

percentage of current carbon dioxide emissions due to gasoline. The current situation is most

similar to full E10 adoption of corn ethanol, which reduces gasoline-related emissions by only

2.1% over pure gasoline. The low effect is due to both the low ethanol content of the fuel and

the limited emissions reductions associated with corn ethanol10.

There are two possible avenues for further reducing carbon emissions – increasing the

ethanol content of the fuel or using a different type of biomass. The recent push for more

flexible-fuel vehicles is a sign that the US is moving towards further E85 adoption, but this path

comes with some difficulty. It will require even greater land use to supply the necessary corn

and an overhaul of the ethanol fuel blending and distribution system, which at this time does not

even supply E85 to most gas stations14. Similar emissions reductions could be accomplished by

moving to ethanol produced from switchgrass, which fixes carbon more effectively and reduces

carbon emissions by nearly 5 times as much as ethanol produced from corn10. This path has its

own difficulties, including a more complicated production process and lower theoretical yields of

ethanol24. In the long run, however, switchgrass ethanol has a far greater potential for reducing

carbon emissions. Full adoption of E85 fuel with switchgrass ethanol could reduce gasoline-

related carbon emissions by an impressive 93.5%. Whether that scenario is economically

feasible remains to be seen, but the environmental benefits certainly warrant further investigation.

19
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Conclusions

Ethanol is currently a valuable resource in the US, but its future is uncertain. Demand

has experienced limited growth since E10 fuel blends are already prevalent and higher level

ethanol blends have not yet been widely adopted. As such, investment in an ethanol plant is

risky and should be carefully considered. Corn and ethanol prices are a key factor in

determining plant success, but the added value of distiller’s dry grains and fusel oil byproducts

cannot be ignored. At current prices and with current tax credits and subsidies, corn ethanol

production is profitable. It is also the most well developed and well understood production

process. Although prices may change, regulations will typically favor corn ethanol and help it

maintain viability due to its importance to the agricultural industry and perceived environmental

benefits as a biofuel. This support may be misplaced, however, as the actual impact of corn

ethanol on carbon emissions is fairly low. Alternative biomass feedstocks like switchgrass show

much greater environmental benefits at the cost of much lower economic viability. If carbon

emissions reduction is the priority, governmental incentives would be better spent on research

and development for some of these promising alternatives. If increased domestic energy

independence is the priority, corn ethanol is a proven commodity that can deliver immediately.

It is likely that the future will involve a combination of both. The alternatives have a long way to

go before they can compete with corn, though, and for the immediate future corn ethanol is the

safest option for ethanol plant development.

20
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

References

[1] Ethanol. NIST: 2011. http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Units=SI&Name=

ETHANOL
[2] Ethanol. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology [Online]; Wiley & Sons,
Posted 18 June 2004
[3] Ethanol. Coskata, Inc: 2011. http://www.coskata.com/ethanol/index.asp?source=
EE3777CF-954D-4610-9FDA-CAA6F5166155
[4] Clark, B. Ethanol. ICIS Chemical Business [Online] 283.12 (Apr 8 – Apr 14 2013): 34
[5] Alcohol Fuels. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology [Online]; Wiley &
Sons, Posted 4 December 2000
[6] Ethanol Fuel Basics. Alternative Fuels Data Center:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html
[7] Ethanol Production. Alternative Fuels Data Center:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html
[8] Air Quality Impacts of Increased Use of Ethanol Under the United States’ Energy
Independence and Security Act. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2010
[9] Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results for Fuel Ethanol: Center for
Transportation Research: 2005.
www.eri.ucr.edu/ISAFXVCD/ISAFXVAF/UGEEERF.pdf
[10] Alternative Fuels Data Center. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10328
[11] Alternative Fuels Data Center. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10339
[12] Alternative Fuels Data Center. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10342
[13] AEO2014 Table 12. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/tables_ref.cfm
[14] Alternative Fuels Data Center. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10299
[15] E85Prices. http://www.e85prices.com
[16] Fermentation. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology [Online]; Wiley &
Sons, Posted 16 January 2004
[17] Bothast, R. Schlicher, M. Biotechnological Process for Conversion of Corn into Ethanol:
2004. http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/tpd8/BICH407/fulltext.pdf
[18] How Ethanol Is Made. Renewable Fuels Association.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/how-ethanol-is-made
[19] Ethanol Production. Alternative Fuels Data Center.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html
[20] AspenHYSYS Tutorials and Applications. University of Minnesota.
https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/Nieber/IntroductionToEngineeringDesign/TutApps.pdf
[21] Iowa Corn Growers Association. http://www.iowacorn.org/en/corn_use_education/faq/
[22] Calculations and References. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
[23] Hofstrad, D. Ag Decision Maker. Iowa State University
[24] Ethanol Feedstocks. AFDC. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_feedstocks.html

