C1I7

ETHANOL

FROM SUGAR CANE EXTENDER FOR

AS AN

A U T O M O T I V E FUEL IN AUSTRALIA

S u b m i s s i o n by C S R on National of

Limited to the Senate

Standing C o m m i t t e e

Resources Inquiry into the Replacement Fuels by of Energy Alternative

Petroleum-based Sources

Sydney January 1980

QUT
Library

ETHANOL FROM SUGAR CANE AS AN EXTENDER FOR AUTOMOTIVE FUEL IN AUSTRALIA

Submission by CSR Limited to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources Inquiry into the Replacement of Petroleum-based Fuels by Alternative Sources of Energy

Sydney January 1980

CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 1. 2. INTRODUCTION ETHANOL: A FUEL EXTENDER WITH ESTABLISHED TECHNOLOGY 2 3 5 (i) 1

Description of ethanol and its uses Production of ethanol Performance of ethanol/petrol blends 3. OPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF FUEL ETHANOL "On farm" versus central processing Suitable crops 4. SCOPE FOR ETHANOL FROM SUGAR CANE Long term potential Regional development concept: an immediate solution 5. ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

6 7

9 10 13

APPENDICES 1. 2. 3. 4. Treatment processes for distillery effluent Ethanol as a fuel extender Energy balance considerations for ethanol production from sugar cane Copy of Press Release concerning Sugar Industry Consultative Committee on Fuel Alcohol 15 20 26 31

ETHANOL FROM SUGAR CANE AS AN EXTENDER FOR AUTOMOTIVE FUEL IN AUSTRALIA SUMMARY Ethanol from renewable crop resources is one of several alternative liquid fuels being suggested to replace or extend Australia's petrol supply. CSR considers there is a case for the use of ethanol in the 1980's as a supplementary automotive fuel and this paper identifies the main issues involved in the introduction of fuel ethanol based on sugar cane . CSR is in a unique position to offer an authoritative view on the question of fuel ethanol. This results from its diversity of interests which include substantial activities in the fuel industry (coal, oil shale, petroleum), the fermentation alcohol industry and the Australian sugar industry. CSR has been producing ethanol since 1901, and currently operates three large molasses distilleries which produce some 90% of the industrial ethanol produced in Australia. We have also embarked on an extensive research programme, supported by Federal Government grants, to evaluate cassava as a starch and energy crop. Ethanol stands out as the only proven alternative liquid fuel that could be quickly introduced in significant quantities. As an alternative fuel, ethanol is generally distributed as ethanol/petrol blends, rather than as straight ethanol. Such blends have been used previously in Australia and the successful performance of blends in modern motor vehicles has been demonstrated by large scale use in the U.S.A. and Brazil. Various crops could provide the raw material for fermentation to ethanol but sugar cane is the most attractive choice for any large-scale fuel ethanol industry in the short to medium term. The appropriate agricultural practice is well established in Australia and the distillery technology is proven and available. The balance of liquid fuel inputs (for fertilisers, tractors, transport, distillery fuel etc.) against liquid fuel output is very favourable for sugar cane.

(ii)

Not only is the fermentables yield per hectare high for sugar cane, but inherent with the harvested cane is solid stalk material which can be used as boiler fuel to provide all the energy to run the distillery. Most importantly, the Australian cane sugar industry with its substantial existing infrastructure can provide a secure base for co-ordinated and phased development of the new crop resource. A large fuel ethanol industry based substantially on sugar cane could conceivably substitute in excess of 10% of the nation's petrol needs but 10% replacement could require an investment of up to $3 billion (1979 costs) and the marshalling of vast resources, as well as restrict production of sugar for food to its present level. At this stage, such a venture is not considered practical. However, development of selected regional sugar cane to fuel ethanol industries does appear to be a practical proposition. By the early 1980's such industries, sited in cane growing areas, could substitute 2-3% of the petrol used nationally. This could reduce imports of oil by up to 3%. To achieve the greatest economy the ethanol would not be distributed uniformly throughout Australia, but rather, would be distributed as ethanol/petrol blends in regions surrounding the distilleries. For example, it is realistic to contemplate several distilleries in Queensland producing a combined output of 300,000 to 400,000 kilolitres per annum by 1984, that is, about 15% of Queensland's petrol needs. Other distilleries could be established in areas not currently used for sugar cane production, for example the Ord River area which could supply significant quantities of ethanol to Western Australia and the Northern Territory. A decision to establish regional distilleries would not preclude later development to the national-scale ethanol industry which is currently considered to be impractical; established regional distilleries could prove a valuable learning step should circumstances change to the extent that Australia-wide use of blends is justified.

(iii)

The benefits to the nation of ethanol blends would be a reduction in oil imports and thus reduced dependence on overseas oil suppliers. The regional benefits would be substantial, especially in terms of development and employment opportunities. Ethanol produced in regional distilleries from sugar cane would cost about 40c/litre ex distillery (1979 c o s t s ) . Therefore, assuming the current rate of motor spirit excise is applied to the blend, the retail price of a 15% blend would be about 3C/litre more than the current price of petrol. If recent experiences of price increases for crude oil continue, the current differential of 3C/litre could be significantly reduced and may disappear altogether over the next 2 to 3 years. That is about the lead time needed to establish a substantial fuel ethanol industry based upon sugar cane. Five main issues need to be addressed in order to assemble a plan for rational, phased development and implementation of the industry: 1. The need for an automotive fuel extender. A definitive government assessment is required regarding the need for fuel extenders, particularly through the 1980's when a fuel ethanol industry could have special relevance. Assurance of a distribution and market arrangement with petrol suppliers to make use of all fuel ethanol produced and to assure reasonably remunerative prices for bulk ethanol over the commercial life of the investment. Appropriate structural arrangements for the fuel ethanol industry, including those to assure continuity of sugar cane supply. Environmental acceptability of the new industry. Definitive testing of the performance of vehicles using ethanol/petrol blends under local conditions.

