Process Design and Economics for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Thermochemical Pathway by Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis

Abstract

The supply system model incorporates a combination of values and relationships obtained from other national laboratories, publications, consultation with academia and staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service, and published and unpublished INL data. Further details on the model are provided in Appendix F. Equipment lists for the feed handling and drying area, as well as other pertinent information, are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. All purchased and installed equipment costs for this area are shown as zero for the plant economics because all of these capital costs are included in the delivered feedstock cost. 3.2 Area 200: Gasification The following section presents an overview, basis for design, and cost estimates for construction of the gasification facilities.

REVIEW OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION – FEEDSTOCK, PROCESSES AND MARKETS — Review Article

“…pressing and extraction and/or milling and grinding takes place (Abubackar et al, 2011;Griffin and Schultz, 2012;Dutta et al, 2011) to unlock the required biomass component. For example, before lignocellulosic biomass can be utilised for an alcoholic fermentation to bioethanol the molecules have to be disaggregated via hydrolysis to receive sugar monomers (Humbird et al, 2011).…”

A review of conversion processes for bioethanol production with a focus on syngas fermentation

“…In this article, ethanol production through hydrolysisfermentation is briefly discussed followed by a detailed review of syngas fermentation process an indirect biomass conversion process to produce bioethanol. Discussion on thermochemical conversion processes can be found elsewhere and is out of scope of this review article (Dutta et al, 2011;Perales et al, 2011).…”

Effects of Deployment Investment on the Growth of the Biofuels Industry

“…This limits the application of the results because it is impossible to predict, with any certainty, the ultimate effectiveness of any given deployment investment strategy. Figure 10 shows sensitivity to assumptions about the progress ratio 7 [16]-a measure of the effect of deployment investment on maturity. The middle row of Figure 10 (75% progress ratio) is comparable to the "With Production Incentive" row of Figure 9, except that the simulation associated with results in Figure 10 has different baseline industry conditions.…”