21
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Appendix A: Raw Data

Figure 4: Figure 5:

Year Production For Ethanol Year Capacity Production

2000 9,915 630 2000 1,840 1,622
2001 2,007 1,765
2001 9,503 707
2002 2,738 2,140
2002 8,967 996 2003 3,190 2,810
2003 10,087 1,168 2004 3,699 3,404
2004 11,806 1,323 2005 4,398 3,904
2005 11,112 1,603 2006 6,317 4,884
2006 10,531 2,119 2007 11,623 6,521
2008 13,424 9,309
2007 13,038 3,049
2009 14,541 10,938
2008 12,092 3,709 2010 14,460 13,298
2009 13,092 4,591 2011 14,631 13,929
2010 12,447 5,019 2012 15,047 13,218
2011 12,360 5,000 2013 14,887 13,312
2012 10,780 4,648
2013 13,925 5,050

Figure 6:

Year FFV Sold

2000 600,832
2001 581,774
2002 834,976
2003 859,261
2004 674,678
2005 743,948
2006 1,011,399
2007 1,115,069
2008 1,175,345
2009 805,777
2010 1,484,945
2011 2,116,273
2012 2,466,743
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Appendix B: Equipment Schematics

Fermentation Vessel

Distillation Column
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Appendix C: HYSYS Data

Material Streams

Volume
Vapour Molar Flow
Stream Fraction Temperature Pressure Flow Mass Flow (liq) Heat Flow
°C kPa kgmole/h kg/h m3/h kJ/h
H2O_In 0.000 25.0 101.325 130.00 2341.96 2.347 -3.70E+07
Ferm_Out 0.028 30.0 101.325 2400.00 46716.67 48.159 -6.89E+08
Steam_In 1.000 140.0 101.325 610.60 11000.00 11.022 -1.45E+08
Vent_To_Wash 1.000 30.0 101.325 66.47 2857.17 3.454 -2.56E+07
Beer 0.000 30.0 101.325 2333.53 43859.50 44.705 -6.64E+08
CO2_Out 1.000 26.1 101.325 64.72 2792.20 3.375 -2.52E+07
Ferm_Recycle 0.000 33.3 101.325 131.75 2406.93 2.426 -3.75E+07
Conc_To_Light 1.000 85.9 101.325 10.03 301.94 0.351 -2.56E+06
Stillage_A 0.000 100.0 101.325 2616.11 47130.97 47.226 -7.30E+08
Conc_To_Rect 1.000 94.8 101.325 317.99 7426.58 8.150 -7.54E+07
Light_Vent 1.000 46.4 101.325 1.60 68.89 0.084 -5.68E+05
Prod2 0.000 46.4 101.325 2.69 104.78 0.129 -7.44E+05
Light_To_Rect 0.000 80.9 101.325 5.74 128.27 0.139 -1.60E+06
Rect_Vap 1.000 78.0 101.325 0.10 4.31 0.005 -2.32E+04
Rect_Dist 0.000 78.0 101.325 0.05 2.00 0.002 -1.26E+04
Stillage_B 0.000 99.7 101.325 254.47 4590.85 4.602 -7.11E+07
Prod1 0.000 78.1 101.325 69.03 2954.69 3.675 -1.87E+07
Fusel 0.000 83.4 101.325 0.09 3.00 0.004 -2.44E+04