2.

3.

4. 5.

(iv) A sugar industry consultative committee chaired by the Chairman of the Queensland Sugar Board and representing all the industry associations, has been formed to study and report on all aspects of alcohol production from sugar cane (Refer Appendix 4 ) . CSR is participating in the work of this committee. The involvement of State and Federal Governments in addressing these issues is both desirable and necessary for the introduction of appropriate legislationSome Queensland legislation covering the addition of ethanol to petrol already exists and was operative during the period 1929-1956 when ethanol blends with petrol were supplied to North Queensland. Existing Federal and State legislation relating to the crystal sugar industry will need careful consideration also. Probably the most important legislative aspect relates to the question of concessions for ethanol/petrol blends relative to straight petrol, for example removal or relaxation of motor spirit excise for blends. A positive statement of government policy in this area would enable prospective participants in a fuel ethanol industry to assess its feasibility and possibly move towards its commercialisation.

1. 1. INTRODUCTION

Although well endowed with energy resources when compared to other nations, Australia is not self-sufficient in liquid fuels. Liquid fuels are vital for a healthy economy, fueling road, rail, sea and air transport. Ethanol is one of the alternative liquid fuels which have been suggested to reduce Australia's dependence on imported petroleum. Ethanol has considerable attraction since it offers a renewable energy resource produced in Australia from Australian grown crops. Ethanol is being used to fuel motor vehicles in other countries and has been used before in Australia. Brazil is well advanced on a National Alcohol Programme which is based on sugar cane and aims at 20% replacement of petrol by 1982, using various ethanol/petrol blends. The U.S.A. has a fledgling "gasohol" programme supported by government subsidy to establish ethanol/petrol blends. This paper first presents some facts about ethanol and its use as motor vehicle fuel. It then examines the feasibility of a fuel ethanol industry in Australia, and the vital issues involved in establishing such an industry.

2.

2.

ETHANOL:

A FUEL EXTENDER WITH ESTABLISHED TECHNOLOGY

Description of ethanol and its uses

Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol and commonly referred to simply as alcohol, is one of a large group of organic materials with the generic name of alcohol. Another common member of the alcohol family is methanol, also known as methyl alcohol (formerly called wood alcohol). Methanol and ethanol are often spoken of together as alcohol extenders for petrol. However, methanol should not be confused with ethanol since methanol not only performs differently in petrol blends, but as an extender it would probably be derived from non-renewable resources such as coal or natural gas. Ethanol, on the other hand, would be made from renewable crop resources such as sugar cane or grain. Ethanol is probably best known as a constituent of alcoholic beverages. Pure ethanol is a clear, colourless liquid which is soluble in water at all concentrations; the normal commercial product contains 4 to 5% water. Most people in the community would be familiar with ethanol as methylated spirits, which is commercial grade ethanol rendered undrinkable by the addition of a small quantity of denaturants. Anhydrous (dry) ethanol is available for special purposes. Ethanol is widely used as a chemical in its own right and as a basic building block for other important organic chemicals. Ethanol and chemicals derived from it are used in the production of a large variety of industrial and consumer products such as drugs, cosmetics, aerosols, polishes and cleaning products, lacquers, and printing inks.

3. Production of Ethanol Ethanol can be produced by fermentation of sugars by yeast or synthetically from hydrocarbon-based chemicals. Fermentation remains the preferred process, completely dominating the production of potable spirit for beverages and accounting for some 70% of the 10 million (approx.) kilolitres of ethanol produced in the world annually for industrial purposes. As the era of cheap oil and gas closes, the economics of fermentation versus synthetic ethanol is swinging further away from synthetics. In Australia, the availability of molasses, a by-product from the sugar cane industry, has enabled fermentation ethanol to remain competitive against synthetic ethanol in meeting local industrial demand even when oil was relatively cheap. Australia has four molasses distilleries making industrial alcohol with a total capacity of almost 100,000 kilolitres per annum (equivalent in volume to 0.7% of Australia's petrol consumption). CSR operates three of these distilleries; the largest is near Mackay and produces about 50,000 kilolitres per annum. These established molasses distilleries convert to ethanol just over half of the 650,000 tonnes of molasses produced annually by the Australian sugar industry. The remainder of the molasses is used locally for stockfeed or exported. Any significant expansion in ethanol production for fuel could not rely solely upon molasses, the availability of which is strictly linked to tonnage of cane sugar produced. An abundant crop source is needed. Ethanol can be made by fermentation of sugars obtained from crops containing sugars, starch, or cellulose (plant fibre or w o o d ) . If starch or cellulose are to be used, they must first be converted to sugars by hydrolysis. Commercial scale starch hydrolysis processes are available, but processes for converting cellulose to sugars are yet to demonstrate commercial feasibility. The more suitable crops for ethanol production are those quick-growing crops yielding high levels of sugars or starch. Such crops are sugar cane, sugar beet, cereal grains, cassava and sweet sorghum.

4. The processing scheme is similar for all these crops. The crop must be harvested and transported to a factory where the sugars or starch are extracted. The sugars (from hydrolysis in the case of starch) are diluted if necessary to about a 20% solution in water and yeasts are added which convert the sugars into ethanol. When the fermentable sugars have been consumed, the broth is heated and fed to a distillation unit where the ethanol and some water evaporate, leaving a large volume of liquid waste for disposal. The initial distillation step cannot separate from the ethanol all the water which evaporates with it from the broth. The wet ethanol product from this first distillation step is called rectified spirit and contains about 5% water. A further distillation step of azeotropic distillation, involving another liquid (such as cyclohexane), produces the dry ethanol required for making stable ethanol/petrol blends most suited to the existing distribution and usage patterns for petrol. Recent research has led to various proposals for improvements in the technology of fermentation and distillation, notably for a continuous fermentation process. If these proposals can be developed to full-scale commercial operation, there are prospects for some savings in the capital and operating costs of distillery plant. However, it is important that such developments be viewed not as radical changes in technology, but as the on-going improvements one would normally expect with an established industry. At this stage there are no valid technical reasons for delaying the introduction of a fuel ethanol industry. All distilleries, no matter what crop is being processed, have a significant commercial problem in disposing of the large volumes of liquid waste in an environmentally acceptable manner. Technical solutions are available and a discussion of effluent treatment procedures, with particular reference to ethanol production from sugar cane, is included in Appendix 1.

5. Performance of ethanol/petrol blends Blending is the most sensible means for utilising ethanol to extend the available petrol supplies. Blends of say 10% to 15% anhydrous (dry) ethanol* in petrol would enable conventional petrol engines to be used and would cause minimum disruption to the established petrol distribution network. As recently as the mid 1950's, many Australian cars were operating on ethanol/petrol blends containing up to 20% ethanol supplied from the CSR (ANPA) distillery near Mackay. For nearly thirty years (1929-1956) petrol companies co-operated under Queensland State legislation** to blend and distribute this fuel in North Queensland. Of course since then engines have become more sophisticated and emission controls have imposed their particular requirements on engine design. However, reports now coming in from Brazil and the U.S.A. give great confidence that when using a 10% to 15% ethanol/petrol blend, motor vehicle performance and emission levels will be comparable with conventional petrol-fueled operation. In Australia, various groups have expressed the view that ethanol petrol blends would be suitable for use in modern Australian motor vehicles; Ampol Petroleum Ltd. have announced their participation in a venture to test new technology for the manufacture of fuel ethanol from grain. Notwithstanding the justifiable confidence in ethanol/petrol blends, there are several technical issues which require consideration before widespread use of such blends. Therefore, limited field testing of ethanol blends under current Australian conditions is required. Such testing would allow the benefits of ethanol/petrol blends to be maximised for local conditions. The issues requiring particular consideration are the octane rating of blends, motor vehicle performance (including fuel consumption), exhaust emissions, and compatability of fuel system components with blends. There appears to be considerable scope for energy and cost savings within oil refineries if the petrol used for blending is manufactured with a view to fully utilise the octane boosting properties of ethanol. These issues are elaborated in Appendix 2.

*The use of certain additives in ethanol/petrol blends may improve fuel stability, and could at some future time obviate the need for anhydrous ethanol in such blends. **The Motor Spirit Vendors Acts, 1933-34

6. 3. OPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF FUEL ETHANOL "On-farm" versus central processing Fuel ethanol could be produced on a small scale "on-farm" or on a larger scale at a centrally located distillery. The larger scale central distillery offers a far more significant contribution to the nation's liquid fuel requirements, with the assurance of dependable supplies of ethanol at the required quality. In certain circumstances a farmer may consider that "on-farm" fuel ethanol production for his own use is economically attractive, particularly if resources such as unused land, his own labour, or capital are assigned a low cost in his calculations. However, apart from the fact that operation of farm-scale stills is currently illegal in Australia (except for those stills specially licensed for experimental purposes), a number of important factors would appear to rule out "on-farm" production of a significant quantity of ethanol. These include the substantial capital outlay (major items such as primary extraction equipment are required as well as the still); the reliability of farm-scale equipment (yet to be established); the labour requirements (still operation is time-consuming, and demands some skills not normally required in farming); the product quality (particularly with respect to variability); the water content (which may necessitate the use of emulsions or engine modifications); and safety and storage considerations. Furthermore, it would require a large administrative effort for governments to control health and revenue collection matters attendant with widespread use of "on-farm" stills. The above list is not exhaustive but supports the view that the small potential contribution from "on-farm" production is outweighed by the inherent problems.

7. Suitable Crops Australia has the potential to grow most of the crops which have been suggested for fuel ethanol, such as sugar cane, sugar beet, cereal grains, cassava, and sweet sorghum. However, only sugar cane and cereal grains are currently produced here in significant quantities and have an established agricultural practice with substantial alternative outlets for the crop. This is not to say that cassava, sugar beet, sweet sorghum, or other crops might not eventually make valuable contributions as raw materials for fuel ethanol. Cassava is claimed to be quite drought resistant and capable of reasonable yields in a range of climatic and soil conditions not suitable for sugar cane. CSR and Fielder Gillespie Limited jointly conduct the only farm-scale cassava research in Australia. Both companies have NERDDC grants to seek out the most appropriate agricultural practices and plant strains for local conditions. Sugar beet is not currently grown commercially in Australia. However, it may have some application for ethanol production in certain regions (CSR is currently involved in a feasibility study of ethanol production from sugar beet in New Zealand) . Sweet sorghum has not been widely grown in Australia. There have been some recent improvements in the strains of sorghum available as a result of breeding programmes in the U.S.A., and it is possible that sweet sorghum may have a place as a supplementary source of fermentables for a distillery operating predominantly on another crop. The U.S.A. "gasohol" programme is based on corn, but there is little potential for growing significant quantities of corn in Australia. Australia's farmers will need confidence that large scale commitment to a crop for fuel ethanol will not prove a speculative venture. Likewise, the success of the large commitments required by processors and distributors ought not to hinge upon the vagaries of an experimental crop. Accordingly, the obvious choices for mainstay crops are sugar cane and wheat.

8. CSR estimates that fuel ethanol will be produced more cheaply from sugar cane than from wheat if realistic returns are assumed for large quantities of wheat by-products (particularly g l u t e n ) . In the event of large scale production of ethanol from wheat, the current gluten market would be oversupplied and prices would fall accordingly. An important consideration in the selection of a suitable crop is the energy balance associated with the production of ethanol. The production and processing of any crop to ethanol consumes energy for the manufacture and operation of farm and factory plant and for supplies such as fertilisers. Sugar cane is inherently favourable as a source of ethanol because the cane stalk fibre (bagasse) remaining after extraction of juice can be burnt to provide energy for the distillery. The energy balance for ethanol production from sugar cane is further discussed in Appendix 3, where it is estimated that in the liquid fuel energy balance there is a net gain of four units for each unit of liquid fuel energy input.

9. 4. SCOPE FOR ETHANOL FROM SUGAR CANE Long term potential Australia currently consumes about 15 million kilolitres of petrol per year. The Department of National Development has forecast a rise to about 17 million kilolitres per year by 1984-5. Although there is not necessarily a strict one-to-one relationship between ethanol and the volume of petrol it replaces, a 10% replacement of petrol nationwide would require about 1.7 million kilolitres of ethanol per year or 17 times the current total domestic production. (For perspective, Brazil's National Alcohol Programme based upon sugar cane aims at 5 million kilolitres of ethanol per year by 1982) . In Australia there are now about 300,000 hectares of land dedicated ("assigned") to sugar cane. A 10% replacement of petrol would require an allocation of a further 300,000 hectares of equivalent productivity*. The availability of readily accessible land for expansion of cane production falls short of this amount. Suitable unassigned land in reasonable proximity to existing sugar mills is estimated very roughly at 200,000 hectares. It is not possible at this time to estimate what proportion of this land could be available for ethanol production. This would depend on many factors, not least of which are the relative returns from production of cane for sugar and for alcohol, and for alternate uses of this land. Additional new cane areas in Queensland and Western Australia could produce additional cane equivalent to something over 6% replacement of petrol. These new areas include: The Ord River area (existing dam) (assuming a new dam built)

The Burdekin River area

*The yield from sugar cane is relatively high; based on average Queensland yields, about 7.5 kilolitres of ethanol are obtainable from each hectare of cane harvested.

10. The Fitzroy River and Wide Bay/Burnett areas (irrigation needed) The Cooktown area {as yet undeveloped)

It is therefore possible, solely from the viewpoint of land area, that ethanol from sugar cane could supply 10% to 15% of Australia's petrol demand. The practicality of acquiring or developing such an area of suitable cane lands for ethanol production is quite another matter. Regional development concept: an immediate solution

The scale of a cane ethanol industry to replace 10% of Australia's petrol needs is very large. It would be equivalent to duplicating the existing cane sugar industry which has grown to its present size over more than a century. Given present circumstances, it is not practical in Australia to mount a crash programme to produce sufficient ethanol to replace 10% of petrol within about 5 years. The disruptive influences would be enormous, not least in terms of maintaining a viable sugar industry in the interim. The direct investment would be in the order of $3 billion {1979 costs) , that is, on the same scale as large resource projects such as the North West Shelf development in W.A. Although the initial infrastructure costs could be minimised by expanding existing sugar cane areas, these costs would rapidly escalate as new agricultural areas are opened up to move beyond about 3% petrol replacement level. It might be practical to aim for a gradual build up of ethanol production to a 10% replacement level over say 10 to 15 years. However, commitment to even a gradual development of such a large industry cannot be recommended at the present time, as there is some doubt regarding the long-term need for such a large commitment of community resources. In the longer term it is possible that other competitive fuel extenders may emerge, such as liquid fuels from coal and shale. In addition, some other crop, for example cassava, may ultimately prove a cheaper source for ethanol than sugar cane.

11. Two main arguments are therefore advanced against the establishment of a fuel ethanol industry to replace say, 10-15% of Australia's petrol needs, namely, the need to marshall vast resources and the possible emergence of other competitive fuel extenders. However, the possibility of a fuel ethanol industry on a manageable scale should not be ruled out. There are some real benefits to be derived from the fact that lead times for ethanol production are less than those commonly encountered in the fuel and chemical process industries. A significant fuel ethanol industry (say 2-3% of Australia's petrol needs) could be established within a few years. An economic unit size for a sugar cane distillery is considered to be in the range 50,000 to 100,000 kilolitres ethanol per annum. This size would enable individual cane growing areas to develop a significant local industry which could supply ethanol to supplement fuel supplies in the surrounding region and in other parts of the state in which the distillery is located. For example, it is realistic to contemplate that several distilleries with a combined output of 300,000 to 400,000 kilolitres per annum could be operating within the existing Australian sugar cane areas by 1984-5. These would provide enough ethanol to supply Queensland with a 15% ethanol/petrol blend, equivalent to replacing 2% to 3% of petrol used nationally. The first of these new distilleries could be operating by 1982-83. Distillery units could be established on a regional basis away from existing cane industries but this would require more extensive development of infrastructure. However construction of such a unit, for example in the Ord River area, could contribute significantly to the development of that area as well as provide supplementary fuel for Western Australia and Northern Territory. On the basis of a regional development concept as outlined above, the cost of bulk anhydrous ethanol ex sugar cane distillery would be about 40C per litre (1979 c o s t s ) .

12. About 60% of this amount is attributable to the cost of the sugar cane to the distiller assuming that the cane for ethanol is priced at the same level as cane for raw sugar produced in the 1979 season. At 40C per litre, ethanol would be slightly less than twice the current price for petrol ex the refinery (excluding excise). For the most appropriate distribution arrangement where a 15% blend of ethanol in petrol is made available, and assuming the current rate of motor spirit excise is applied, the retail price of the blend would be about 3c per litre more than for straight petrol. If. recent experiences of price increases for crude oil continue, the differential of 3C/litre could be eliminated or significantly reduced within the 2 to 3 year lead time needed to establish any substantial fuel ethanol industry. The benefits offered by the regional development concept are substantial. In addition to the general benefits to be derived from any automotive fuel extender - namely reduced imports and reduced dependence on overseas suppliers fuel ethanol from sugar cane offers a renewable fuel resource with proven technology. Development of a regional ethanol industry would strengthen and broaden the base of the local economy and expand employment prospects in the region. The 2-3% target could be achieved with a relatively small investment while at the same time preserving a wide range of options for future development. In the event that more competitive fuel extenders are developed commercially, an ethanol from cane industry on this scale could divert its production to other markets (for example, as a feedstock for the chemical industries). This flexibility would allow a managed phase-out of fuel ethanol production with appropriate arrangements for amortisation of plant. Alternatively, a fuel ethanol industry of the suggested size could expand to the scale required to replace 10-15% of Australia's petrol needs, which is currently considered impractical, but which may be necessary in a severe liquid fuels shortage.

13. 5. ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

Selective regional development of sugar cane distilleries and their supporting crop areas appears realistic from both commercial and social aspects. There are however, five main issues which must be resolved promptly to allow timely and co-ordinated development: 1. The need for an automotive fuel extender. The widely-publicised view of a liquid fuels crisis in Australia needs to be quantified. A definitive Government assessment is required regarding Australia's need for fuel extenders particularly through the 1980's when a fuel ethanol industry would have special relevance. Assurance of a distribution and market arrangement with reasonably remunerative prices for bulk ethanol: given the present cost differential between ethanol and petrol and the possibility that a cheaper alternative may eventuate, commitment by farmers and processors/distillers of extra resources dedicated to ethanol production will depend upon an assurance of reasonable prices for cane and for ethanol over the commercial life of the investment. An important aspect to this assurance would be some statement as to the intentions of Federal and State Governments as regards concessions for ethanol/petrol blends relative to straight petrol, such as relaxation of excise on ethanol/petrol blends. 3. Appropriate structural arrangements for the fuel ethanol industry: there need to be arrangements for assuring adequate and reliable supply of raw material to the distillery.

2.

14. the structural arrangements for an ethanol industry within the existing cane growing areas need to be compatible with those of the existing sugar industry. A sugar industry Consultative Committee chaired by the Chairman of the Queensland Sugar Board and representing all the industry associations has been formed to study and report on all aspects of alcohol production from sugar cane (Refer Appendix 4 ) . CSR is involved in the work of this committee.

Environmental acceptability of the industry: production of significant quantities of ethanol would require an expansion of cane areas and additional cane crushing facilities as well as the building of distilleries. With respect to additional cane and crushing capacity, the environmental impact would be well understood as it is an expansion of an existing rural industry. the environmental impact of treatment and disposal of distillery effluent would need careful consideration. NERDDC has granted funds to various groups, including CSR, to conduct development work. The establishment of performance data on vehicles using ethanol/petrol blends under local conditions: ethanol/petrol blends should be evaluated as fuels in a range of motor vehicles operating under Australian conditions with a view to optimising factors which affect their use. Full co-operation of the Australian automotive and oil refining and distribution industries would be desirable.

15. APPENDIX 1

TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR DISTILLERY EFFLUENT Ethanol production by fermentation characteristically yields as a by-product a large volume of liquid effluent with a high pollution potential. This appendix briefly describes the nature of distillery effluent and the processes available for treatment, concentrating particularly on effluents from cane juice and molasses distilleries. Effluent treatment is a major consideration. The various processes differ significantly in their degree of technological sophistication and in their relative capital and operating costs. It is not anticipated that any one process would be appropriate for all distilleries; rather, the effluent treatment process most appropriate to a particular distillery would be determined principally by such factors as raw material, availability of energy, location and operating period for the distillery, and demands of the surrounding environment. Composition of Effluent Distillery effluent, also known as dunder or stillage, contains the non-fermentable residues from the raw material as well as yeast and other chemical by-products of the fermentation process. The quantity and composition of effluents from typical molasses and cane juice distilleries of capacity approximately 160 kl ethanol per day (50,000 kl p.a.) are shown in Table 1.1.

The effluent is characterised by: high volume in relation to the volume of ethanol produced; high organic solids content, which reflects in a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the effluent. significant levels of inorganic material which has potential fertiliser value, being particularly high in potassium. a relatively high level of plant colorants, many of which are not significantly bio-degradable. Effluent from molasses distilleries contains much higher contents of organic, inorganic, and colouring matters than does effluent from cane juice distilleries. These high levels of impurity cause particular difficulties in the treatment of effluent from molasses distilleries.

17. Effluent Disposal Methods There are several alternative methods that are feasible for effluent treatment. The more conventional methods that are currently available are as follows: concentration for use as stockfeed land disposal anaerobic digestion ocean disposal incineration Concentration for Use as Stockfeed This disposal method is used widely in Europe where there is a heavy demand for winter feeding. The effluent is concentrated by evaporation and blended with fibrous plant residues . For Australian conditions, there are some technical problems in the preparation and storage of such feeds and, in any event, the economics of intensive feeding of cattle in Australia would severely limit the market for such a product. Land Disposal Irrigation of effluent on to sugar cane farms is widely practised in Brazil as a means for disposal of liquid wastes and for returning fertilisers to the fields. In Australia it is not expected that such disposal will be generally practical because of the cost of transportation of effluent to the cane fields, difficulty of disposal during periods of wet weather and the possible need to restrict fertiliser application to certain times of the year.

18. An alternative to disposal of effluent onto cane farms is intensive irrigation of effluent onto a small area. This method is used at the Sarina distillery near Mackay, which handles approximately one-third of the molasses produced by the Australian sugar industry. The area required at Sarina for intensive irrigation is relatively small (about 600 ha) in comparison to the area of cane land from which the molasses impurities are produced (about 100,000 h a ) . In practice this method of intensive irrigation has, at times, been found inadequate at Sarina, for three principal reasons: uncontrollable discharge of partially treated effluent in periods of heavy rainfall may temporarily discolour and reduce the dissolved oxygen content of surrounding waterways; nutrient build up on the irrigated area provides conditions favourable for fly breeding in periods of warm showery weather; the high concentration of inorganic matter in the effluent, together with an extremely high application rate and low soil porosity temporarily destroys the pasture. (The pasture recovers rapidly once application is discontinued.) These problems are unlikely to be as severe for cane juice distilleries and, depending upon plant size, land availability, and soil condition, it is possible that a manageable land disposal system for cane distillery effluent could operate satisfactorily. Anaerobic Digestion The process of anaerobic digestion can be employed to convert the organic solids in distillery effluent into a "biogas" containing methane and carbon dioxide. This gas is suitable for use as a fuel, and may supply a significant proportion of the distillery's energy requirements.

19. Anaerobic digestion may occur within two temperature ranges that favour development of specific bacteria, i.e. mesophilic (35-40C) and thermophilic (50-60C). The activity of the thermophilic bacteria is approximately twice that of the mesophilic bacteria, offering potential for reduced investment for thermophilic installations. However these systems require closer control of operating conditions and are more sensitive to change than the mesophilic systems. The residual effluent from anaerobic digestion contains inorganic solids, colour and a small amount of organic solids present in the original effluent. Some form of irrigation or other disposal system is needed for this effluent. Ocean Disposal It is feasible for distillery effluent to be piped some distance out to sea, where the depth and flow of water is sufficient to ensure adequate dispersion of the effluent. This method, while it would not be available to all distilleries, could also be used in conjunction with anaerobic digestion to dispose of the digested effluent. Incineration The distillery effluent can be used as a liquid fuel for steam raising if the organic solids are first concentrated to a sufficient level (about 6 0 % ) . The steam so produced may be used for concentrating the effluent and for the distillation process . The principal advantage of this process is that it destroys colorants and permits recovery of inorganic materials for re-use as fertiliser. The principle limitation of incineration is the high initial capital cost of evaporation and combustion equipment. Recent work has indicated that incineration processes installed in molasses distilleries may be able to generate all the steam required in the factory. The energy balance for incineration of effluent from cane juice distilleries will be less favourable than for molasses distilleries, but this may be unimportant as bagasse may be used as distillery fuel.

20. APPENDIX 2 ETHANOL AS A FUEL EXTENDER This appendix covers technical aspects concerning the use of ethanol, as a straight fuel and as a blend with conventional fuel, in spark ignition and diesel engines. It appears that ethanol/petrol blends would have an immediate application as an automotive fuel, but the use of significant quantities of ethanol as a straight fuel or as a blend with diesel will require further development of engines and fuels. The uncertainties in the use of ethanol/petrol blends as automotive fuels relate more to optimising the use of ethanol/petrol blends than to the development of satisfactory methods for utilising the blend. Trials of limited scope and duration are necessary to determine the optimum conditions for use of ethanol/petrol blends in Australia. Ethanol/Petrol Blends in Automobiles A number of factors relating to the distribution and use of ethanol/petrol blends, and to the performance of cars using such blends, warrant consideration. For the purpose of this Appendix, a blend is defined as containing 10-15% ethanol in petrol. Fuel Stability. Water is virtually immiscible with petrol; ethanol/petrol blends containing more than about 0.3% water separate into two phases, or layers, which can cause cars to stall. The problems of phase separation are most severe in colder climates, such as in U.S.A., where extremely low winter temperatures reduce the solubility of water in petrol. However, even in such climates, the use of anhydrous (dry) ethanol in the blend, together with proper maintenance of transport and storage tanks, has obviated significant problems with phase separation. Freedom from significant difficulties would be expected in the warmer Australian climate.

Over time, it may be possible to relax the requirement for anhydrous ethanol, and to introduce the normal commercial product (95% ethanol) as the ethanol component of the blend. However, this will be possible only if additives now being developed and evaluated prove successful in modifying the solubility characteristics of water in ethanol/petrol blends. Vehicle Performance For most cars, performance with ethanol/petrol blends should be indistinguishable from that with a petrol of the same octane number. U.S. experience (1) suggests that a small number of existing cars may experience surging, hesitation, and/or stalling with ethanol/petrol blends, due to a variety of causes: the leaning effect of the ethanol in the blend (can be overcome by tuning the engine); the effect of blends on some plastic fuel system components, such as gaskets, pump diaphragms, etc., (it is logical to expect that new cars would include compatible materials); the effect of dislodging of deposits in the fuel system which may clog the fuel filter and/or carburettor (this problem occurs specifically in older cars, and even then only for the first 1-3 tankfuls of blended fuel). These problems should disappear with time as use of ethanol blends becomes more widespread, and the car fleet is replaced with new cars manufactured to operate on ethanol/petrol blends.

(1) "Gasohol - a Technical Memorandum", Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington D.C.,

September, 1979.

22. Octane Number An important advantage of an ethanol/petrol blend is that its octane number is higher than the original petrol to which the ethanol was added. The exact increase in octane number depends on the octane number and composition of the petrol, and has not been measured under Australian conditions where petrol is leaded and is made largely from Bass Strait crude oil. In U.S.A. where ethanol is blended into unleaded petrol the increase is 3-4 octane numbers. ( 1 ) Raising the octane rating of motor fuels would enable car manufacturers to increase the efficiency of car engines, but this is unlikely to occur unless blends are available throughout Australia. Alternatively, the octane rating of the petrol component of the blend can be reduced to exactly compensate for the octane boosting properties of the ethanol. If this is done, there are potential energy savings at the refinery of 0.6-1.0 MJ/1 of oil refined ( 1 ) (under U.S. conditions). If these energy savings are attributed solely to the ethanol, a saving of 0.27-0.45 1 of petrol can be achieved for each litre of ethanol used. in Australia some reduction in the lead content of blended petrol is another option. Fuel Consumption To a considerable extent fuel consumption depends on the energy content of the fuel. The net calorific value of ethanol and petrol are 21.2 and 32.6 MJ/1, respectively. On mixing, 0.9 1 of petrol plus 0.1 1 of ethanol results in 1.002 1 of the blend. The combined effect of the lower calorific value of ethanol and the volume expansion result in 3.7% less energy per litre of blend, compared with straight petrol. If all other factors were equal, this would result in 3.7% increase in fuel consumption. However, ethanol/petrol blends are claimed to have the effect of "leaning" the fuel mixture (i.e. move the air-fuel mixture to an effective value that contains less fuel and more air) which increases the thermal efficiency (km/MJ) in most motor vehicle engines. If this is so, the increase in fuel consumption for blends would be less than the 3.7% predicted on the basis of calorific value.

23. Detailed comparisons of fuel consumption with ethanol/petrol blends and conventional petrol have not been carried out in Australia. Some comparisons have been carried out in U.S.A., but the detailed results do not appear to have been published. A recent authoritative U.S. report (1 ) concluded that, based on laboratory and road test comparisons, fuel consumption with blends would be no more than 4% higher than and may be equal to straight petrol. Vehicle Emissions The effects of ethanol/petrol blends on vehicle emissions are dependent on whether an engine is tuned to run fuel rich or lean, and whether or not it has a carburettor with a mixture feedback control. On balance it appears that for conventional engines ethanol/petrol blends will have little net effect on pollutant emissions. If no carburettor modifications are made, the use of blends is expected to have the following effects on most of today's cars (1) increased evaporative emissions from fuel tanks (although the new emissions are not particularly reactive, and should not contribute significantly to photochemical smog.) decreased emissions of carbon monoxide "leaning" effect). (due to

increased emissions of aldehydes (which are reactive, and might aggravate smog problems). Increased NOx emissions with decreased emissions of exhaust hydrocarbons, or decreased NOx with increased hydrocarbons (depending on the state of engine t u n e ) .

24. The effect of blends on exhaust emissions from cars which are adjusted to maintain optimal air/fuel ratios will be considerably less than the case where no carburettor modifications are made. In Australia, ethanol in blends may permit a reduction in the lead content of the fuel, with consequent improvements in lead emissions. Straight Ethanol as a Fuel Pure ethanol can be used as fuel in a spark ignition engine. Its prime advantage is its high octane number, allowing use of higher compression ratio engines to give greater thermal efficiency. Also, water is completely miscible in ethanol, so there is no concern about storage stability. However it has a lower energy content per litre than petrol, so a larger fuel tank would be required, and significant changes would be required in the carburettion system. Conventional diesel engines cannot be run directly on pure ethanol because of its unsuitable ignition quality. it is possible to modify the engine to be spark ignited. It is also possible to modify the fuel ignition characteristics by adding ignition enhancers, such as amyl nitrate or cyclohexanol nitrate, although the amount required makes their use uneconomical (2) ' In summary, both the spark ignition and diesel engines have been developed for use with conventional fuels. Straight ethanol is not a suitable fuel for such engines and so has little relevance for widescale use in existing vehicles in Australia. In the longer term, engines may be developed to run on straight ethanol, and such engines may find limited application in selected vehicle fleets, in the same way as some taxi fleets now use LPG. The limited availability of ethanol in Australia would prevent this use becoming widespread.

(2)

"The Report of the Alcohol Fuels Policy Review". Department of Energy. June 1979.

U.S.

25. Ethanol/Diesel Blends Ethanol/diesel blends are not stable, and emulsifiers are necessary. Further development work is needed to give satisfactory emulsions which remain stable, and do not damage the engine. It is also possible to modify a diesel engine to run on the two fuels using separate fuel systems. Diesel fuel could be injected into the cylinders, and ethanol mixed with air in a carburettor. Such an engine might run on 100% diesel at low power, and 20% diesel/80% ethanol at peak power. For any large-scale use of ethanol/diesel blends, significant changes in the design of the fuel system would have to be incorporated as an option in engine production. This would require a significant time scale and, more importantly, a significant demand for such vehicles. Such demand is likely only if ethanol becomes a widely available fuel or if diesel fuel becomes scarce.

26. APPENDIX 3

ENERGY BALANCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM SUGAR CANE

The manufacture of liquid fuel from crops provides a means for conversion of solar energy to liquid fuels. However, the production and processing of the crop requires inputs of energy for the manufacture and operation of plant, equipment and supplies used on farms and in the factory. Some of these energy inputs are in the form of liquid fuels and some are in the form of non-liquid fuels such as coal. In evaluating a crop as a source of liquid fuel, it is important to consider the overall energy balance for the operation, in terms of both total energy and the energy content of liquid fuels. The energy balance for liquid fuels is the more relevant for Australia at the present time. It should be noted that estimation of energy inputs to agricultural operations and to the manufacture of plant and equipment is subject to a number of assumptions about which there is no universal agreement. The estimates of energy balance made in this appendix should be regarded only as indicative. Basis of Method Used to Estimate Energy Balance The analysis is based on growing, harvesting and transport of sugar cane, as practised in Queensland. The factory crushes cane for half the year, with half the juice being fermented to ethanol, and the other half being concentrated and stored. In the other half of the year the concentrated juice is diluted and fermented to ethanol. The principal energy inputs are "direct" fuel (mostly diesel fuel and bagasse), fertilisers (which require energy in manufacture), and "capital" energy of machinery. The energy equivalents for fertilisers and diesel fuel include energy required in their manufacture and delivery to the farm.

27. The energy equivalent of electricity assumes 25% efficiency of conversion from coal (1) . The "capital" energy cost of machinery is taken as 300 MJ/kg (2) . Quoted energy consumption data are divided between liquid fuel, and non-liquid fuel. Energy inputs via fertilisers have been considered as liquid fuel since nitrogenous fertilisers require at present large volumes of liquid fuel for their manufacture. Electricity inputs have been considered as non-liquid fuel. "Capital" energy inputs have been considered to be 31% liquid fuel and the balance non-liquid fuel (2). This percentage is based on 1975-76, and will be lower in the future, as coal and natural gas replace fuel oil in manufacturing industry. Energy Inputs and Outputs Agricultural energy inputs for cane production have been estimated by Austin et al (3) and are shown in Table 3.1. These data refer to sugar cane production in the high-yielding Bundaberg and Burdekin areas of Queensland. Corresponding agricultural output is 8.7 kl ethanol per hectare per year. The crop processing operation uses bagasse as its main energy source, with coal as fuel during the period when the distillery operates on concentrated cane juice, rather than sugar cane as raw material. The quantities of fuel consumed by the factory have been estimated on the basis of CSR experience of sugar milling and ethanol production in Queensland.

(1)

Leach, G. (1975) "Energy and Food Production". London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Stewart, G.A. et al (1979) "The potential for liquid fuels from agriculture and forestry in Australia" C.S.I.R.O. Chapter 4. Austin, R.B. et al (1978) "Gross energy yields and the support energy requirements for the production of sugar from beet and cane; a study of four production areas" J. agric. sci., Camb. SO., 667-675.

(2)

(3)

The overall and liquid fuel energy balance is shown in Table 3.2 on a basis of 1 kilolitre of ethanol produced. This balance is on an ex-factory basis. No allowance has been made for energy required to ship the product to a market (which must be done on a case by case basis, as there may be credits through shipping a lower tonnage of petroleum products).

AGRICULTURAL ENERGY INPUT ( 2 ) (per ha per year basis)

(3)

Predominantly Quantity Energy/unit GJ/ha/year Direct Farm Qsa - Diesel - Capital Fertiliser rjsed - M - P - K Irrigation pumping - Capital Chemicals Transport of Cane to Factory - Fuel - Capital TOTAL Total Energy on pec '<! basis 179 1/ha/crop 52 MJ/kg 300 MJ/kg 76 MJ/kg 32 MJ/kg 10 MJ/kg ) : fuel GJ/ha/year

Total GJ/ha/year

7
11

9 11

150 kg/ha 31 kg/ha 130 kg/ha

3
2 0

14.4 MJ/kwH 300 MJ/kg

16 km avge haul

6 19 2.2

a
2

2 2 27 3.1

' 46 5.3

TABLE 3.2 OVERALL ENERGY BALANCE

Predominantly Predominantly Total liquid Euel Non-liquid fuel Energy GJ/kl GJ/kl GJ/kl Agricultural energy input 3.1 0.5 3.4 4.0 Credit for bagasse 2.2 31.2 1.0 34.4 24.4 5.3 31.7* 1.4 38.4 24.4 1

Set Input Output Ratio Output/Net input

4.0 23.5 5.9

10.0 -

14.0 23.5 1.7

Includes 24.4 for bagasse

assumes all bagasse in cane is used in factory during crushing

29. Conclusion The total liquid fuel used to produce 1 kilolitre of ethanol amounts to 4.0 GJ/kl and the energy content of the product is 23.5 GJ/kl. The liquid fuel energy ratio is thus estimated to be in excess of 5:1. The overall energy balance depends upon the manner in which bagasse is treated in the analysis. If bagasse is considered to be a fuel input the ratio of output to input is 0.6:1. However, if bagasse is considered as part of the crop and not as a direct fuel input then the ratio of output to input is 1.7:1. Compared with other carbohydrate crops, sugar cane is unique in producing, as part of the harvested crop delivered to the factory, virtually all the fuel to operate the factory, at least when cane is being crushed. Research into methods of bagasse storage may permit operation with bagasse as fuel outside the cane crushing season, and so further improve the overall energy balance.

30.

APPENDIX 4

PRESS STATEMENT. The Sugar Board, BRISBANE. 21st December, 1979.

FUEL ALCOHOL FROM SUGAR CANE. (Statement by Mr. C.L. Harris, Chairman, The Sugar Board.) The Chairman of the Sugar Board, Mr. C.L. Harris, announced today that a Sugar Industry Consultative Committee had been formed to study all aspects of alcohol production from sugar cane. This was in response to increasing concern about liquid fuel supplies, which has received special emphasis recently by State and Federal Governments. Fuel alcohol from sugar cane has aroused considerable interest in Australia and overseas, Mr. Harris said, because sugar cane is a renewable resource and a very efficient producer of carbohydrate, which can be readily converted to alcohol. Almost all of the alochol now produced in Australia for industrial purposes is made from molasses, a by-product of the sugar industry. Alcohol/petrol blends, as a fuel for automobiles, have been used from time to time in various parts of the world including Australia. However, until the recent escalation of oil prices, its use for this purpose has been relatively limited. Following recent oil price increases, the Australian Sugar Industry now had to take a view on the production of fuel alcohol from sugar cane because of the implications for its traditional sugar activities. Until recently, alcohol had not been regarded as an alternate end product from sugar cane. The Committee, to be chaired by the Chairman of the Sugar Board, comprised the Presidents and Secretaries of the Australian Sugar Producers Association, the Queensland cane Growers' Council, the Proprietary Sugar Millers' Association, the New South Wales Cane Growers' Association, the President of the New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative and CSR Limited, which is the sugar marketing agent for the Queensland Government. The Committee is thus fully representative of the Australian sugar industry. The Committee will consider, as a matter of priority, and from an overall industry point of view, possible organisation structures which would enable alcohol and sugar to be produced in the most effective and compatible manner. However, it should be clearly understood that the

Committee will have an investigatory role only and will report its findings to the industry. Mr. Harris added that State and Federal Governments would be fully informed of the findings of the Committee-