Energy Streams

Stream Heat Flow

kJ/h
Light_CondQ 3.58E+05
Rect_RebQ -2.76E+07
Rect_CondQ 4.04E+07
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Stream Compositions

Acetic 1- 2- 1- 3-M-1- 2-
Stream Ethanol H2O CO2 Methanol Acid Propanol Propanol Butanol C4ol Pentanol Glycerol
H2O_In - 1.000000 - - - - - - - - -
Ferm_Out 0.026900 0.946411 0.026600 0.000027 0.000003 0.000009 0.000009 0.000007 0.000021 0.000005 0.000007
Steam_In - 1.000000 - - - - - - - - -
Vent_To_Wash 0.016962 0.040865 0.942121 0.000013 - 0.000010 0.000009 0.000006 0.000008 0.000006 -
Beer 0.027183 0.972206 0.000521 0.000027 0.000003 0.000009 0.000009 0.000007 0.000022 0.000005 0.000007
CO2_Out 0.000001 0.033292 0.966703 - - 0.000001 - 0.000001 - 0.000002 -
Ferm_Recycle 0.008557 0.990951 0.000468 0.000006 - 0.000004 0.000004 0.000002 0.000004 0.000002 -
Conc_To_Light 0.316207 0.561185 0.121283 0.000164 0.000002 0.000318 0.000310 0.000148 0.000127 0.000256 -
Stillage_A - 0.999991 - - 0.000003 - - - - - 0.000006
Conc_To_Rect 0.189508 0.809949 - 0.000195 0.000003 0.000056 0.000057 0.000044 0.000156 0.000032 -
Light_Vent 0.188961 0.051717 0.758931 0.000147 - 0.000068 0.000172 0.000001 - 0.000003 -
Prod2 0.745019 0.252440 0.000728 0.000354 - 0.000578 0.000803 0.000016 - 0.000063 -
Light_To_Rect 0.151088 0.847512 0.000042 0.000080 0.000004 0.000267 0.000118 0.000251 0.000222 0.000417 -
Rect_Vap 0.888367 0.105665 0.002439 0.003351 - 0.000002 0.000175 - - - -
Rect_Dist 0.888674 0.108953 0.000002 0.002163 - 0.000005 0.000203 - - - -
Stillage_B 0.000172 0.999501 - - 0.000004 0.000026 - 0.000059 0.000200 0.000037 -
Prod1 0.882618 0.116193 - 0.000899 - 0.000018 0.000272 - - - -
Fusel 0.296676 0.530766 - 0.000080 - 0.133726 0.000335 0.003558 0.000017 0.034842 -
 John Schrilla
3/31/2015

Appendix D: Calculations

Corn land use

1 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒
2624123 𝑏𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑛 ∗ = 15346 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠
171 𝑏𝑢

Emissions per gallon E10/E85 from corn

8.887𝑘𝑔 0.79 ∗ 8.887𝑘𝑔

0.9 ∗ + 0.1 ∗ = 8.70𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2⁄𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝐸10
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑡ℎ

8.887𝑘𝑔 0.79 ∗ 8.887𝑘𝑔

0.15 ∗ + 0.85 ∗ = 7.30𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2⁄𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝐸10
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑡ℎ

Total US CO2 emissions from gasoline

8.887 ∗ 10−3 𝑀𝑇
1.37 ∗ 1011 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 ∗ = 1.22 ∗ 109 𝑀𝑇 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠

Emissions reduction from full corn E10 adoption

0.21 ∗ 8.887 ∗ 10−3 𝑀𝑇

0.1 ∗ 1.37 ∗ 1011 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑡ℎ ∗ = 2.55 ∗ 107 𝑀𝑇 𝐶𝑂2 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑡ℎ